if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
Schizophrenic?
Topic: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker - page 925. (Read 1811714 times)
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
Schizophrenic?
if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
Bitcoin was designe to be fair money. The euro was designed to concentrate power.
if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
I think the Mt.Gox GBP market is interesting 
8.04712 GBP ~ 12.8955098 USD
8.04712 GBP ~ 12.8955098 USD
you just wait and see...
We are entering a stable period, despite the increased demand, due to profit taking.
I believe the profit taking is minimal, and will not deplete the increased demand. So I predict the stable period will be short lived (no more then 2 weeks) and we will head higher once its done.
We are entering a stable period, despite the increased demand, due to profit taking.
I believe the profit taking is minimal, and will not deplete the increased demand. So I predict the stable period will be short lived (no more then 2 weeks) and we will head higher once its done.
Some might say watching smaller bitcoin markets is useless, as they simply follow MtGox
I'm one of those people that would say that.
Virtex just had a mini rally from 11.75 to 12 ~400 coins bought
and then someone took a dump, down to 11.35!
Some might say watching smaller bitcoin markets is useless, as they simply follow MtGox
I do not agree, I would not of been able to call the bottom, if i had no looked closely at the actions of Virtex traders during the plunge.
Virtex has a mind of its own and does not simply fallow MtGox...
It is clear to me Virtex price is being suppressed by people selling off for a profit. I suspect the same thing is happening on MtGox on a larger scale.
We will be going sideways, until this profit taking period is over, then price will explode! Up Up Up!
if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
Touché lol
if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
No I don't. You don't make the rules.
but once people like David Morgan, Mike Maloney or Jeff Berwick take a look at bitcoin,
Jeff Berwick is already a bitcoiner.
he is?
The militant kind.
maybe he talks about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XY6pQ3ORU
AGAIN, where's the wall pics?
if you accept that bitcoin is "pure money" then you have to accept that euro is also "pure money"
Bitcoin is better then gold in every way...
nope. i said this before, there are 2 main arguments against bitcoin:1) bitcoin did not come out like a wining commodity and also become money, there was no "natural selection" like in case of gold and silver, gold and silver removed salt, stone, big stones, colored stone and allot of other stuff that was used like money ( a good read for spanish ppl http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-del-dinero/9788449322945/1565423 )
2) there is no "natural demand" for bitcoin in the same way there is a natural demand for gold in some industries and for jewels
point 1) I don't understand. Why is natural selection necessary and how can you argue bitcoin was/is not subject to this kind of thing.
Point 2) is ridiculous. You're saying gold is better because it's shiny?!? The regression theorem has been talked about a lot in regards to bitcoin and I think it does apply to bitcoin and is misinterpreted by many. I'm looking forward to Peter Surdas (lonelyminers) just-finished paper on this and other subjects. I'm looking forward to discussing this on the forums.
1) There have been many tries at making e-money, none came close to the having the same kinda of dedicated FAN base, as bitcoin does.
2) Not sure what you mean, If you NEED bitcoin to buy something you can't get without bitcoin, would you consider that "natural demand" for bitcoin
If you're correct on point 2, I submit silkroad supplies natural demand. Whether you agree with the politics/morals of it or not, they have done more for bitcoin as a proof of concept for use as a medium of exchange than any other site out there.
Not to mention offering an effectively "free" coin anonymising service
regarding 2):Those are 2 different kinds of demand: silkroad demand is demand for the monetary features of bitcoin. Jewelery and electronics applications are demand for non-monetary features of gold. Now the regression theorem seems to say that there has to have been a non-monetary demand for the commodity at some point in the past for it to be used as money. The reasoning I think is that the first guy to accept the commodity as money needed to have at least some assurance of value of the commodity, which could only at this point be it's non-monetary value, because he could have no reasonable expectation of other people accepting the commodity as pure money. I think bitcoin has proven this wrong. Why did the guy give pizzas for bitcoin? Did he have reasonable expectation these bitcoins might be accepted as money. Probably yes.
Some argue bitcoin is the closest mankind has come to "pure money", because it has absolutely no use other than as a money.
Yes, ironically, these very observations of what makes ideal money birthed a discipline which could be called the "science" of money. Knowledge of what constitutes "perfect" money and how close bitcoin comes to it has caused people to value bitcoin for its future potential. So "marginal utility" became unimportant.
So knowledge of the definition of money rendered that definition incorrect (at least in a partial, relatively trivial manner).
Bitcoin is better then gold in every way...
nope. i said this before, there are 2 main arguments against bitcoin:1) bitcoin did not come out like a wining commodity and also become money, there was no "natural selection" like in case of gold and silver, gold and silver removed salt, stone, big stones, colored stone and allot of other stuff that was used like money ( a good read for spanish ppl http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-del-dinero/9788449322945/1565423 )
2) there is no "natural demand" for bitcoin in the same way there is a natural demand for gold in some industries and for jewels
point 1) I don't understand. Why is natural selection necessary and how can you argue bitcoin was/is not subject to this kind of thing.
Point 2) is ridiculous. You're saying gold is better because it's shiny?!? The regression theorem has been talked about a lot in regards to bitcoin and I think it does apply to bitcoin and is misinterpreted by many. I'm looking forward to Peter Surdas (lonelyminers) just-finished paper on this and other subjects. I'm looking forward to discussing this on the forums.
1) There have been many tries at making e-money, none came close to the having the same kinda of dedicated FAN base, as bitcoin does.
2) Not sure what you mean, If you NEED bitcoin to buy something you can't get without bitcoin, would you consider that "natural demand" for bitcoin
If you're correct on point 2, I submit silkroad supplies natural demand. Whether you agree with the politics/morals of it or not, they have done more for bitcoin as a proof of concept for use as a medium of exchange than any other site out there.
Not to mention offering an effectively "free" coin anonymising service
regarding 2):Those are 2 different kinds of demand: silkroad demand is demand for the monetary features of bitcoin. Jewelery and electronics applications are demand for non-monetary features of gold. Now the regression theorem seems to say that there has to have been a non-monetary demand for the commodity at some point in the past for it to be used as money. The reasoning I think is that the first guy to accept the commodity as money needed to have at least some assurance of value of the commodity, which could only at this point be it's non-monetary value, because he could have no reasonable expectation of other people accepting the commodity as pure money. I think bitcoin has proven this wrong. Why did the guy give pizzas for bitcoin? Did he have reasonable expectation these bitcoins might be accepted as money. Probably yes.
Some argue bitcoin is the closest mankind has come to "pure money", because it has absolutely no use other than as a money.
If you're correct on point 2, I submit silkroad supplies natural demand. Whether you agree with the politics/morals of it or not, they have done more for bitcoin as a proof of concept for use as a medium of exchange than any other site out there.
u can buy weed with usd and bitcoin still act like money, the full quote can help youYou can't buy MY weed with USD, i only take CAD or BTC
If you're correct on point 2, I submit silkroad supplies natural demand. Whether you agree with the politics/morals of it or not, they have done more for bitcoin as a proof of concept for use as a medium of exchange than any other site out there.
u can buy weed with usd and bitcoin still act like money, the full quote can help youBitcoin is better then gold in every way...
nope. i said this before, there are 2 main arguments against bitcoin:1) bitcoin did not come out like a wining commodity and also become money, there was no "natural selection" like in case of gold and silver, gold and silver removed salt, stone, big stones, colored stone and allot of other stuff that was used like money ( a good read for spanish ppl http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-del-dinero/9788449322945/1565423 )
2) there is no "natural demand" for bitcoin in the same way there is a natural demand for gold in some industries and for jewels
the point 2) some in a way is solved by NameCoin since there can be a natural demand and NameCoin have a purpose other that "money" so NameCoin is closer to gold that bitcoin, gold--namecoin--bitcoin, because bitcoin is made up money just like the EURO, it was designed to be money it did not become money
Bitcoin is better then gold in every way...
nope. i said this before, there are 2 main arguments against bitcoin:1) bitcoin did not come out like a wining commodity and also become money, there was no "natural selection" like in case of gold and silver, gold and silver removed salt, stone, big stones, colored stone and allot of other stuff that was used like money ( a good read for spanish ppl http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-del-dinero/9788449322945/1565423 )
2) there is no "natural demand" for bitcoin in the same way there is a natural demand for gold in some industries and for jewels
point 1) I don't understand. Why is natural selection necessary and how can you argue bitcoin was/is not subject to this kind of thing.
Point 2) is ridiculous. You're saying gold is better because it's shiny?!? The regression theorem has been talked about a lot in regards to bitcoin and I think it does apply to bitcoin and is misinterpreted by many. I'm looking forward to Peter Surdas (lonelyminers) just-finished paper on this and other subjects. I'm looking forward to discussing this on the forums.
1) There have been many tries at making e-money, none came close to the having the same kinda of dedicated FAN base, as bitcoin does.
2) Not sure what you mean, If you NEED bitcoin to buy something you can't get without bitcoin, would you consider that "natural demand" for bitcoin
If you're correct on point 2, I submit silkroad supplies natural demand. Whether you agree with the politics/morals of it or not, they have done more for bitcoin as a proof of concept for use as a medium of exchange than any other site out there.
Not to mention offering an effectively "free" coin anonymising service
but once people like David Morgan, Mike Maloney or Jeff Berwick take a look at bitcoin,
Jeff Berwick is already a bitcoiner.
he is?
The militant kind.
Did you know almost every gold bug would laugh at everyone here for putting their USD into something as stupid as bitcoin instead
of buying physical gold?
Bringing up gold to compare to bitcoin is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
of buying physical gold?
Bringing up gold to compare to bitcoin is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
At this moment bitcoin's p2p digital currency is a fast and most secure way of transferring wealth.
You will see how difficult it can be to travel with physical gold.
Bitcoin is better then gold in every way...
nope. i said this before, there are 2 main arguments against bitcoin:1) bitcoin did not come out like a wining commodity and also become money, there was no "natural selection" like in case of gold and silver, gold and silver removed salt, stone, big stones, colored stone and allot of other stuff that was used like money ( a good read for spanish ppl http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-del-dinero/9788449322945/1565423 )
2) there is no "natural demand" for bitcoin in the same way there is a natural demand for gold in some industries and for jewels
point 1) I don't understand. Why is natural selection necessary and how can you argue bitcoin was/is not subject to this kind of thing.
Point 2) is ridiculous. You're saying gold is better because it's shiny?!? The regression theorem has been talked about a lot in regards to bitcoin and I think it does apply to bitcoin and is misinterpreted by many. I'm looking forward to Peter Surdas (lonelyminers) just-finished paper on this and other subjects. I'm looking forward to discussing this on the forums.
1) There have been many tries at making e-money, none came close to the having the same kinda of dedicated FAN base, as bitcoin does.
2) Not sure what you mean, If you NEED bitcoin to buy something you can't get without bitcoin, would you consider that "natural demand" for bitcoin
Jump to: