Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 338. (Read 907227 times)

ok,

1/ so what would be your new foundation's purpose exactly?

2/ i claim that similarly to $$, only a few thousands of people (early adopters or not) have more than 80% of bitcoins which make it not well distributed, hence sensitive to manipulation?

3/Jackson believed that ONLY the government should be allowed to deal with money supply, not banks or any other entity: so what about bitcoins?

i am not trolling, just trying to understand whats in stake at my little level.

Until the chinese exchanges or corporate bank accounts actually get shut down.

It was below the trendline after a 93% decline. The previous ATH was $32 and not $7.

Do you mean fiat in a bank account, btc in cold storage, or both?

No.

You strawmaned that
- we are building another foundation, even after my HELL; NO, which was to indicate that the opposite is happening.
- claiming that 80% of bitcoins are in hands of early adopters which is not true unless you define "early adopter" by the size of holding and make a cutoff, which would make FBI an early adopter, leading to contradiction.
- Jackson had a wealth distribution agenda (which he didn't but you seem to have).

The final capitulation will come in (a) February-March, (b) later, or (c) not at all. I did not have very much hope for January ever, and I think basically we are right on track for the capitulation scenario pricewise and sentimentwise (bullishness abounds, which is good for contrarians). The bitcoin economy seems more resilient though, giving actual support for bullish dreams. China has exhausted the bad news, and USA seems happy with their latest advances regarding compliance.

You might still remember (in 2011-12) how price rose from $2 to $7, backed down to $5, and we had some months of stability and no doubt some were waiting for cheap coins. They never came. One always needs to be prepared for both possibilities.

Given that we are still above the trendline, and bitcoin's tendency to flashcrash, I would not start bailing in now unless you are clearly overextended with your short position. It is good to remember that if you take some of the fiat off-exchange, it will also reduce the systemic risk and add to your risk management even if you lose on the trade.

Sry i dont get it. wasnt i raising a fair argument?



edit: that is just wrong to delete all the posts that arent fully backing you up. if you make reference to US former president such as andrew jackson you should at least have the decency to argue its view on banks, economy and monetary system since it is what you are aiming to apparently 'improve' with your little private society. tss 

Strawmancount exceeded => delete.

Where are those $400 coins?? I am getting really tired of waiting.

At the widest possible spread.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm as anarchistic as they come. I distrust all hierarchical organizations, because I find that such a structure obstructs the free flow of information, because communication is possible only between equals. That being said, I am more of a "gradual evolution from the bottom-up"-guy, than a "violent revolution from the top down"-one. This is why I support a scenario in which we go from the belief, that there has to be one foundation only, to two and several foundations, until we might finally realize, that we don't need any of them/every single user can and should act as his own representative and foundation. Also there should be absolutely no coercion, fees and taxation. I'm just thinking about new forms of organizing ourselves.

I don't agree with most of the stances and policies of the current foundation. I can't get behind the "regulation is good for us" rhetoric at all. Alternatives are needed.


Earlier you criticized people for slacking off and believing the "free market" will solve everything for them.  It seems that you believe in taking things into our own hands and claiming responsibility - I like that

HELL; NO.

There is no more need for self-breeding fatass-wannabe clubs searching for boots to lick in the stolen money realm. We need more in the spirit of Andrew Jackson - an informed, healthy, but unrelenting mistrust of everyone who preys on his neigbor's money, be it government, bank or any other scammer. (He later became President, though.)

There needs to be a clear understanding that the current system is theft. Every time money is printed, it is theft from everyone. There is not so much need to go to bed with criminals, including thiefs. We need to instruct them in the words of Jesus: "A thief should steal no more, but work productively". We have the moral high ground, and now we have the means to advance it.

If someone thinks that the bitcoin commission is not high, please by all means sell your bitcoins to me and go look for a job in the clan of thiefs masquerading as the rightful leadership of nations. By their actions you know them.

What do you wise men think of that dumb on stamp just some minutes ago? As said many times it seems that good news are just piling on each other and yet the price just stays more or less the same. China deadline played out to be nothing more than FUD quite much i guess? When do you think it's going to break out from this range? Upwards or downwards? Is it going to need a flashcrash like the SR one before a new rally can start? What I have been speculating is that there is now artificial keeping of the price down by some one or more manipulators that know something a regular guy like me doesn't know but it's unconfirmed or something still and are waiting for this whatever matter to clear out before letting the price go rockets.
Edited some typos

I get that allusion. I guess my nerd cred is intact!

Though I accept Gox's problem could be related to solvency issues, they could also be technical in nature.
Their failure to fix these problems would indicate incompetance, but based on their history this is also quite possible.

If Gox had solvency issues i would expect staff/Mark  would be making more of an effort to arbitrage the other exchanges.
You may be right and only time aill tell, but there is little evidence only guess work.
My gut feeling is that it is a technical issue (i was fortunate to get out of Gox a month back) lets hope so, for the unfortnate people left waiting.

The state doesn't necessarily have to be involved in enforcing the regulations, that's the beauty of it. Regulations can be enforced with main information channels by those who control them, and therefor could be in the hand of an private organization.
For instance, if bitcoin.org could also include a department, that does constant auditing on the exchanges and then creating a public review of how cooperative and transparent was the exchange, then we already would have a nice system that would root out the bad seeds, or at least make their life harder. That would be the incentive, and that would also work on a global level.

Places like this forum are complex information channels on where to find something and what to trust. Threats here about the dangers of dealing with MtGox, won't reach the wider audience. To the wider audience all seems to be fine, because the "benevolent" Bitcoin Foundation still guides people to their exchange. The wider audience doesn't make the connection that the CEO of MtGox is actually an important member on the board of Bitcoin Foundation. When bitcoin loses the trust of the wider audience, then there is no future for bitcoin, because the wider audience is the future of bitcoin.
The current core of the bitcoin community is in a vegetative state, doing nothing to keep the integrity of the market system. That needs to change.

If the company has increasing amount of "technical difficulties" on withdrawals, while the specific and repeating software flaws could be fixed with less resources then the company earns in a week, then it doesn't take senior detective to figure out that something is wrong on what they're claiming. If it's too improbable for technical difficulties to be real, then the probability switches in favor of hidden financial difficulties. And because we are seeing an increased amount of complaints about withdrawals, we can see that the problem isn't being fixed but made worse.

I can't get any evidence without doing a full audit on their entire system, but I do have common sense, that can be used in analyzing suspicious circumstances. I think that it isn't difficulty to see the same thing that I see, but most have a problem of admitting it.
I think it's mostly to do with people wanting to just buy bitcoins low and then sit on their ass, while doing nothing and get rich in the process. When someone points out that there is a problem and something needs to be done to fix it, then people get angry because it means they should get up from their asses and actually do something that could be considered work. So, they just try to ignore the problem, with trying to silence the one that is putting the problem in spotlight. Then you hear the regular demagogy about how free markets don't need any regulations or trustworthy framework, so they can continue to sit on their asses while the free market does everything.
It's similar to the problem that plagues the current global banking system. Everyone are hiding their heads in sand, hoping that problems will fix themselves, but the problems are getting worse and worse. Most are too chicken to even bring up the subject on facing the problems head-on. They hope that they can just close their eyes and wish very hard, and everything will be fine the next day...

I would like to point out to you, that neither does the state deal with corruption in any efficient manner. I would argue, that it generally makes corruption more attractive by providing high incentive to get corrupted. Huge amounts of wealth concentrated in one place and the lack of personal accountability while managing said wealth. The problem of "corruption" can not be solved at this level. And by corruption I mean "institutional behavior not in accord with the mandate given to it by its creator(s)"

This might be solved by providing less incentive for corruption (which would probably mean an overhaul of the whole system, less wealth in the management of the state would arguably be a good start), or less ability to act on corruption (like switching from human-run institutions to programmable, smart corporations), but I digress...

Rpietila, I fully support your efforts in creating another foundation-like institution. Having only one institution representing a decentralized decision-making technology is amusing to me but I would very much like to see competition in the realm of ideas and institutions surrounding Bitcoin. My idea would be having an organization, which is fully transparent in its finances (thanks to the public accounting of the Blockchain), funded by voluntary contribution and which is doing whatever it has publicly stated it will be doing. Maybe embedd that sort of thing into the Blockchain? Just thinking out loud here...

Anyway thanks for the informative and entertaining thread

EDIT: on second thought, I think this second foundation should be secret, its members benevolently guiding the rest of Bitcoinland through the crumbling of the empire by their application of their knowledge of psychohistory

that would be an extrapolation from their current difficulties to pay their users ad well as their 'bot-ish' attitude to artificially keep the price stable.

Source, evidence.. Anything? or just a guess?

It's because of unregulated nature of the bitcoin market system, not the software. The market system is the reason that gives dollar value to bitcoin, otherwise bitcoin would just be another open source software that has no monetary value. If MtGox falls hard, then the market system proves to be untrustworthy and without the trust of investors, the dollar value of bitcoin will be gone. If the investors see that it's possible to run an Ponzi scheme in the market system, without any restrictions by auditors and regulations, then they think that other exchanges are either doing the same thing or will soon start doing it because there are no repercussions on those that do wrong.

What should be done here is that the biggest investors, who have real faith in the success of bitcoin, should ask out the representatives of MtGox with a wish to buy the company. They could set the terms, so they can run an full audit on MtGox. They could review the situation and see how much in debt the company actually is, and according to the status found, they could offer to buy the company with a fair price. Then as new owners, they would use their own funds to fill the empty hole in MtGox, so that all the $ and BTC will be accounted for.
It currently seems like MtGox is largely in debt, and they are trying to earn back the money they have lost. But seeing that the problems with MtGox withdrawals are increasing, not decreasing, makes it probable that their continuation of business actually makes them lose even more. I don't know if the reason is pure incompetence or are they gambling on the market with their users money, and I can't know that without being able to do a thorough audit. But I see that there is an problem and that problem will get out of control if it isn't dealt with quickly enough.

I don't really get how a possible default and bakruptcy of MtGox is a fault of bitcoin. And how any new crypto may fix it by its protocol.