Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh my:

https://www.rt.com/business/321669-china-gold-seabed-discovery/

also, the above charts tie nicely into a message that Daniel was trying to make in his talk and one that i have been following since 2008. and that is, subconsciously, ppl's the world over discard their cash and savings into assets of all kinds. this has been going on for a long time. at least i believe that is a good generalization for those of us living in the developed world. why? b/c we know our gvts have been devaluing cash for many decades now, specifically since 1971 when we officially went off the gold std. that is why real estate primarily and stocks secondarily and everything else on a tertiary basis have played such a big part in the growth of our economies since that time. we all just know that the Fed and other CB's are going to devalue/print to deal with crisis after crisis. thus, all asset classes are pumped up to Hulk like proportions. so why should it all come to and end? well, we are on the verge negative interest rates in this country and already 6 European countries are there. ZIRP really hasn't worked out well for several years now and wealth disparity is increasing. and since the beginning of the year we've seen China and other EM's roll hard with a total wipeout of the Chinese futures mkt. oil is collapsing and so has gold and silver since 2011 when i first called it at the beginning of this thread. those are all signs of deflation.

so why won't it play out like 2008 with both the dollar and UST's rallying? b/c this is a progressive grinding downwards of the fiat model, imo. we are doing a Japan. dollar hegemony has peaked and you just know the Fed isn't going to raise interest rates any time soon and will roll out the next round of QE to save the economy. we are most likely going to witness the dawn of a new reserve currency.

and cuz Bitcoin. the new digital internet money poised to play a huge part in economies the world over. the ironic thing is that i'm still a long term bull on the US economy. why? b/c relatively speaking we still have the most freedoms of any country on the planet altho we seriously need a dialing back on NSA intrusions and police abuse. i'm confident that Bitcoin will actually be the lever that takes monetary policy into the next era by making markets more transparent and accountable. the good news is that we've seen plenty of evidence in Bitcoin World that this is happening, esp over the last coupla years. so while things will get rocky and difficult during the next decline, which could last years, we are poised to rocket out of it from the bottom utilizing the power of technology and Bitcoin.
[doublepost=1447344486][/doublepost]poking it's nose below the 200DMA yet again. and you know what happens if it stays below there:

 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
Panel Discussion-DevCore Draper University 2015
Just had a watch of this video. The thing I found striking was pervasive use of the word "we". Everything about the blocksize debate was framed as a problem, "we" need to solve. How should "we" scale Bitcoin? What tradeoffs should "we" make? etc.

Basically, the whole discussion seemed to be framed in a top-down engineering mindset, as if they view Bitcoin as some sort of machine that they can tinker with to improve.

I think what's needed is a more bottom-up approach, recognizing that trying to impose top-down restrictions and constraints only serves to make Bitcoin more fragile, and is ultimately futile in the long run anyway. Free market incentives and bottom-up permissionless tinkering can't and shouldn't be stopped. In fact they are the only things that can be successful in the long run.

Proposition: Multiple client implementations will lead to a system that can more easily evolve and improve over time. Nodes that can have diverse consensus rules will lead to more stable consensus. Increasing the ease with which implementations can attempt hard blockchain forks will decrease the likelihood of disruptive hard forks.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Mengerian

and who does that sound like, btw?

why gvt and esp the Fed.
[doublepost=1447345878][/doublepost]this doesn't look so good, does it?

both oil and copper keep rejecting off the bottom of their 200DMA's
:


[doublepost=1447346416,1447345455][/doublepost]another day, another low in BHP, the world's largest mine. yawn:



FCX no better:


[doublepost=1447347177][/doublepost]uh oh. look who's over the top of it's 200DMA. time for a bull run:

 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
i know what Vinny has said about the fundamental value being btwn 250-300. but to me, as a chart technician and as someone who believes that the market often prices in a speculative premium, right here is a good time to buy your first tranche of this major dip as we are sitting right on top of support from what was resistance ie the breakout point of around 300. in other words, the dip could stop right here. i say first tranche if you want to save some for a possible further drop:


Yes, with all due respect to Vinny, *current* fundamentals are only part of fair valuation (and I think the current economic activity on bitcoin yields a market-cap of around $2.5B if you just take a cursory macro look at velocity, supply, and tx-vol).

Fair valuation necessarily takes into account a view of the possible range of *future* fundamentals. People tend to call this "speculation" (a word many people use to devalue the entire thought process and analysis, unfortunately). Anyways, in bitcoin's case, I still consider the outcomes mostly binary. X% chance of >>$1000, and ~(1 - X%) chance of <$10. So figure those probabilities, then do the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Stephen Pair:

"Someone of reddit asked: "Can you ask him if he prefers BIP101, BIP100, no change, side chains, or lightning, and post back here pls?
"


I think BIP101 is a simple code change and as a result is less risky (though I wouldn't be opposed to a shorter and less steep curve). It sets a maximum upper bound on blocks, beyond which another hard fork would be needed while allowing miners to reach their own consensus about block size limits as something below the BIP101 curve (a miner soft limit if you will). I like the concept of a consensus about the block size limit in the chain as proposed by BIP101, but I think it could have been done in a simpler fashion. The code changes required for BIP100 make it more risky IMO. We are fans of both side chains and lightning (we've been working on these problems internally for quite some time as well). I do think that for Bitcoin to be adopted as a settlement platform, it needs to first achieve sufficient adoption as a payment platform."

[doublepost=1447352837,1447352228][/doublepost]Money Without Borders

Coinbase says that more than 41,000 businesses and 2.8 million people are using its various services, which include not only an exchange for buying and selling bitcoin, but also digital wallets for storing bitcoin and making payments, as well as tools that let apps and websites accept payments. It’s signing up about 3,500 new users a day, and this rate jumped about 70 percent in the wake of last week’s price rally. And across the pond, European bitcoin payment processor Coinify says its business is growing 30 percent a month, and 600 percent year-over-year—though it doesn’t provide specific user numbers.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/bitcoin-is-back-but-it-never-really-left/
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
More insight into the mind of a Thermos:



And another recent quote revealing his point of view:

"... more importantly, there's no technical difference between the 21 million BTC limit and the max block size. If the max block size can be increased with 75% miner agreement and the support of a clueless Reddit mob (or whatever), then so can the currency limit, and then bitcoins have no value." -- theymos
.
I'm not sure anyone would be using a bitcoin that changes it's market cap from 21M, for a clueless reddit mob and 75% of hashing power. It seems the incentive to keep it @ 21M is enforced by the people investing in the fact that it's limited to 21M. This was probably the first insight I had before investing it's so hard to believe there are early (adopters) contributers haven't figured this out yet. (its probably why there are so many early contributors who aren't actually adopters)

And coming direct from the mouths of the theymos gods: This Central control of information is so not fact based its just Dogma, you are just wrong! believe me when i tell you and I'm not being mean, you just haven't figured it out yet. We dont even need to tell you why. - I cringe.

 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Pair:

"me-

what do you think of what sounds like Coinbase's commitment to proceed with 101 come December?​


I think it was good for Coinbase to take a very clear position on the subject."
 
  • Like
Reactions: awemany and bitsko

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
speaking of videos.

@AdrianX reminded me of this clip btwn Maxwell and Sarah Meikleljohn of UCSD research at the time. Maxwell criticized Bitcoin academia earlier and here's her response.



as i've said before, my opinion of Maxwell is one that didn't just occur with the onset of the blocksize debate altho that is the way miniblockists would like to describe it. no, it's been thru interactions with him since 2011 on BCT and thru videos like above.
[doublepost=1447358196][/doublepost]
ForkiusMaximus???

lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
So I asked the Bitpay CEO on their plan regarding advertising the BIP101 fork in the AMA on bitcoin.com, and it looks like they will actually put the core dev team into the vise very soon, by (end of?) December:

We believe in the Bitcoin vision as a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another. We would like to see a consensus regarding larger blocks soon and we decided (with a handful of other companies) to try and push for that by December. Our hope is that this brings a sense of urgency to the topic and the community can arrive at a consensus on how to move forward sooner rather than later.
Maybe it is because he answered me personally, but this now does look to me like a pretty concrete plan on getting this morass of a dev team and their 'consensus' dried up. Very positive! :D
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh Lordy, it's catchdown time:

 

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
@Peter R - Yeah...I don't know. I suppose being in that position, beholden to the Fed's dual/conflicting mandate, it's probably not easy to see the correct path (edit: where "correct" == meeting the mandate) in all but extreme circumstances.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
  • Like
Reactions: Melbustus

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
I like how Andolfatto is playing with one of the scenarios I outlined for Fedcoin back in April.

Here's my description of that scenario:
Scenario 3: The Fed creates identical Bitcoin minus limited supply (i.e., a giant premine to enable "monetary policy").
Result: Great because uncensorable online transactions are turbocharged with all that entails, yet Bitcoin retains its unique appeal as an inflation-proof asset, plus the concept has a very effective endorsement from the Fed so adoption of Bitcoin will take off as well, even if they ban Bitcoin. Whatever percentage of people choose Bitcoin vs. Fedcoin, this is a big boost overall.
Here's Andolfatto, bold mine:
It's hard (for me) to see what the downsides are in having a central bank supply digital money. Critics might argue that it leaves people exposed to potentially poor monetary policy. This may be true and, for these people, currency substitutes should be available (including Bitcoin). In terms of payments, critics might argue that central bank accounts will be permissioned accounts, requiring the release of personal information, application efforts, that KYC restrictions will apply (so not censorship resistant) and so on. To address these concerns, a central bank could go one step further and issue a cryptocurrency (Fedcoin) offered at a fixed exchange rate where payments are cleared using a Bitcoin-inspired anonymous communal consensus algorithm. I don't think we can expect anything like this in the near future, but it is technologically possible. Of course, people will complain that Fedcoin will inspire illicit trade, etc. But again, the same is true of regular central bank issued cash.