Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19844. (Read 26609929 times)

MMM buying all the coins  



Just place a margin limit sell at wanted price  

Bitcoin Foundation board members Jim Harper and Olivier Janssens have resigned and been removed from the trade organization, respectively, following a disagreement over the future of the advocacy group.

http://www.coindesk.com/harper-janssens-exit-bitcoin-foundation/

"They wanted everyone to start raising money, so they could come up with a plan. I said I'm not comfortable to raise money UNTIL we have a plan," Janssens wrote in a Reddit post.

"The truth is that the foundation is pretty much dead. They will try to keep it going just for the name and ego, but they have no support left with the community," he wrote.

I've got a bitfinex trading question maybe someone could help me out with.

Say I've got a margin long open from 430, and I went to sell it at 465. Right now it seems like all I can do is 'close' which sets up a market sell at whatever point I hit close at. Instead I'd like to set it up to sell whenever someone buys into it at 465. Can I do this somehow?

ty ty ty

Why bother discussing anything with this shill with hundreds of newbie accounts ? It like beating your head against the wall...

I'm not sure the rationale is entirely accurate.

Bitcoin is a new currency so the monetary base must be distributed in some way (miners getting the coins generated). Increased inflation at the start is one way to do that but it is understood the emission will be cut /2 every 4 years.

Coin



Explanation

3. What does it matter? They use to pay $1 to store $1. If that wasn't sufficient discouragement, $1 for $10 sure isn't.

Lambie, face it, BTC price is rising and so is your cognitive dissonance.

With pudding?

If an attacker would profit from destroying the network's credibility (governments potentially), that kind of spending would make sense. For protection against double spends, yes, we're pretty solid. In fact, it would seem we're spending way more than need be on security if that is our only concern.

http://media.giphy.com/media/MQrk4KZPIOIGk/giphy.gif (jissss, fucking 1Mb limit ...)

Seems the bitch is going north again.

We all know how this ends














cought, CCMF, cought

No need to pretend. If there is any policy decision involved... it is a decision to allow the free market of transaction processors to determine their production levels while taking into account their costs/competition/and network health as a whole (a miner's success is nearly synonymous with the success of Bitcoin). Make huge blocks that take forever to verify and your chance of being orphaned goes up, denying you income. That's the free market at work. Bloat the chain to the point that the node network is in a handful of datacenters... confidence in the protection of decentralization is lost, value of your revenue plummets... free market incentives again.


I take issue with your use of [network value]. What's the point of spending $100 million (probably much more) to end up killing the golden goose? Mutually assured destruction is at work here, for both of these issues. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, we should let them work.

There is scarcity and then there is artificial scarcity. One is a natural consequence of the laws of physics, the other is typically someone trying to screw others over.

What's a fair price for the last seat on a lifeboat on the Titanic?

Then what if I told you there were a bunch of other lifeboats but we're keeping them back because we think there should be a fee "market?"

Edited to add the quotes around "market"

hahahahahaha

Why move to another thread when this one allows for all topics quasi-bitcoin related, and since the bitcoin is the world, there is NEARlY NO topic that is not covered by its magnanimous glory.

Hmm...I started converting my USD to bitcoins when each one had the buying power of $17. Now they have the buying power of $462.

Either bitcoins are deflationary or the USD has gone into hyperinflation.

$1.5 million per day going toward bitcoin's "inflation" (which has been steadily eaten up by adoption) vs trillions of dollars pumped into the economy out of nowhere.

Along with the fact that the US holds a $19 trillion debt which requires being paid back in USD. The only two possible ways of dealing with this debt is either devaluing the USD by a lot so that the interest payments are manageable (currently the 4th largest spending item behind national defense) or taxing us all to hell. I have safeguarded myself from both scenarios by 1. converting all of my USD to bitcoins and 2. leaving the US and never paying taxes again.

Omg the moon is exploding

Just another way of telling your buddy (The US govn't and its people) you are controlled by the Federal Reserve. The 'bonds' are the 'tax' for using the toilet paper jew confetti. Please reference my post owning you, here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13260184 ; You wouldn't know that though, because you are too politically correct about every tiny aspect, that you have Uncle Sam's big toe permanently affixed to the inside of your lips. Tell me, if I give you $1, and you give me a 'bond' to pay $1.20 back at the end of the year, where will the $.20 come from? Me. When I print more money. Which has more debt attached. Which makes you my slave. You little cunt bitch.

/fin

/ignores

We should probably take this to a different thread, I'm already feeling guilty about going off on this tangent here. But quickly:

We already didn't 'leave everything as it is'. This is an entirely artificial system with a number of arbitary design choices. The 1MB block limit is an obvious example, and wasn't even originally intended to serve an economic function beyond limiting spam. It's not needed for a fee market: as block subsidy decreases fees must increase or miners will shut off. Thus, when the block subsidy is insufficient to pay for mining costs, miners are incentivized to require fees in order to accept transactions.

If you say X is the amount of transactions the network should, at most, be able to handle, you're making a policy decision. If you say there should be no limit and miners should decide whether they want to include 0-fee transactions, you're also making a policy decision. You can't pretend one is more of a "free market" solution than the other.

The network is considered roughly secure against economically sensible attacks when the cost of an attack is greater than the profit gained.In rough terms, the greater [network value] / [cost to gain 51% of hashrate] is, the less secure the network becomes. To increase security, you need to either decrease network value or increase the cost of gaining a percentage of hashrate. Both the small-blocks and large-blocks solutions essentially hope that a balance is naturally found where the cost of running the network doesn't hamper usage to the point that fees and subsidies aren't sufficient to provide security.

I don't have a solution here, but I think we're turning a blind eye to this issue of security vs. cost when that's the real question that needs addressing.