Octopus Overlords

This is fine.

Coinbase, one of the biggest bitcoin marketplaces in the U.S., said Friday that trading was temporarily disabled amid a price rout in cryptocurrencies.

"Investigating - All buys and sells have been temporarily disabled. We are working on a fix and apologize for any inconvenience," Coinbase said on its status website at 11:11 a.m., ET.

Moliere wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:54 pm Most stock market investments are straight up gambling.

Most stocks on the NYSE and NASDAQ are priced efficiently. They may not be priced accurately but they are priced efficiently and aren't in the realm of gambling.

But I agree, cryptocurrencies take it to another level. That's certainly the way I treat it.

True.

Moliere wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:54 pm Most stock market investments are straight up gambling.

Most stocks on the NYSE and NASDAQ are priced efficiently. They may not be priced accurately but they are priced efficiently and aren't in the realm of gambling.

Pink sheets, pennies, yes. That's gambling. Derivatives, can be gambling. But most stocks, by dollar value, are investments. Some more riskier than others, sure.

But I agree, cryptocurrencies take it to another level. That's certainly the way I treat it.

True.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:51 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:35 pmNothing wrong with speculation. Gambling is fine. Just don't call it an investment. Or at least not a good one.

Risk is fine, as long as the risk is understood. This is straight up gambling. Which is still fine. As long as you understand that's what it is.

It is not straight up gambling, i used to do day trading as one of my first jobs for a company, that was gambling. There are fundamentals why it is going up, the level of going up is insane but there is value in long term (blockchain tech) that can potentially affect most things we do in daily life. From logistics, to health care, to legal to finance to retail.
The risk tolerance of anyone doing crypto has to be very high, since it will go up and down like crazy. I was expecting correction, but it is not a crush, if you would short it now, you would lose a bundle. There is way too much enthusiasm for crypto in investment circles, and people are still bulish. A lot of retail investors just started to enter space, the big crush might come in 6 month or year, but what we are seeing not is just regular dip and consolidation since it was going up too fast too quick. (since in crypto dips of 30-50% is normal)
It will rebound to some level 15-18 (bitcoin) probably over next few days. The institutional money are still only starting to enter the space.
It is an alternative, highly risk investment with outzied returns at the moment. The music will stop at some point once the market cup and investors appetite is sated, but we not there yet. Once we hit 1-2 trillion market cap, that's when we likely to expect some major shifts.

Why is the concept of a blockchain hitched to the value of Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies)? In other words, if some novel application for blockchain is discovered, why does that mean that the value of the currencies increases?

Bitcoins aren't required in the process, only a blockchain. A new one could be created specifically for each application.

Matrix wrote:There are fundamentals why it is going up, the level of going up is insane but there is value in long term (blockchain tech) that can potentially affect most things we do in daily life.

No, there aren’t any fundamentals for why it’s going up or down. It’s value is based *entirely* on speculation. It has to be, because it doesn’t actually exist.

You can repeat “but blockchains!!” as many times as you like - but buying bitcoin doesn’t give me any ownership stake in blockchain tech at all.

It’s nonsense. There is enough hysteria in it to generate interest lets you take advantage of people until they figure it out, so you’ve got that going for you while the party lasts.

Just because there are a lot of suckers at the moment doesn’t make them not suckers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:50 pm Why is the concept of a blockchain hitched to the value of Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies)? In other words, if some novel application for blockchain is discovered, why does that mean that the value of the currencies increases?

Bitcoins aren't required in the process, only a blockchain. A new one could be created specifically for each application.

This is what happening, most value of crypto (about 60%) is not bitcoin, it is other block chain applications that tend to have crypto.
Bitcoin is usually used for benchmarking of the market, since when it goes up, usually everything else goes up allong with it since bitcoin and ether is used to buy other cryptos (bitcoin and ether are gateways).

You skipped over his point. The cryptocurrency (and its “value”) is completely disconnected from the underlying blockchain technology. It doesn’t matter which crypto I’m buying, I’m not buying blockchain technology.

You could argue that you are buying the right to use the blockchain but you aren’t even really doing that. You are giving someone money to store in a wildly volatile alternative container whose value fluctuates based entirely on speculation (best case scenario) or manipulation.

None of which is to say that this is a problem. But it’s a scheme, not an investment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:20 pm You skipped over his point. The cryptocurrency (and its “value”) is completely disconnected from the underlying blockchain technology. It doesn’t matter which crypto I’m buying, I’m not buying blockchain technology.

You could argue that you are buying the right to use the blockchain but you aren’t even really doing that. You are giving someone money to store in a wildly volatile alternative container whose value fluctuates based entirely on speculation (best case scenario) or manipulation.

None of which is to say that this is a problem. But it’s a scheme, not an investment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

But you are buying it. If you invest into crypto, and do your research you are buying into an idea. Be that a pie in the sky or actually use case (very few of those) , you are not randomly throwing money around and hoping some will saw rewards. Hence, there is value and most investors i spoke to (mostly from events from new york) do not randomly throw around money, infact many spend quiet some time looking into the backend part of the tech, team and etc. Your assumption that is is gambling is wrong from my experience. What is your definiton of investment? Since if we go by dictonary.com, crypto is certainly an investment vehicle.


Definition from dictionary.com

investment

noun
1.
the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. (This is precisely what crypto investment does right now)
2.
a particular instance or mode of investing.
3.
a thing invested in, as a business, a quantity of shares of stock, etc.
4.
something that is invested; sum invested.
5.
the act or fact of investing or state of being invested, as with a garment.

a devoting, using, or giving of time, talent, emotional energy, etc., as for a purpose or to achieve something:
His investment in the project included more time than he cared to remember.

But you are buying it. If you invest into crypto, and do your research you are buying into an idea.

How exactly? For example, if GE figures out a way to use blockchain to encrypt medical records, what connection is that to Bitcoin or any other crypto currency?

Sure, it deminatrates a certain confidence in the technology but there is nothing proprietary and no license fee or any other financial benefit.

It's like thinking that the value of the US dollar will go up because some company starts using a similar anti-counterfeit stripe in secure documents.

You are very specifically buying something that doesn’t exist (a bitcoin), with the goal of later convincing someone else to pay you even more money for something that doesn’t exist (a bitcoin). Substitute any cryptocurrency you’d like for bitcoins.

Buying a unit of the currency isn’t an investment in the technology. It can’t be because you haven’t actually bought anything or any part of the technology. Buying a bitcoin (just as an example) does not confer upon me an ownership stake in the underlying blockchain technology, any more than possessing a US dollar bill confers upon me a piece of ownership of the US economy.

When I say that it’s a scheme and not an investment, it’s not because you can’t make money with the scheme. It’s because you aren’t “investing” in anything. You are buying a made up thing that you hope to sell to someone else for more money.

If you’d like - explain to me the fundamentals of bitcoin that justify a valuation of $20,000 or $1,000 or $1. Anything. I maintain that you can’t because it can’t be done because bitcoins are made up. Malchior presented an argument that bitcoins are worth $X because the cost of mining a bitcoin is $X.

But that’s exactly backwards. The cost of mining doesn’t set the value. The perceived value determines whether or not the next bitcoin is worth the cost of mining. You can’t say “this coin cost me $2000 to mine therefore it’s worth (at least) $2000”. If it costs $2000 to mine, and people are only willing to pay $0.38, that just makes the miner stupid (and poor).

Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. And right now people are willing to pay thousands of $$ for some of these made up things. Make a killing while you still can on these idiots. Just don’t dress it up and pretend that it’s something it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:24 am You are very specifically buying something that doesn’t exist (a bitcoin), with the goal of later convincing someone else to pay you even more money for something that doesn’t exist (a bitcoin). Substitute any cryptocurrency you’d like for bitcoins.

The encrypted blocks are a work product that can't be replicated - that has a potential value which I'll go into - but I think you might be hanging too much on the non-existence angle. There are some real applications for the tech that are emerging as well.

If you’d like - explain to me the fundamentals of bitcoin that justify a valuation of $20,000 or $1,000 or $1. Anything. I maintain that you can’t because it can’t be done because bitcoins are made up. Malchior presented an argument that bitcoins are worth $X because the cost of mining a bitcoin is $X.

But that’s exactly backwards. The cost of mining doesn’t set the value. The perceived value determines whether or not the next bitcoin is worth the cost of mining. You can’t say “this coin cost me $2000 to mine therefore it’s worth (at least) $2000”. If it costs $2000 to mine, and people are only willing to pay $0.38, that just makes the miner stupid (and poor).

The value is the transaction processing service implicit to the bitcoin. The killer feature is the distributed ledger. I've just spent the last 3 weeks interviewing people in a large financial and almost every conversation involved blockchain as a technology to one extent or another. In addition, some were with economists who were skeptical but not for the reasons you are talking about. Mostly around price discovery and the bubble we are seeing. Some of the technologists had issues with bitcoins algorithm--the cost curve for mining is seen by some as too steep.

However, that said, the distributed ledger in some future cryptocurrency has a fair high probability of replacing the clearing and settling function that some big markets provide. Think ICE, CME Group, NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. That is the expectations at least at some of the markets right now. In addition, self-executing contracts will likely be a norm at some point so there are escrow functions at risk. I expect more applications to appear as well. This is a real thing.

The financial services disruption is a big deal alone -- they are a multi-billion dollar set of businesses. Will that be based on bitcoin? Probably not due to the speed of increase in the mining cost--this is why there have been so many forks this year I suspect--but the cost of mining is still an input equivalent to digging holes in the ground to get gold in a way. A function of work has to be performed and there is a 'real' work product--blocks in the distributed ledger. Businesses can be built around them and will be.

I suspect that the massively ramping costs of mining are what will kill the value of bitcoin. To get reasonable transaction costs take hours for your transaction to commit. That just doesn't scale for the emerging application sets that people envision. Merchants who take bitcoin are essentially extended credit or paying exorbitant transaction costs. It is a pure mania right now.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:40 am

But you are buying it. If you invest into crypto, and do your research you are buying into an idea.

How exactly? For example, if GE figures out a way to use blockchain to encrypt medical records, what connection is that to Bitcoin or any other crypto currency?

Sure, it deminatrates a certain confidence in the technology but there is nothing proprietary and no license fee or any other financial benefit.

It's like thinking that the value of the US dollar will go up because some company starts using a similar anti-counterfeit stripe in secure documents.

This is a apt comparison IMO. I expect institutions to invent their own blockchains for these sort of applications. I also expect that nations will create their own cryptocurrencies as mediums of exchange. There is nothing magical about bitcoin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... blockchain

Long Island Iced Tea Corp. shares rose as much as 289 percent after the unprofitable Hicksville, New York-based company rebranded itself Long Blockchain Corp. It’s the latest in a near-daily phenomenon sweeping the stock market, where obscure microcap companies reorient to focus on some aspect of the mania sparked by bitcoin’s 1,500 percent rally this year.

I swear to pancakes, if people won’t stop answering questions about the value of a made up digital asset with answers that have nothing to do with valuing the made up asset, I’m going to lose my shit.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IS REVOLUTIONARY, SINCE I CANT BUY IT.

It doesn’t matter if an encrypted block is a work product that has value. It doesn’t matter if the guy handling the transaction can charge me $50 to record the transaction. None of that value is stored in the digital currency.

No matter how revolutionary it is and no matter how the internet will change our world, Pets.com is still a worthless piece of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:34 pm I swear to pancakes, if people won’t stop answering questions about the value of a made up digital asset with answers that have nothing to do with valuing the made up asset, I’m going to lose my shit.

And you keep hinging on its made-up-ness. This isn't some digital trading card I can copy at whim.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IS REVOLUTIONARY, SINCE I CANT BUY IT.

True but that doesn't mean that a bitcoin or substitute some other cryptocurrency doesn't have value.

It doesn’t matter if an encrypted block is a work product that has value. It doesn’t matter if the guy handling the transaction can charge me $50 to record the transaction. None of that value is stored in the digital currency.

Why doesn't it matter? How is value stored in a dollar? Do we need to back the cryptocurrency with a dollar to make it legit?

No matter how revolutionary it is and no matter how the internet will change our world, Pets.com is still a worthless piece of shit.

This isn't even a close comparison.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:34 pm I swear to pancakes, if people won’t stop answering questions about the value of a made up digital asset with answers that have nothing to do with valuing the made up asset, I’m going to lose my shit.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IS REVOLUTIONARY, SINCE I CANT BUY IT.

It doesn’t matter if an encrypted block is a work product that has value. It doesn’t matter if the guy handling the transaction can charge me $50 to record the transaction. None of that value is stored in the digital currency.

No matter how revolutionary it is and no matter how the internet will change our world, Pets.com is still a worthless piece of shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think Milchiore answered this well, since i dont have time to go back to the same point. You purely dont believe it, and peace be with it. That doesn't deny that number of projects that being adapted and experimented on through blockchian tech is growing massively. Last year around this time, number of projects looking into blockchain tech was fraction of a fraction of what it is now. And we still are extremely early in the phase, but that doesnt mean it is worthless. Since same could have been said of the interned in mid 90s when it was used to substitute paper and stamps, it takes a while to discover projects and uses, for tech to develop.
Here is just from news today of how music industry is experimenting with it.
https://btcmanager.com/indie-artists-tu ... lockchain/

We all have our opinions, i personally strongly believe in its future, and putting both my time and money into the vision of what it can be. Am i wrong? maybe, but so far my investments both in time and money has paid of handsomely. Until i see something that shows otherwise, i will continue to dedicate my time and effort on this.

It matters because it’s the only answer anyone gives to justify the value of whatever particular cryptocurrency they are out touting. That the currency is worth something because the technology that enables you to use the currency is the bestest.

The technology certainly might be worth something. That’s doesn’t confer value upon the currency.

The Pets.com analogy refers to the mania we are seeing that results in vastly overvaluing something. This is mania, pure and simple.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:43 pm It matters because it’s the only answer anyone gives to justify the value of whatever particular cryptocurrency they are out touting. That the currency is worth something because the technology that enables you to use the currency is the bestest.

The technology certainly might be worth something. That’s doesn’t confer value upon the currency.

The Pets.com analogy refers to the mania we are seeing that results in vastly overvaluing something. This is mania, pure and simple.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I had this exact same conversation with my sister and brother-in-law about their "investment" in bitcoin. It's not an investment any more than putting money in a pyramid scheme is an investment. For all the reasons RM9 set out above. I shit you not. The exact same conversation.

I'm coming to the conclusion that when it comes to Bitcoin believers, rational thought just doesn't apply. It's almost like a cult!

I don't like phrasing it like that - but certainly cryptocurrency believers have the exact same behavior as the dot com believers. Nothing you say matters. Instead of "but internet!!" you'll get "but blockchain!!". And no matter how hard you try to dig deeper, you won't get passed the surface, because that's all there is.

Of course, no one likes to be told that - especially when they believe they know better. So I suppose it's best to wish them luck now that they've placed their wager.

Blockchain will make some investors rich for sure . Investors in IBM, JP Morgan Case, Google, Cerner, or some other companies that capitalize on the technology in a marketable and proprietary way.

Something Bitcoin and the other cryptos can't. Their only value is as an alternative currency with security features of the blockchain.

Up until this point I’ve taken it at face value that the underlying blockchain technology might be revolutionary (I just don’t believe that has anything to do with the value of cryptocurrency). This article may have changed my mind about that.

If you haven’t been brainwashed yet, it’s interesting reading if only to give yourself pause for a moment. The assertion is that those pushing blockchain technology generally-speaking don’t have any understanding or experience of the current systems it is trying to replace.

Blockchain enthusiasts seem to think that moving money and keeping a record of that movement is a hard problem that needs solving. But with current systems, moving money and keeping track of it is actually easy and simple, and those systems provide more value with added features like being able to reverse transactions, etc.

Blockchain is starting to sound a lot like how I’ve had to hear since 1996 that Linux was going to take over the world and kill Microsoft Windows. And yet, here we are 20+ years later and MSFT is at an all-time high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And a counter-point.

Although obviously A being wrong doesn’t obviously mean that B will be wrong. Despite the overall wrongness of this article, it’s interesting to note that some of the perceptions about the internet were dead on regarding the proliferation of fake bullshit, increased isolation from actual humans, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:16 pm Up until this point I’ve taken it at face value that the underlying blockchain technology might be revolutionary (I just don’t believe that has anything to do with the value of cryptocurrency). This article may have changed my mind about that.

I'm not going to tear that article apart bit by bit but the assertion he makes lack perspective in part and is right in other senses. Adoption on the financial services side has been slow because the institutions involved have a lot of stakeholders who are risk averse. To name a cut down set: the board of the company, internal business stakeholders, internal development resources, IT Security, and regulators who care about systemic risk. That takes time - to give a time frame it took about 15 years for electronic clearing to be widely accepted versus sending paper checks by courier like they did in the 70s. And it's funny he mentions Swift because they had a massive hack in one of their member banks--Bangladesh to be exact--and that itself has caused a major re-think in Swift's world that is ongoing at the moment. They care a whole lot about security and especially identity. That is a problem that cryptography can help with. We'll see if that actually happens but that is a major ongoing discussion in FS right now. Keep in mind the banks have been seriously evaluating this tech for about 3 years now - tops. And many are just now getting into the game.

If you haven’t been brainwashed yet, it’s interesting reading if only to give yourself pause for a moment. The assertion is that those pushing blockchain technology generally-speaking don’t have any understanding or experience of the current systems it is trying to replace.

Tell that to the exchanges that are switching over major parts of their processes to blockchain over the next 5 years. He might have been on the right track had he talked that it won't totally replace the players. Bitcoins can't act as a regulator of a market, can't file lawsuits to force performance on a future contract, or can't provide high frequency trading services. Those functions will likely survive but the market makers will be more profitable once they have a performant clearing function that is less error-prone.

Blockchain enthusiasts seem to think that moving money and keeping a record of that movement is a hard problem that needs solving. But with current systems, moving money and keeping track of it is actually easy and simple, and those systems provide more value with added features like being able to reverse transactions, etc.

Efficiency is the major gain. Again it probably won't be bitcoin because it uses too much power. Also "more value"? Whatever that means but you can reverse transactions with blockchain - it'll be just like they do it now - another transaction that credits the original amount.

Blockchain is starting to sound a lot like how I’ve had to hear since 1996 that Linux was going to take over the world and kill Microsoft Windows. And yet, here we are 20+ years later and MSFT is at an all-time high.

Another terrible comparison - this makes no sense. Linux has about 75% of the world market share on the server side. Most cloud apps are powered off some Linux variant. AWS is Linux underneath. Portions of Azure are Linux underneath. Block chain isn't some killer app that'll replace everything. It'll replace what makes sense. And that'll be a lot of transactional components.

Why is every analogy that you don’t get a terrible analogy? Next time just ask why I’m making the analogy.

In this case the analogy is based on the mania surrounding Linux and it’s ability to kill Microsoft. I’ve been developing software for decades and since the beginning I’ve been hearing about how Linux was going to kill Microsoft. In 22 years of developing software, I have never had a single project that was developed for Linux make money. In every single case, the Linux development was paid for and then carried along by the Windows side of things. I see the same phenomenon between iOS and Android. Anyway, the point of the analogy is the mania. Not the number of servers running Linux.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:10 pm Why is every analogy that you don’t get a terrible analogy? Next time just ask why I’m making the analogy.

I got it. I still think it is terrible. The "mania" around Linux was about the superiority of free software. Maybe you had guys like Stallman saying it'd kill Microsoft. Their wrongness doesn't take away that it had probably 1% market share in 1996 and has 75% now. Hardly a failure. I doubt block chain will achieve anywhere close to that level of success.

In 22 years of developing software, I have never had a single project that was developed for Linux make money. In every single case, the Linux development was paid for and then carried along by the Windows side of things.

I can't wrap my head around how myopic this is. Every router being sold, almost every NAS, billions of devices, heck most of the cloud runs on Linux. They all make money. Entire industries exist and are profitable because Linux exists royalty free. You have a very peculiar view of tech that is flat out not reality.

I see the same phenomenon between iOS and Android. Anyway, the point of the analogy is the mania. Not the number of servers running Linux.

FWIW I agree there is a mania but it more akin to tulips or flipping houses than some completely broken model based on Linux hype.

malchior wrote:The "mania" around Linux was about the superiority of free software.

Right, sort of like the mania around the superiority of <insert blockchain word here>

malchior wrote:I can't wrap my head around how myopic this is. Every router being sold, almost every NAS, billions of devices, heck most of the cloud runs on Linux. They all make money. Entire industries exist and are profitable because Linux exists royalty free. You have a very peculiar view of tech that is flat out not reality.

You're becoming the king of not really reading what people write, and instead just seeing what you want to see, and responding to that. I suppose that makes things easier for you. But again, if you are confused about something, just ask. I'm happy to explain without having to have both of our times wasted by you just making up what I mean and going from there.

What I said was - as a software developer, *I've never worked on a product that made money from the Linux effort* - despite all the hysteria at each company demanding that we drop what we were doing to support Linux. Most of the products were in the telecom space, which was part of the problem (that had to do with the immaturity of Linux for that kind of product at that time, for the enterprise customers we were targeting). But even in the media server space, where Linux made more sense, we couldn't get anyone to pay for it. They wanted the media server functionality that we were offering. They just didn't want to pay for it. All the while, we had no trouble selling the comparable Windows product. Hardware products are an easier sell, because you're selling a black box. What the black box runs inside is generally immaterial to the buyer. Linux is an excellent choice there for the obvious cost savings (among other reasons). We weren't selling black boxes (the reason for that varied by company, but for the most part it was an unfortunate consequence of our relationship to Mother Intel at the time).

Either way, it was a common thread across three companies over a decade and a half, which is why I noted it. You can certainly disagree with that, but that's not unreasonable since we come from different experiences. The things that I saw and the similarities I see won't mean much to you.

FWIW I agree there is a mania but it more akin to tulips or flipping houses than some completely broken model based on Linux hype.

Well we disagree on that. To me this is the exact same mania that gripped the industry during the dot com bubble, replacing the word "internet" with "blockchain". And we are seeing evidence of it all the time (posted here in this thread no less). As I said way earlier in the thread - the problem isn't that we were promised that the internet would change the world and it didn't.

We were promised that the internet would change the world and it did. Everyone lost their money anyway - because the speculative mania disconnected the price of things from the actual value of things. That is what is happening here (IMHO). I'm still generally of the opinion that blockchain technology will have it's uses (I probably disagree that it is revolutionary or that it will have the impact that the internet had), but there will be applications where it can be applied.

Matrix wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:06 pm Moliere how is your trading? I still hold my position in eth.

I am up 36 fold on my original investment. I could of had triple that, but I got caught on a Limit sell when XRP spiked down just before going through the roof. Kind of depressing actually. Anyone, can't complain. At this point I am gambling "found" money and diversifying to other currencies across 4 exchanges.

Congrats! Ya, the recent ripple pop in price was pretty insane. Ya, similar story on my side, just with ether. Diversified, so now hold few other tokens. And to those who ignored our last spring conversation.... too slow. If they threw in few hundred bucks in, that alone would return a nice vacation at the very least.

Telegram Is Trying to Raise a Lot of Money Through an Initial Coin Offering

Telegram, a popular Russia-based encrypted texting startup, will integrate a blockchain system called “Telegram Open Network” (TON) into its messenger app and launch a new cryptocurrency called “Gram,” according to TechCrunch. The initial coin offering (ICO) is expected to be one of the largest—and maybe the largest—ever.

A Russian based messenger app? I'm sure there are no backdoors built in for the Kremlin.

This is just getting stupid.

Shares of Eastman Kodak stock were up more than 100% in afternoon trading after the company announced a new cryptocurrency initiative.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:18 pm This is just getting stupid.

Shares of Eastman Kodak stock were up more than 100% in afternoon trading after the company announced a new cryptocurrency initiative.

They're up another 28% or so in after hours trading.

Yeah - that is dumb. The use case they are pursuing is interesting but not double the value of the company interesting. There are some idiotic algos out there obviously.

Obviously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The North American Bitcoin Conference is No Longer Accepting Bitcoin Payments for Tickets

The North American Bitcoin Conference, which will take place in Miami next week, is no longer allowing people to pay for tickets with cryptocurrencies due to “network congestion and manual processing” issues. The ticketing page for the conference notes that it had accepted such forms of payment up until 14 days before the event, but that bitcoin transactions would not be possible for last-minute buyers because of “print deadlines.”

Moe Levin, the conference’s organizer, told Bitcoin.com, “We wish this was easier, but no ticketing options exist which can handle large volumes of ticket sales, and transaction fees on the Bitcoin blockchain exceed $30 at certain times of the day.” His team is reportedly trying to find a way to implement cryptocurrencies with lower transaction fees, such as bitcoin cash, into the payment system. Yet, as Levin notes, it’s difficult to set up crypto payments when ticketing services like Eventbrite don’t accept bitcoin yet.

LOL.

Mining by hand.
http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining ... l?m=1

Sorry if has been posted before.

TechCrunch

Researchers Neil Gandal, JT Hamrick, Tyler Moore, and Tali Oberman have written a fascinating paper on Bitcoin price manipulation. Entitled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” and appearing in the recent issue of the Journal of Monetary Economics the paper describes to what degree the Bitcoin ecosystem is controlled by bad actors.

To many it’s been obvious that the Bitcoin markets are, at the very least, being manipulated by one or two big players. “This paper identifies and analyzes the impact of suspicious trading activity on the Mt. Gox Bitcoin currency exchange, in which approximately 600,000 bitcoins (BTC) valued at $188 million were fraudulently acquired,” the researchers wrote. “During both periods, the USD-BTC exchange rate rose by an average of four percent on days when suspicious trades took place, compared to a slight decline on days without suspicious activity. Based on rigorous analysis with extensive robustness checks, the paper demonstrates that the suspicious trading activity likely caused the unprecedented spike in the USD-BTC exchange rate in late 2013, when the rate jumped from around $150 to more than $1,000 in two months.”

The team found that many instances of price manipulation happened simply because the market was very thin for various cryptocurrencies including early Bitcoin. “Despite the huge increase in market capitalization, similar to the bitcoin market in 2013 (the period examined), markets for these other cryptocurrencies are very thin. The number of cryptocurrencies has increased from approximately 80 during the period examined to 843 today! Many of these markets are thin and subject to price manipulation.”

The manipulation happened primarily via two bots, Markus and Willy, that seemed to be performing valid trades but did not actually own the bitcoin they were using. During the Mt. Gox hack a number of these bots were able to create fake trades and make off with millions while manipulating the price of BTC.

An interesting side effect of this paper is it proves that the technology is transparent enough to see fraud - even years ago - and potentially break through the pseudo-anonymity. It still needs controls and supervision though so the clearing/settling and market regulation functions performed by the big market companies are not going away just yet.

Edit: Nope got this wrong - just skimmed the paper. They correlated blockchain info with leaked trade audit trail from Mt. Gox to find it. Interesante. I need to chew on this for awhile. I don't know what it means yet but perhaps there may be a regulatory hole here that needs filling.

Is This the Beginning of the End of the Bitcoin Bubble?

The price of bitcoin plummeted by as much as 20 percent on Tuesday to $12,000, or about 40 percent below its all-time high in December. Other popular cryptocurrencies, like ethereum and Ripple, also posted double-digit losses.

What’s the reason? With stock-market analysis, there is sometimes an instinct to invent causality (“stocks fall on X,” “stocks slide amid Y”) when markets are driven by a matrix of inextricable factors. But in this case, the cause of bitcoin’s collapse seems pretty clear. Just as the currency’s hysterical price rise was driven in large part by demand out of China, Japan, and South Korea, its latest fall seems similarly tied to developments in Asia.
...
Bitcoin’s price rises and falls like a plastic bag in a hurricane, so it’s silly to attach too much significance to one day’s fluctuation. But today’s news still reveals a subtle crack in the bull case for bitcoin. The digital currency was designed to be stateless and leaderless—“rules without rulers”—to evade single points of failure, and to remain impervious to government control. But the great irony is that bitcoin is plunging today in part because it’s failing on all three accounts.