Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 946. (Read 2032274 times)

tldr: tapering to $5 bill mortgage purch, $10bill treasuries.

...that economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. On balance, labor market conditions improved somewhat further; however, the unemployment rate is little changed and a range of labor market indicators suggests that there remains significant underutilization of labor resources. Household spending appears to be rising moderately and business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow. Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth, although the extent of restraint is diminishing. Inflation has been running below the Committee’s longer-run objective. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

The Committee currently judges that there is sufficient underlying strength in the broader economy to support ongoing improvement in labor market conditions...

Beginning in October, the Committee will add to its holdings of agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $5 billion per month rather than $10 billion per month, and will add to its holdings of longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $10 billion per month rather than $15 billion per month.

FOMC Sept 17, 2014:

Policy Normalization Principles and Plans

During its recent meetings, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) discussed ways to normalize the stance of monetary policy and the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings. The discussions were part of prudent planning and do not imply that normalization will necessarily begin soon. The Committee continues to judge that many of the normalization principles that it adopted in June 2011 remain applicable. However, in light of the changes in the System Open Market Account (SOMA) portfolio since 2011 and enhancements in the tools the Committee will have available to implement policy during normalization, the Committee has concluded that some aspects of the eventual normalization process will likely differ from those specified earlier. The Committee also has agreed that it is appropriate at this time to provide additional information regarding its normalization plans. All FOMC participants but one agreed on the following key elements of the approach they intend to implement when it becomes appropriate to begin normalizing the stance of monetary policy:

    The Committee will determine the timing and pace of policy normalization–meaning steps to raise the federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates to more normal levels and to reduce the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings–so as to promote its statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability.
        When economic conditions and the economic outlook warrant a less accommodative monetary policy, the Committee will raise its target range for the federal funds rate.
        During normalization, the Federal Reserve intends to move the federal funds rate into the target range set by the FOMC primarily by adjusting the interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances.
        During normalization, the Federal Reserve intends to use an overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility and other supplementary tools as needed to help control the federal funds rate. The Committee will use an overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility only to the extent necessary and will phase it out when it is no longer needed to help control the federal funds rate.
    The Committee intends to reduce the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings in a gradual and predictable manner primarily by ceasing to reinvest repayments of principal on securities held in the SOMA.
        The Committee expects to cease or commence phasing out reinvestments after it begins increasing the target range for the federal funds rate; the timing will depend on how economic and financial conditions and the economic outlook evolve.
        The Committee currently does not anticipate selling agency mortgage-backed securities as part of the normalization process, although limited sales might be warranted in the longer run to reduce or eliminate residual holdings. The timing and pace of any sales would be communicated to the public in advance.
    The Committee intends that the Federal Reserve will, in the longer run, hold no more securities than necessary to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively, and that it will hold primarily Treasury securities, thereby minimizing the effect of Federal Reserve holdings on the allocation of credit across sectors of the economy.
    The Committee is prepared to adjust the details of its approach to policy normalization in light of economic and financial developments.

Paper gold plunges.

Some proof that Bitcoin is a noncorrelated asset is going to encourage certain classes of investment so that is great news.  

Unrelated: Do any of you understand the variability of the hash rate graph (posted a few msgs ago)?  Are those machines really being turned off and on?  Instead, I'm thinking that it is an artifact of the data collection methodology -- if you imagine that this difficulty graph is extracted from block discovery rates, normal variation in block discovery times would cause artificial jitter in the hash rate graph that is proportion to the hash rate.  Anyone have a graph of hash rate shares submitted to a large pool?  Does it also show these jitters?

If this is the case, blockchain.info should really average the values to remove this artifact...

What did the FOMC say? Can anyone summarize?

Not that one needs to provided hardware but money should go to those who provided valued work by having to make value judgments in production and the creation of immutable money rules is arguably the most valuable work given the history of money abuse.

When PoS systems solve the problem in bold in a way that creates a functional economy I'll give it some more attention. But for now PoS is more like a better run fiat ponzi, bad for the producers in an economy good for the Money masters.

which may, in the broader picture, argue for Bitcoin as the ultimate hedge against mayhem in the broader markets.

and also argues against gold & silver as well, as we see it whipping around like a stuck pig right along with everything else.

well, here's the good news.

in terms of instantaneous reactions, Bitcoin hasn't budged an inch. 

just for sh*ts and giggles, here's what stocks, bonds, oil, gold, silver, and other currencies do when the Fed makes an announcement.  and who says the entire economy doesn't hinge on Fed policy?:

Indeed, sell off now.

Boom.  usually the first move is the wrong move.

Buy the rumor, sell the news. ^^

if you think Bitcoin is volatile, just watch the stock mkt for the 30 min after the FOMC announcement in 6 min.

FOMC announcement 30 min

Also my last post on the subject, again much more related to the way of debating than to the content.

"Every" PoS guy? Sorry, but that's just a unsubstantiated generalisation. Personally, I've never felt any pressure. So that's me out already, and I know many more that weren't feeling it either. That does not take away the fact that others díd feel it. Like it or not, a community is not run by computer processes, but has a social context, too.


This is a leading and suggestive question. There are several other reasons why people may have reacted negatively. Pure anger could definitely be one, for instance.

Your answer to this question, which leads directly to the point you actually want to make "Bitcoin doesn't care about those things" isn't really valid as it needs the support of your own leading question.
That's just bad arguing, I am sorry to say.

Nothing wrong with people completely disagreeing with how Nxt handles things. Nothing wrong with rather seeing it gone.

I just don't like a debate that is held by using techniques that aren't really aimed at addressing the (valid) issues, but instead seem to be about proving that a personal point of view is right.

That goes for the Bitcoin ánd for the Nxt side of this debate, by the way.

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree and let the system speak for itself over the next few months.

And I was more worried that the type of people that kept their nxt on an exchange were the exact type of smaller fish that we have been trying to distribute nxt too. This would have destroyed the accounts of every day users and left the whales to scoop up cheaply dumped coins - Greatly hurting nxt for a long time much like the gox hacks hurt bitcoin. Which is why I am very pleased with how it turned out, and hopefully tought users a lesson about keeping things on exchanges. Especially when nxt has already done away with the centralized exchange with the multigateway.

more deflationary destruction out of Japan:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-17/abenomics-crushes-sony-electronics-giant-forced-cancel-dividend-first-time-ever

so what is this "pressure" every pos guy is talking about here?  is it related to the fear that the hacker would dump the NXT onto the open mkt and crash the price?  that, by itself, tells you that the stakeholders are terrified of open mkt price discovery.  Bitcoin doesn't care about those things and is happy to suffer from a price crash when those things happen as the community understands the sanctity of what a digital currency is all about.  and it's not roll backs.

i don't need to repeat myself but if you read what i wrote, JL could've avoided the wasted time and effort into making the patch if he'd taken the time to act as a core dev and leader should do and measure the consensus of the NXT community.  for outsiders like me looking in, it makes me question the economic understanding of those in charge.  like Amir says, the software can be a reflection of the political stance of its developer.

regardless, i don't want to beat this to death.  if the NXT supporters are happy with their actions, so be it.  i just don't think it was handled correctly.

He could start by removing himself as the person responsible for releases through a system of deterministic builds and necessitating a form of developer consensus for official releases.  Even if you trust him, he could be put under duress.  He has enabled independent developers to fork snapshots of the code, but you need live repositories to have time to vet the code before release as well as to enable others to contribute their improvements back more easily.  Yes, there are some extremist opinions flying around here, but there are some very large holes in the security model of the development process that would be addressed by a responsible leader of a crypto currency platform.

Edit: stumbling around http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Nxt_Wiki I see this referring to PoS:

51% attack isn't gone, it just moves from requiring scarce natural resources to requiring scarce tokens.  Neither is easy to come by.  My real problem with PoS though is that transaction fees are awarded to those who already have high stake rather than those who are providing hardware.  Also, if they think a Raspberry Pi will be able to handle the throughput needed to scale to be bigger than bitcoin, they are crazy.  Otherwise, they are simply dishonest.  Granted, the wiki is probably not JL's responsibility, but it is indicative of the level of quality and attention to detail in the community as a whole, which is more damning than the failure of any one person.

How?

nice job attacking the messengers and ignoring the messages!