Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

@molecular AFAIK there is no market making because its not a "real" ETF. The only way to get new tradeable GBTC is to find someone who has held GBTC for a year and wants to sell. Of course there's an awesome opportunity for those people (who are also willing to hold for another year) to sell their and then buy it back direct (and so minting new GBTC).

This "back door" non-ETF ETF is also why it is able to be traded whereas the Wink's still needs SEC approval.

I guess its a bullish sign then, people buying GBTC securing in BTC in a volatile and fragile market.
[doublepost=1452116736][/doublepost]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33rhg9/reality_check_on_the_gbtc_fund/

thanks for that - I guess it could be part of a pump and dump.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
Bitcoin was the best performing currency in 2015. Do you know if any stocks/commodities beat bitcoin in 2015?

Context: Marc Faber in a cool Bloomberg interview mention bitcoin (43 seconds from start, but view from start):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-01-06/marc-faber-we-have-colossal-credit-bubble-in-china

 

[theZerg]

personally, I'm more interested in attempting subchains if I get the time. However, it seems like there is space -- in fact it would be best if there were -- multiple protocols, to begin to create a more robust block and transaction delivery system.

 

[JVWVU]

My $GBTC "tree" is me and 5 others who used Retirement 401k Money in places like Fidelity to buy $GBTC, I think all are in at $35 or under and all are HODLing.

My retirement money options for this is to buy $GBTC at a premium or cash it our pay 35% taxes on it along with a 10% penalty (since I am under 55) then buy actual bitcoins to hold at my house, for now $GBTC is the way to go and if I sell I don't have to pay Capital gains now only trading fees. This is why $GBTC is at a premium until a large scale ETF is available and even then I figure a premium though small will be there.

 

[freetrader]

personally, I'm more interested in attempting subchains if I get the time. However, it seems like there is space -- in fact it would be best if there were -- multiple protocols, to begin to create a more robust block and transaction delivery system.

My current understanding is that a blocktorrent-like scheme could act as distribution mechanism for both full blocks and weak blocks (and perhaps other data that peers might exchange), so perhaps it could remain completely orthogonal to subchains and simply support them from underneath. That's my hope, at least.

Early days.

 

[Erdogan]

Part of the problem is that a lot of the people building user-facing software in Bitcoin come from a web/smartphone app development background and are approaching it from that mindset.

That's not what Bitcoin needs right now, however.

The "killer app" is going to be very boring: accounting tools that are Bitcoin aware. Business tools for professionals that never go "viral" but do gain wide acceptance and a profitable customer base. Basically, a better QuickBooks, the kind of application that's the opposite of what typical Silicon Valley hipster developers want to work on.

Excellent. An accounting system for people who use bitcoin for business, with a parallel USD (or maybe two fiats) accounting, where each payment is converted to the other money types using the date of payment and the price index for that date (or maybe each minute). So you can calculate the profit in bitcoin and in USD exactly. That could be useful, because the USD is not always sufficient as a unit of account to calculate profit and loss for trades that extend over some time. Definitely not good enough to calculate profits for a 3 year project.

 

[Melbustus]

Over the past several weeks we have seen both many high profile people come out in favor of larger blocks and also momentum by regular users on public forums for larger blocks.

However all this support for larger blocks is spread out over many separate media, some of it is on blog posts, some in articles, some on twitter, some on forums, some on BU nodes (great job theZerg) etc. This is very different from the centralized core developer scaling plan which acts a centralized point for that view.

I think we have seen recently that support for larger blocks is vastly larger than support for small blocks. However because large blocks support is spread out it is hard for people to see that. For example there are only two companies behind Maxwell's scaling plan, but we have seen dozens of major firms come out in favor of large blocks.

What do people think about putting together a simple large block scaling plan that people can sign or commit support to. Something that clearly and simply lays out Satoshi's original vision of a P2P currency and the arguments for why larger blocks is the right path forward.

The commitment could be a simple statement that the signatories are committed to using a bitcoin with a larger blocksize than 1MB by the end of 2016. That is not a specific plan, but is directly opposite of Maxwell's plan of keeping the limit in place.

Based on what I think we've seen recently, there are many entities and people that support this and would agree to use a blocksize larger than 1MB (regardless of the specific plan) by the end of 2016.

This would also function as a central point to show where support lays. Imagine the core dev scaling plan having 40 signers and 2 companies, while the "more than 1MB by 2016" plan has 100 companies and 1000s of users.

If this makes sense to people, we could work on a draft here and then release it somehow, maybe on the BU website or something similar.

Agreed. I think this needs to exist. FWIW, I own blockspace.io, and was thinking of using that to put up a site where people could "sign" to support, or oppose, larger block sizes. Core/BS keeps making statements about how they think the community is on their side, which seems like quite a delusion to me, so why not put it up for a public vote?

There's also http://bitcoin.consider.it, which is pretty nice, though it doesn't force you to "verify" your ID from what I can tell.

So if we go ahead with a new site (or on BU.info), I think it'd be important to go the PGP and/or social "verification" route, perhaps where signatories must sign with *some* account (twitter, reddit, facebook, github, etc) that was created before Dec 31st 2015 or something... So then we can pretty confidently say we have real-user representation. Granted, I'm sure people will sign with existing sock-poppet accounts, but that's gonna happen on both sides (and they'd have to *already* exist), so I count that as a wash.

Thoughts? I could do the web-dev.

 

[Matthew Light]

@JVWVU

I hope you hodl bitcoins outside $GBTC as well, in a comparable size.

 

[JVWVU]

I think I have that covered, been around a while, also trying to get my "tree" to get more private key bitcoins.

 

[cypherdoc]

you guys need to look the hell out. Dow futures reaching lower tonight:

 

[Melbustus]

@cypherdoc - and China is down 7% again....they just suspended trading. Again.

 

[cypherdoc]

look carefully at these 1min comparison charts tonite with specific focus on the /YM vs $DXY. they are starting to move together. that's a big deal if this continues like i think it will. why would this be happening contrary to popular opinion? b/c you know the Fed is going to have to print to save the economy. that will be great for Bitcoin :

 

[JVWVU]

Gold up Bitcoin not yet

And there's this

 

[cypherdoc]

@JVWVU

that's ok. i'm flat on pm's

but i'll be looking to reset the DZZ & ZSL.
[doublepost=1452133359][/doublepost]Charles Hughes Smith gettin on it:

2016 Theme #3: The Rise Of Independent (Non-State) Crypto-Currencies

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/2016-theme-3-rise-independent-non-state-crypto-currencies
[doublepost=1452133832,1452133168][/doublepost]well now, that was fast.

from this afternoons chart forcasting epic-ism, to tonites realization of fact:

and Bitcoin ramping. nice:

[doublepost=1452134264][/doublepost]Bitcoin rearing it's ugly head:

 

[Melbustus]

and Bitcoin ramping. nice:

Man, I hope that continues and holds. Bitcoin showing that's it's *both* a safe-haven, and a tech-growth play simultaneously makes it one heck of an asset.

 

[cypherdoc]

look who's leading too; America (Coinbase).

that's trouble for most; but great for Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1452134641][/doublepost]$DXY taking another leg down. these big moves are occurring simultaneous with the /YM down, /ZN up (UST's) & other charts.

 

[Matthew Light]

Bitcoin big-ass price spike tonight. I think I will leave a few coins on Coinbase just to play around with trading on exchange.coinbase.com

 

[JVWVU]

The DXY going down is baffling to me right now, honestly it should be pushing 103 imo.

But as long as it stays under 100 imo no QE4

 

[Matthew Light]

The DXY going down is baffling to me right now, honestly it should be pushing 103 imo.

But as long as it stays under 100 imo no QE4

I think they care more about the S&P than the DXY. They appear to be "all in" on keeping the Dow and S&P levitated versus practically anything else. I suspect that we will see a QE4 as soon as the S&P starts going any lower than a "correction", IMO.

The financial system is in a state of advanced failure, much worse than 95% of people realize.

 

[cypherdoc]

But as long as it stays under 100 imo no QE4

you'll be surprised even more than you are now.