[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
economics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 3223)
Message
File  []
close
Bitcoin_Large.jpg
322332233223
>> No. 3223 Anonymous
18th February 2013
Monday 7:58 pm
3223 Bitcoins
Have any of you bought Bitcoins or spoken to anybody that has?

The underlying principle of removing the role of the banking industry from transactions (or at least limiting its influence) seems noble but it stinks of a giant scam IMO.
Expand all images.
>> No. 3224 Anonymous
18th February 2013
Monday 8:19 pm
3224 spacer
>>1981
>> No. 3225 Anonymous
18th February 2013
Monday 8:55 pm
3225 spacer
>>1862
>> No. 3236 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 9:16 pm
3236 spacer
>>3223
I've never bought any, but I mined and sold some. Calling it a scam doesn't really make sense.
>> No. 3237 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 9:20 pm
3237 spacer
I've bought some and no one ran off with my money.
What sort of giant scam?
>> No. 3238 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 9:20 pm
3238 spacer
>>3223
>>1981
>> No. 3240 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 10:11 pm
3240 spacer
Some say that it resembles a Ponzi scheme. I don't think it is though.

Sage for valueless post.
>> No. 3241 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 10:16 pm
3241 spacer
It's absolutely ridiculous, you magic this 'currency' out of thin air and then use it to buy real goods and services. Can you imagine a financial system that could possibly succeed on that principle? Oh...wait...never mind.
>> No. 3242 Anonymous
5th March 2013
Tuesday 11:51 pm
3242 spacer
>>3241
Sigh.

All currencies had to be magic'd up at somepoint.
>> No. 3243 Anonymous
6th March 2013
Wednesday 2:33 pm
3243 spacer
>>3242
That being his point.
>> No. 3245 Anonymous
6th March 2013
Wednesday 3:22 pm
3245 spacer
I have £600 invested in bitcoin. The exchange rate appears to have hit exponential growth. I intend to sell when its value hits £1200, which will hopefully be before the crash which is likely to happen eventually, say if SR gets killed off.
>> No. 3246 Anonymous
6th March 2013
Wednesday 3:23 pm
3246 spacer
>>3245
It's increased in value by 60% in the last 11 days btw.
>> No. 3343 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:14 pm
3343 spacer
>>3246
And nearly a further 50% today alone. Bitcoin is now bigger than the M1 of around 30 countries.
>> No. 3344 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:15 pm
3344 spacer

Untitled.png
334433443344
>>3246
>>3342
What exchange are you looking at? Looks pretty flat to me.
>> No. 3347 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:17 pm
3347 spacer
>>3344
MtGox. Your graph isn't flat at all and shows the growth mentioned in >>3246. Today's increase is not yet reflected on that graph, for the price is close to $60.
>> No. 3348 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:21 pm
3348 spacer
>>3347
My mistake, I thought the volume plot was the price. I was just browsing /*/, serves me right for coming into topics I know nothing about.
>> No. 3349 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:27 pm
3349 spacer
>>3245 >>3246 >>3343

Oh, christ, those bitcoins I bought in January have close to quadrupled in value now.

And all I ever wanted to do was procure a few druggywugs. I think at this stage I may need to sell half of them off before the bottom crashes out.

My mind boggles.
>> No. 3350 Anonymous
19th March 2013
Tuesday 8:29 pm
3350 spacer

1359592345367.jpg
335033503350
My investment has gone up in value £120 today.
>> No. 3366 Anonymous
20th March 2013
Wednesday 6:17 pm
3366 spacer
Remember the bloke who spent 10k bitcoins on a pizza a couple of years ago?

Hahahahahahaha.
>> No. 3367 Anonymous
20th March 2013
Wednesday 6:33 pm
3367 spacer
>>3366
I saw a comment from him where he was putting on a brave face. "It was a really nice pizza, I regret nothing" or something.

Poor bastard. I'm still kicking myself for not picking up a bunch when I noticed it going back up after the big crash, when I was dipping my toe in mining. I did think seriously of investing £50-£100 which would've paid off tidily if I cashed out now.
>> No. 3375 Anonymous
23rd March 2013
Saturday 4:14 pm
3375 spacer
>Drugs are bought with ‘Bitcoins’, an untraceable digital currency. It is not regulated by any government or company but just by mathematical equations.

>The value is worked out by how many Bitcoins are in existence and how many are being traded. Another knock-on effect of sites such as Silk Road is that the value of a 'Bitcoin' have gone from being virtually worthless to trading at $70 - around £46 - each.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297958/Drug-dealers-ebay-selling-ecstasy-HEROIN-doubles-sales-1MILLION-month--police-powerless-ban-it.html

I still find it surreal when mainstream media comment on internet things.
>> No. 3376 Anonymous
24th March 2013
Sunday 10:31 pm
3376 spacer
I haven't bought any bitcoins before, but given that it now seems to be gaining traction on mainstream sites, it seems like I couldn't really go wrong buying a few hundred quid's worth as an investment.
Am I mistaken in thinking this? It doesn't look like it's going to disappear any time soon and since the total number of bitcoins is close to the max now, the price will rise in proportion to the number of users, right?
>> No. 3377 Anonymous
24th March 2013
Sunday 10:37 pm
3377 spacer
>>3376
That depends on how much money a few hundred quid is, to you.

Personally I think it's inflating too fast right now and buying is bad, selling should be done as soon as possible, before it bursts. I'm no expert at economics, but I've not seen anyone with more knowledge than myself advocate investing at this point in time.

That said, they are fluctuating a great deal these days, so even if they decrease in value soon; they'll not take too long to approximate the same value in time.
>> No. 3378 Anonymous
24th March 2013
Sunday 10:54 pm
3378 spacer
>>3376
Almost ฿11M of the total ฿21M have been mined. Bitcoin was getting a lot of attention when it surged to $30+ in 2011 but it subsequently slid steadily to $5. Investing in Bitcoin could certainly pay off handsomely, but no investment where you can double your money in such a short time can be considered safe.
>> No. 3379 Anonymous
24th March 2013
Sunday 11:09 pm
3379 spacer
>>3378
Oh my mistake, I thought we were a lot closer to 21M than that. I suppose I'll wait for another slide then before venturing in.
>> No. 3401 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 2:11 pm
3401 spacer
Some silly buggers have been trying to destabalise mt gox in order to affect panic selling so they can profit. The price continues to rise.

My £650 investment now stands at over £1800. Not sure when to sell.
I'll probably sell £650 so that I've got my original money back out and can rest easy knowing I haven't lost anything, then sit pretty a bit longer until the price increases some more.
>> No. 3402 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:05 pm
3402 spacer
>>3401
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22026961
https://mtgox.com/press_release_20130404.html

In these heady times it's easy to forget that the entire Bitcoin ecosystem still whiffs of amateur hour.
>> No. 3404 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:09 pm
3404 spacer
>>3402
I've never had more than £20 at a time in instawallet. I was evidently right to be skeptical wrt their security.
>> No. 3405 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:31 pm
3405 spacer
I just bought £500 on bitcoins.


Not that I want bitcoins, I'm buying litecoins.


Also it's fuckign hard to get hold of these currencies in GBP
>> No. 3406 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:35 pm
3406 spacer
>>3405
Who accepts litecoin and what is the point of it?
>> No. 3408 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:39 pm
3408 spacer
>>3406
Who accepts Bitcoin and what is the point of it?
>> No. 3409 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 7:45 pm
3409 spacer
>>3408
Silkroad accepts bitcoin.
Wordpress accepts bitcoin.
Many non profit organisations accept bitcoin donations.

I have yet to find a single service accepting litecoin. And I've been googling for ten minutes.
>> No. 3410 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 8:00 pm
3410 spacer
>>3409
I don't want to use them for shit. Most of the people involved in Bitcoins don't use them for shit.
>> No. 3411 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 8:43 pm
3411 spacer
>>3410
So you spent £500 on something you don't want to 'use for shit'?
>> No. 3412 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 8:44 pm
3412 spacer
>>3410
Also, I have never bought bitcoins without a specific purchase in mind.
>> No. 3413 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 8:49 pm
3413 spacer
>>3411
Yes, I want to trade them.
>> No. 3414 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 9:04 pm
3414 spacer
>>3413
For what? Pogs? Footie cards? Monster in my pocket?
>> No. 3415 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 9:07 pm
3415 spacer
>>3414
You know what I'm doing so I don't know why you bother with this
>> No. 3416 Anonymous
4th April 2013
Thursday 9:12 pm
3416 spacer
Personally I use them to buy drugs. I don't know what all this evasive bullshit is about.

But yeah. No point in litecoins until someone will except them for trade, and I can't find much evidence of that yet.
>> No. 3471 Anonymous
9th April 2013
Tuesday 10:34 am
3471 spacer
Volume seems to have grown a lot. Multibit takes longer to synch each day.
>> No. 3476 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 6:17 pm
3476 spacer

ohshit.png
347634763476
>>3223
I don't like the look of that.
>> No. 3477 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 6:44 pm
3477 spacer
>>3476
There's been a ton of media articles about the rise of bitcoin, I wonder if we'll get even more about the crash.
>> No. 3487 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 8:07 pm
3487 spacer
>>3477
>the crash
You mean 'the scam'.
>> No. 3488 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 8:07 pm
3488 spacer
>>3477
Weirdly someone I was talking to weeks ago said it would crash at $250.
I don't think this is the final crash tough.
>> No. 3489 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 8:09 pm
3489 spacer
>>3487
Does the fact that I've made money out of this mean that other people have lost money?
>> No. 3497 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 8:23 pm
3497 spacer
>>3489
Er, yes?
>> No. 3499 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 8:27 pm
3499 spacer
>>3488
What do you mean by 'final crash'?

I'd put money (in fact I have put money) on it rising beyond $300 within a month.
>> No. 3503 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 9:33 pm
3503 spacer
>>3499

Me too, it's backed by good solid old fashioned narcotics.
>> No. 3505 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 10:51 pm
3505 spacer
>>3489
You can't just magic up currency lad, so yes.

Even if you printed your own currency, everyone else would be losing money by their money not being worth as much (hence why counterfeiting is bad). But because it's spread over such a large amount of people, they aren;t going to notice unless it's done to a ridiculous amount. As opposed to say mugging someone of an equal amount.
>> No. 3506 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 11:33 pm
3506 spacer
>>3505
>You can't just magic up currency

you obviously don't know about fractional reserve banking.
>> No. 3507 Anonymous
10th April 2013
Wednesday 11:50 pm
3507 spacer
>>3503
Ah yes. I forgot that the growth is driven mainly by the growth of silkroad in the USA.

My big hope is that the LTC equivalent will take off soon, I've got most of my play money in that.
>> No. 3508 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 1:15 am
3508 spacer
>>3506
I'm no economist so no. Could you explain?

The way I understand is probably very simple, but I see 'currency' as meaning 'commodities and power' which are both limited. As opposed to simple paper money or numbers on a screen, which have no intrinsic value.
>> No. 3514 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 4:04 pm
3514 spacer
>>3477

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22105322
>> No. 3515 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 4:13 pm
3515 spacer
>>3514
I told myself I would sell at $200 but I left it, thinking it would head higher.
If I cashed out now I'd still make a healthy profit, but I'm inclined to 'wait and see'.
>> No. 3518 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 7:11 pm
3518 spacer

images.jpg
351835183518
>>3508

A currency is just a unit of exchange, used as an intermediary in trading. Currency emerged as a more efficient alternative to barter. Without currency, if I'm a sheep farmer and want some new shoes, I've got to find a cobbler who wants a shitload of mutton. With currency, I just need to find someone who wants mutton and the cobbler just needs to find someone who need shoes.

Precious metals have been used as currency for a long time, because they have intrinsic traits that make them a useful unit of exchange for primitive peoples. They're inherently scarce, durable and portable and can be proved to be authentic fairly easily. Coinage was a good way of providing a consistent and trusted weight of metal, in a quantity that was convenient to exchange. The ridges on the edge of a ten pence piece are a throwback to this - coins were originally ridged to prevent people from shaving off the edges of gold and silver coins for profit.

If there's no functioning currency, people will simply use whatever is suitable. When the German economy collapsed between the wars, people took to trading in cigarettes. Rolling tobacco used to be the currency of British prisons, but they switched over to phone cards when smoking became less popular. In many US prisons, they use pre-packaged snack cakes.

The first paper money were gold and silver certificates, written out by pawnbrokers. People found it convenient to store their metal with a pawnbroker and give someone the pawnbroker's slip. Eventually, government took over that role, guaranteeing bank notes against a store of silver. The pound sterling was once literally that - a pound weight of sterling silver.

Many governments realised that they could print more banknotes than they had metal to back it, which was of course highly profitable for the government. The problem with that is that as you print more money, the money in circulation falls in value due to simple supply and demand. If there's more money in circulation but the same amount of stuff to buy with it, the value of money will fall. We call this process "inflation" and it's why things always get more expensive over time.

Inflation is very useful to a government for several reasons. Governments are heavily indebted, but if the value of a pound falls, it's effectively cheaper to pay off your debts. Inflation also encourages people to spend money rather than hoard it, which is good for the economy. Too much inflation can be risky and discourage investment, so most governments aim for inflation of a few percent per year.

Eventually, governments abandoned their store of precious metals entirely, creating what we call a "fiat currency" - a currency with no direct material value that is backed purely by confidence in the government that prints it. Fiat currency is a win-win for all sorts of dismally nerdy reasons, but it comes with a big risk attached. A government has complete reign in manipulating that currency and a collapse in confidence in the government can lead to a collapse in the value of that currency. A common vicious cycle is that a government with severe debts prints more money to pay their debts, which reduces the value of their money, which means they need to print more of it. This is hyperinflation, which happened in Germany in 1923, Hungary in 1946, Zimbabwe in 2008 and many other places and times. This is extremely destructive, because people lose confidence in the value of money and spend it as soon as possible.

Bitcoin is currently experiencing the opposite, hyperdeflation. The value of bitcoin is increasing at an exponential rate, because supply is very limited but demand is increasing rapidly. The more Bitcoin increases in value, the more people who want to buy it, on the expectation that they'll make a big profit. The key problem is the opposite to that of hyperinflation - nobody with Bitcoins wants to spend them, because they expect them to increase in value.

The problem for Bitcoin is that a currency is only worth what people will exchange it for. Nearly all of the current value of a Bitcoin is the expectation that, in the future, lots of people will want to exchange things for them. As it stands, transactions where Bitcoins are exchanged for goods or services represent only a tiny fraction of all Bitcoin transactions. The sum value of all the goods in the Bitcoin economy and all of the non-Bitcoin currency held by Bitcoin bureaux de change is vastly less than the nominal value of all Bitcoin in circulation. The entire value of a Bitcoin is the expectation that Bitcoins will be valuable in future, which is an extremely fragile state of affairs.
>> No. 3522 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 7:48 pm
3522 spacer
>>3518
Good post.

Since you seem to know what you're talking about, I have a follow up question relating to your last point about its value being based on expectation. AFAIK, governments haven't yet decided how to deal with cryptocurrencies if they actually became widely used - is there a particular legislative move they could take that we should keep an eye out for that would render bitcoin effectively worthless?
>> No. 3524 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 8:02 pm
3524 spacer
>>3522
>AFAIK, governments haven't yet decided how to deal with cryptocurrencies

The septics are trying to regulate transactions involving Bitcoins and dollars.

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130325/03034522451/feds-take-step-closer-to-trying-to-regulate-bitcoin.shtml
>> No. 3527 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 8:41 pm
3527 spacer
>>3518
Not who you were responding to, but that was an excellent post. You get a gold star for /squiggles/'s Post Of The Week.
>> No. 3528 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 8:44 pm
3528 spacer
>>3524

What's to stop people changing their money to Euro or Pounds or Shekels instead and avoiding these regulations?
>> No. 3529 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 9:31 pm
3529 spacer
>>3522

They could easily outlaw various trading activities that make cryptocurrencies practical, which would severely undermine the value of any cryptocurrency. The clear example would be the UIGEA, which stopped internet poker companies from doing business with US customers by banning US banks from doing business with foreign gambling companies.

Bitcoin only has any real value today because it is freely convertible back into "real" currency. The drug dealers on Silk Road are reliant on being able to convert BTC to cash to buy more stock; Their customers are reliant upon being able to convert their cash into BTC. The speculators buying BTC as an investment have no real intention of spending them, but invariably expect to cash them out for their own national currency. Bitcoin therefore doesn't currently function as a fully-fledged currency, but a sort of financial derivative. For the moment at least, Bitcoins are essentially useless without a means of converting them to proper currency.

It would be very easy for a government to make the argument that due to the risk of fraud or money-laundering, banks will be banned from doing business with Bitcoin bureaux de change. It would only take a Daily Mail headline about "SECRET ECONOMY FOR JUNKIES AND PAEDOPHILES" for that policy to become a major vote-winner. Bitcoin advocates argue that that's not a problem because Bitcoin will develop a fully-fledged economy, but that's a total sham. A vicious cycle would rapidly develop, because Bitcoin is and will continue to be an inferior currency - you can't pay your gas bill or your council tax in Bitcoins if you can't convert them to Sterling. Given the choice, nearly everyone would prefer to be paid USD or GBP than in BTC, because BTC is obviously an inferior currency under such conditions. The only current non-convertible currencies are the Cuban Peso and the North Korean Won, which should give you an idea.

It's a really interesting project and I think there are some fantastic ideas at the heart of it, but I think it has been over-egged by people who don't understand economics and lack a clear sense of what a currency is and what gives it value. I think that BTC is vastly overvalued due to a speculative bubble and should be somewhere around $15, based on the level of real spending. I think the market-makers know this to be the case, because I've tried to bet against the value of Bitcoin and nobody will take my money. None of the "exchanges" will let me naked short or take a put option, which to me speaks volumes.
>> No. 3532 Anonymous
11th April 2013
Thursday 9:57 pm
3532 spacer
>>3528
Which "real currency" you exchange virtual currency for doesn't matter.
>> No. 3538 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 3:34 pm
3538 spacer
Many 'real' currencies only have value because they can be exchanged for USD, this isn't something special to cryptocurrencies.
>> No. 3539 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 3:59 pm
3539 spacer
>>3538

Yes, but they also have the advantage that they can be used for all goods and services within a local area, which is something BTC does not have. To the average man on the street, it doesn't matter that the Egyptian Pound only really has value on the macro level because of its potential exchange with the USD, because he's using it to pay his bills and buy his groceries etc.
>> No. 3540 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 4:00 pm
3540 spacer
>>3518

I''ve only got to paragaph four, but this is nonsence. No offense meant, don't take this as a flame. Thi is textbook Economic Science. Unforyunatley, as with the vast majority of ES, it has no basis in fact, history, of the development of currencies.

I'll keep this brief, and offer a good primer afterwards.

1st para: I need to find a cobbler who wants a sheep. No. You need a cobbler who *at some point* will need a sheep. For the vast majority of the time cobblers have existed, you would know that cobbler personally, as you would live in the same tribe, village, or street. You drink in the same pub, if they existed. You get a pair of shoes, then when he needs mutton he pops over to pick it up. This fallacy is the perfect example of how ES fails to understand social and societal roles in the exchange of value.

2nd para: Not wuite. While silver was used as a means of local currency in the Roman times, this was because it was easily hammered into flat strips that could be torn up. Coinage only existed for governments and traders. No normal person would ever have seen a coin for thouands of years - they had other means of exchanging value.

I don't want to fully engage with this, as I've only just woken up. Anyone who is interested in this subject would to well begging, borrowing, stealing or torrenting "Life Inc." by Douglas Rushkoff. It's neither left wing (Marxist) or right wing (ES). Easy to read, well researched and written book,
by one of the smartest people I have ever come accross. The first third of this book is all about the emergence of national currency, and the history of exchange/currency itself. Possibly the best non-fiction read I can recommend anyone.

Right, now, if anyone needs a hangover this year get in touch, and I will happily give you mine in exchange for a full English...
>> No. 3541 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 5:41 pm
3541 spacer

jimmyhill.jpg
354135413541
>>3540
>> No. 3542 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 6:32 pm
3542 spacer
>>3529
That post was really interesting, thanks. >>3518 was also interesting (and I'd assume yours), despite >>3540's still-drunk and mostly incoherent critique.

I remember reading at the depth of the big Bitcoin crash of 2011 that the estimated cost of each bitcoin for the miner was about $2 in terms of hardware + electricity over the lifetime of said hardware, which was approximately equivalent to its market value at the time. Might have been $5 or something, I'm not sure and it's not that important. Anyway, if that's the case then surely as long as the trading value of each Bitcoin is above that value then the smarter move would be to engage in mining? Why would anyone who is interested in speculating in Bitcoin pay directly for them (at $200 a pop) when they could invest in hardware with the same money? Obviously it'll take longer to see ROI but if you're investing then you should have an eye for the longer game, no?

How long does it take a reasonably high-end GPU to mine a bitcoin now, anyone know?

(My spellchecker suggested "bitchiness" instead of "bitcoin". I have no joke but it seemed funny anyway.)
>> No. 3543 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:07 pm
3543 spacer
>>3542

If I was inchorent, I apologise, please let me know where, and I´ll elaborate.
>> No. 3545 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:11 pm
3545 spacer
>>3543
Genuine question: When do you anticipate you'll begin using a fully functioning keyboard?
>> No. 3546 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:11 pm
3546 spacer
>>3544

Monday I hope. But good to know that someone remmebers me.
>> No. 3547 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:25 pm
3547 spacer
>>3543

Bring along the book in a couple of weeks mate. I'd quite like to have a look at it, especially what with the course I'm doing.
>> No. 3548 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:29 pm
3548 spacer
>>3547

>
Bring along the book in a couple of weeks mate.

What? Evidently I have missed something.
>> No. 3549 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:30 pm
3549 spacer
>>3548

If you're who I think you are with your dodgy keyboard, we should be going for a drink in a couple of weeks.

NYE, remember.
>> No. 3550 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 7:53 pm
3550 spacer
>>3549

Ah. Need to drop you an email. Thanks for the reminder.

My annotated copy is with a mate, I do not know if I will get it before we drink.

Dig it out from the library though, if your library does not have it I would be having a serious word with one of the librarians.
>> No. 3551 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 8:12 pm
3551 spacer

chart.png
355135513551
>>3542

GPU mining is nearly dead and the serious miners have already sold off their GPU rigs. By design, the difficulty of bitcoin mining increases exponentially over time. The new game in town is using FPGA and ASIC chips, which are custom-designed processors that do nothing but bitcoin hashing. By dint of specialisation, these chips are vastly quicker than GPUs and much more power-efficient, but they're also expensive and are useless for anything but hashing. The risk in buying one of these machines is that mining will only be profitable for a relatively short period - it won't take long for the difficulty to exceed the cost of electricity. Once that happens, you're left with a useless lump of hardware. The biggest issue is the incredible volatility in pricing, which makes it very difficult to predict your ROI. We're now down from $266/BTC to $92/BTC in under a week, so future pricing is really just guesswork.
>> No. 3552 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 8:17 pm
3552 spacer
>>3551

No, lad, the difficulty of mining does not increase over time. The level of difficulty is dynamic. This is how they are able to keep the output of bitcoins at a constant predictable rate.

When the ASIC miners all come online (if they EVER do lol) the difficulty will shoot up a great deal.

Conversely, if a whole load of people decided to drop out of the network, difficulty would drop significantly also.

Think of it like this:

>More processing power = Higher difficulty
>Less processing power = Lower difficulty

Does that help?
>> No. 3553 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 8:26 pm
3553 spacer
>>3550

It's got 3, but they're all in the deep stack so they don't lend them out. I'll order one of them up when I've actually got some time to kill.
>> No. 3554 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 8:29 pm
3554 spacer
>>3552
>More processing power = Higher difficulty
>Less processing power = Lower difficulty
Hence, difficulty increases over time.
>> No. 3555 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 8:32 pm
3555 spacer
>>3554
No. It can and probably will, but you are wrong and he is right.
>> No. 3558 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:10 pm
3558 spacer

gordon-moore.jpg
355835583558
>>3555
If by "no" you mean "yes" and "probably" you mean "almost certainly", then yes, you're right. Otherwise I'm just going to point and laugh at you.
>> No. 3561 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:22 pm
3561 spacer

bitcoin.png
356135613561
>>3558
I can't speak to your experience of time, but I've never encountered it passing backwards.
>> No. 3563 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:26 pm
3563 spacer
>>3561
Well what do you know? The difficulty has indeed increased with time.
>> No. 3566 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:31 pm
3566 spacer
>>3564
You might as well say the price increases over time (the two are of course loosely related). I doubt that'll be much comfort to the people who just lost half their investment.
>> No. 3570 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:38 pm
3570 spacer
>>3566
>You might as well say the price increases over time
You might as well say that. However, unlike claiming that the difficulty rises over time, you're likely to be wrong.
>> No. 3572 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:44 pm
3572 spacer

chart_large_lin[1].png
357235723572
Nothing further to add, stubbornlad.
>> No. 3573 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:46 pm
3573 spacer
>>3552

The ASIC miners are already online and hashing. BFL miners may be vapourware, but Avalon have already shipped their first batch of 65Gh/s miners and are due to ship another 600 tomorrow. A top of the range GPU does somewhere around 0.8Gh/s.
>> No. 3574 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:49 pm
3574 spacer
>>3572
Congratulations, you've superimposed two unrelated lines on a chart, and demonstrated that they're unrelated. Would you like a gold star in your exercise book?
>> No. 3575 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 9:59 pm
3575 spacer
>>3574
Right, because if Bitcoins were worth $5 tomorrow, nobody would stop mining, everyone would happily continue at a loss and there'd be no cause for difficulty to fall as consequence. This certainly didn't happen between Sep-Dec '11 when many felt the price would never recover.

It feels like you're telling me the sky is green.
>> No. 3576 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 10:07 pm
3576 spacer
>>3575
Red isn't a good colour on a herring, lad.
>> No. 3577 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 10:08 pm
3577 spacer
>>3575>>3576

Who are you two and why are you so mardy?
>> No. 3578 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 10:28 pm
3578 spacer
>>3575>>3576

This to me looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>> No. 3579 Anonymous
15th April 2013
Monday 10:29 pm
3579 spacer
>>3578

Agreed. Stop being so yellow-bellied and address eachother directly.
>> No. 3586 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 10:32 am
3586 spacer
I'm scared.
>> No. 3587 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 10:54 am
3587 spacer
>>3554

Maybe, but that would be by coincidence and not by design. Difficulty will only increase if more processing power is added to the mining effort. It could quite possible happen that a lot of people leave if bitcoin collapses or some other catastrophe.

So therefore, difficulty does increase, but not by design.

What is in the design is for difficulty to increase with processing power so that the output of coins remains a constant.
>> No. 3588 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 10:58 am
3588 spacer
Difficulty COULD DECREASE with time too, it's not a one way only thing...

There that sums it up better...
>> No. 3589 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 11:41 am
3589 spacer
>>3588
Right hang on. In 2017 the number of Bitocoins generated per block chain will halve and then keep halving over the following years until 21mil is reached. With the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about, doesn't that mean that by design it will get harder to mine coins as time goes on?
>> No. 3590 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 11:43 am
3590 spacer
>>3589
Yes.
Though really it's taking into account that computer processing power (the ability to form coins) gets considerably better.
>> No. 3591 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 12:12 pm
3591 spacer
>>3589

Well not quite. Difficulty only goes up in relation to the processing power being used in the network. It does not relate to the amount of coins being produced.

By the way that you say coins will be harder to mine, because the amount in a block will be halved, you COULD say that, yes, it will get harder to mine coins in that sense, but not NECESSARILY difficulty wise.

And >>3590

Even though processing power may indeed get better with time due to Moore's law etc, this does not relate to the amount of processing power that MAY be available in the Bitcoin network.

I'm trying to think of a simple way of putting it.

Say you are in a maths class and the teacher gives out 10 gold stars every day, and you have 10 students working on the problem, this will be fine at the difficulty level of the problem the teacher has set.

Now, once the students get the hang of performing the teachers sums, he will increase the difficulty of the sums so that they are still only solving 10 a day. Conversely, if they are finding it too hard and not able to answer the 10 a day he would decrease the level of difficulty of the sums to such a level that the students are still getting 10 a day correct.

I hope that analogy helps...
>> No. 3592 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 5:12 pm
3592 spacer
>>3591

That is 1 of the best explanations Ive read.
>> No. 3595 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 6:24 pm
3595 spacer
$76 and falling...
>> No. 3597 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 6:59 pm
3597 spacer
>>3595
I'm itching to buy but I keep thinking if I do they will just drop even further.
>> No. 3598 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 7:49 pm
3598 spacer
>>3597

It's still falling - the last trade on MtGox was at $72.4 and the order book is suggesting $69. There are a couple of big bid orders at $60 and $50, so I expect the price to go no lower than that in the short-term, but to be honest anything could happen.
>> No. 3599 Anonymous
16th April 2013
Tuesday 7:58 pm
3599 spacer

chart.png
359935993599
>>3598

The people who bought at $200+ must be feeling pretty sore today.
>> No. 3603 Anonymous
18th April 2013
Thursday 7:16 pm
3603 spacer
What's the best way to buy?
>> No. 3604 Anonymous
18th April 2013
Thursday 7:24 pm
3604 spacer
>>3603

Mtgox.

Or just throw all your money in a big bin.
>> No. 3605 Anonymous
18th April 2013
Thursday 7:27 pm
3605 spacer
>>3604

>Or just throw all your money in a big bin.

This has been my preferred method of investing disposable income for years. Good to see I'm not the only one. I choose the bin outsde my local Tesco's. What about you?
>> No. 3607 Anonymous
19th April 2013
Friday 7:47 am
3607 spacer
It's up to $126 again.
>> No. 3608 Anonymous
21st April 2013
Sunday 3:02 pm
3608 spacer
Finally decided to cash out.
Made a profit of $1625, but would have made twice as much if I had sold at the peak.
>> No. 3609 Anonymous
21st April 2013
Sunday 3:07 pm
3609 spacer
>>3608

How did you sell them?
>> No. 3610 Anonymous
21st April 2013
Sunday 8:53 pm
3610 spacer
>>3609
Mt Gox
The money is sitting in my account atm, will get it out via euro bank transfer.
>> No. 3611 Anonymous
24th April 2013
Wednesday 3:23 pm
3611 spacer
www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/18/bitfloor-closes
>> No. 3612 Anonymous
24th April 2013
Wednesday 3:36 pm
3612 spacer
got greedy and lost a bit on a supposed NVC pump. Never mind. I'm down about 10% overall which I don't think is too bad considering I started trading a few days before btc price dropped 66%.
>> No. 3613 Anonymous
27th April 2013
Saturday 10:22 pm
3613 spacer
In the last month the price of bit coins has vaired from $180 to $40. Quite frankly I don't know how that kind of boom bust can possibly support an economy black market or otherwise (I certainly wouldn't want to price a product in a currency that unstable one day your ounce of weed sells for $60 5 days later it sells for $12), if you are using bitcoins for anything other then short term speculation (i.e gambling) I am convinced you are an idiot.
>> No. 3614 Anonymous
27th April 2013
Saturday 10:24 pm
3614 spacer
>>3613

How much did it cost to grow that ounce? Less than 12 bucks, I wager. For a secure transaction with little risk of arrest? I'd be bang on it mate.
>> No. 3615 Anonymous
27th April 2013
Saturday 11:38 pm
3615 spacer
>>3613
Drug prices are pegged to the USD to precisely reduce that kind of problem.
As long as the sellers are cashing out regularly they don't have a problem.
>> No. 3616 Anonymous
28th April 2013
Sunday 9:32 am
3616 spacer
Lads, I don't have the hardware to do mining but I want some litecoins. How do I go about buying some? Ideally without having to convert my beautiful British pounds into Euros or dollars.
>> No. 3617 Anonymous
28th April 2013
Sunday 10:05 am
3617 spacer
>>3615

thanks for clearing that up for me.
>> No. 3618 Anonymous
28th April 2013
Sunday 10:27 am
3618 spacer
>>3616
>Lads, I don't have the hardware to do mining but I want some litecoins
I thought the whole point of Litecoins was that they could be mined with regular consumer hardware.
>> No. 3619 Anonymous
28th April 2013
Sunday 11:03 am
3619 spacer
>>3618
Yeah all you need is a decent ATI graphics card. I don't play games so I don't have a decent graphics card and I may as well buy coins directly rather than buying an expensive graphics card (and new PSU).
>> No. 3620 Anonymous
28th April 2013
Sunday 11:39 am
3620 spacer
>>3616
btc-e sells them, it says the best method somewhere in the litecoin thread
>> No. 3621 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 2:13 am
3621 spacer
The Department of Homeland Security just froze Mt. Gox's Dwolla account. It'll be interesting to see how far they take this.

http://mashable.com/2013/05/14/dwolla-homeland-security/
>> No. 3623 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 3:32 am
3623 spacer
>>3621
SELL SELL SELL
>> No. 3624 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 5:18 pm
3624 spacer
Have I missed my window to buy a fuckload of amphetamines with cybermoney?
>> No. 3625 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 8:31 pm
3625 spacer
>>3624
No, they'll just work out a lot more expensive now though.
>> No. 3626 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 9:28 pm
3626 spacer
>>3621
I bet the fucker behind that decision first sold all his coins, and is planning on buying more for cheap after he crashes the market a little.
>> No. 3627 Anonymous
15th May 2013
Wednesday 11:48 pm
3627 spacer
Mt. Gox apparently failed to register as a money transmitting business. That this exchange is still the market leader after all the mistakes it has made is something to behold.
>> No. 3630 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 8:57 pm
3630 spacer
>>3627

It does show how huge the demand must be that as rough around the edges as it is, it is still going. The time for an alternative and electronic currency is here.
>> No. 3633 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 10:21 pm
3633 spacer
>>3630

Well yeah, of course there's going to be huge demand for mail-order drugs.
>> No. 3637 Anonymous
21st May 2013
Tuesday 12:01 am
3637 spacer
>>3633

Perhaps. Even an illegal demand is still a real demand. As many have found to their misfortune and discomfort in a prohibition era.
>> No. 3638 Anonymous
21st May 2013
Tuesday 2:51 am
3638 spacer
>>3637

The demand is for an anonymous means of sending payments online, not an alternative currency. There are myriad ways of achieving the former, without the obvious risks of the latter.
>> No. 3643 Anonymous
24th May 2013
Friday 7:18 pm
3643 spacer
>>3638
Since other currencies are subject to strict control, one follows the other - but I would like to hear more about these many alternative ways if I am missing something obvious.
>> No. 3644 Anonymous
24th May 2013
Friday 8:49 pm
3644 spacer
>>3643

Have you heard of Google?
>> No. 3647 Anonymous
29th May 2013
Wednesday 6:53 pm
3647 spacer
What's actually wrong with using alternate currency? If I made a self sufficient settlement and everyone in it bought and sold within the settlement with a currency seperate from the pound, would they stop us and make us use the pound?
>> No. 3648 Anonymous
29th May 2013
Wednesday 6:59 pm
3648 spacer
>>3647
And how would "they" do that?
>> No. 3649 Anonymous
30th May 2013
Thursday 2:29 am
3649 spacer
>>3648

By "they", I mean the police under orders from Parliament, and quite easily. They could just confiscate the funds like the Americans did with Bitcoin.
>> No. 3651 Anonymous
30th May 2013
Thursday 4:23 am
3651 spacer
>>3649

A quick google reveals that the US government seized the bank account holding central bank money that was being used as an exchange between bitcoins and dollars. The bitcoins were not seized; as I understand it, that's impossible.

I doubt the British police would storm in and steal, for example, everyone's Brixton pounds. Or ban gift certificates. What the government will do is demand taxes; taxes will be demanded in pounds, and if payment is not paid in pounds, the government may seize assets instead, or imprison the person expected to pay.
>> No. 3652 Anonymous
30th May 2013
Thursday 10:08 am
3652 spacer
>>3651
>The bitcoins were not seized; as I understand it, that's impossible.
Certainly not impossible.
>> No. 3656 Anonymous
31st May 2013
Friday 1:12 pm
3656 spacer
>>3223
>buttcoins
bugger that
>> No. 3903 Anonymous
31st October 2013
Thursday 7:58 pm
3903 spacer
There was a post on .gs a while ago explaining to newcomers the best method for getting bitcoins but I can't find it now. Anyone care to write a quick guide?
>> No. 3904 Anonymous
31st October 2013
Thursday 8:26 pm
3904 spacer
>>3903
I think the Barclays Ping method is the least traceable, after a fashion. I hear Blockchain can do the bulk of the buying and wallet sorting for you. Never leave it hanging around one place too long (move it instantly, really), or get a local wallet.
>> No. 3905 Anonymous
31st October 2013
Thursday 8:28 pm
3905 spacer
In the news recently there was a Scandinavian chap who bought a 400,000 odd pound flat with bitcoins that cost him less than a twenty note years ago. Not bad.
>> No. 3906 Anonymous
31st October 2013
Thursday 8:51 pm
3906 spacer
>>3905
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/29/bitcoin-forgotten-currency-norway-oslo-home
>> No. 3907 Anonymous
31st October 2013
Thursday 9:09 pm
3907 spacer
>>3904
Thanks but I was hoping for rather more detail than that. I've been searching for a couple of hours now and can't find a solid how-to guide. How do I get a local wallet, and how do I get money into it?
>> No. 3910 Anonymous
1st November 2013
Friday 10:57 am
3910 spacer
>>3904
I've had about.five hundred.quid sitting on btce for about a year now. Not safe at all, but it's still there.
>> No. 3911 Anonymous
1st November 2013
Friday 11:47 am
3911 spacer
Best method is described here >>3436
>> No. 3913 Anonymous
1st November 2013
Friday 6:42 pm
3913 spacer
>>3911
That's the post I was looking for, cheers.
>> No. 3938 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 10:11 am
3938 spacer
> one bitcoin is now $293

So when's the crash?
>> No. 3939 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 11:06 am
3939 spacer
>>3938
I sold at. 195, perfectly happy with it even though I could be $800 richer now, it could've gone to $0.10 for all I knew. Satisfied.

Waiting for it to all come tumbling down before I get back in. It's a relief to have it in nice stable USD for a while though, rather than btc for a while, which I've had since April.
>> No. 3940 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 4:45 pm
3940 spacer
>>3938
Within the next week I would guess, the gradient resembles the ridiculousness the preceded the last crash.

I just hope it's not this weekend, I won't be around to cash in.
>> No. 3941 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 4:57 pm
3941 spacer
>>3938
I remember looking seriously into buying bitcoins back when the first big crash occurred and they were down to $2 a pop. It was late 2011, and I had £100 ready to go, just as a flutter. I may even have literally tossed a coin, that's what I usually do when I'm in really two minds about something. That wallet would now be worth £15k.

Hmph.
>> No. 3942 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 5:03 pm
3942 spacer
>>3941

Please read >>3939.

You didn't buy because you didn't think anything would come of it. You made a sensible decision, no point in being disappointed about it.
>> No. 3943 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 5:16 pm
3943 spacer
>>3942
The point at which I thought "ok, I'd sell them now" was earlier this year when the first spike to $200 hit, so yeah. C'est la vie.
>> No. 3944 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 7:51 pm
3944 spacer
>>3941
>had £100 ready to go, just as a flutter
That's exactly the view I'm taking, but I couldn't figure out how I'm actually supposed to buy and store them. I'm going to give it another shot this weekend.
>> No. 4004 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 9:05 am
4004 spacer
Up to $450 now. This is getting silly.
>> No. 4005 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 10:18 am
4005 spacer
>>4004

I sold at 420, but I still have half a coin left, that is about £150 though so I might sell it before the impending crash to 200, then buy back in for the inevitable correction to around 300-350.

I day-traded the currency for 18 months and I have made tens of thousands it is the most predictable bubble currency ever, be aware once the price drops below a certain level the miners won't be making a profit and they will move onto Litecoin initially (and others to follow).

Litecoin has been struggling to remain around 1% of bitcoins value (per coin, not total market share).

But has been floating over 0.01 recently, my prediction is that litecoin will each 0.015 - 0.02 once bitcoin has crashed and corrected, and steadily increasing.

Mtgox is rumored to to be adding litecoin 'very' soon, but be aware that when bitcoin hits $200, a litecoin if it remains at 1% of bitcoins value will hit $2.

This can change though, and all markets are heavily manipulated by whales, bears and neck-beards.
>> No. 4006 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 11:31 am
4006 spacer

1384521966001.png
400640064006
>>4005

>I sold at 420

n1m8
>> No. 4007 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 11:49 am
4007 spacer
>>4005

>Litecoin has been struggling to remain around 1% of bitcoins value
Heh, quite amusing when increasing your value by 50% or so is considered struggling.

>Mtgox is rumored to to be adding litecoin 'very' soon
This was a rumour when I first bought into LTC about 8 months ago. More interestingly I've heard that BTChina may be picking it up too.

I've got 300 LTC ready and waiting.
>> No. 4008 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 11:51 am
4008 spacer
>>4007
How hard is it to mine, can I do it with an Nvidia card on Linux etc, and how long did it take you to get 300?
>> No. 4009 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 11:56 am
4009 spacer

LTC.png
400940094009
>>4008
I didn't mine them, I bought them. I did mine them for a while, back when I lived with seven other people, so didn't have to pay most of the bill...

Anyway, I don't remember how long I mined for, it wasn't very long but it was a slow process overall so I gave up, it was more hassle than it was worth to be honest, especially considering I could've killed my GPU.

If memory serves, Nvidia cards aren't that good for mining anyway, I had a Radeon 6870.
>> No. 4010 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 12:15 pm
4010 spacer
Here's something you might want to consider.

Because arbitrage is so hard between MTgox and the rest of the bitcoin world, you can make 11% return in a month with no worries about hte price of bitcoin. The only thing you'll have to worry about is whether or not you get anythign back at all...

1. Deposit money on BTC-E
2. Buy Bitcoins (current price $427)
3. Transfer bitcoins to MTgox
4. Sell bitcoins instantly (Current price $470)
5. Withdraw USD

Now, because it takes so long to get money out of BTC, you'll be waiting a month plus, but considering interest rates are so low, that's 11% in a month with no concerns about variance in the price of Bitcoins, since it's more or less instant in-out from USD to BTC to USD again. The risk here comes from whether or not you actually get that USD out of GOX or not...
>> No. 4011 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 6:01 pm
4011 spacer
>>4009
Damn, I was hoping you were still mining. I've been trying to set up litecoin mining for fucking hours, on either Linux or Windows, and nothing is bloody working.
>> No. 4012 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 6:05 pm
4012 spacer
>>4011
Curiously enough I also tried setting up Litecoin mining earlier but gave up pretty quickly after I couldn't find a mining program that didn't trip my AV suite. I am out of depth on this stuff so it's probably for the best, and anyway I did a quick calculation based on someone else's Litecoin mining which indicated that I'd make fuck all money even if my (halfway decent) GPU ran for months.
>> No. 4013 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 6:26 pm
4013 spacer
>>4012
They said that about bitcoin a couple of years ago, then the value shot up.
>> No. 4014 Anonymous
16th November 2013
Saturday 6:59 pm
4014 spacer
>>4011
It's a bitch, took me hours. Once I got it started it was fine.
>> No. 4015 Anonymous
17th November 2013
Sunday 9:41 am
4015 spacer
>>4014
How much have you made, and with what hardware? How long have you been mining?
>> No. 4017 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 4:50 pm
4017 spacer
http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/as-bitcoin-prices-surge-past-600-a-new-high-u-s-agencies-set-to-argue-in-favor/
A high of $649 on MtGox. Fucking nuts.

Reminds me of this guy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0
They'd be worth $6m or so today.
>> No. 4018 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 5:10 pm
4018 spacer
Is it too late for me to get in the game? I had a teary last night for not taking advantage.
>> No. 4019 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 5:28 pm
4019 spacer
The intrinsic worth of a bitcoin is around a few dollars; this is very roughly what they cost to produce. The current situation is that lots of people are buying and hoarding them, driving up demand. The danger is that someone out there who's holding a large number of bitcoins is going to try and cash out at some point, thus triggering a massive crash.

If you have not done so, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
>> No. 4022 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 5:37 pm
4022 spacer
>>4019
It's almost as if it were a fledgling currency.
>> No. 4023 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 5:55 pm
4023 spacer
>>4022

Almost.
>> No. 4035 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 10:17 pm
4035 spacer
>>4034
If you press the Anonymous button then you can delete posts.
>> No. 4038 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 10:49 am
4038 spacer
well now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24986264

I am facepalming so hard I didn't buy them at $30 a go 2 years back :|
>> No. 4039 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 10:51 am
4039 spacer
>>4038
I'm not sure if it's your pointless, mass-swill hindsight, the irregular punctuation in your post or the emoticon at the end, but today you have jumped right to the top of my "I fucking hate you" list.

I am so glad I came off my meds because now I can feel burning disdain for people like you again. Today is going to be good.
>> No. 4040 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 11:05 am
4040 spacer
>>4038

Even more gutting for me is the fact that I mined almost 1600 coins back when bitcoin wasn't even heard of and simply deleted them from my computer.
>> No. 4041 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 11:15 am
4041 spacer
>>4040

You'd be a dollar millionaire by now. I've got a lovely bit of rope in the shed, if you want it.
>> No. 4042 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 11:38 am
4042 spacer
>>4041

Yes I feel like a right cunt, but at the time I never thought it would even end up being worth a quid a coin let alone the mental price it has reached now.

One consolation though is I did mine some more afterwards, so I have got 12 and a bit left of those that I did not spend on SR. I will be keeping these until the bitter end as I really do think that we will see BTC reach heights that we cannot imagine, even to the point of them being worth $1,000,000 each or maybe even more.
>> No. 4043 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 11:44 am
4043 spacer
>>4042
12 right now is still a fucking good nest egg. Well done, sir.
>> No. 4044 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 11:49 am
4044 spacer
>>4043

I am hoping that it will be with the value rising fast. Even if there is a correction in the price there is going to be a good few more rises in price as the long term trend is definitely upward.
>> No. 4045 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 6:34 pm
4045 spacer

Capture.jpg
404540454045
Oh my fucking god...
>> No. 4046 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 6:36 pm
4046 spacer
>>4045

Hubble bubble, toil and trouble...
>> No. 4047 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 6:57 pm
4047 spacer
>>4045
A high of 900 fucking dollars.

>I really do think that we will see BTC reach heights that we cannot imagine, even to the point of them being worth $1,000,000 each or maybe even more.
If you multiply 1,000,000 by the number of bitcoins in existence (12,000,000) you get a pretty big number. I don't see that kind of value.

More to the point, I don't know why people are spending $900 on a bitcoin when for that kind of money you can probably buy some pretty substantial mining hardware and make them yourself. It is very weird and makes me wonder if I just don't understand something.
>> No. 4048 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 7:33 pm
4048 spacer
>>4047

You could either get mining hardware or invest in something else, maybe gold or other stable or staples that are sure to be in demand. With something like this it's okay to take a long shot gamble but pull the money out and use it elsewhere if you get lucky...
>> No. 4051 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 8:44 pm
4051 spacer
>>4048
Obviously you could buy a bitcoin at $900 as a long shot but anyone doing that isn't going to be thinking about gold as an alternative. Similarly, anyone thinking about mining equipment is looking at the longer term and not about "getting lucky". And yes, I am an insufferable pedant.
>> No. 4053 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 1:01 pm
4053 spacer

itz.png
405340534053

>> No. 4054 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 1:13 pm
4054 spacer

benis.png
405440544054
>>4047
Any mining hardware you buy now will be out of date in a matter of weeks.

>>4047
If bitcoin goes mainstream mainstream then there's a long way left to go...
>> No. 4055 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 3:41 pm
4055 spacer
>>4054
What's happening over the next few weeks?
>> No. 4056 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 3:46 pm
4056 spacer
>>4055
http://www.butterflylabs.com/
>> No. 4057 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 4:24 pm
4057 spacer
Trying to jump on this now is a waste of time. It's like the people who ignored me and others when we were buying gold when it was down at $300. If you miss a boat then don't try to leap on after it has raised anchor. You'll most likely only drown with the other losers. When you see something going mainstream and joe nobodys are talking about it at lunch, it's time to look for the next thing.
>> No. 4058 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 4:45 pm
4058 spacer
>>4057
Joe Nobodys aren't talking about it at lunch though. I doubt most people have ever heard of it yet.
>> No. 4059 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 4:47 pm
4059 spacer
>>4058

So, you don't read newspapers then?
>> No. 4060 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 5:01 pm
4060 spacer
>>4059
Joe Nobody certainly doesn't.
>> No. 4061 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 7:44 pm
4061 spacer
>>4057
That's only true if you assume its only value is as a speculative investment. It's not currently being used for a whole lot of real transactions. If/when it is more widely used, there's every reason to believe its value will be much higher than it is now.
>> No. 4062 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 8:55 pm
4062 spacer
I don't think we realised just what a boon an untraceable currency would be to the criminal underworld. CryptoLocker is terrifying.
>> No. 4063 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 9:22 pm
4063 spacer
>>4059>>4060
Silk Road was mentioned in a sub-heading on the front page of the Metro just the other day.
>> No. 4064 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 9:57 pm
4064 spacer
>>4063

And if someone is so low on the scale they can't manage to read the Metro they don't even get considered.

>>4062

That is nasty stuff. Course, the simple solution would be to carve up the people behind it like a Christmas turkey. Let that happen a few times and people start to think twice about imitating it. As it is they get free reign to cause misery.
>> No. 4065 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 10:00 pm
4065 spacer
>>4064
"Oi mate, 'ave you 'eard? These kids are buying drugs off the internet. All the more reason they should ban porn. These filthy paedo twats."
>> No. 4066 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 10:19 pm
4066 spacer
>>4062

Forget about the criminal underworld, the real problem is tax avoidance/evasion. Implemented properly (and multinational corporations certainly have the expertise to do so), Bitcoin is a near-perfect tool for transferring wealth in a manner that is invisible to the tax authorities. With appropriate use of mixers, bitcoin transactions are as anonymous as cash in hand. A bit of dodgy dealing is nothing compared to the potential loss of trillions of pounds in tax revenue to governments all over the world.

>>4064

Good luck trying. Ross Ulbricht was busted only because he was cocky, careless and utterly inexperienced in running either a major web service or a criminal conspiracy. The next wave of imitators will learn from his experience and then some. The Snowden papers clearly show that the NSA/GCHQ have no practical means of attacking Tor, confirming the cryptographic theory. The core security model of Tor is mathematically unbreakable, just as certainly as 2+2=4. The next Silk Road won't go down easily - in all likelihood it will be run by the Russian mafia, who can operate without fear of extradition. Like it or not, anonymous marketplaces are here to stay. All we can do as a society is work out how to live with them, because we have no means of stopping them.
>> No. 4067 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 10:35 pm
4067 spacer
>>4066
Do you not think 'quantum computing' and so forth pose a threat to those who rely on present computing techniques to guarantee their anonymity?

I basically know nothing, I just learned about these terms from Horizon and Click.
>> No. 4068 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 10:42 pm
4068 spacer
>>4061
Bitcoin transactions are fundamentally one-way. Why would anyone use bitcoin for regular purchases, when there are plenty of established alternatives which are much safer and much less hassle for the regular consumer? It seems like a solution looking for a problem.

I'm surprised that the spike we're seeing now came after Silk Road got shut down, as that was one of the few applications for bitcoin that actually gave it purpose, albeit minor in the scheme of things. I appreciate that I'm being short-sighted, but until a purpose is found for which bitcoin is easier to use and for which there exists a meaningful reason to use it over cash or the many alternatives, I can't see the whole thing as anything other than a speculative bubble.

The guy who said earlier that he thinks they'll some day be worth £1,000,000 each, wouldn't that point to an economy that is worth £21 trillion (since there will eventually be 21 million bitcoins)? There are people here who understand economics far better than I do, am I missing something? Because that seems pretty obviously outside of the realms of possibility. I'm completely open to being educated if I'm wrong or just being unimaginative.
>> No. 4069 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 10:45 pm
4069 spacer
>>4068
Its only reason for existence is for its value to be speculated upon, and traded. Nothing else.
>> No. 4070 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 11:15 pm
4070 spacer
>>4068
Silk Road is up, trade is being conducted in bitcoin.

THe big growths are all down to speculators though.
>> No. 4072 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 11:27 pm
4072 spacer
>>4067

Unless there's an earth-shattering sort of breakthrough, then not for many decades. Quantum computers are still largely theoretical and there is a very long list of hard problems in mathematics and theoretical physics that need to be solved before we would expect to see practical quantum computers, if they are in fact possible.

There's a more general problem, in that nearly all modern cryptography relies on the same set of maths - RSA and related algorithms based on factorisation. If you break Tor, then all secure communication on the internet comes tumbling down with it and we're thrown straight back to the 1970s. There's no fundamental difference between the cryptographic methods used to secure a shady black market deal and a credit card purchase on Amazon, they're both equally vulnerable to attacks using quantum computers.

Either way, there are no maps for these territories. If factorisation-based asymmetric cryptography remains secure, then we've just got to get used to a world in which criminals can communicate and do business with impunity. If those methods are broken, then we've got to get used to a world in which secure communication is the preserve of governmental organisations who have the resources to do secure key exchange.

>>4069

That's just not true. Bitcoin does something uniquely useful, by facilitating secure exchanges of value without a central authority. There has never been a practical means of doing this due to the difficulty of the double-spending problem, but Nakamoto has solved this in triumphant style. Bitcoin is the direct monetary equivalent of Bittorrent; Decentralisation is a difficult but extremely powerful attribute of any system, and the fundamental idea behind the success of the internet. The mathematics behind Bitcoin are utterly brilliant and could prove as revolutionary as RSA, by facilitating ways of doing business that were previously considered impossible or even undreamed of.

Most of the current value of Bitcoin is speculative, but that speculation isn't totally unfounded. Bitcoin has real value in the here and now, albeit a very small fraction of the current market price. If Bitcoin does indeed fulfil its potential then it could be worth vastly more than the current price, but there is currently a great deal of risk and uncertainty, partly from regulatory issues and partly the simple threat of a better, cleverer technology usurping Bitcoin. I don't own any Bitcoin and think that we are in the middle of a speculative bubble, but I think it's foolish to dismiss cryptocurrencies out of hand as nothing more than a ponzi scheme or a tulip mania. Beneath the sensationalist headlines, there is a very clever and useful technology that almost certainly has a real future, albeit not necessarily in its current incarnation. I think Bitcoin is essentially in the dot-com bubble stage - the hype has arrived well ahead of the reality, but the reality is tremendously important.
>> No. 4073 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 11:30 pm
4073 spacer
I'm going to make it my sole aim in life to be the guy who handles a big dodgy companies bitcoin transfers. A slip of the finger one day and I can disappear to Thailand.
>> No. 4074 Anonymous
20th November 2013
Wednesday 11:54 pm
4074 spacer
>>4073

Look up a guy called The Grugq, he's living the dream - he's a broker who deals in security exploits, spending his days ferrying giant bags of cash around Bangkok.
>> No. 4075 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 10:15 am
4075 spacer
>>4072
Post of the thread.
>> No. 4076 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 11:34 am
4076 spacer
>>4072

A challenger appears:

http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html
>> No. 4077 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 12:44 pm
4077 spacer
>>4076

There's a huge amount of well-founded scepticism about what D-Wave are doing. The D-Wave Two is genuinely very quick at solving certain classes of problem, although there's no good evidence that it's very much faster than a similarly specialised computer built using conventional technology. It only usefully performs a small handful of computational tasks and factorisation (the key problem in modern cryptography) isn't one of them. The D-Wave computer also stretches the definition of "practical" to the limit - the processor needs to run very close to absolute zero, so the system has to be installed in a room-sized cryogenic chamber cooled by liquid helium. I'm not dismissing their technology out of hand, but it is a very long way from fulfilling the hype that has surrounded it.
>> No. 4078 Anonymous
21st November 2013
Thursday 12:59 pm
4078 spacer
>>4077

"4076" here. I agree with you - for the same investment (or likely for a substantially smaller investment) you could put together a HPC cluster of some type that would likely out-perform a D-Wave. Also, having liquid nitrogen in a conventional datacentre setting would be absurd as you rightly raise. But it's starting to be "out there" and I think in the next 3-5 years we'll see it become more commercially viable. Especially since the likes of Google and Amazon are interested in it. The increase in funding for research will increase and I think we'll see these sooner than you think.
>> No. 4079 Anonymous
23rd November 2013
Saturday 2:25 pm
4079 spacer

1.png
407940794079
It hasn't even begun.
>> No. 4080 Anonymous
23rd November 2013
Saturday 2:43 pm
4080 spacer
>>4079

But what use will bitcoins be in a SHTF scenario?
>> No. 4081 Anonymous
23rd November 2013
Saturday 2:46 pm
4081 spacer
>>4080
Ask rich Greeks.
>> No. 4082 Anonymous
23rd November 2013
Saturday 2:47 pm
4082 spacer
>>4080
As much use as dollars. Or gold, to be honest.
>> No. 4083 Anonymous
24th November 2013
Sunday 12:36 am
4083 spacer
>>4080

That's why i've got a garage full of tins of baked beans.
>> No. 4084 Anonymous
24th November 2013
Sunday 12:37 am
4084 spacer
>>4083

I fucking hate baked beans.
>> No. 4085 Anonymous
24th November 2013
Sunday 12:43 am
4085 spacer
>>4084

PACK_YOUR_RICE

>>4083

A wise move. They are an excellent source of nutrition and will be worth their weight in gold, so to speak, in TEOTWAWKI.
>> No. 4086 Anonymous
24th November 2013
Sunday 12:43 am
4086 spacer
>>4084

MARKED FOR MASS BURIAL
>> No. 4087 Anonymous
24th November 2013
Sunday 12:54 am
4087 spacer
>>4083

GARAGE FULL OF TIN OPENERS CALLS DETENTE.
>> No. 4094 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 9:30 pm
4094 spacer
What service do you all use to buy? I was initially thinking of just buying in-person with cash to avoid having to give up any bank account details, but I've decided against that now.

If I buy on a site that offers an online wallet, is it easy to then transfer the coins to an offline one? I'm still trying to get a grasp of all the different methods one can use; any advice would be appreciated.
>> No. 4102 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:42 pm
4102 spacer
>>4094

bitbargain to buy using bank transfer, then if you want to hide the origin convert through different exchanges i.e. gambling sites, cryptocurrency exchanges like btc-e, cryptsy and so on.
>> No. 4109 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:26 am
4109 spacer
>>4102
If I'm not looking to buy anything shady, is there any other reason I would want to hide the origin?
>> No. 4112 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:49 am
4112 spacer
>>4109

Tax.
>> No. 4115 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:53 am
4115 spacer
>>4109
Tax, privacy. You won't get tonnes of spam from Tesco advertising premium coffee.
>> No. 4116 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:53 am
4116 spacer
>>4109

Because you can is the best reason. Bitcoin's block chain is very public so if you want anonymous Internet funny money then you have to actually make an effort.

I've not obscured most of mine as it's a legitimate investment, but I like to keep a small amount of untraceable funds for special projects. For example I have a quality foreign porno that I'd be willing to anonymously pay a couple of quid for subtitles but wouldn't want the record of this transaction permanently recorded on the Internet.
>> No. 4119 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:59 am
4119 spacer
>>4116
It's a strange combination of transparency and opacity - I can view the fact that you paid some dodgy German porn company 100 bitcoins for some dirty filth, but I don't know who *you* are or what the german porn company is. Like, I can see that 001 made a payment to 002 of xBTC on 1st April 2013, but I don't know who 001 is and I can only find out who 002 is by finding the vendor.

It's odd.
>> No. 4123 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:12 am
4123 spacer
>>4112
>>4115
That's reasonable, although I don't know what would actually be going on. Say I bought some coins on bitbargain and had them sent to an online wallet. I then buy LTC using BTC and get those sent to a different wallet, are the litecoins then somehow less traceable than the original BTC? Am I even making sense?
>> No. 4124 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:16 am
4124 spacer
>>4119

A key aspect of anonymously transacting in Bitcoin is the idea of a mixer. If a group of people pay a given quantity of Bitcoin into a central pot, then randomly draw out the same amount of Bitcoin into another wallet, all you can prove is that wallet A and wallet B were involved in the same mix as wallets C, D, E, F etc. With a sufficiently large mix, you can effectively anonymise a Bitcoin exchange even though every transaction is a matter of public record. You could have one wallet into which your wages are paid, one for buying exotic continental films, and transfer Bitcoin from one to the other without anyone being able to figure out that you control both wallets.
>> No. 4125 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:16 am
4125 spacer
>>4123
Yes. Litecoin and bitcoin function slightly differently, but the base principle is the same. Neither is more traceable than the other.
>> No. 4126 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:17 am
4126 spacer
>>4124

That makes sense. I really should know more about this considering I've got so much riding on it. Cheers
>> No. 4128 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:23 am
4128 spacer
>>4125
Yes I didn't mean to imply that LTC had any privacy advantage, my question was this: is simply performing another transaction with no real purpose a way of obfuscating the source?
>> No. 4129 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:25 am
4129 spacer
>>4128
You mean, does it overwrite/help to hide the previous transaction?
>> No. 4132 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:31 am
4132 spacer
>>4129
Yes. Basically I would like a little expansion on what >>4102 said.
>> No. 4136 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:38 am
4136 spacer
>>4132

I don't believe so, but I'm not too well versed in this.

To stir things up a bit....

https://blockchain.info/address/1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a

Here's all the information regarding trades made by this guy. Someone with better knowledge can answer your question.
>> No. 4137 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:39 am
4137 spacer
>>4128

LTC and BTC transactions are always public, it's an inherent aspect of the mathematics of all current cryptocurrencies. Because of this, it's trivially easy to trace the entire history of any given coin right back to the miner, or any chain of transactions. The only sort of transaction that will effectively disguise the history of a coin is using a mixer, as described in >>4124. The element of randomness breaks the transaction chain, as the only thing that is known is which addresses participated in a given mix.
>> No. 4140 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:49 am
4140 spacer
>>4132

It costs a transaction fee to transfer money between different addresses, so when you transfer money into most websites it all goes into a pool of cash that many people share. Transfers are handled by the site's logic, off the public network.

If you transfer stuff in and out of different sites and across different cryptocurrencies, these websites might never need to hand their logs over to law enforcement, maybe they'll go offline in 6 months and be deleted, maybe the cryptocurrency you've converted to will become worthless and deleted in a few months time. If this happens then the chain of transactions between you and your new pseudonym is forever broken, this is without even using anonymizing mixers or the markets on the darknet.
>> No. 4145 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 1:59 am
4145 spacer
>>4137
>>4140
Thanks lads.
>> No. 4191 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 2:09 pm
4191 spacer
Ok, so I want to invest in bitcoins, but am I right that to buy something real for them I have to first find even a more gullible person than myself who would buy them from me for real money?
We had this type of economy back in the school, when home-made Pokemon cards were regarded as school currency (only among children, of course, you couldn't buy lunch for Pokemon), but in a year or two I couldn't sell them even to kids. That's my main concern, I guess.

P.S. I don't care about anonymity, because I have nothing to hide and all that.
>> No. 4192 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 2:10 pm
4192 spacer
>>4191

>Ok, so I want to invest in bitcoins, but am I right that to buy something real for them I have to first find even a more gullible person than myself who would buy them from me for real money?

That's one way, yes. There are convuluted ways of sending getting money converted to USD or EUR and sending it to an exchange that way, but it's difficult from GBP. I did it with Transferwise but that was 8 months ago and they've stopped doing it since.
>> No. 4195 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 3:22 pm
4195 spacer
>>4192

You can use a service like "All4btc" that buys whatever you like and takes a 5% cut. Not sure if there's any that are specific to the UK, but that seems pretty generic.

Also because BTC is popular among the new technical skint generation you could get a website built or some artwork commissioned really cheap.
>> No. 4203 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 6:24 pm
4203 spacer
>>4191
>P.S. I don't care about anonymity, because I have nothing to hide and all that.
That was discussed in the dozen or so posts above yours, there's other reasons to desire privacy.
>> No. 4206 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 6:54 pm
4206 spacer
I just fucking found out about all this again after mining 2000BTC back in 2009..... Oh my fucking lord I'm almost having a fit.
>> No. 4207 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 6:57 pm
4207 spacer
Help me. How the fuck do I cash this out? I've DREAMED of something like this but it can't be real but it fucking isn't until cash is in my hand.
>> No. 4208 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 7:06 pm
4208 spacer
>>4206
>>4207
I assume you know where your wallet is and have the keys for it?
>> No. 4209 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 7:11 pm
4209 spacer
>>4208

Yes. However I currently have one issue. Bitlocker.
>> No. 4210 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 7:13 pm
4210 spacer
>>4209
Welp, that's a pretty big issue. Good luck mate.
>> No. 4212 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 7:18 pm
4212 spacer
>>4210

I've got the keys, everything is under control apart from my feelings...

I had a TPM setup on my other motherboard with the Bitlocker enabled on Win7. Will the TPM or the lack of it cause me any problems now when decrypting this drive??
>> No. 4216 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 9:25 pm
4216 spacer
>>4212
Any progress?
>> No. 4217 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 9:26 pm
4217 spacer
Deleted my thread, didn't see this.

Just went through my wallet transaction history. 130btc total... 80k gbp... grim.
>> No. 4221 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 10:07 pm
4221 spacer
>>4217

There will be endless numbers who had regrets with bitcoins and ignored it. Much the same as those who missed out on gold and silver. It'll always happen, if that helps.
>> No. 4225 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 10:25 pm
4225 spacer
>>4221
I know, I know, I just feel gutted.
>> No. 4226 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 11:01 pm
4226 spacer
>>4225

Go have a drink or a treat and forget about it. Live your life on "what ifs" and you'll go mad. How many times have we all heard of near misses with lotto or pools and so on? It's just that a few get rubbed in your nose more than others, but they are no more significant.
>> No. 4231 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 1:36 pm
4231 spacer
If I want to start buying and selling rapidly (e.g. several times per hour), what's the quickest/most reliable exchange to do this on? Or are they all pretty flaky?
>> No. 4232 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 1:38 pm
4232 spacer
>>4231
None of them are particularly solid. Once your money's on an exchange it can take a while to get it back on your account again. MTgox is the big one, Bitstamp is also fairly significant. I use BTCe, getting money out can be a fucker though, so for that I transfer to Bitstamp and withdraw from there.
>> No. 4235 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 1:43 pm
4235 spacer
>>4232
Didn't expect such a quick response, cheers.
>> No. 4236 Anonymous
29th November 2013
Friday 1:45 pm
4236 spacer
>>4235
If you're happy to keep your money on an exchange for a while and getting out rapidly isn't a concern, then BTC-e does this fine, I think Bitstamp and MTgox are also decent, takes a while to get verified on there though. Many people don't trust BTCe and frankly I don't blame them, but it does the job for me.
>> No. 4267 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 12:17 am
4267 spacer
Is there a reason why current coins use a proof of work that, beyond the workings of the currency itself, is basically pointless? Could protein folding calculations (or even something mathematically nerdy but probably of little consequence like GIMPS) be used instead?
>> No. 4269 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 12:36 am
4269 spacer
>>4267

The proof of work isn't pointless. Mining extends the blockchain, which is necessary to ensure the integrity of transactions. It's a beautiful bit of design - the hard computational work of facilitating transactions is intrinsically rewarded by the creation of new coins.
>> No. 4270 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 12:43 am
4270 spacer
>>4269
>the hard computational work of facilitating transactions is intrinsically rewarded by the creation of new coins.
That's what I meant by "beyond the workings of the currency itself". Is there no room in the model for computations that both satisfy the cryptographic needs and provide some worth outside of the currency? Bitcoin uses SHA256 hashes, is there some reason it couldn't be calculating primality instead?
>> No. 4272 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 1:02 am
4272 spacer
Also, aren't all cryptocurrencies like bitcoin horribly vulnerable to the 51% problem? What if a mining pool gets there?
>> No. 4284 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 12:44 pm
4284 spacer
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-05/china-s-pboc-bans-financial-companies-from-bitcoin-transactions.html
I approve of this.
>> No. 4285 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 12:55 pm
4285 spacer
>>4272

There are two good answers, both based in game theory. The first is that if anyone gains control of the blockchain, then everyone else's BTC become worthless, creating a strong incentive for players with large BTC holdings to maintain some amount of mining capacity as an act of self-defence. The other is that anyone who controlled the blockchain would cause a collapse in trust, thereby rendering their coup pointless - it's as futile as stealing all the US dollars in circulation, because the very act destroys the value of that currency. Indeed, that's probably the only plausible threat against the integrity of Bitcoin - that a government would invest in a huge amount of hashing hardware in order to destroy bitcoin. The odds of that are probably quite low, because of the whack-a-mole problem; It's no good spending a fortune on ASIC mining hardware to undermine the trustworthiness of Bitcoin if everyone just moves to Litecoin or the like.
>> No. 4286 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 1:33 pm
4286 spacer
>if anyone gains control of the blockchain, then everyone else's BTC become worthless, creating a strong incentive for players with large BTC holdings to maintain some amount of mining capacity as an act of self-defence
The problem I envisaged was one mining pool slowly becoming the biggest, and monopolising the market by outpricing everyone else - the biggest pool can have the smallest margins and still be profitable. More of a slow creep than an aggressive takeover. That pool owner would then have significant clout if a problematic hard fork occurred, right?

>the only plausible threat against the integrity of Bitcoin
Wouldn't an extended, concerted DDOS attack be feasible? Against the blockchain servers or whatever?
>> No. 4287 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 2:15 pm
4287 spacer
>>4286
The blockchain servers are the miners themselves.
>> No. 4289 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 2:50 pm
4289 spacer
>>4287
Miners are not nodes.
>> No. 4291 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 8:17 pm
4291 spacer
>>4286
>That pool owner would then have significant clout if a problematic hard fork occurred, right?
This already happened in March when an update broke backwards compatibility.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_50
>> No. 4292 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 8:22 pm
4292 spacer
>>4285
>It's no good spending a fortune on ASIC mining hardware to undermine the trustworthiness of Bitcoin if everyone just moves to Litecoin or the like
I see your general point, but Litecoin was specifically designed so you can mine it and Bitcoin simultaneously with the same hardware.
>> No. 4295 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 7:23 pm
4295 spacer
Coins on bitbargain are sold £75-100 higher than the current rate on the exchanges. What's to stop someone just buying on an exchange and then selling OTC on bitbargain at a huge profit? I guess there's some sort of inherent risk in selling to an individual?
>> No. 4296 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 9:06 pm
4296 spacer
The problem with bitcoin is it is capped to a hard limit and increasingly pointless in mining. It will be a flash in the pan thing that will die off.
>> No. 4297 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 9:56 pm
4297 spacer
>>4295
>I guess there's some sort of inherent risk in selling to an individual?

Yes. The non-reversibility of Bitcoin transactions means that a seller is at the mercy of a buyer. If someone buys some BTC from you but then reports the transaction as fraud, the bank will reverse the payment, but they've got your BTC and you have no way of getting it back.
>> No. 4298 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 11:05 pm
4298 spacer
>>4296
That's not a problem.
>> No. 4299 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 11:11 pm
4299 spacer
>>4297
So, did the supposed genius behind it not think that people might try this sort of thing?
>> No. 4300 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 11:38 pm
4300 spacer
>>4299

These issues are abound. Supposed geniuses come up with a small idea and think it is amazing, forgetting how complicated the economy and monetary system is. In reality they are clumsy and poor.
>> No. 4301 Anonymous
8th December 2013
Sunday 11:55 pm
4301 spacer
>>4299
If you mean the creator of Bitcoin, of course he thought about it and frankly it's ludicrous for you to suggest otherwise. It's a key feature, that banks and governments are not the arbiters of transactions nor are they able to seize Bitcoin assets. That it presents opportunity for fraud is seen as a worthwhile cost of that. And I'm not convinced that the risk cannot be mitigated in the long term with the emergence of banks that could provide more safety for those that want it and who are willing to pay for the privilege.
>> No. 4302 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 12:04 am
4302 spacer
>>4301
There's also rating systems. You can just treat it like you would an eBay transaction - if they have lots of positive feedback, there's a good chance the transaction will go smoothly. On bitbargain, sellers can choose to decline buy offers at their own discretion.
>> No. 4303 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 12:11 am
4303 spacer
>>4301
>If you mean the creator of Bitcoin, of course he thought about it
Evidently he didn't think very hard about it. What kind of idiot builds a system that renders what are purported to be electronic financial transactions irreversible? You might as well walk down the street with a sandwich board saying CARRYING THOUSANDS IN CASH PLEASE MUG ME.
>> No. 4305 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 12:22 am
4305 spacer
>>4303
>What kind of idiot builds a system that renders what are purported to be electronic financial transactions irreversible
Anyone who thinks the fact they can be reversed at all as a bad thing, which happens to be many people.
>> No. 4306 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:22 am
4306 spacer
>>4303

We don't know who created Bitcoin or why, so it's futile to try and second-guess their motives. It's safe to assume that they're a mathematical genius (or a group of geniuses), but the rest is just speculation. Bitcoin could have been designed as a genuine attempt to create an alternative currency, a pyramid scheme, or just a mathematical curio. It could have been designed by someone who sees irreversibility as a positive trait and wanted to create an electronic exchange system that functioned just like cash, or someone who saw irreversibility as an inconvenient but unavoidable side-effect of their solution to the double-spending problem.
>> No. 4307 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:28 am
4307 spacer
>>4305
>Anyone who thinks the fact they can be reversed at all as a bad thing
So, idiots, then?
>> No. 4308 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:32 am
4308 spacer
>>4307

Does this look like the work of an idiot?

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>> No. 4309 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:33 am
4309 spacer
>>4306
Surely the simplest possible solution to the double-spending problem is to reverse the transaction.
>> No. 4310 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:42 am
4310 spacer
>>4308
If that first page is anything to go by, yes, it reads like the ramblings of an idiot.
>> No. 4311 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 1:42 am
4311 spacer
Bitcoin is a prototype for a NWO plan for control and conquest.
>> No. 4312 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 7:21 am
4312 spacer
>>4297

All reputable sellers use an escrow service so that if they fuck you over, they don't get any bitcoins either.
>> No. 4313 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 10:00 am
4313 spacer
>>4303
>What kind of idiot builds a system that renders what are purported to be electronic financial transactions irreversible?
Yeah man, fuck irreversible transactions. Whose idea was hard currency anyway?
>> No. 4314 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 7:17 pm
4314 spacer
>>4313
>Whose idea was hard currency anyway?
Some ancient ancestor from the days before electronic transfers.
>> No. 4315 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 7:51 pm
4315 spacer
>>4314

Oh God. And yet again I have to feel like a memeforcing bellend by suggesting yet another lad torrents "Life Inc." by Douglas Rushkoff.

It will happily answer your question.

Sorry Purpz, I promise you I am not being paid to do this.
>> No. 4316 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 8:05 pm
4316 spacer
>>4315
But the book is too long.
>> No. 4317 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 8:08 pm
4317 spacer
>>4316

Really? Would you like me to point out the relevant chapter? You would miss a lot by not reading the whole thing though.
>> No. 4318 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 8:31 pm
4318 spacer
>>4317
Go on, lad. Show us plebs the exact bit where he explains why letting people keep stuff that isn't theirs is apparently a good thing.
>> No. 4319 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 8:48 pm
4319 spacer
>>4318
Another guy here, I could equally ask you to show us plebs why letting people move around other peoples stuff at will is apparently a good thing.
>> No. 4320 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 8:48 pm
4320 spacer
>>4318

u wot m7
>> No. 4321 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 9:54 pm
4321 spacer
>>4318
Thirding the "not sure what you're on about".

Polite sage.
>> No. 4322 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 10:27 pm
4322 spacer
>>4320
At this very moment, someone is walking around with around $200 million in stolen Bitcoin. Short of nailing the cunt to a desk until he unlocks the wallet and transfers the stash back to its (very many) rightful owners, it is literally impossible to recover this, and literally impossible to prevent the thief from cashing out. Even with physical cash, this could be recovered from them if they're caught. The obvious solution would be to just back out the transactions. Unfortunately, the owners of 1% of the entire currency in circulation will never see it again.

Could you show us where this guy explains how this state of affairs is a good thing?
>> No. 4323 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 10:32 pm
4323 spacer
>>4322
It's exactly the same situation as if it were cash, that may be the very point, for it to be a substitute for cash. It doesn't matter how many italics you put in your post, this isn't a perfect system and nor is it a bad one by any means, it fills a gap that the modern world is lacking, ie. a non reversible electronic means of trade (not to mention it's other features).
>> No. 4324 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 10:33 pm
4324 spacer
>>4322

There's no fundamental difference to cash. If someone robs a bank and buries the money on Dartmoor, there's no way of recovering that money without torturing the guy. That's highly inconvenient for the bank that got robbed, but it's not a fundamental flaw of cash. Irreversibility has upsides and downsides. The main problem for Bitcoin at the moment isn't that transactions are irreversible, but that the institutions that manage Bitcoin exchanges are absolute fucking amateurs who couldn't run a tuck shop.
>> No. 4325 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 10:51 pm
4325 spacer
>>4322
>Even with physical cash, this could be recovered from them if they're caught.
But not if they're not caught with it, which is the obvious parallel for bitcoin. It's much easier to rinse bitcoins than hard cash.

>Could you show us where this guy explains how this state of affairs is a good thing?
What does that have to do with anything? Bitcoin exists, and it (or something like it) will be here whether you approve of it or not.
>> No. 4326 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 11:27 pm
4326 spacer
>>4325
>But not if they're not caught with it, which is the obvious parallel for bitcoin.
Nope. Plenty of ways the authorities can turn someone over for cash. OTOH, nobody's getting anything back here unless the guy's password is somehow forced out of him.

>What does that have to do with anything?
You were telling us how some guy who wrote this amazing book has some revolutionary idea about how reversible transactions are evil and irreversible transactions are a good thing.
>> No. 4327 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 11:39 pm
4327 spacer
>>4323
>it fills a gap that the modern world is lacking
Come on, lad. Apply some basic critical thinking here. It's lacking for good reason. Who needs an electronic method of payment that isn't reversible? People who would rather you couldn't get your money back after taking it from you.
>> No. 4328 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 11:40 pm
4328 spacer
>>4327
>It's lacking for good reason

Actually it's lacking because nobody had yet solved the problem that Bitcoin does, you fucking ignorant cunt.
>> No. 4329 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 11:46 pm
4329 spacer
>>4328
Christ, lad. You really are a bit special, aren't you?
>> No. 4330 Anonymous
9th December 2013
Monday 11:53 pm
4330 spacer
>>4329
No.
>> No. 4332 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 10:55 am
4332 spacer
>>4329
No, he's not. He's right. You can sit in your armchair reeling off all the reasons you think cryptocurrencies are dumb, but out in the real world people are actually using bitcoin as a medium of exchange. Pontificate until you're blue in the face, it won't ever change the fact that other people find use in the thing you dislike.
>> No. 4333 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 10:57 am
4333 spacer
>>4326
>Nope. Plenty of ways the authorities can turn someone over for cash. OTOH, nobody's getting anything back here unless the guy's password is somehow forced out of him.
Nobody has ever hidden stolen goods or cash from the authorities, then?

I can't believe you're honestly this unimaginative.
>> No. 4334 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 3:33 pm
4334 spacer
>>4332

Except we've only really got empirical data on it in the short-term, and it's not looking very good even then.
>> No. 4335 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 3:36 pm
4335 spacer
Bitcoin isn't really a medium of exchange. It is a pyramid scheme and most if it is simply held by speculators. A poisonous set up. It is nothing like an alternative currency yet.

It will be interesting to see what happens when people decide mining isn't worth their while.
>> No. 4336 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 3:41 pm
4336 spacer
>>4335
>It will be interesting to see what happens when people decide mining isn't worth their while.
...nothing?
>> No. 4337 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 3:58 pm
4337 spacer
>>4336
Isn't it what's happening now?
>> No. 4338 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 4:06 pm
4338 spacer
>>4337
Depends on the difficulty, profitability, energy prices, all sorts. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>> No. 4339 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 4:54 pm
4339 spacer
>>4335
>Bitcoin isn't really a medium of exchange.
Oh come on.

>It will be interesting to see what happens when people decide mining isn't worth their while.
...and at this point I'm pretty convinced you're just trying to wind us up. I hope you'll think of something more productive to do with your time.
>> No. 4340 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 6:47 pm
4340 spacer
The Simpsons made a bitcoin reference. Time to give up.
>> No. 4341 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 6:54 pm
4341 spacer
>>4340
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIs-K3kUUZg
>> No. 4344 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 8:49 pm
4344 spacer
>>4270
To answer my own question, primecoin does exactly that.

("Autism" checked because probably nobody but me cares.)
>> No. 4345 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 10:31 pm
4345 spacer
>>4340
Jesus Christ, they'll shoehorn anything in now in lieu of properly written jokes won't they.
>> No. 4346 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 10:36 pm
4346 spacer
>>4339

Deal with it. You can stick your head in the sand if you like.
>> No. 4347 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 1:24 am
4347 spacer
>>4328
The authors behind these publications would like a stern word with you, lad. Particularly Adam Black and Hal Finney, who effectively designed and implemented the guts of Bitcoin 10 years before it actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system#References
>> No. 4348 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 1:36 am
4348 someone else
>>4346
It's not a matter of 'sticking your head in the sand', you're implying he's hiding from something when all he's doing is pointing out that you don't seem to understand bitcoin mining, it's regulation, or its purpose.
>> No. 4349 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 1:39 am
4349 spacer
>>4347
I'm not the guy saying you should read that book.
>> No. 4351 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 1:45 am
4351 spacer
>>4349
However, you clearly were the guy claiming that a problem hadn't been solved before.
>> No. 4352 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 1:52 am
4352 spacer
>>4351
It's the first time it's been implemented for a trade type application that's found widespread use. What are you trying to say?
>> No. 4353 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 9:32 am
4353 spacer
>>4352
There's no need for that backpedalling, lad.
>> No. 4354 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 9:42 am
4354 spacer
>>4346
It's particularly ironic that you chose the "head in the sand" metaphor since you're the one who's desperately trying to argue against the utility of a particular medium of exchange despite ample evidence to the contrary. "Deal with it", indeed.
>> No. 4355 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 10:42 am
4355 spacer
>>4353
It's not backpedalling, this is it's first application in that sphere, Bitcoin has solved a problem which previously made virtual currencies unworkable.

Is this just a really annoying troll?
>> No. 4356 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 11:26 am
4356 spacer
>>4355

Yes.
>> No. 4357 Anonymous
11th December 2013
Wednesday 7:15 pm
4357 spacer
>>4355
It hasn't "solved a problem". The problems were all solved long ago, as you'd know if you'd bothered doing any reading instead of just parroting HURR REVULOOSHUNURRY. There's really nothing new in Bitcoin. It's pretty much a port of RPOW to modern hardware, in a world that changed an a awful lot in 10 years. It may be taking the world by storm, but don't mistake innovation for fortunate timing.
>> No. 4361 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 8:17 pm
4361 spacer
Bad news from China apparently, GBP price has fallen 20% today and still dropping. This is what I've been waiting for the past couple of weeks and I'm now buying steadily.
>> No. 4362 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 8:34 pm
4362 spacer
>>4361

Well done lad. I hope that wasn't your life savings you have just frittered away.
>> No. 4364 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 8:37 pm
4364 spacer
Obviously the real issue is to find out how bitcoins fit into the NWO pyramid. I assume that David Icke or Alex Jones has been on the ball with this? I really enjoy reading these crazy stories and reports. A guilty pleasure.
>> No. 4365 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 8:38 pm
4365 spacer
>>4361

Expect the dollar to do the same. China doesn't want to stockpile dollars they can't spend forever any more in return for selling people goods for more dollars they can't spend.
>> No. 4370 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:04 pm
4370 spacer
>>4362
The second part of the post makes me think the first part was sarcastic, but I don't know why it would be.

It's not my life savings though, only about 5% of my money will be going into BTC.
>> No. 4371 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:06 pm
4371 spacer
So people buy bitcoins, something that is based on nothing and doesn't actually exist, to not do anything with them and then sell them to someone else who does nothing with them, etc.

It's time to pull the plug on humanity. It's a huge pyramid scheme/confidence trick.
>> No. 4373 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:17 pm
4373 spacer
>>4371
Read up on economics.
>> No. 4374 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:20 pm
4374 spacer
>>4373
At least you didn't waste your time on an extensive response; he didn't deserve one at all.
>> No. 4376 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:21 pm
4376 spacer
>>4373

Bitcoins =/= real currency, shares or goods
>> No. 4377 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:23 pm
4377 spacer
Bitcoin bugs are the same as goldbugs. They hold a lot of it so they champion it and tell everyone else to buy it too to keep the price up. It scares the shit out of them that someone will look behind the curtain and be unimpressed by what they see and then their $1000 a pop coins they bought become worthless. At least gold has a real justifiable use for the gold loons to stick to.
>> No. 4379 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:47 pm
4379 spacer
>>4374
I don't think he deserves it tbh. If it bothers him this much. If he cannot understand it, and doesn't want to, then he is free to hide the thread.
>> No. 4380 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:53 pm
4380 spacer
>>4379

Posting to hide.
>> No. 4381 Anonymous
16th December 2013
Monday 9:55 pm
4381 spacer
>>4380
Good.
>> No. 4386 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 12:53 am
4386 spacer
>>4376
They are goods, they're strings of information. You can't trade literally nothing.

>>4377
You've cracked it lad, you're a genius - people who have something want it to be worth more and people who don't have something want it to go down so they can get it cheaper! What a fucking revelation! Moron.
>> No. 4387 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:00 am
4387 spacer
>>4373
Not him, but it's a bit of a wash. There is literally no backing (they are nothing more than evidence that someone at some point performed a calculation), but then since the changes in the 1970s most currencies have been the same. They're nigh-on impossible to forge, but that also means they're impossible to leverage, which makes them more or less useless in the real economy where enforceable credit is very much a necessity.
>> No. 4389 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:02 am
4389 spacer
>>4387
Nobody supposes they're going to replace conventional currency. Nobody sane at least. They (cryptocurrencies) might replace cash, not dollars, etc. though.
>> No. 4395 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:43 am
4395 spacer
>>4389
There are evidently a lot of people in the Bitcoin community who are not sane. They're useful as a means of remittance, but that's about it.
>> No. 4396 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:47 am
4396 spacer
>>4395
>There are evidently a lot of people in the Bitcoin community who are not sane.
True.
>> No. 4399 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:42 am
4399 spacer
>>4395
>They're useful as a means of remittance, but that's about it.
Anything that's useful as a means of remittance is implicitly useful for other things.
>> No. 4400 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:49 am
4400 spacer
>>4389
How can they replace cash? Will I be required to write down several megabytes of text to give a beggar a pound?

>>4399
Like your mum, eh?
>> No. 4402 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 7:22 am
4402 spacer
>>4400
>Will I be required to write down several megabytes of text to give a beggar a pound?
Just send it to his smartphone, innit.

(So yes well done for pointing out that bitcoins aren't much use to people who don't have computers.)
>> No. 4403 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 7:36 am
4403 spacer
>>4402
Then how are they going to replace cash? We already have cards, electronic money, etc, and we still have cash. That's the whole point of cash, that I can use it everywhere without relying on some electronic devices. I buy some dollars, fly to any heathen bongo-bongo land and buy cheap pottery from local tribals. Without cash it's impossible.
>> No. 4404 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 7:43 am
4404 spacer
>>4403
They aren't going to replace cash. I don't know why >>4389 suggested they might.
>> No. 4405 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 7:56 am
4405 spacer
>>4404
Alright. It's just strange that >>4389 called some people insane and than suggested something this insanely ridiculous in the next sentence. Was it an attempt at sarcasm?
>> No. 4407 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 8:28 am
4407 spacer
>>4405
It's all relative. Talk of displacing cash is "normal for Norfolk".
>> No. 4408 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 8:29 am
4408 spacer
>>4403
Other way round, lad. The point of electronic transfers is not having to rely on cash.
>> No. 4409 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 8:38 am
4409 spacer
>>4408
Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Lad.
>> No. 4411 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 9:17 am
4411 spacer
>>4400
You shouldn't be giving beggars money either way.
>> No. 4412 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 9:19 am
4412 spacer
>>4404
Because they are the analogous to cash, not debit cards and bank transfers.

>>4403
>the whole point of cash, that I can use it everywhere without relying on some electronic devices
No it isn't, that's retroactive reasoning.
>> No. 4417 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 12:35 pm
4417 spacer
>>4412
Alright, insert the word "now" in my initial statement. The only reason we still have cash nowadays is that it can be exchanged with no additional devices as a medium. How is bitcoin analogous to cash if it lacks its core feature? Or are you just saying that some people who use cash for their shady business (like slave trade or drug trafficking) may switch to bitcoin eventually? Because, you know, not all people sell crack cocaine and it's absurd to suggest that bitcoin can replace cash altogether.
>> No. 4418 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 12:37 pm
4418 spacer
>>4417

>not all people sell crack cocaine

Bet u liv norf of da riva m7
>> No. 4419 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:27 pm
4419 spacer
>>4417
I wrote out a fairly lengthy post in response, I deleted it though to just point out that some places don't use cash at all anymore.

You're arguing against a system that's cheaper and less restricted than the one that's already ubiquitous. I'm not saying it will replace cash, I'm saying it could.

>Who would ever use debit cards, it requires pretty much everyone to have one and comes with loads of fees, why would companies want to pay more money to banks when they can deal in cash for free...
>> No. 4422 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:45 pm
4422 spacer
>>4419
What places don't use cash anymore? Do they use bitcoins in those places? Or do they use something that is actually backed with cash?
Bottle caps could replace dollars after the nuclear holocaust. It doesn't mean it's the most realistic scenario.
Bank cards replaced cash in some situations, but we still have cash. And we will always have cash. Cash is unique in its properties and simply can't be replaced completely unless in some dystopian future we all will have mind-controlling chips doubling as bitcoin wallets.
>> No. 4423 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 1:52 pm
4423 spacer
>>4422

>Backed with cash?
>Backed by something backed by nothing.

We're going in circles here.

>unique properties
You can burn it?
>> No. 4424 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 2:18 pm
4424 spacer
>>4423
Sorry, I forgot that bitcoin is backed by electricity. Oh wait, it doesn't make much sense, does it, because you can't exchange your imaginary money back to electricity. But hey, it's still better than your average fiat money because anonymity and you've already bought mining hardware worth several thousand pounds, right?
Cash is unique because you don't need anything except cash to make a transaction. You don't need any electronic devices or bank's assistance.
>> No. 4425 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 2:27 pm
4425 spacer
>>4424
Well you do in the long run. You need to be able to exchange the cash you've gained from a transaction for goods and services, and the cash needs to hold its value, which it won't unless you invest it in a bank or something similar, otherwise you make a loss on that transaction over time, while bitcoins will (maybe) hold or increase in value.
>> No. 4426 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 2:32 pm
4426 spacer
>>4424
and
>>4425
are at cross purposes. You both agree that it is necessary for the bank to back the cash for it to have value, but 24 is saying that you don't need the bank's assistance to make each transaction.
>> No. 4427 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 2:36 pm
4427 spacer
>>4425
Bitcoin's value is only stable because no one uses it as a legal tender. It allows bitcoin enthusiasts to play pretend exchange without taking much into account.
>> No. 4428 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 3:14 pm
4428 spacer
The main appeal of bitcoin, the reason libertarians and crypto nerds get so worked up over it, is that there's no central authority. >>4424 is forgetting that the value of cash is always tied to a central issuing authority who can dictate the path the currency takes, controlling it to their interests rather than that of the people to whom it rightfully belongs. A bank may freeze your assets, or your government may experiment with money creation causing hyperinflation, just as examples, in both cases robbing the bloke on the street of their wealth. Neither of these concerns apply to bitcoin - but plenty of others do.

I suspect that once the hype dies down bitcoin will live on as a curio, arbitraged by Wall Street types, but in practical terms most often used to buy drugs or other similarly under-the-counter goods or services, much as it is today; there's just not a lot of point buying via bitcoin when cash offers less resistance. If the price stabilises, among the technically competent it may see somewhat widespread acceptance as an alternative to, say, paypal for sending small amounts of money. The hurdles to comprehension and use are prohibitive for a substantial portion of the population, though, and the benefit to them small to non-existent; maybe I'm just being short-sighted, but I can't see any of that changing.

Seeing it as being in competition with cash is missing the point, anyway - bitcoin is yet another case of people using technology to provide a service in a different way. Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies generally, can and will be used to exchange value, because they exist and people find utility in them, however marginal.

>Bitcoin's value is only stable because no one uses it as a legal tender. It allows bitcoin enthusiasts to play pretend exchange without taking much into account.
None of that makes any sense.
>> No. 4429 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 4:05 pm
4429 spacer
>>4428
I think he meant to say unstable.
>> No. 4430 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 4:16 pm
4430 spacer
>>4429
I swear it did make sense in my head a couple of hours ago, but now I can't possibly make out what I meant, so your guess is as good as mine.

>>4428
Thanks for a comprehensive post.
>> No. 4431 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 5:06 pm
4431 spacer
>>4426
25 reporting, I was just offering comment on cash, it's my only post itt
>> No. 4434 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 5:39 pm
4434 spacer
It's been a great pyramid scheme. Early adopters get to lulz it up while their easy pickings at the start balloon artificially for no real effort as the sad no hopers puff to catch the tail end of the bandwagon, spending a ton of computing power to get crumbs from the table and using these desperate no hopers to add to the hype and preach how wonderful their snake oil is.

It's not much different from people who start religions to get rich.
>> No. 4435 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 5:40 pm
4435 spacer
>>4434
But that's the same as everything fucking else.
>> No. 4437 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 5:57 pm
4437 spacer
>>4435

No it isn't. It's nothing like ice cream. Or the smell of new leather.
>> No. 4438 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:08 pm
4438 spacer
>>4434
You've made this post twice before now and I do wish you'd leave this thread alone, but since you won't I'll try to explain to you why you're wrong.

>It's been a great pyramid scheme.
It's not a pyramid scheme. The fundamental characteristics of a pyramid scheme are that 1/ money only ever travels up the chain, which isn't the case with bitcoin (since each miner's earnings are independently earned and they can cash out to fiat if they so choose), and 2/ the pyramid needs to keep extending exponentially for anyone involved to carry on making any money. If the interest in bitcoin starts to wane (and it should as they have limited utility), those who have them can still use them for trade. Bitcoins may lose value, they may crash, but they still exist, and as long as there are still drugs or whatever else to be bought, they will continue to be useful as a medium of exchange.

You could equally say that stocks and shares are a pyramid scheme. It's gambling, sure, and it's kind of weird and sick in its own way, but it's a real thing and real value is exchanged. Obviously bitcoin has benefited early adopters, but investment capital is all about being an early investor in something that later becomes valuable, and you I presume you're not daft enough to call investment capital firms "ponzi schemes".

Now, please, will you knock it off? You've registered your disapproval, we get it, you're a sceptic. Find someone else's chips to piss on.
>> No. 4439 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:15 pm
4439 spacer
>>4438

There's an inherently finite supply of Bitcoin, most of which is still owned by a small number of early adopters. The value of Bitcoin has largely accrued to those early adopters. "Pyramid scheme" is simply poor nomenclature, as Bitcoin does strongly resemble a Ponzi scheme in the broader sense.

The point of investment is to provide capitalisation to business, who use that capital to generate a return. Companies only make an IPO in order to have access to capital, trading off a share in the profits for the capital needed to make the business grow. The subsequent trade in equities is a trade in a real, tangible asset - a share of the company's assets. Bitcoin has essentially nothing in common with the equities market.

I take a largely neutral stance on Bitcoin and think it may eventually become a very useful economic tool, but the value of Bitcoin is currently empty speculation and I think it's unfair to dismiss people who are bearish on BTC.
>> No. 4441 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:49 pm
4441 spacer
>>4439
>I take a largely neutral stance on Bitcoin and think it may eventually become a very useful economic tool, but the value of Bitcoin is currently empty speculation and I think it's unfair to dismiss people who are bearish on BTC.
Agreed, and on the latter point so do I (hence the bit about limited utility).

>Bitcoin does strongly resemble a Ponzi scheme in the broader sense
Ponzi schemes require recruitment from every individual participating in them to function, Bitcoin doesn't.

>The subsequent trade in equities is a trade in a real, tangible asset
Ok, but there are marketplaces for intangible virtual goods that nevertheless have substantial dollar value, the bizarre spectacle of the TF2 hat economy being a good example. I don't see how a digital hat in a videogame has some greater inherent value than the proof of work involved in cryptocurrencies.

>most of which is still owned by a small number of early adopters
I wonder how many bitcoins from the early days are lost? On that note, the lad who had 2000 or so bitcoins stuck behind Bitlocker crypto, did you ever get to cash out?
>> No. 4442 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 6:51 pm
4442 spacer
>>4439
Early adopters get the best deal in any successful enterprise where they own a share of it. Wot u on abt.
>> No. 4451 Anonymous
17th December 2013
Tuesday 8:53 pm
4451 spacer
>>4439
You say bearish like anyone here is actually shorting it and not just flapping their gums.
>> No. 4455 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 12:05 am
4455 spacer
>>4441
Rough estimates might suggest that at least 10% of already-issued coins, still counting towards the limit, are out of circulation for some reason. This includes losses and large thefts. The latter are an issue because if you happen to have 100k stolen coins sat around, you may find it difficult to find someone with enough cash to settle them, let alone who could arrange the transaction out of the view of the angry owners of those coins.
>> No. 4456 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 12:36 am
4456 spacer
>>4455
It's not inconceivable that most of them are just lost, especially given how easy thy were to mine and how little attention they had in the first years.
>> No. 4457 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:00 am
4457 spacer
>>4455
Isn't this a problem? Whereas the Royal Mint is continually churning out 10p pieces to replace all the ones that are lost down drains, if you lose the Bitcoin key there's no way to replace it, as there are a finite number of keys and no central issuing authority, right?
>> No. 4458 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:05 am
4458 spacer
>>4457
Yes. That's not really a problem except for the fact that it's deflationary.
>> No. 4459 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:15 am
4459 spacer
>>4458
Oh yeah, I forgot that Bitcoins are divisible. What's the smallest unit? A one hundred millionth?
>> No. 4460 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:20 am
4460 spacer
>>4459
Yes, a 'satoshi'.
>> No. 4462 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 5:07 am
4462 spacer
So eventually the entire BTC currency in circulation could vanish down the back of the couch and be irreplaceable. Excellent. It's an obvious fact that every year more will be lost and so the currency itself is doomed to die. It cannot and will not last for that and many other reasons. It is a short term novelty that lets people play at being a trader, those who cannot meet the entry requirements for the real deal, and once the fad is over it will sink back to dregs as fast and easily as it rose. Gone the way of pet rocks and tamagotchis.

People will read about BTC in future articles in the same sort of way as we read about the tulip trading mania of the past and the wild-eyed belief and aggressive zealots that defend their holding of bulbs/BTC and its long term viability.
>> No. 4463 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 5:34 am
4463 spacer
>>4462

The fact that it is so divisible means that lost coins just up the scarcity of the remaining, without affecting the exchange value of the coin. Of course gold is essentially a quadrillion times as divisible.
>> No. 4464 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 5:38 am
4464 spacer
The elephant in the room with this: TAXES

Governments already act against and monitor money laundering and fraud. They'll pop this nut open in no time once it is significant enough for them to notice.
>> No. 4467 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:20 am
4467 spacer
>>4462
>Gone the way of pet rocks and tamagotchis.
Did anyone else realise Tamagotchis were still a thing?

http://www.youtube.com/v/WOJfUcCOhJ0

It's more than a little off-topic, but I found it fascinating (and the nervousness of the girl delivering the talk is both incredibly obvious and kind of endearing). Apparently there was also a movie, in 2007, which seems weirdly improbable.

And, er, well done for proving yet again that you don't have even a cursory understanding of the topic, vis a vis the non-issue of divisibility. Given that you're either unwilling to learn, or incapable of comprehending, basically anything about this matter do you not think it would be wise to stop offering your opinion about it?
>> No. 4469 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:39 am
4469 spacer
>>4467

Blah blah blah, you disagree so you attack the person speaking. Heard it all before. Go speak to the grown ups in the investment world because you don't know what you are talking about.
>> No. 4471 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:42 am
4471 spacer
>>4469
>you disagree so you attack the person speaking
>Go speak to the grown ups in the investment world because you don't know what you are talking about.
You're getting a bit obvious mate.
>> No. 4472 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 7:45 am
4472 spacer
>>4464
The government could try and levy something like CGT, though it would be very difficult for them to do it. I work with European money, which is always denominated in euro. In order for the government to pay out in sterling, they need to define an official exchange rate each year. HMRC maintain official exchange rates to be able to figure out e.g. the gain on an asset bought with dollars and sold for sterling. Apart from the odd outlier (e.g. Zimbabwe dollars), most of these rates are fairly stable. Fixing a rate for Bitcoin would be problematic, since if it's too high then people may have tax liabilities more than they've actually made, and if it's too low then the Exchequer stands to lose out.
>> No. 4473 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 7:47 am
4473 spacer

BITCOIN PONZI SCHEME.jpg
447344734473
I'd sooner trade in world of warcraft. This is dotcom crash 2. The crash will be spectacular as it is another instance of the public being caught up in a bubble and not just the insiders, which always makes a bubble go crazy. As soon as the first of the "b/millionaires" who have got something for nothing start to cash out in a feeding frenzy for real money and goods with real value it'll start a slide to the hole. It'll be a slaughter when there are more scrambling to get out than can be cashed out by willing buyers. You'll see people panicking and trying to dump it for a cent (and bitcoin's hit a cent before not long ago). Then the 10,000 bitcoin pizza will seem like a bargain.

There were six million coins produced before they went public, all made on easy algorithms with high profits. Nice little earner to dupe some morons into pumping money into electricity and computing power massively to keep your system going - the real world cost of this "free" system, chasing an impossible dream of getting rich easy by being a follower in an ever-increasing slope. $210,000,000 scooped so long as you can get others to join the ponzi scheme and also big up the perceived value of this nothing. Ride the market and the dupes and they've got the market cornered from the get go and huge control over the price of it and easily able to manipulate it and pump the market and the perceived value and use of the market.

It doesn't have any signs of being better than bloggers and dupes pushing penny stocks. The saddest and funniest part will be watching those who weren't part of the early club before it was widely known and didn't have the sense to cash out. Just as with the dotcom crash you had people holding onto "millions" on computer that quickly became nothing, all because they started to get emotional and believe in it all. That is the worst sort of doom. With this one you'll see an awful lot of emotional investment as it's got a lot of average joes duped into it, getting starry eyed. I warned others about the housing crash before it happened. Some listened. Others got emotional and dreamed of something for nothing and instead got aggressive and defended their easy ride. Not long after they got wiped out, of course. Same thing happened with the dotcom crash when I was warning others about putting real money into all those nutty schemes. I can understand drug dealers and their kind using any alternative that hides their operation, but proper businesses like Amazon and co. simply can't reasonably use bitcoin. It can go up and down hundreds of dollars or percentage in value overnight and with margins tight on retailing, especially online, it would make it a nightmare. That is assuming they'd be able to sell these coins and get the dollars they need without too much cost to wipe out all their profits anyway.

Bitcoin is another "PLEASE GIVE ME SOMETHING FOR NOTHING TOO" dream. Most of you will lose money on this even if you are careful. That's how those very few can make money. When you lose you won't even have note paper to scribble on. Don't be the donor.
>> No. 4475 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 8:15 am
4475 spacer
>>4473
>There were six million coins produced before they went public, all made on easy algorithms with high profits.
"The internet is a series of tubes"
>> No. 4478 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 9:15 am
4478 spacer
>>4473
Sigh. You're not wrong on a lot of it - yes, bitcoin is incredibly unstable and could crash in value any time, and no, of course Amazon won't be thinking of accepting it (they do after all have their own digital coin system, though it bears scant resemblance to bitcoin). Any other absurdly obvious statements you fancy dressing up as revelations? Any further platitudes you want to dictate to us as prudent financial advice? Go on, share yet another dire prognostication with us, another corker like this:

>Most of you will lose money on this even if you are careful.
The assumption that everyone on this board is blithely dumping their life's savings into bitcoin is ridiculous and frankly quite patronising. I don't have a single bitcoin, for instance. I've no plans to invest any money into it until I can find a use for it, and there's every chance that may never occur. It remains fascinating to me as a topic of discussion, though, a topic that you are repeatedly and insistently interrupting with moronic observations that oscillate between the dribblingly obvious ("It can go up and down hundreds of dollars or percentage in value overnight") and bizarre non-sequiturs ("It doesn't have any signs of being better than bloggers"... what?).

I assume you're an expert at something (that arrogance has to come from somewhere); imagine a thread was made about your topic and some clod stumbled around in it, displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of the matter, and proceeded to dress up idiotically obvious statements as sound advice. Would you be as patient as we've been with you?

So. Pretty please, with a feathercoin on top, find something else to do with your time.
>> No. 4480 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 10:08 am
4480 spacer
>>4473
>Nice little earner to dupe some morons into pumping money into electricity and computing power massively to keep your system going
Except the chances of that ever happening were slim to none - the fact it's caught on the way it has is remarkable. Coins mined prior were just throwing away electricity.
>> No. 4488 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 11:11 am
4488 spacer
>>4480
The chance there are enough morons to finance any scheme is pretty slim to begin with. Bitcoins are not different in that respect.
>> No. 4491 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:09 pm
4491 spacer
>>4478

From the perspective of someone reading the thread, their post is more worthwhile than what you just wrote. They're offering their opinion on the subject whereas you're not. If you feel that their skepticism has already been voiced or is unnecessary to the thread, then say so, give reasons why, and direct people to what aspect you would like to discuss. It's not enough to say that you speak for other people, call the poster a clod and ask them to leave. The full sentence also reads "It doesn't have any signs of being better than bloggers and dupes pushing penny stocks."

I think the point about people becoming emotionally involved in bubbles is a valuable one, especially with the high aspirations of Bitcoin. I'd personally be interested to see the thread move out into broader topics. We've already talked about economics generally, so what about crashes and parallels between them? A few lads have compared Bitcoins to the dotcom bubble, and I'd like to know more.
>> No. 4492 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 1:13 pm
4492 spacer
>>4491
Also interesting but more psychological than economic, is the vehemency some people seem to have for Bitcoin. I speak as someone with a vested interest in their value rising, and someone who sees potential in them, but think it highly unlikely that it will ever be realised.
>> No. 4493 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 2:13 pm
4493 spacer
http://www.wheretomine.com/
Fuck me, there's a few of them about these days.

My favourite so far: LBW "Lebowskis", which have a bowling ball instead of a coin for their logo.
>> No. 4494 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 2:25 pm
4494 spacer
>>4491
>They're offering their opinion on the subject whereas you're not.
If you've read this thread, you've read plenty of my opinion.

>The full sentence also reads "It doesn't have any signs of being better than bloggers and dupes pushing penny stocks."
That's a fair complaint and wasn't deliberate on my part, simply misread. Anyway, suffice it to say that I disagree with you but have no interest in continuing to shit the thread up.
>> No. 4495 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 2:44 pm
4495 spacer
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/18/bitcoin-plummets-china-payment-processors-digital-cryptocurrency
>> No. 4497 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 3:03 pm
4497 spacer
>>4495
So is China's interest in Bitcoin equally speculative? Or do the people there find genuine utility in its libertarian qualities? I don't know whether banking there is onerous or intrusive or how completely they've embraced capitalism.
>> No. 4498 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 3:09 pm
4498 spacer
>>4497
Speculative, same as the west. It's been picked up a bit more strongly in China due to their bigger money saving culture.
>> No. 4500 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 4:59 pm
4500 spacer
So this is pretty interesting.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/12/fbi_wallet/

>Although some assume that the largest Bitcoin addresses are held by bitcoin dinosaurs — miners who got into the game early on, when it was easy to rack up thousands of bitcoins with a single general-purpose computer — almost all of the top 10 bitcoin addresses do not fit that profile, says Sarah Meiklejohn, a University of California, San Diego, graduate student.

>She took a look at how many transactions in these wallets seemed to match the profile of early-day miners and found that only one of them really fit the bill.

>The rest seem to belong to what Meiklejohn calls Bitcoin’s “nouveau riche”: People who are accumulating bitcoins from non-mining sources. “What you’re seeing is this influx of a different kind of wealth,” she says.
>> No. 4501 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 5:13 pm
4501 spacer
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/dogecoin-brings-the-cryptocurrency-craze-to-its-logical-conclusion
>> No. 4503 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:32 pm
4503 spacer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25428866
>> No. 4504 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:44 pm
4504 spacer
This bubble is special! Unlike all those other bubbles it will last forever! 2000% jumps or falls are totally sustainable and reasonable...the revolution begins, new economy (this time for realz yo), get the lampposts ready, etc. Lets get excited. The crypto token/commodity thing is very early on. There's nothing special about this one, there really isn't. There are and will be many more and as the fashions flip flop around you could easily see people dump your imaginary number codes in one and go for another and its value becomes zero. In fact it is virtually a certainty that will happen as the next best thing comes along. It's worth less than a share in a bankrupt company as it is literally nothing too and there's no framework to save your arse from the fire. It is the purest of cons for those pushing it as invenstment, etc. The emperor's new clothes in digital form. You are giving real money for...nothing. Obviously some dream of making easy MEGABUX, but that is more what poisons it than makes it work as it could or should. Once something like this has been pumped it is always dumped, like your ex girlfriend. No one should look to these alt/crypo tokens as investments. Stay well away. It is not what it is meant to be for. The value now is insanely inflated because of people mistaking what it is or for and the old rule of thumb of when people are talking about it in mainstream media or at the bus stop then it is time to get out should be a warning enough for you.

If you can make some cash and get out quick then good for you. If someone is daft enough to buy your imaginary numbers, backed by and based on nothing, for vast sums of real world money then feel free to steal their wealth as they have it coming. Keep stealing all you can while the gravy train is good and you can suck off that teat for a long while and not need to actually work or contribute to society. THE DREAM. It keeps the City spinning, for sure. I sure as hell didn't by any products I've sold to hold on to them for any length of time like a collector. BTC is a commodity and you should keep an eye on to sell ASAP. Don't think of holding this beyond getting profit as it is a waste of time, as is trying to mine without very special hardware as all you're doing then is donating your hardware and running costs to keeping the system going for no real benefit to yourself and there is no point to that either. That makes no business sense. I wouldn't want to be holding them when they have to start rejigging the system for all the coming speedbumps either as that is never good for investment strength. Those that will get rich quick on this will do so at the cost of the rest. Zero sum game. Those that (after this speculative bubble bursts and they pick up the pieces, of course) simply use it as another limited trading mechanism as a sort of complimentary currency or token trading scheme could carry on and do what they do as usual and hopefully will not have to suffer this madness and stupidity of the unwashed masses distrupting their little corner again.

This is whole thing is bad for any digital token system and the sooner it bursts the better, as then it will be possibly a usable system once more. We need people to get bored of this hype and fad or we'll not get anywhere.

BTW, anyone want to buy ten billion flobblewops for a thousand pounds? They are so awesome and you can tell everyone you are an internet billionaire and everthing. Totally worth it. Just as tangible as the rest. Tomorrow I'll be selling them at two thousand pounds so you'd best get in on the ground floor.
>> No. 4505 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 6:46 pm
4505 spacer
>>4504

That's an impressive number of words used to say very little.
>> No. 4507 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 7:04 pm
4507 spacer
>>4505
The writing style reminds me of the stuff you see on Icke forums and similar. All it needs is a bit of TPTB or "the Jews" and it'd fit right in.
>> No. 4508 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 7:13 pm
4508 spacer
>>4504
I can't believe I bothered to read this whole post.
>> No. 4509 Anonymous
18th December 2013
Wednesday 7:31 pm
4509 spacer
>>4434>>4462>>4473>>4504
Well, at least you're learning. Could you be a little less preachy?
>> No. 4514 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 1:45 am
4514 spacer
Genius is never appreciated in its own time.
>> No. 4515 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:47 am
4515 spacer
>FBI is global stakeholder in cryptocurrency, currently owns largest bitcoin wallet

>A new report from Wired magazine indicates that the FBI is now in control of two addresses, or wallets, holding bitcoin worth as much as $120 million. That total would make the law enforcement agency the second-largest bitcoin holder in the world behind only Satoshi Nakamoto, the currency’s inventor, who is thought to have mined one million bitcoin in the technology’s earliest days.

http://rt.com/usa/fbi-owns-largest-bitcoin-wallet-458/
>> No. 4516 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:18 am
4516 spacer
>>4515

Does that mean people could potentially see what the FBI spend their bitcoins on? That article is riddled with rubbish however. Lots of tripe about the currency being untraceable and he seems unaware that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym. Besides which:
>Bitcoin was required for all transactions on the Silk Road, where customers could find illegal drugs, child pornography, weapons, or a contract killer, among other listings.
Only two of those things were allowed for sale there, and one of them was only temporary.
>> No. 4517 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:58 am
4517 spacer
It's not a currency.
>> No. 4518 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 9:59 am
4518 spacer
>>4516
I doubt FBI spent anything. Actually, I think with all the supercomputers and such, government can probably mine half of all existing bitcoins and take control, if it gets out of hand.
>> No. 4519 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 10:59 am
4519 spacer
>>4518
>I doubt FBI spent anything.
They won't have. The coins are part of the investigation into SR and DPR, so currently they're evidence and are no more usable than any recovered cash or drugs would have been.

>Actually, I think with all the supercomputers and such, government can probably mine half of all existing bitcoins and take control, if it gets out of hand.
The bitcoin network is getting to the point where one player, even the American government, probably can't afford to do this, at least not financially justifiably. The network recently passed 100 exaflops of performance
http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/
For comparison, the combined performance of the world's top 500 supercomputers computers is 0.25 exaflops, and the fastest single supercomputer is 33.86 petaflops (vs. the bitcoin network's 100,000 petaflops).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/11/28/global-bitcoin-computing-power-now-256-times-faster-than-top-500-supercomputers-combined/
http://www.top500.org/blog/lists/2013/11/press-release/

As the Forbes article mentions, it's not a fair comparison because the mining hardware isn't capable of doing anything other than hashing, but it gives you a sense of the scale of this stuff.
>> No. 4520 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 11:13 am
4520 spacer
>>4519
>exaflops
>petaflops
He he.
>> No. 4521 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 1:02 pm
4521 spacer
>>4270
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324118.msg3472286#msg3472286
>> No. 4522 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:30 pm
4522 spacer
>>4519

If it is not financially justifiable to mine then how will the system survive with no one mining?
>> No. 4523 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:44 pm
4523 spacer
>>4522
On idiots who are willing to pay money for bitcoins.
>> No. 4524 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:44 pm
4524 spacer
>>4522
Bitcoins are dished out by the network no matter how many people are mining. If mining stops being profitable for some, they'll turn their miners off, thus lowering the network difficulty and increasing profitability for everyone else.

We are probably approaching the knee of the bitcoin network's performance curve, since the latest ASIC miners are 28nm silicon and may be as efficient as they're ever going to get at that scale. If everyone upgrades to the most efficient miners then the profitability variable becomes the cost of electricity.
>> No. 4526 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:56 pm
4526 spacer
>>4524

So what powers the networks and processes all the transactions if that was done by miners before when the mining stops?
>> No. 4527 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 3:58 pm
4527 spacer
>>4525
As some miners leave, the other miners stay because they will be getting better returns. If everyone leaves, then there's no bitcoin and that's that.
>> No. 4528 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:04 pm
4528 spacer
>>4527

So when they finish mining all the coins the system folds up and finishes for good?
>> No. 4530 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:19 pm
4530 spacer
>>4528
No, mining is the act of processing Bitcoin transactions, not merely the creation of new coins. The reward in mining is not just those coins, but additionally transaction fees that were voluntarily added to each transaction as an incentive to process it more speedily. These would presumably have to be adjusted as the reward for the creation of each block decreases.
>> No. 4531 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:19 pm
4531 spacer
>>4528
Oh sorry, I see what you mean. 100% mining will theoretically be reached 2140, but 99% will have been mined by 2032, assuming the whole thing hasn't been replaced or abandoned by that point. If Bitcoin is honestly still in use in 2140 then some consensus will have to be reached in the community about how to support it, but making any guess about the state of play that far in the future is of little worth right now.
>> No. 4533 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:20 pm
4533 spacer
>>4530

The system would become far more expensive to run then compared to now as all profits would have to be made from skimming from the flow instead of millionaires making it from mining?
>> No. 4534 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:23 pm
4534 spacer
>>4531

That sounds a very dangerously flawed system. I can't see how they can expect everyone involved in it holding a scrap of a bitcoin to agree to a solution or how they would implement it across the net or agree on who would do the changes. What a nightmare!
>> No. 4535 Anonymous
19th December 2013
Thursday 4:51 pm
4535 spacer
>>4534
Everyone involved in the system has a significant amount of interest in reaching consensus and keeping it running smoothly - as faith in Bitcoin drops so does its worth (what's going on right now is a good reflection of this). This is the incentive for everyone involved to get shit sorted in a mutually acceptable way.

Of course, that's not to say it won't all come crashing down horribly somewhere along the line, but that's a risk with any bank or financial institution. The obvious question is, "how likely is such a crash?" and of course nobody has the answer to that. Except for that one guy in this thread whose genius sadly will not be appreciated in its time. It's working right now but everyone involved with Bitcoin knows that betting on its long-term viability is a big gamble.

>The system would become far more expensive to run then compared to now as all profits would have to be made from skimming from the flow instead of millionaires making it from mining?
As you look decades into the future the decreasing trickle of bitcoins that the network would be dishing out is intended to provide a sufficient financial incentive to keep the system functional, but at core Bitcoin is intended to be used as an exchange of value, it does not create value, so yes the "mining millionaires" are just the first phase and obviously not sustainable. The intention of the design is that as time goes on the value of a bitcoin will become increasingly stable; if there were a limitless number of bitcoins inflation would become a problem.

This is all just my understanding of it, I may be wrong and welcome any corrections.
>> No. 4624 Anonymous
3rd January 2014
Friday 9:32 pm
4624 spacer
Are there any altcoins worth mining on a laptop?

Are there any proof of work algorithms that favour CPUs over GPUs, that are being put to use currently?
>> No. 4644 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 2:55 pm
4644 spacer
>>4535

I've been thinking on this. A limited number does not stop inflation. People will just start using 0.01, 0.001, 0.00001 etc bitcoins, surely?
>> No. 4646 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 2:59 pm
4646 spacer
>>4644

That's deflation, lad, and exactly what you'd expect when demand for them is increasing at a faster rate than supply. As time goes on, demand is expected to become relatively stable as the increase in supply becomes negligible, leading to stable exchange rates. That's the theory, anyway.
>> No. 4651 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 6:31 pm
4651 spacer
>>4644
>>4646 is right. It's also worth noting that divisibility of a bitcoin has been built into the system since day one, in the form of the "satoshi". 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC. To put it another way, as bitcoin mining approaches completion there will be 2 quadrillion satoshis in circulation. In addition, if push came to shove the bitcoin community could patch in greater divisibility (this has in fact been discussed and suggested by the developers), so yes, using subdivisions of a bitcoin is exactly what is exactly what people have been doing since the explosion in price.
>> No. 4652 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 8:19 pm
4652 spacer
On the subject of divisibility, anyone else watching the peculiar spectacle of 42coin? It's yet another daft altcoin, whose only notable claim to fame is that there'll only ever be 42 of them (yes, as in the meaning of life in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), so you have to deal in teeny tiny amounts (called, predictably enough, "dents"). It's a pain in the arse to figure out how much of it you've actually got and the minuscule quantities it trades in are a headache for the exchanges but for whatever reason the speculators are going spastic over it, which is great news for anyone who wants to make an easy quid or two. Profitability vs. Litecoin has varied wildly all day but right now it's at ~420%, fittingly enough.
>> No. 4653 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 9:36 pm
4653 spacer
>>4644>>4646>>4651

You're missing the point of inflation. A pound is generally worth less tomorrow than it is today, which gives you a strong incentive to either spend it or invest it. Deflation has the opposite effect - it disincentivises spending and investing, because you know that your money will appreciate in value risk-free, even if it's just stashed under the bed. All central banks aim for a moderate rate of inflation, because deflation is terrible for an economy - Japan is the obvious example and is stuck in a miserable trap of low growth largely as a result of deflation.
>> No. 4654 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 9:52 pm
4654 spacer
>>4653
But Bitcoin isn't tied to an economy.
>> No. 4655 Anonymous
13th January 2014
Monday 9:56 pm
4655 spacer
>>4653
Is deflation damaging for gold?
>> No. 4656 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 6:39 pm
4656 spacer
>>4655
Absolutely. Almost nobody in the civilised world accepts it as payment these days.
>> No. 4657 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 6:52 pm
4657 spacer
>>4624
1/ Primecoin or Datacoin, but profit will of course depend on the CPU. Probably unwise due to laptops running pretty close to the edge in thermal terms.

2/ XPM, which is used in both of the above. There is no GPU mining solution currently that is competitive vs a CPU, though people have tried. It's a very different proof of work algorithm.
>> No. 4658 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 6:55 pm
4658 spacer
>>4656
And yet it still has value and is widely traded for fiat.
>> No. 4659 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 7:08 pm
4659 spacer
>>4658

So do blowjobs and sugar puffs, but I don't see anyone proposing their use as currency.
>> No. 4660 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 7:11 pm
4660 spacer
>>4658
Yes. That is the usual outcome of deflation.
>> No. 4661 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 8:06 pm
4661 spacer
>>4660
The usual outcome of deflation is the opposite; people are more inclined to hold onto their coins. You have yet to explain why this is a problem for a cryptocurrency, and I'm honestly open to hearing it. Deflation is a problem for an economy for a variety of reasons but bitcoin is not an economy and none of the usual concerns seem to hold water.
>> No. 4662 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 8:18 pm
4662 spacer
>>4661
Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to where we can go on the high street to spend all this gold?
>> No. 4663 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 9:11 pm
4663 spacer
>>4662
Nowhere, and I'd not expect bitcoin to ever be useful for making payments in a high street store, despite what the libertarian nutters would like to think. That does not preclude bitcoin from being useful, just like it doesn't preclude gold from being useful.
>> No. 4664 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 9:12 pm
4664 spacer

cash4gold-duckshow.jpg
466446644664
>>4662
There's probably one of these around somewhere.
>> No. 4665 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 9:16 pm
4665 spacer
>>4664
http://www.youtube.com/v/6JPcimrnXGA
>> No. 4666 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 9:26 pm
4666 spacer
>>4662
You might find this interesting:
https://medium.com/p/56f10f42803b
>> No. 4667 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 10:02 pm
4667 spacer
>>4666
Not bad. He manages to make it to the fourth paragraph before saying something silly, and to the fifth before actually getting his facts wrong.
>> No. 4668 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 10:59 pm
4668 spacer
>>4667
Would you be kind enough to make a counterpoint?
>> No. 4669 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 11:18 pm
4669 spacer
I'm reading the bitcoin spec. It's full of "miners" and "nonces".

Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared in 2011. Jimmy Savile died in 2011.

Coincidence? I think not.
>> No. 4670 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 11:25 pm
4670 spacer
>>4669

Dodgycoins?
>> No. 4671 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 11:31 pm
4671 spacer
>>4668
Sure, right after I give a thorough and serious debunking to "climate change can be fixed with magic ponies and pixie dust".
>> No. 4672 Anonymous
14th January 2014
Tuesday 11:44 pm
4672 spacer
>>4671
Oh, go on. You know you want to.
>> No. 4673 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 12:08 am
4673 spacer
>>4672
The basic pillars of his argument are "houses have no real value" and "muh network effect". The first of these is wrong (ask anyone who's ever slept rough), and the second tells us nothing. That said, that is the sort of level one should expect from someone who thinks they have "experience with virtual currencies" because they did the whole hat thing long before it was the whole hat thing (though I guess for some people "paying real money for literally nothing" is pretty much how they perceive virtual currencies).
>> No. 4674 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 12:26 am
4674 spacer
>>4673
>"houses have no real value"
His argument is exactly the opposite - that houses have value above and beyond their bricks and mortar, and that Bitcoin is the same, hence legitimate.

I'm not sure that I agree. Either way, misrepresenting his argument is unhelpful.
>> No. 4675 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 1:13 am
4675 spacer
>>4674
>His argument is exactly the opposite - that houses have value above and beyond their bricks and mortar
Or, put another way, they have no real intrinsic value. Fuck's sake, do try engaging the grey matter once in a while.
>> No. 4676 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 8:50 am
4676 spacer
Bitcoin does have intrinsic value, the intrinsic value being that it isn't subject to charges for transfers, is anonymous, and isn't subject to the whims of a central bank.
>> No. 4677 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 9:49 am
4677 spacer

Eh4tCYS.png
467746774677

>> No. 4678 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 10:05 am
4678 spacer
>>4676
Bitcoin isn't anonymous. Also https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

>Or, put another way, they have no real intrinsic value.
Their intrinsic value is irrelevant to the debate. We can both agree that houses have value beyond their materials, hopefully?
>> No. 4679 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 12:08 pm
4679 spacer
>>4678
You and me, yes. Dunno about the guy above.

Both sides of the coin (badum tish) with respect to bitcoin are wildly off in my view, it's not going to become the Next Big Thing, and it's not going to go away. I find posts like >>4677 don't help.
>> No. 4680 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 12:47 pm
4680 spacer
>Both sides of the coin (badum tish) with respect to bitcoin are wildly off in my view, it's not going to become the Next Big Thing, and it's not going to go away.
Yes, exactly.

I spotted this earlier
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=415100.0;all
it makes my brain hurt. "Proof of bandwidth" as a proof of work doesn't make much sense to me, it seems like it'd be too open to abuse (and I can't imagine ISPs being too chuffed about it if it takes off). If you'd told me four years ago about what bitcoin was going to become I would have been similarly sceptical, though.
>> No. 4681 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 1:27 pm
4681 spacer
>>4675

He said above and beyond. Otherwise you can just make the argument that nothing has intrinsic value, as it's all based on what we use it for.

Stop trying to make a truism sound profound.
>> No. 4682 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 7:47 pm
4682 spacer
>>4679
>>4681
I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. His argument is that houses have no real value but are valuable, therefore bitcoin which also has no real value is also valuable - which, as I'd hope we can all work out, is not logically sound. By the same token, you could argue that anything is valuable despite no intrinsic value. Which is of course before we get to dispensing with the nonsense that buildings in general have no absolute, inherent, intrinsic value.
>> No. 4683 Anonymous
15th January 2014
Wednesday 9:41 pm
4683 spacer
>>4682
>I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. His argument is that houses have no real value but are valuable, therefore bitcoin which also has no real value is also valuable - which, as I'd hope we can all work out, is not logically sound.
The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, correct, but it's just an example he's using, not a formal, rigorous proof.

It is a sloppy, loose article in many ways. It's also easy to read and understand. I posted it mainly to avoid trying to again explain how bitcoin could potentially prove useful, and also because it touched on the topic of gold.
>> No. 4684 Anonymous
17th January 2014
Friday 1:15 am
4684 spacer
>>4683
http://www.coindesk.com/ebay-uk-virtual-currency-february/

It's not ebay proper, but it's still an interesting move. Think we'll one day see an escrow system?
>> No. 4687 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 10:54 am
4687 spacer
>>4653

Hmm. I completely understand your point; it's not 'deflation'.

But; hmm.

Okay, so: say we have 1 bitcoin = 1 pizza. So as bitcoin deflates, this turns into 1 (0.1) Bitcoin = 10 pizza // 1 (0.001)Bitcoin = 1000 Pizza.

Now this works fine. But, isn't there a danger that if people attempt to expend these bitcoins at any kind of volume they'll just knock the market over, in a way that isn't possible with normal money because of its centrally banked nature?

Quite honestly I'm just soundboarding. It just seems to me that 'oh there's a limited supply so inflation can't exist' is too simple and arbitrary in a system which cannot abide limits.

Sage for rambling.
>> No. 4688 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 11:15 am
4688 spacer
>>4687
Quite. Anyone who claims that the usual deflationary outcomes aren't happening needs to look at where all the bitcoins are. The supply may be growing, but a massive amount of it is out of circulation. Coins that have been minted but lost cannot be reissued, and still count towards the total. There is an obscene quantity of stolen coins which can't really circulate because they would reveal who stole them. The FBI are sitting on the Silk Road haul, unable to use it even if they wanted to. The cash price of bitcoin is high for the same reason Volkswagen was briefly the most valuable company in the world - the coins are there, but so many people are simply not parting with them.
>> No. 4689 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 11:24 am
4689 spacer
>>4688
>There is an obscene quantity of stolen coins which can't really circulate because they would reveal who stole them.
That's just wrong.
>> No. 4690 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 11:32 am
4690 spacer
>>4689
Everyone in not always doing the right thing shocker - see p94.
>> No. 4691 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 11:39 am
4691 spacer
>>4688

What you're saying makes bitcoin more deflationary, not less. Every time a coin is lost from circulation, the supply of bitcoin is permanently reduced, thus increasing the value of all bitcoins in circulation. Your final sentence describes exactly what we expect to see in a deflationary trap - low trading volume/velocity of money due to hoarding. Why spend your Bitcoin when they're constantly increasing in value? Bitcoin is stuck in a speculative bubble and is structurally incapable of becoming a functioning currency. That's the irony of a currency that nobody wants to spend - it's worth a fortune, right up until the point that it's worthless.
>> No. 4692 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 12:44 pm
4692 spacer
>>4691
>What you're saying makes bitcoin more deflationary, not less.
I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. What the other guy was effectively saying is that we might see some inflation if one of the big fish decides to blink. As the old saying goes "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow". Deflation does not affect the time value of money. It's all well and good having a million in the bank if you can't do anything with it. If someone with a large holding decides to cash it all in, or start spending it (maybe they've forgotten they had it), it could trigger some movement.
>> No. 4693 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 1:42 pm
4693 spacer
>>4692 Having thought a little more, what I'd say is that Bitcoin may be deflating, but this deflation itself is acting as a feedback mechanism on the demand. Essentially the growth in value is incredibly fragile; I think it could possibly be called Super/Hyperdelfation. If someone starts spending the coins I figure the market would quickly turn; their virtual existence also decreases transaction costs for raising prices (even to the point of transaction to transaction variation).

It's interesting to compare this to hyperinflation which at its limit has the same effect; the currency becomes functionally worthless.


Sage for unending rambling.
>> No. 4706 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 4:55 pm
4706 spacer
>>4688
>The FBI are sitting on the Silk Road haul, unable to use it even if they wanted to.
http://www.coindesk.com/us-government-announces-sell-25m-worth-silk-road-bitcoins/

>>4690
I think he meant "no, you're wrong". It's perfectly possible to use stolen coins; the crook need only rinse them via a bitcoin tumbler service.

>Bitcoin is stuck in a speculative bubble and is structurally incapable of becoming a functioning currency
Bitcoin is currently squarely placed within a speculative bubble, same with Litecoin; their price is wildly disproportionate to their utility. Consequently, yes, you're going to see massive fluctuations in value as people play the arbitrage game. The community for both coins are feverishly trying to come up with payment and exchange mechanisms that offer less friction than the awkward, slapdash offerings that exist right now. If they can get easy, secure and reasonably snappy services up and running and integrated into websites etc then I think "structurally incapable of becoming a functioning currency" might start to seem somewhat presumptuous. There's also a good chance that Bitcoin/Litecoin will never overcome such hurdles to use and will live on as a curio for quants, or fizzle entirely.
>> No. 4710 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 5:16 pm
4710 spacer
>>4706
The government can only move them if they have the key to the wallet, which they have no (legal) way of obtaining, as there is no RIPA equivalent in the US - the leading cases in that area suggest that the Fourth Amendment might be a bar to any such request anyway. That said, we have no way of knowing if DPR has voluntarily, or *ahem* "voluntarily" handed over the keys anyway. Either way, they still haven't figured out how they're getting the cash.

>It's perfectly possible to use stolen coins; the crook need only rinse them via a bitcoin tumbler service.
Only in theory. In practice it doesn't work out quite so well, as the holder of around 100k coins stolen from the Sheep marketplace is discovering the hard way.
>> No. 4713 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 5:34 pm
4713 spacer
>>4710
>The government can only move them if they have the key to the wallet, which they have no (legal) way of obtaining
You assume that the keys are stored only in his head and not on seized computers, which they'd have to be for an online marketplace to function. And also that they weren't already moved.
https://blockchain.info/address/1F1tAaz5x1HUXrCNLbtMDqcw6o5GNn4xqX
>> No. 4714 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 5:42 pm
4714 spacer
>>4713
Do keep up, lad.
>we have no way of knowing if DPR has [...] handed over the keys anyway
>> No. 4715 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 5:45 pm
4715 spacer
>>4714
If they've announced they're going to sell them, isn't it fairly safe to assume they have the keys?

>>4710
> is discovering the hard way.
Is that still going on? I thought someone posted a link to reddit that showed the pursuers were on the wrong track.
>> No. 4716 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 6:11 pm
4716 spacer
>>4710
>Only in theory. In practice it doesn't work out quite so well, as the holder of around 100k coins stolen from the Sheep marketplace is discovering the hard way.
The infamous reddit thread where the guy thought he was chasing the scammer through a tumbler was actually just him watching a tumbler doing its thing. Quite embarrassing, I imagine.

>>4715
>If they've announced they're going to sell them, isn't it fairly safe to assume they have the keys?
Of course it is.
>> No. 4717 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 6:23 pm
4717 spacer
>>4715
For a tumbler to work requires several things:
- lots of paranoid users moving "clean" coins
- high volumes being tumbled
- tumbling small(ish) quantities at a time

If you don't have the paranoid people wanting to e.g. disconnect incoming coins from their outgoing coins (such that anyone who sends coins to them can't construct an identity based on what they've spent it on), then all the coins involved will be "dirty", so if you put stolen coins in you will only get stolen coins back, and you have no guarantee that the victims aren't angrier than yours.

If you don't have the high volumes or small quantities, then you potentially exhaust the tumbler and your deposit gets routed to the same addresses paying out to you, and the transactions become easily traceable (you -> holding address -> mixing bowl addresses -> you again).
>> No. 4718 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 6:24 pm
4718 spacer
>>4717
So you are saying the pursuers were on the right track? Because other people seem to disagree.
>> No. 4719 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 6:41 pm
4719 spacer
>>4717
>you -> holding address -> mixing bowl addresses -> you again
You'd have to be pretty fucking daft to pay out to the same wallet as you paid in via. The whole point of a tumbler is to provide plausible deniability, to get coins away from "tainted" wallets and into unknown ones.
>> No. 4720 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 7:09 pm
4720 spacer
>>4719
>You'd have to be pretty fucking daft to pay out to the same wallet as you paid in via.
"You" as in the person, not an address.
>> No. 4722 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 8:25 pm
4722 spacer
>>4720
That doesn't change anything.
>> No. 4723 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 8:37 pm
4723 spacer
>>4722
So, you'd be daft to have coins you put in be paid back out to you? U wot m8?
>> No. 4724 Anonymous
19th January 2014
Sunday 9:01 pm
4724 spacer
>>4723
I meant that the problem with your thinking is that it doesn't make sense. The point of a tumbler is to provide plausible deniability. It's not like you get another bitcoin back with someone else's serial number; that's not how Bitcoin works. Think of it like a group of a hundred people each pouring a litre of a liquid into a big vat. When you pour a litre out at the end there's no angry party who can point and say "that's my litre!". As long as the new wallet address is previously unknown its owner is equally unknown. Even if >50% of the coins in a tumbler were from the same verifiable scammed source there's no way for anyone to categorically state where any individual coins coming out came from - not unless you do something stupid like putting them back into their original wallets.

In any case this is all somewhat academic as the "96,000 bitcoin Sheep Marketplace scam wallet" actually belongs to BTC-E, the exchange that the Sheep Marketplace scammer apparently used to cash out.

I'm also not quite sure what >>4717 has to do with >>4715 in the first place.
>> No. 4876 Anonymous
7th February 2014
Friday 11:09 am
4876 spacer
>>3223
So, buttcoins go down. What are you lads doing about it?
>> No. 4877 Anonymous
7th February 2014
Friday 12:25 pm
4877 spacer
>>4876
Crossing my fingers for a quick recovery.

Also cursing under my breath at Cryptsy.
>> No. 4878 Anonymous
7th February 2014
Friday 3:17 pm
4878 spacer
It's actually doing surprisingly well, considering Russia just banned it, Apple removed the last wallet app from the iPhone, and Mt Gox have halted all withdrawals.

Not a happy day for Bitcoin.
>> No. 4882 Anonymous
8th February 2014
Saturday 4:14 pm
4882 spacer
>>4876
Buying more while they're cheap, obviously. There's not been any fatal flaws revealed, just a few hiccups.
>> No. 4884 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 4:06 pm
4884 spacer
So how do you lot split your cryptocurrency holdings? 100% BTC? 50/50 BTC/LTC? Some other coins?

I've been mostly holding LTC but its place doesn't seem as firm as it used to. Just swapped most into BTC. I've got a smattering of other coins that might go up, but only tiny amounts really.
>> No. 4886 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 4:33 pm
4886 spacer
>>4884
I have about eighty percent in doge that is in offline storage for holding. The rest is usually split between bitcoin, with some in litecoin for playing the smaller $coin/LTC markets on cryptsy.
Also been sending doge to vaultofsatoshi.com to flog, then buying bitcoin there (have to wait a bit for the buy and sell, to get them at the right price) which I then send back to cryptsy.
You can withdraw into USD or CND on VoS, but that requires sending in a copy of some photo ID so fuck that. All crypto deposits and withdrawals just need an email. You need to use a proper email and not a throwaway though, as it requires a code to be sent to that email each time you log in. Fucking annoying.
>> No. 4961 Anonymous
25th February 2014
Tuesday 10:29 am
4961 spacer
So it turns out that the folks who ran Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange weren't actually all that competent.

Saw this at reddit:
>I am the biggest loser at 4700+ BTC. Screenshot from a few days ago for the purposes of record keeping.
>http://imgur.com/IDbM0BP
>I don't know how dying feels, but I'm pretty sure that's how I feel now.
>> No. 4964 Anonymous
3rd March 2014
Monday 12:49 am
4964 spacer
>>4886
>I have about eighty percent in doge that is in offline storage for holding.
Is that still the case? Doge seems to be taking a beating vs. BTC.
>> No. 4965 Anonymous
3rd March 2014
Monday 9:35 pm
4965 spacer
>>4961
Did any anons have money in Mtgox when it died?
>> No. 4966 Anonymous
3rd March 2014
Monday 9:36 pm
4966 spacer
>>4965
Not me thankfully, mine are safely stored away in Bulgaria or some other shithole on the verge of being invaded.
>> No. 4967 Anonymous
3rd March 2014
Monday 10:01 pm
4967 spacer
>>4965
I had £2000 that I'd been meaning to transfer. How much I don't miss it despite being poor, made me realise what's important in life
>> No. 4968 Anonymous
3rd March 2014
Monday 10:43 pm
4968 spacer
>>4965
No, and I don't really understand why anyone would leave significant amounts of bitcoin with a third party like that. I understand that some people were trying to cash out or buy and were simply unlucky enough to get caught up in the whole thing, but it does seem like a lot were treating Gox like a bank.
>> No. 4969 Anonymous
6th March 2014
Thursday 10:01 pm
4969 spacer
>>4968
http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html
Not quite sure I believe it. Whether it's him or not, it seems questionably ethical to write an article in which you present "here's what he looks like, here's the address of his tiny house and a photo of it (with car licence plate viewable), oh and by the way the computer in there may have $500 million in bitcoins on it".
>> No. 4970 Anonymous
6th March 2014
Thursday 10:59 pm
4970 spacer
>>4969
The most convincing argument I've seen against this is that a man obsessed with anonymity, who anonymised every email he sent and has never revealed himself, would not use his real name.

Although if it is him, I think he's smart enough to secure his coins elsewhere just in case he did get found out. In any case he will probably have to move now.
>> No. 4971 Anonymous
6th March 2014
Thursday 11:08 pm
4971 spacer
>>4969
So (assuming they're right) it turns out that it might not actually be a pseudonym after all.
>> No. 4972 Anonymous
6th March 2014
Thursday 11:11 pm
4972 spacer
>>4970
He also mined over TOR, apparently, in the early days. If that's true then I really can't see the Newsweek guy being him. You don't bother with that kind of thing if you're communicating with your real name.
>> No. 4973 Anonymous
6th March 2014
Thursday 11:42 pm
4973 spacer
Satoshi Nakamoto is not a common name in the US. There's a handful. Someone with that name sharing the exact personality profile isn't a coincidence, not one I can easily believe in.

>>4970 >>4972
You have short memories. Ross Ulbricht wouldn't have been that sort of person either and his need for anonymity was far more apparent far earlier. This name was public before it became clear the project would gain traction and using his later actions to paint the decision to use his real original identity as inconsistent doesn't make sense. It's entirely plausible that he got cold feet and sought to distance himself. I mean, that's exactly what happened regardless of this new development.
>> No. 4974 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 12:11 am
4974 spacer
>>4973
I agree with you. This might well be The Guy. Not sure it makes any real difference to the viability or otherwise of BTC.
>> No. 4975 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 12:56 am
4975 spacer
>I'm convinced that the article is fake. Not maliciously fake, but mischievously fake. I think the real article will be entitled "Why Satoshi Nakamoto Is Hiding", and will be published in the coming days. The house is a set up. They are going to record and document what happens, who turns up, does anyone break in etc. Then they will come clean and report their findings. That's my gut feeling right now. I have spent a lot of time analysing text, and this article reads like a conspiracy theory/truther article. I'm sure it's bait.
Upvoted on /r/bitcoin 2:1. These people inhabit another world.
>> No. 4976 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 12:58 am
4976 spacer
Will the ~3-12 months away stock market crash push up Bitcoin?
>> No. 4977 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 2:15 am
4977 spacer
Someone using one of Satoshi's long-inactive accounts has posted to deny it's him. Shit just got interesting.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto
>> No. 4978 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 10:57 am
4978 spacer
>>4973
I thought I read that from the start Satoshi used an anonymous email provider? Would be a strange thing to do if he picked his real name as his email address.

>>4977
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BITCOIN_FOUNDER_DENIAL

Someone went around hoovering up Amazon reviews, model train newsgroup posts etc from this Dorian Nakamoto, if they're legit then it's basically the wrong guy.
>> No. 4979 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 11:19 am
4979 spacer
http://www.youtube.com/v/GrrtA6IoR_E
>> No. 4980 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 11:53 am
4980 spacer
>>4970
That seems to be a very good reason to use a real name. If everyone thinks it's a pseudonym, then people using that name for real will be the last ones anyone suspects.
>> No. 4981 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 12:11 pm
4981 spacer
What does this mean?

http://sks.pkqs.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0x773761647B536415
>> No. 4982 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 12:23 pm
4982 spacer
>>4981

It's the signing record for a public key belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto. It indicates that someone calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto (Resident of California) verified the identity of that key, but it doesn't constitute proof of anything, because the signature metadata can be easily forged. The below link shows that clearly - several people have signed that key using obviously false credentials.

http://sks.pkqs.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0x18C09E865EC948A1
>> No. 4983 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 1:30 pm
4983 spacer
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/06/technology/bitcoin-car-chase/

This is getting a bit silly.
>> No. 4984 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:14 pm
4984 spacer
>>4983
Oh, no. Silly was people paying $2000 for imaginary money. We're well beyond silly now. We're somewhere between ridiculous and farcical.
>> No. 4985 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:20 pm
4985 spacer
>>4984
People spend $2000 on imaginary money every time they go to work in order to get paid.

>yeah but fuck off like.
>> No. 4986 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:39 pm
4986 spacer
>>4985
u wot m8?
>> No. 4987 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:46 pm
4987 spacer
>>4986
All money is imaginary.
>> No. 4988 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:54 pm
4988 spacer

DB4oq5s[1].png
498849884988
>>4982
Thanks.

>>4978
>Someone went around hoovering up Amazon reviews
"royal danish cookies tastes great... it has lots of buttery taste" - Satoshi Nakamoto
>> No. 4989 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 4:56 pm
4989 spacer
https://soundcloud.com/stanley-swanson/washing-machine-train-chase
>> No. 4990 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:20 pm
4990 spacer
>>4988
The writer of that review and the email on the left does not appear capable of working as an engineer for a defence contractor.
>> No. 4991 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:26 pm
4991 spacer
>>4990
That's a pretty weak argument. People write differently in different contexts.
>> No. 4992 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:41 pm
4992 spacer
>>4991
I'm not >>4990 but I think the argument is that anyone capable of writing what Satoshi Nakamoto wrote wouldn't make the grammatical mistakes that Dorian Nakamoto did, even when writing casually.

Given what I've read today, I'm inclined pretty strongly toward the opinion that they're not the same person.
>> No. 4993 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:47 pm
4993 spacer
>>4992
I'm not convinced either way, I just think the difference in writing styles is a weak argument.
>> No. 4994 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:54 pm
4994 spacer
>>4991
It's no weaker than the other side using the same evidence to claim the writers of the two emails are not the same person. The journalist evidently collated a lot of information and drew inferences from all the details that matched up. It's all circumstantial, and it could all be coincidence, but it is those parts that need to be undermined to properly dismiss the story entirely.

Crazy /boo/ theory time: this guy is a deniable cover identity set up to be discovered if anyone tries digging deep enough. Alternatively, the whole thing is run by the NSA and CIA, who set this guy up as the fall guy to throw people off their scent.
>> No. 4995 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 6:55 pm
4995 spacer
>>4994
See
>>4993
>> No. 4996 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 7:37 pm
4996 spacer
>>4976
Anyone?
>> No. 4997 Anonymous
7th March 2014
Friday 7:55 pm
4997 spacer
>>4996
By 17%.
>> No. 4998 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 12:53 pm
4998 spacer
http://www.youtube.com/v/kk2Lys4CuDU

I think she's going to cry.
>> No. 4999 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 1:18 pm
4999 spacer
>>4998
She makes an interesting point here. The founder's fortune is on the order of $400m. I know that people will try silly things to get hold of rich people's money, but on the scale of things $400m isn't all that much. There are people with far more money whose personal details are even further out in the open (e.g. detailed information about Larry Ellison's home and assets are in publicly available court documents from his successful attempt to extort the local authority). Zuck's home address is probably right there on the incorporation documents for Facebook. There are supposed to be a fuckload of dollar billionaires in China alone. Why is it we think that this guy and his family are at risk, but we don't think anyone's going to try and kidnap Melinda Gates, who could unlock a much bigger ransom?
>> No. 5000 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 2:29 pm
5000 spacer
>>4999
I doubt that he'd have any security of any kind, since nobody knows who he is. Also he's not a particularly public figure.

Either way it's not him.
>> No. 5001 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 3:07 pm
5001 spacer
>>4998
I hate her so much. I hope she dies.
>> No. 5002 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 3:24 pm
5002 spacer
>>4999

This is the problem with Bitcoin - transactions are anonymous and non-reversible, which makes extortion far easier.

If I were to kidnap Bill Gates, it would be exceedingly difficult for me to actually get paid. If I take physical payment (cash, gold etc) I need to arrange for the exchange to happen, which is fraught with difficulties. $400m is a literal lorryload of cash or gold. Somehow you need to make the exchange without being followed and identified, which is plausible with a few hundred thousand, but utterly impractical with a few million or more. $1m in hundred dollar bills is the size of a small suitcase; $1m in gold weighs nearly four stone.

Bank transfers are out of the question because they'll be reversed, diamonds are readily traceable etc. There's just no good way of getting your ransom paid without getting caught in the process.

With Bitcoin, you just need the wallet and the key. Break into their house, take their laptop, hit them with a big bit of wood until they hand over their key. Easy peasy. You can spend the money with a good level of anonymity by using mixers to launder the coins.

Look at the recent heists on bitcoin exchanges. If you escape undetected with the wallet and the key, you're home and dry. Bitcoin is insecure by design. The same features that facilitate anonymous drug deals also facilitate theft and extortion.
>> No. 5003 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 3:38 pm
5003 spacer
>>4999
>Why is it we think that this guy and his family are at risk, but we don't think anyone's going to try and kidnap Melinda Gates, who could unlock a much bigger ransom?
Because people like Melinda Gates live in gated communities with security around them 24/7 and their wealth is locked up in secure bank accounts that can't be irreversibly transferred in the blink of an eye. Unlike, say, the alleged $500 million in Bitcoin on Dorian Nakamoto's computer, in his poky little house, which I'm going to assume isn't under armed guard.

It's a moronic comparison. In making it I'm not sure if she's disingenuously trying to shift the goalposts or if she's just honestly unaware of the danger she placed this man in, but either way she should know better.
>> No. 5004 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 7:15 pm
5004 spacer
>>5003
Anyone who thinks that funds in a bank account are secure is deluded. If you are the victim of fraud. these days, it is the bank rather than the police who sort it out. If they can't reverse the transaction that took the funds or of their own accounts and into another bank, so, then they have a disincentive against refunding you from their own pockets.
This is before we consider the issue that that much of the currency would be useless in the hands of anyone trying to use it. Spending it would be inflationary. Trying to cash out would leave them with some small fraction of the apparent value. Indeed, since there is literally no backing, it's doubtful whether any exchange would actually have enough cash on hand to deal with a request to cash out.
>> No. 5005 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 7:33 pm
5005 spacer
>>5004
It's funny you talk about delusion, you come across as if you've stopped taking your pills and don't know about the existence of the Banking Code.
>> No. 5006 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 7:35 pm
5006 spacer

bank_of_england_logo_8313.jpg
500650065006
Audible mirth.
>> No. 5007 Anonymous
8th March 2014
Saturday 8:35 pm
5007 spacer
>>5005
What's the Banking Code got to do with anything? It's not enforceable by customers.
>>