It looks like 650 is the new 130.
Now. We. Wait.
Now. We. Wait.
Im thinking along these lines as well. Time to trade a some alts for a few weeks and see where this goes.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27257. (Read 26652399 times)
June 10, 2014, 10:20:41 AM
Im thinking along these lines as well. Time to trade a some alts for a few weeks and see where this goes.
June 10, 2014, 10:02:42 AM
It looks like 650 is the new 130.
Now. We. Wait.
Now. We. Wait.
June 10, 2014, 10:01:02 AM
June 10, 2014, 09:59:33 AM
Stampie wants to go up. Stampie will go up!
No one is moving.
June 10, 2014, 09:49:02 AM
Stampie wants to go up. Stampie will go up!
June 10, 2014, 09:23:39 AM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
ANd here I was, just this morning, looking at the same phenomenon and thinking, here we might have an example of how speculators organically stabilize the market for once. Everyone's antsy, but without a clear opinion on where the market will move in the short term. Speculators therefore go into range trading mode, hoping to catch peaks and drops. They do so by placing relatively low or high bids and are unwilling to trade much near the recent average price. The result - a relatively stable price and low volume, for now.
At least that's one explanation. But if this was someone desperately selling to keep the price below a certain point, I'd have expected much more volume of late.
June 10, 2014, 09:17:50 AM
Back to $650 on Bitstamp. Feels okay.
Let's hope we start rushing upwards these days.
Let's hope we start rushing upwards these days.
What's the rush, dude?
June 10, 2014, 09:14:29 AM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
We cant do much, just sit here and wait for jump or right time.
Let's just hope it happens soon
Me want actionz!
Who dont like actions, everyone like it. but movement just sideways.
June 10, 2014, 09:14:03 AM
[snip]
but the government has NOT been designed purposefully to engage in thievery nor as a ponzi scheme nor are the various governmental systems something that can be merely abandoned and start anew, believe it or NOT. Even though some people use the government and its various related institutions for variou kinds of selfish and thievery purposes, it was NOT designed for such
[snip]
but the government has NOT been designed purposefully to engage in thievery nor as a ponzi scheme nor are the various governmental systems something that can be merely abandoned and start anew, believe it or NOT. Even though some people use the government and its various related institutions for variou kinds of selfish and thievery purposes, it was NOT designed for such
[snip]
Well, we have a major disagreement here.
I am beginning to like you, ErisDiscoria, even in the midst of all of this supposed "major disagreement."
And, after reading your further comment on the topic, it appears that we any disagreement that we may have is NOT too "major," at least NOT in my conception of the meaning of the term.
The gov exhibits behavior suggesting that its goals are precisely the ones you've mentioned. Now it might not have been a conscious choice by any individual or group of individuals to make it so (which helps explain the persistent myth of the "government as servant"), but there we have it. You say it's selfish and thieving people using the gov for their own purposes. I say the very structure of gov provides incentive for such behavior and prohibits honest and non-corrupt behavior.
As many of us should realize by now, there is NO such thing as "the government," and instead government is a complicated array of societal relationships. Also, there seems to be a tendency for governments to grow and to develop in all communities, given enough time and enough interaction, a need for community relations are established.. and thus government is established... happens on small scales and happens on large scales, and maybe if a person is living on a self sustainable farm, government may NOT be needed... until you add more people... woops.. here.. government has developed again.. what do you know?
And government as a monopolistic, hierarchical structure with the legal monopoly of initiating force will be abandoned one day, believe it or NOT
Government varies, yet frequently it has characteristics that you describe above. Sometimes those characteristics are comparable among different governments and sometimes they are very varied or subtle.
Maybe government will be abandoned some day? pretty hypothetical at the moment.
But first stable, proven, decentralized alternatives with a track record of superior efficiency need to emerge.
could NOT have said it better myself. YES!!! If public and people needs are being served by alternative means, then sometimes it may NOT be necessary to maintain redundancy. A question may evolve, however, whether some system is redundant or NOT and is ready and truly in need of replacement.
June 10, 2014, 09:12:14 AM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
We cant do much, just sit here and wait for jump or right time.
Let's just hope it happens soon
Me want actionz!
June 10, 2014, 09:10:00 AM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
We cant do much, just sit here and wait for jump or right time.
June 10, 2014, 09:01:04 AM
June 10, 2014, 08:59:13 AM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
June 10, 2014, 08:46:53 AM
Well anyway I don't know why people are so blind that they can't see fiat is the Ponzi and bitcoin is the way out of the Ponzi.
I herd you don't like Ponzi so we created a new Ponzi to get you out of Ponzi
CoolStoryBro:
hehehehehe......
Even though you are being a little ridiculous with your comment, above, I believe that your comment highlights a decent point.
Accordingly, I would clarify that neither bitcoin nor fiat is a ponzi scheme...
To say that either bitcoin or fiat is a ponzi scheme is to overly simplify and to misapply the concept of ponzi scheme. Neither fiat nor bitcoin is so simple an arrangement - there are too many factors influencing each.
Fiat is a ponzi scheme in the sense that the monetary system works in a way where all money in existence is created in the form of Debt - with interest. So you have to constantly grow the monetary base to repay the interests of the previously created money with new money that is itself more debt and requires more interest which requires more money as debt etc... So it truly is a Ponzi and can only collapse at some point but it is benefiting only the few that control the global monetary system. A fiat monetary system that is not a ponzi could be created by emitting the FIAT directly and without liability to this emission, the counter party of the fiat being the work of the participants in the economy. Yet it has not been designed in this way but has been designed in a way that gradually enslaves the majority of the population and shifts most of the wealth in invisible hands.
On the other hand bitcoin is not a ponzi because it is an asset that is not the liability of someone else. If you have a bitcoin, nobody owes you anything about it. You just have your bitcoin and nobody else is involved in this position. It's like gold. Who could say that gold is a ponzi ?
A ponzi implies centralisation and fraud. Centralised fraud is used to influence the expectations of the investors based on the creation of false past and present returns. The money of new investors is used to hide the fraud by actually paying these false returns to first investors instead of giving new entrants their fair share in assets.
Bitcoin does not have returns - it only appreciates or depreciates based on its current utility and anticipated-utility in the future.
Bitcoin does not have centralisation that can hide parts of the information about it's use and nature - everything is in the open in the blockchain.
It's simply an asset that can crash or explode higher without counter party liability.
Therefore, using the word ponzi for the global monetary FIAT system is appropriate. Yet using the word ponzi for the bitcoin ledger system is not appropriate.
My point is that ponzi scheme is NOT appropriate for either. The government and its money system is much more complicated than some simple operation to rob the money of the poor for the rich, even though those kinds of dynamics that you describe are going on in the government.. NONETHELESS governmental systems remain much more complicated and nuanced as compared to a ponzi scheme which is generally a smaller operation designed smoke and mirrors to deceive.... surely there is some deception that is going on within government systems, as you suggest.. but ponzi scheme is NOT the correct concept and to attempt to simplify the fit into such a narrow definition is to oversimplify the various purposes and services of government....
Don't get me wrong, I am all for reform, and I am all for removing some of the corrupting influences of government and the disruption that bitcoin will be providing to potentially put more power into the hands of the people.
At the same time, I would NOT be so deluded as to believe that the government is going to disappear in some variations of its current form in any time in the very near future... transitions of systems take time... and certainly, we will be witnessing some of bitcoin's effects on various governmental and monetary institutions in the coming years.
Completely agree.
But you're going to be feeling a bit lonely in here, with a nuanced position towards state and government like that.
At least a vocal subsection of bitcoin enthusiasts are strongly enough anti government and/or anti central bank controlled money flow that "ponzi" would be one of the nicer words in their inventory for it
Sometimes i question whether to just let the misinformation slide.... especially, as you say, if the point is one that people are NOT going to get or want to get or are motivated to frame the world within some kind of a simplistic and fantastical framework.
Sometimes the proclamations, in my view, just go too far, and the outrageousness and ridiculousness of such proclamations should NOT be just left without any kind of response. Accordingly to call the government a ponzi scheme is one of those outrageous and ridiculous comments that cannot just be allowed to go unchecked... ... governments are overwhelmingly vast and have come to dominate a larger and larger role in society and to dominate our public, private and business lives... And, it is NO wonder that a large number of people want to be relieved of some of these governmental pressures, especially when governments are beginning to employ technological means to continue to dominate and to oppress people...
Whether bitcoin is the savior or part of a continuation of oppression is a question that remains yet to be answered and can be part of an ongoing saga... to be determined.. stay tuned....
the same is true when people proclaim bitcoin to be a ponzi scheme... those of us who know enough about bitcoin realize that the statement is ridiculous... even in what seems to be its relative infancy of less than 6 years old, bitcoin has become much more sophisticated and complicated than any kind of meaningful definition of a ponzi scheme... and there are just too many players and developers in bitcoin and too many dynamics for such a simplistic summary of what bitcoin is or is NOT ..... In sum, the proclamation of bitcoin = ponzi scheme, just smacks of an outrageous exaggeration... especially to most anyone that has a fairly decent sense of the many applications and potential reach of bitcoin.
Governments, in their current variations, are much older and much more diverse and much more sophisticated and complicated than bitcoin. Actually, someday, hopefully, bitcoin will become as complicated as a multitude of governments... that is if bitcoin can handle such a challenge.. b/c it is a major challenge... and either bitcoin or some variation of bitcoin has the potential to take over a vast array of governmental and societal functions.... and those of us who have been studying some of the intricacies of bitcoin have come to these kinds of realizations about various potentialities of bitcoin... and accordingly that bitcoin has much unrealized potential... yet bitcoin cannot take on all of this potentiality at once b/c networks and systems need to be continued to be developed, tried, tested, failed and fixed and built around. And, hopefully as these systems continue to develop, better interfaces develop and better seamlessness develops and better user interfaces develop in order that the technology of bitcoin is NOT perceived but just happens.
I do NOT necessarily find the question of these kinds of what is a ponzi scheme and what is NOT as being matters of right or wrong b/c in some sense they are products of the perceptions of people, and people are allowed to perceive what they perceive; however, sometimes I believe that it is important to point out the misleading application of certain simplified concepts, even in these kinds of threads where it may NOT be feasible or productive to engage in a comprehensive rebuttal of mischaracterization(s)
June 10, 2014, 08:43:03 AM
quote author=ihaveaquestion link=topic=178336.msg7223710#msg7223710 date=1402363155]
I seems to be quite useless to try to explain why bitcoin is a good thing to anyone who does not understand the current fiat system. And equally useless to try to explain the problems of the current system to those who depend on it for their livelihood.
It is not useless at all. Everybody has his learning curve and some will need more time than others to understand the same thing, which is particularly true in maths. But you insinuated the idea of the relevance of Bitcoin, which might flourish on the future. Maybe they will need less volatility and more killer apps though.
[/quote]
Yes, and this is well proven by marketing. There's a whole class of ads that just try to get a company name "out there" without explicitly selling product. Like the GE add running during the olympics that was showing jumbo jet engines, wind turbines, MRI's etc... How many olympics viewers are in the market for these products?
Same with Bitcoin. People need to hear the word over and over... then someday they'll suddenly bite.
I seems to be quite useless to try to explain why bitcoin is a good thing to anyone who does not understand the current fiat system. And equally useless to try to explain the problems of the current system to those who depend on it for their livelihood.
[/quote]
Yes, and this is well proven by marketing. There's a whole class of ads that just try to get a company name "out there" without explicitly selling product. Like the GE add running during the olympics that was showing jumbo jet engines, wind turbines, MRI's etc... How many olympics viewers are in the market for these products?
Same with Bitcoin. People need to hear the word over and over... then someday they'll suddenly bite.
June 10, 2014, 08:41:47 AM
There is none. But you know that much.
There are a select few assumptions that seem to be so well grounded in reality that it is a waste of one's productivity to constantly doubt them. If the day comes that they'd break, we'll be as well prepared as we are now to tackle the fallout from the event.
Thanks! There are a select few assumptions that seem to be so well grounded in reality that it is a waste of one's productivity to constantly doubt them. If the day comes that they'd break, we'll be as well prepared as we are now to tackle the fallout from the event.
I agree that the chance of those assumptions being broken is not worth worrying about; it would be like worring that three nuclear reactors may melt down and explode at the same time.
However I would dispute the assertion that the two assumptions that I listed are "well grounded in reality" -- in the same sense that, say, physical laws like gravitation, conservation of energy etc. are.
Basically the only "proof" of those two assumptions is that many bright people have spent lots of time trying to find fast ways to solve those problems, over the last 40 years, and failed. But that is not a statistically significant result, because the space of all algorithms, even of modest size, is extremely large; so even all that work has explored only an infinitesimal fraction of it.
For the physical laws, in contrast, one can argue that all our collected experience and measurements are statistically significant "proof" that they work, at least in the realms that we have experienced. Doubting them (in those realms) is certainly a waste of time.
Moreover, the techniques that we scientists use to find fast algorithms are such that we can only find "obvious" ones, in a sense. So there may exist a relatively short algorithm that quickly solves the bitcoin mining problem, say; but, even if we find it somehow, and check that it works in quintillion of cases, we may be unable to understand how it does it. (You are aware of the Collatz problem I suppose.)
(You are not referring to the P != NP conjecture I suppose? It is just as uncertain, but it has absolutely no relevance to those two assumptions in the bitcoin protocol.)
(By the way, until the 1980s many people were quite certain that the linear programming problem could not be solved in polynomial time, because many bright people etc. etc.. Some even had started to build a theory of "LP-complete problems". Then a Russian mathematician found a polynomial algorithm, by thinking out of the box.)
I am. And it has. At least to 'what the protocol can handle in principle being thrown at it', not 'what the protocol is and does right now'. As long as there are problems that are hard to solve but easy to check, the protocol can be adapted to the threat that a particular problem turned out to be easy to solve after all.
June 10, 2014, 08:37:56 AM
RE: pure incorruptible mathematics...
What's really interesting about this is that all the theorizing about the strength of the algorithms may not matter in practice. It is very likely that the blockchain as a record, as a memory of financial transactions, has grown to be socially more important than the strength of its mathematics.
The stake-holders moved quickly to preserve the blockchain during the fork event last year. I think that in the event of a crack to 1 or 2 the same thing would happen to whatever extent is necessary. Including halting or rewinding what is de-facto recognized as the Bitcoin blockchain until a new algorithm or even a centralized kludge is devised. Of course as a distributed project the blockchain as we know it today could continue. However if that one isn't what the exchanges, merchants, and payment processors are using then it is not the "Bitcoin" blockchain.
What's really interesting about this is that all the theorizing about the strength of the algorithms may not matter in practice. It is very likely that the blockchain as a record, as a memory of financial transactions, has grown to be socially more important than the strength of its mathematics.
The stake-holders moved quickly to preserve the blockchain during the fork event last year. I think that in the event of a crack to 1 or 2 the same thing would happen to whatever extent is necessary. Including halting or rewinding what is de-facto recognized as the Bitcoin blockchain until a new algorithm or even a centralized kludge is devised. Of course as a distributed project the blockchain as we know it today could continue. However if that one isn't what the exchanges, merchants, and payment processors are using then it is not the "Bitcoin" blockchain.
June 10, 2014, 08:33:48 AM
I seems to be quite useless to try to explain why bitcoin is a good thing to anyone who does not understand the current fiat system. And equally useless to try to explain the problems of the current system to those who depend on it for their livelihood.
"Flappy Bits"?
June 10, 2014, 08:32:17 AM
(By the way, until the 1980s many people were quite certain that the linear programming problem could not be solved in polynomial time, because many bright people etc. etc.. Some even had started to build a theory of "LP-complete problems". Then a Russian mathematician found a polynomial algorithm, by thinking out of the box.)
Still to this day, apparently some people are quite certain that a solution to the problems of digital money could not be solved.
Others prefer to think out of the box and ignore the naysayers and are currently building such a system as a kind of "proof of concept"
Sorry, I really didn't want to get into this, and I gotta go so I can't even monitor this thread today, but I just couldn't resist.
June 10, 2014, 08:30:38 AM
I'm done here. Feel free to keep your dogmatic anthropocentric perspectives
I was just about to troll him. Some animals can count.
We evolved from common ancestors - bonobos seems to be capable of conceptual reasoning (without food as reward) -> http://cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/~acstepha/Animal_Concepts.pdf
Jump to: