Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18715. (Read 26709357 times)

lol

Tell me everything will be alright. Hold me, bitbros.                                             
http://s33.postimg.org/7dfemtm8f/Capture.gifhttp://s33.postimg.org/xzwx8wwr3/Capture.gif
http://s33.postimg.org/orsqshhan/satteans.png                http://s33.postimg.org/7dfemtm8f/Capture.gif              http://s33.postimg.org/xzwx8wwr3/Capture.gif

Yepp.
They already hoard coins. I doubt any serious mining business "has to sell to pay electricity" - well if they has to, they already went bankrupt. These are multi million dollar investments, setting up an airport size ASIC farm, the investors can easily go years without selling a single BTC, they plan for long term - buying electric bill plans for 6-12 months ahead, the hardware is an already sunk capital, and makes no sense to turn it off anyway, the ROI is already calculated in 1-2 years. The notion that miners must sell every week/month is ridiculous.

And "bitcoin mining" is still not a production. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15108324
There is no consumable good mining produces. All bitcoin already exists in a fixed 21mil coin supply, mining only releases them for transacting.

EDIT: and the same bitcoin can be mined with 1 notebook, or 100 mega asic farms, just a matter of difficulty (which in the algorithmic sense is totally independent of $/BTC), it remains the same bitcoin. So no there is no minimum production cost. Investment (=hash rate) in mining follows market value, not the other way around.

Dumping is strong on finex. Think we found some whales cashout point, or a price some miner is better of selling on market rather than OTC. $600 won't be easy. The dragon doesn't seem to care much though, $13 spread between finex and whoboi

Once miner decides to hoard coins instead of selling it's not the mining side of business that handles it but the investment/trading side so. For all purposes at that point it's an investment. Which just muddies up the argument if price follows the hashrate (indirect cost of production), or hashrate follows the price.

Well, the basic idea was, to make a decentralized network computer executing smart-contracts (not especially for a currency function, more like automated "transactions", colour tokens (like open company shares), crowdfunding (like this DAO monstrosity:)), where ether is the "fuel" to run the scripts. So it is highly different from the Bitcoin network in regard of its purpose.

But, there are problems with this idea. Both technical and social:

1. it uses a Turing-complete scripting language, so it can create infinite loops - this is supposed to be negated by using ether for every processing cycle, but still can jam up the network for awhile in theory, it is an attack vector;

2. the problem of scaling: it can not, because, every script (smart contract) must be run by every node, or the network spilt, so it can get much-much-much more hardware heavy than processing a ~300 bytes bitcoin tx.
Also, the ORDERING is different (and uncontrollable) for different nodes - because how data propagates on a network, which can totally fukup the whole idea of interdependent contracting aka: the order how script I. or script II. occupies/operates in the next block can be paramount, if scI depends on the execution of scII., and they get implemented in a different time order, they crush (fail to run, since the dependency is behind the execution order for every node downloading the new block with executable scripts -"transactions").
In short, the interblock ordering of "transactions" are not necessarily interchangeable, while in bitcoin, they are! That is a key technical unavoidable difference. The proposed solution, to split the nodes to process different executable is against the basic idea, and creates more profound problems...

3. strictly speaking, Ethereum has no (yet) known enforceable, algorithmic monetary policy (we do not know if it is fixed at what number or what is the inflation rate if not, how exactly will it transform into the PoS consensus, also, PoS can not work on the long run, because it has too many attack vectors, especially with a script running environment). Also, pre-mined -huge red flag -, which means very strong centralization, and direct control over the protocol in few hands (remember, no anonym PoW random nonce mining took place, because, premining!!!).

In bitcoin, after and since the genesis block, anyone can see the unchangeable monetary policy: 21mil coins, reward drop after every 210,000 blocks, PoW consensus.

4. those who were studying the DAO made it obvious - even before the shameful "IPO" ended -, that you can not use the same token directly for financing actual projects, while the investor's tokens are both committed (frozen), and an external force (the market price of ETH) can interfere with those project's financial plans. (If the DAO commits say, 100k ether to a project, which is supposed to worth $100k, but suddenly ETH drops 10%, they won't be able to pay the contractors, and they already committed, and can not change their "votes", while can not have enough $ - unless the contractor takes ETH, but than he faces the same problem - DAO could work, IF crypto would only be the de facto world currency, but only than).

5. Assmaster, i disagree. Bitcoin is scaling, BECAUSE it is a dumb network (LN for example). Just like Ethernet, or tcp/ip, they are dumb, but additional layers can use the easy, secure, simple basis of it. Ethereum is too complicated in itself to be layered on, forces way too complicated and self-conflicting goals to nodes, and never actually was designed to be a currency (it is a script running network platform, not designed to be an immutable, decentralized trust network with several exahash/s security power).

there is a huge tax benifit to buying bitcions that way i think
if buying bitcoin now means huge capital gains later down the line, then ya it makes sense to buy them with your 401k

It's Bitcoin based but its creation was very convoluted and only accredited investors could buy in and they had to hold for a year before being able to sell. Its existence is down to something of a regulatory hack.

It can be held in a tax sheltered fund which I presume is the main reason for the price differential. It's also way less liquid. And you're buying shares in the fund, not Bitcoin even though that's the underlying asset.

Persistent

rates

on

fiat

in

transaction


Profit

Adam? Is the pump still on?
Getting a little nervous here

Yes,

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/quote
site says.....Common Stock - Each GBTC share represents ownership of approximately 0.1 bitcoin

Why is BTC at $1000 OTC, but you can actually BUY them from Coinbase for ~585?

Yeah... call me a weak hand because I am only 92% in BTC and 8% in fiat... .hahahahahahahaha...

And that is only a portion of my investment because I have other fiat-related investments, as well (which is probably 70% fiat and 30% BTC, and the 30% BTC happens to be because BTC appreciated 150% in the past 9 months).

Personally, under my situation, my age and my view of life, etc, etc... I don't believe in going 100% in anything, and/or failure to diversify my investments; however, I believe that I have a very significant investment into bitcoin in order that if it goes 2x, 5x, 10x or 100x, I am going to be doing very, very well.   I also plan to continue to sell BTC on the way up and to buy BTC on the way down... of course, if BTC prices are shooting up rapidly, then I may take a break from selling or sell only very small amounts of BTC on the way up.

I think that we can be fairly heavily invested into something, such as bitcoin, but to attempt to remain smart about managing our holdings and without going full bore into it, gambling, leveraging and getting greedy about it, which may cause a lot more difficulties in the event that we get played by various manipulators, rather than going straight up that is expected under a scenario that may have decent odds, but is no way near 100% in being true, because it has not happened, yet.

that is $1000 per btc, right?

right LOL, probably its a fund with 0.1BTC shares

Please explain....http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GBTC

Closed today at $100. Why?   (that is $1000 per btc, right?)

say you sell all your coins and buy a house or somthing... then years later you come in to some money, and bitcoin is thriving, what price wouldn't you pay for a to own a few bitcoins again!?

i could see myself buying a big bag of 3000$ coins, years from now...
smart money is buying now...
week hands are "adjusting there profile" aka selling a few lol

08:40 in Tokyo  ... another 1-2 hours and everything goes BTCananas!!! 

Order book on Finex is looking healthier now.

Yeah, Lambie, a side-tracking response from you, more or less as anticipated ::::  generalities that attempt to fill this thread with non-personal, made up and irrelevant bullshit.