yep, Dow futures ain't lookin so good. my short term setup indicates even more downside to come in the next days. but as always, look out for the invisible hand!:
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 861. (Read 2032266 times)
this is an incredibly weak bounce for silver and bodes poorly for gold and the stock mkt. looking to reload the shorts somewhere around here. i only pause b/c we have a weekly/intermed term buy signal on gold that will occur only at the end of this week which should be good for somemore upside from here. dicey:
yep, Dow futures ain't lookin so good. my short term setup indicates even more downside to come in the next days. but as always, look out for the invisible hand!:
yep, Dow futures ain't lookin so good. my short term setup indicates even more downside to come in the next days. but as always, look out for the invisible hand!:
Dow futures -200
every Bitcoiner who's had to endure the "volatility" argument surrounding Bitcoin over the last few years needs to take this opportunity to shove that same argument regarding the stock mkt back into the face of whoever said that to you.
Lol, the DOW moves < 3% in one day ==> OMG VOLATILITY!!!
Bitcoin moves > 5% on the same day ==> sideways trading...
Keep trying
Bitcoin is only 5.5 yo.
the Dow is over 100 yo. what's your excuse?
Excuse?! The level of insanity in this thread...
I don't pimp DOW, i don't feel any need to make up excuses for it as you do for Bitcoin.
But hey, if Bitcoin's not mature enough, point taken. I'll consider it an investment once it matures
What is your excuse to regard bitcoin volatility as relevant for anything?
Dow -415, Bitcoin holding beautifully.
When does the QE effect inflect? The Fed can't come out with QE4 without signaling an extreme lack of confidence in markets. At some point, that signaling will overwhelm any technical boost in asset prices that the liquidity would otherwise bring (ie, banks will just sit on the funds instead of bidding up the stock market).
First they need to show that end of the current QE wreaks havoc, then a new QE can be introduced.
Bitcoin compares to fiat base money; notes and cons.
...
...
It's more like M2: base money (which is notes and coins, plus bank reserves) plus most types of bank/money-market account balances.
In a bitcoin economy, you can't really create new on-blockchain bitcoin through fractional reserve, so the purchasing power of all bitcoin would have to more or less match the purchasing power held directly as the economy's unit-of-account in liquid or short-term form (ie, bank accounts), all else being equal. This is muddied by a number of factors, including the fact that *some* fractional reserve would still be possible (just not as much, cuz people would demand to see on-blockchain coin before leverage got too crazy), but I think this is roughly the right way to think about the equivalence.
Yes, but you could just as well say that we don't need on demand deposit accounts.
Stocks are up and down like yoyo, ending on a predictable enough rebound.
Gold is up a few dollars
Bitcoin is relatively flat, also a few dollars down.
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
Gold is up a few dollars
Bitcoin is relatively flat, also a few dollars down.
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
AEX (dutch) is down again today. Around 3%. It has lost over 13% already since the top last month.
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
That hand will get bit by honeybadger if it keeps teasing and pulling away like this.
mother f*ckin A. this is exactly what Aaron Swartz killed himself over. yet MIT stood by and did nothing during his torment by the FBI:
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
there is a theory about the fact that the lack of disruptive scientifical/technical innovation in the 21th century compared to the incredible innovative 19th century is due to the relativly weak or even not existant patent and intellectual property laws back then.
Stocks are up and down like yoyo, ending on a predictable enough rebound.
Gold is up a few dollars
Bitcoin is relatively flat, also a few dollars down.
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
Gold is up a few dollars
Bitcoin is relatively flat, also a few dollars down.
This is just an uncomfortable pause while everyone waits to see if the not- so- invisible- hand can continue to control the confidence of the market.
mother f*ckin A. this is exactly what Aaron Swartz killed himself over. yet MIT stood by and did nothing during his torment by the FBI:
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
Yes, that is all intolerable and asinine beyond belief. How dare Swartz even consider creating a p2p replacement for FriendFace? Death was too good for him!
Along with housing, education and health care costs have been spiraling out of control for decades, ever since the gov't got involved in hiding/externalizing/subsidizing/distorting pricing mechanisms those markets.
Look at at the textbook industry to see a closely interrelated scam.
Fuck Elsevier and the corrupt system that enables/protects it. The law says when you abuse your copyright you lose it. Pirate ALL the things!
Interestingly enough, the first and only known Bytecoin (BCN) application was a deepweb service which retrieved scholastic articles....
International Man: "A Former SWIFT Insider on Financial Warfare, the Fate of the Dollar, and Bitcoin"
To be honest he doesn't say much about bitcoin aside from its potential to be disruptive to the banking industry, but the brief history of SWIFT is well worth reading.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/a-former-swift-insider-on-financial-warfare-the-fate-of-the-dollar-and-bitc
"Tjerk Veenstra: I like to refer to SWIFT as the dot-com of the 1970s, when it was conceived in Europe. Building SWIFT in the 1970s was like building an Internet for the global banking system decades before the actual Internet was available. Back then, communications systems were telephone and telex systems and nothing else."
To be honest he doesn't say much about bitcoin aside from its potential to be disruptive to the banking industry, but the brief history of SWIFT is well worth reading.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/a-former-swift-insider-on-financial-warfare-the-fate-of-the-dollar-and-bitc
"Tjerk Veenstra: I like to refer to SWIFT as the dot-com of the 1970s, when it was conceived in Europe. Building SWIFT in the 1970s was like building an Internet for the global banking system decades before the actual Internet was available. Back then, communications systems were telephone and telex systems and nothing else."
Interesting little read.
Quote
Nick: What are your thoughts on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies?
Tjerk: I think they are interesting. Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency still has to prove itself, but it definitely can be a disruptive technology. Cryptocurrencies may impact systems like SWIFT. I think what we’ll see in the next 10 years is going to be groundbreaking.
Tjerk: I think they are interesting. Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency still has to prove itself, but it definitely can be a disruptive technology. Cryptocurrencies may impact systems like SWIFT. I think what we’ll see in the next 10 years is going to be groundbreaking.
If we assume the bold part to be in the context of bitcoin then he sounds bullish.
International Man: "A Former SWIFT Insider on Financial Warfare, the Fate of the Dollar, and Bitcoin"
To be honest he doesn't say much about bitcoin aside from its potential to be disruptive to the banking industry, but the brief history of SWIFT is well worth reading.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/a-former-swift-insider-on-financial-warfare-the-fate-of-the-dollar-and-bitc
"Tjerk Veenstra: I like to refer to SWIFT as the dot-com of the 1970s, when it was conceived in Europe. Building SWIFT in the 1970s was like building an Internet for the global banking system decades before the actual Internet was available. Back then, communications systems were telephone and telex systems and nothing else."
To be honest he doesn't say much about bitcoin aside from its potential to be disruptive to the banking industry, but the brief history of SWIFT is well worth reading.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/a-former-swift-insider-on-financial-warfare-the-fate-of-the-dollar-and-bitc
"Tjerk Veenstra: I like to refer to SWIFT as the dot-com of the 1970s, when it was conceived in Europe. Building SWIFT in the 1970s was like building an Internet for the global banking system decades before the actual Internet was available. Back then, communications systems were telephone and telex systems and nothing else."
mother f*ckin A. this is exactly what Aaron Swartz killed himself over. yet MIT stood by and did nothing during his torment by the FBI:
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", while drawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.
More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
"The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year's subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
if you haven't watched this video, you need to. such a sad story:
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
note the 14 yo kid at the end of the video who discovered a cure for pancreatic cancer due to the release of the medical literature by Aaron.
great to hear EFF supporting Bitcoin:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
You mean FINALLY "supporting Bitcoin."
How nice of them to come so late to the party, after eschewing icky nasty Bitcoin for so long....Like Wikipedia, the EFF pretends to be in the socio-technological vanguard, but in reality lost that status back in the late 90s.
If the EFF and Wiki had simply hled the BTC people were begging them to accept for many years, they would have millions.
Instead they acted exactly like the reactionary fuddy duds they used to oppose, and are reduced to begging via obnoxious banner ads and spam emails.
Fuck the EFF and fuck Wikipedia.
Both sclerotic organizations need to be starved of donations until they die and are replaced by more (classically) liberal, forward-thinking organizations, just as the limpid NRA has been surpassed in effectiveness by the SAF and GOA.
Didn't wikipedia get something like ten's of thousands of bitcoins from that guy who had hundreds of K and gave them all away when they were relatively cheap? I suppose they sold them off later when they hit $50 or something?
The Wikimedia Foundation began accepting bitcoin donations on July 30, 2014: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/30/wikimedia-foundation-now-accepts-bitcoin/
I thought there was a guy who gave away thousands to them already... cant google it... somewhere on this forum.
great to hear EFF supporting Bitcoin:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
You mean FINALLY "supporting Bitcoin."
How nice of them to come so late to the party, after eschewing icky nasty Bitcoin for so long....Like Wikipedia, the EFF pretends to be in the socio-technological vanguard, but in reality lost that status back in the late 90s.
If the EFF and Wiki had simply hled the BTC people were begging them to accept for many years, they would have millions.
Instead they acted exactly like the reactionary fuddy duds they used to oppose, and are reduced to begging via obnoxious banner ads and spam emails.
Fuck the EFF and fuck Wikipedia.
Both sclerotic organizations need to be starved of donations until they die and are replaced by more (classically) liberal, forward-thinking organizations, just as the limpid NRA has been surpassed in effectiveness by the SAF and GOA.
Didn't wikipedia get something like ten's of thousands of bitcoins from that guy who had hundreds of K and gave them all away when they were relatively cheap? I suppose they sold them off later when they hit $50 or something?
The Wikimedia Foundation began accepting bitcoin donations on July 30, 2014: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/30/wikimedia-foundation-now-accepts-bitcoin/
great to hear EFF supporting Bitcoin:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
You mean FINALLY "supporting Bitcoin."
How nice of them to come so late to the party, after eschewing icky nasty Bitcoin for so long....Like Wikipedia, the EFF pretends to be in the socio-technological vanguard, but in reality lost that status back in the late 90s.
If the EFF and Wiki had simply hled the BTC people were begging them to accept for many years, they would have millions.
Instead they acted exactly like the reactionary fuddy duds they used to oppose, and are reduced to begging via obnoxious banner ads and spam emails.
Fuck the EFF and fuck Wikipedia.
Both sclerotic organizations need to be starved of donations until they die and are replaced by more (classically) liberal, forward-thinking organizations, just as the limpid NRA has been surpassed in effectiveness by the SAF and GOA.
Didn't wikipedia get something like ten's of thousands of bitcoins from that guy who had hundreds of K and gave them all away when they were relatively cheap? I suppose they sold them off later when they hit $50 or something?
great to hear EFF supporting Bitcoin:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
You mean FINALLY "supporting Bitcoin."
How nice of them to come so late to the party, after eschewing icky nasty Bitcoin for so long....Like Wikipedia, the EFF pretends to be in the socio-technological vanguard, but in reality lost that status back in the late 90s.
If the EFF and Wiki had simply hled the BTC people were begging them to accept for many years, they would have millions.
Instead they acted exactly like the reactionary fuddy duds they used to oppose, and are reduced to begging via obnoxious banner ads and spam emails.
Fuck the EFF and fuck Wikipedia.
Both sclerotic organizations need to be starved of donations until they die and are replaced by more (classically) liberal, forward-thinking organizations, just as the limpid NRA has been surpassed in effectiveness by the SAF and GOA.
great to hear EFF supporting Bitcoin:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/beware-bitlicense-new-yorks-virtual-currency-regulations-invade-privacy-and-hamper
way to go Greece. anyone with a long term chart?
Jump to: