Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22774. (Read 26714333 times)

LOL.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes in the jungle, fireman.

1) I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
2) There are very good reasons why that applies to personal debt and very good reasons why they don't apply to public debt. A country is not a person. It doesn't die. If and when it is dissolved, vanquished, conquered, then it is reasonable to ask where the debt goes.


But yes, there is a lot of risk involved with adding to an already huge debt. But sometimes the alternatives are worse. There was no reason to keep adding to the deficit after the dot-com crash of 2001 had been dealt with. So from 2002/2003-2008 both congress and the president should have focused on turning the deficit into a surplus. But instead they decided to gamble the nations future on an oxymoron called big-government conservatism. Kicking the dollar and replacing it with Bitcoin is not going to make republicans (both voters and politicians) less stupid. That requires education, publicly funded education. Even those on the right should recognize this.

Real wealth is something that most of the "intellectual powerhouses" here will never understand or have; they are too busy obsessing over accumulating stuff and things, measuring themselves against illusions and performing in a loaded game.

"appled" mathematician? Like Newton?


ok, miners produce heat that keeps them warm. They buy equipment which gives people jobs. They make money and stay off of welfare, which reduces the tax burden.  If they mine full time then they reduce unemployment.

These are actually bogus answers, but no more bogus than yours. The real answer is that they are ENTREPRENEURS. Entrepreneurs make guesses about the FUTURE demand for their goods and services and bet their own money that there will be enough demand to make a profit. Traders do the same thing, betting that there will be future demand for liquidity that they can provide. If they fill a market need then they profit and deserve to do so because they took a risk that benefited their trading partners. They have to benefit their trading partners or no trade would take place. The market is people. A person who is successful in the market is successful at serving his fellow man.

You seem to ignore or are incapable of understanding the crucial difference between VOLUNTARY action and COERCION. If Bitcoin fails, it's no more of a waste than any other business venture that doesn't pan out. It's not like a government that takes money BY FORCE and may or may not do good things with it, or forces us to use some particular banknotes as currency, with no assurance as to their future supply. You want to make the world more safe. I can respect that. Can you not see the benefit of making the world more free? Unfortunately, we can't do both. I for one do not want to live in a zoo. I prefer the jungle.

You bet.

Money is not real wealth, it is just a token that one can exchange for real wealth.

Some kinds of money have reasonably stable exchange value, and nearly universal acceptance (at least within one country) that we get used to think of them as wealth; and for the purposes of personal wealth accounting, that is a good principle. 

For the purpose of understanding the world's economy, however, it is important to distinguish wealth from the money that merely represents it.

The "hyperfinancialization" of the economy has created excessive amounts of money, that, if taken at its market value, would correspond to immensely more wealth than actually exists.  Many people believe that they own (through the money proxy) a lot of cars, land, pizzas, etc; but there is not enough wealth to actually realize those claims. 

The financial system is like a land registrar that keeps multiple records of ownership for the same piece of land; except that, since money is not attached to any specific piece of lad, no one can tell which money is good and which is bad.  Sometimes the fiction becomes untenable, and then politics or violence decides, more or less arbitrarily, who keeps the real wealth (usually big financial corporations) and who loses it (usually the plebs).

Coin
Explanation

I really don't know whether he or she is truly interested in this or merely trying to combat Bitcoin itself and not the proof if work algorithm. People need to understand that this is the solution to the Byzantine generals problem. Nothing more but also nothing less!

maybe this time we can take 241/1495 and get on the upward trajectory. Shorts will no go down easy I suppose.

The challenge isn't to create a hash with leading numbers. That's easy as you proven. The challenge is, to find some random data that combined with given data (the actual transactions) and passed into a defined hashing algorythm will return this kind of hexdecimal number with the required amount of leading zeros.

That's not something, that's easy to do.

Oh, lord

Bring 'em in boys! up we go

Nice theory, but... maybe time to join the 21st century, prof?





I guess I'll give you points for being consistent: you're probably not simply 'anti Bitcoin', but against the larger development of excessive 'financialization' (through financial derivatives), right?

Here is an even nicer number:

000000000000000000000000000000000dffb334bffcaaff3333fffffffffffffffffff

You say that a couple thousand dollars of electricity were used to find your number?  How stupid.  I found mine by just typing hex digits at random.  Yet it is a hash of some string too, like yours.  So, explain again, why is your number "wealth", as much wealth as a laptop or a good bike?  Why isn't mine "wealth", too?

Charts couldn't look more bearish

Most of that was just shorts closing. Swaps are down about a thousand. 

some nice buys at finex. eat em up!

Btc-e : Last Price: 228.5 USDLow: 228 USDHigh: 232.5 USD
Volume: 5852 BTC / 1349929 USDServer Time: 26.02.15 13:15

Price going down not a good sign

I rather stay a stupid electronics engineer turned computer scientist turned appled mathematician..


Real wealth is houses, land, cars, food, services, etc.  Wealth gets created and destroyed, sometimes both in quick succession, as when a cook prepares a meal that gets eaten right away.  

Bitcoin does not create any wealth. Its contribution to productivity, by (allegedly) being a more efficient payment instrument is tiny.  In fact, the contribution of bitcoin to world's production of wealth, so far, has been humongously negative: 100 times (at least) more wealth has been destroyed by the bitcoin network than has been created thanks to it.

It is not because of that tiny positive contribution that large early adopters have become wealthier, either on paper (if they are still holding) or in reality (if they cashed out).  Bitcoin's effect has been mainly to move property from some people to other people, mostly independently of their actual contribution to society.   The gains from the early adopters, in particular, came from the (substantially bigger) losses of  those who have bough coins and are still holding them.  If bitcoin's price ever reached a million, as the holders dream, then trlliions of wealth would be transferred -- little by little, imperceptibly -- from those who buy bitcoins to those early adopters who hold most of the coins.  If a country like Greece adopted bitcoin, that wealth would be taken from its citizens.  

That is the same trick that governments and banks use when they create more money, indeed. But when the government does it, it is just another kind of tax: the government is supposed to use the wealth that it buys with that new money for the benefit of its citizens.  When banks do it, of course, there is no such return: there is net and permanent transfer of wealth from the general people to bank owners.

And that is the case too when private entities create new money, whether it is gift certificates or Linden Dollars -- or cryptocurrencies.  *That* is why cryptocurrencies are a scam, even if they were to succeed.  


The work of the miners is not constructuve but destructive: the world gets poorer by their work -- with less coal, less water in the hydro dams, etc..  If someone gets rich by destroying wealth, he must be taking more wealth from someone else.

Surely you know I was referring to the American Revolutionary War where taxation w/o representation was explicitly a casus belli. By your reasoning, the colonialists were represented by the King and the Founding Fathers were traitors. You must also know that an heir can inherit wealth if the deceased has a positive net worth but is NOT obligated to take on debts of the deceased if he doesn't. We all have an obligation to our children that we don't have to our parents because nobody chooses to be born.

Orderbooks look pretty bearish to me.


Definitely more bearish than a few days ago.