You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
Will this do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21819. (Read 26608070 times)
May 03, 2015, 03:27:01 PM
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
Will this do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0
May 03, 2015, 03:24:47 PM
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
May 03, 2015, 03:22:47 PM
Goldman Whacks have made the distinction between the technology that is bitcoin, and the blowhards who say we are going to the moon. 
Actually I can't find a quotation by Goldman or IDG where they mention 'bitcoin' or 'cryptocurrencies'. The ones I saw only say 'digital payments'. The conclusion that they are interested in 'bitcoin technology' seems to be the inference of analysts and reporters. Not even Jeremy Allaire seems to be saying that they are.
The most pro-bitcoin reading I can make of those quotes is "bitcoin will die, but maybe we can make a nice xylophone out of its bones".
May 03, 2015, 03:18:23 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.
I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQ
It's a good read.
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
You dick
May 03, 2015, 03:17:44 PM
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
May 03, 2015, 03:16:26 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.
I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQ
It's a good read.
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
May 03, 2015, 03:10:20 PM
Everything turns to green. We only have to wait a bit longer to see if the pattern continues to the Monthly averages.
May 03, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.
I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQ
It's a good read.
You bunch of dicks
I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me
FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU
May 03, 2015, 02:57:59 PM
May 03, 2015, 02:57:07 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.
I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.
May 03, 2015, 02:53:01 PM
Really *feels* like we're going to hit a big volume upswing any second.. I swear. It's too quite... 
May 03, 2015, 02:51:01 PM
Tim Swanson thinks transactions cost 25 BTC divided by the number of transactions in a block. That's a complete misunderstanding of not just what the block reward does but of what Bitcoin even is. He has gathered some interesting data, but his analysis is unlikely to be of much use as he has no fundamental understanding of Bitcoin in the first place.
Tim Swanson is one of the few widely published that really seems to understand Bitcoin if you ask me. I think his advocacy of so-called permissioned ledgers stems from the premise that decentralization hurts the ability of Bitcoin to integrate into the current legal/regulatory pigeon-holes. I personally don't find that compelling, but that seems to me to be the nut of his argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
May 03, 2015, 02:45:35 PM
I guess the ultimate question then is if network effect of open source layer (leader - Bitcoin) trumps sufficiently that of proprietary protocols.
Consider Apple has a pretty successful platform..
Consider Apple has a pretty successful platform..
May 03, 2015, 02:45:13 PM
Tim Swanson thinks transactions cost 25 BTC divided by the number of transactions in a block. That's a complete misunderstanding of not just what the block reward does but of what Bitcoin even is. He has gathered some interesting data, but his analysis is unlikely to be of much use as he has no fundamental understanding of Bitcoin in the first place.
May 03, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.
May 03, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
All true. Goldman Sachs must know that investing in a BTC company though is only going to make news, instill added confidence, and perhaps create a domino effect of big banks getting into BTC in growing number of ways. They could have just kept shut up and completely ignored it, but actions speak loud. Esp when the "currency" is sitting at a $3b market cap (practically nothing).
If an irrational market takes nothing more than a "proximate" cause to set it off in the other direction, maybe this is our proximate cause?
You can bet these upper and mid level employees of these big banks and hedge funds have been building themselves a position or are awaiting the upcoming tools for institutional investors to get some exposure to bitcoin. These news stories of certain interests getting involved in something are cattle calls to those in the industry to load up. If an irrational market takes nothing more than a "proximate" cause to set it off in the other direction, maybe this is our proximate cause?
May 03, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?
May 03, 2015, 02:28:13 PM
Alt-coins, in general, remind me of those popup ads you used to see back in the 90s. "GET YOURNAME.US.INFO NOW!" Now we've all, for the most part, settled on ".com", as far as commerce websites at least (though there's been some rise in .io lately). Feedback loops.
May 03, 2015, 02:22:09 PM
All true. Goldman Sachs must know that investing in a BTC company though is only going to make news, instill added confidence, and perhaps create a domino effect of big banks getting into BTC in growing number of ways. They could have just kept shut up and completely ignored it, but actions speak loud. Esp when the "currency" is sitting at a $3b market cap (practically nothing).
If an irrational market takes nothing more than a "proximate" cause to set it off in the other direction, maybe this is our proximate cause?
If an irrational market takes nothing more than a "proximate" cause to set it off in the other direction, maybe this is our proximate cause?
May 03, 2015, 02:16:38 PM
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".
You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.
Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.
Jump to: