Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 26969. (Read 26706932 times)

Aminorex:  That's pretty good stamina.. must include the wine and the cigarette in your calculation.

People write things down and engage in a variety of practices... Maybe you can hide your total wealth, and maybe NOT?


I am NOT poo-pooing the idea of taking preventative measures.  In fact, I applaud the taking of various preventative measures, yet when push comes to shove, we may be in a situation in which you gotta produce something b/c your hostage taker knows too much.. and it may even be related to someone who knows you well leaking information about you (which is a likely scenario.. an ex-wife.. or a nephew or some other ptiot confident)

Bitcoin is considered to be a great innovation because it is virtual cash.  I am just a step ahead of everybody here: I virtually trade it. 

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/482951689381904384

Results of our US Marshals bitcoin syndicate:

Bidders - 42
Bids received - 186
BTC quantity bid - 48,013

Winners notifed by USMS on Mon

I would think that it is very difficult to trade with bitcoin if you do NOT have any.

What Jorge does is:

"imagine a bitcoin"  then "imagine..."  then "imagine...."

Lot's of imagining going on.

Typical human copulation?  (Probably in both China and Brazil.)

yeah.. it's all good in theory, and if you are getting your ideas from TV.. or Fox news...

Likely if your fingers are being chopped off (or some other means of coercion), the theoretical becomes more real....

Starting soon after midnight, China time?  (But 1 pm here in Brazil  )

Church

working in the military

college class

Why would it? that law actually further strengthens my argument ( a large network is more valuable and not proportionate at all to many small networks)
OP Is pulling statements out of his behind without any sensible logic behind them

[edit] just a small joke:

raid_n's law:
"Within any sufficiently large forum there will be someone postulating their own law"

since sufficiently large is unbounded you won't disprove me

Every time someone suggests a flaw with Bitcoin, it usually turns out that if you reason it through, the flaw is either not a flaw or an essential outcome of a very important principle. Satoshi is (or are) certainly a genius by standard methods but more importantly seems to be very, very intimate with the factors at play so as to have avoided pitfalls in woolly thinking. The only real flaw I have been able to ascertain is the 51% issue and that is largely only an issue because of mining pools. I wonder if Satoshi never considered that that might be an issue or did and decided to run with it.

Wouldn't metcalfe's law disagree?

Of course there is an unbounded number of potential altcoins for both models, PoW and PoS and since PoW is, by design, very work intensive you will soon reach actual limits because resources are bounded.
Nevertheless PoW [Edit] of course i mean PoS [/Edit] also has resource bounds (network transmission, disk space, etc) so the models are actually equivalent, one merely allowing more concurrent coins than the other.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with coin valuation. By the logic of your argument an almost infinite number of small coin networks renders any large coin network of 0 value (say a 1 million user network in relation to 10^30 networks of coins with 10 users each also effectively leads to a value of practically 0 for the 1 million user network)

Explanation

+1

Noone being able to know your balance is one of the best features of XMR. The large liquidity available is the second.

My solution is XMR.  If my balance can not be known, I can give up a throw-away wallet.  If the fact that I have a balance can not be known, I will never be targeted for extortion.

The relative value of any particular PoS coin is directly proportional to the size of the network of the coin you are measuring, divided by the size of the networks of all PoS coins.  Since the number of PoS coins is not limited, and the network size of each of them is not limited by competing for a scarce resource such as energy, the denominator will grow much more quickly than the numerator, leading value to $0 over the long term.

The relative value of any particular PoW coin is directly proportional to the size of the network of the coin you are measuring, divided by the size of the networks of all PoW coins.  Since the network size of each PoW coin is limited by competing for a scarce resource (miners and energy), the size of the networks of all PoW coins is limited.  When a new PoW coin is created, it must take from the pool of miners/energy by reducing the size of another coin's network to increase its own.  This means the relative value of any particular PoW coin is much more resistant to being drained as new PoW coins pop up.  The new coins will have to fight for resources with the existing coins, which is generally very difficult to succeed at versus large coins such as Bitcoin.  Thus, well established PoW coins will generally have a stable value regardless of the introduction of new PoW coins.

But you don't trade bitcoin, do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZXwdB4Mj0M&feature=player_detailpage#t=13

If you trade with bitcoin, you should watch the Chinese exchanges most of all.