Does anyone have a link to a site where I can see how many bitcoins were bought/sold in the past few hours? I remember seeing a screen shot to one. Thanks in advance.

While that is definitely useful, and I have seen it before, there was another one with a black background and the buys and sells listed graphically on the right-hand side as sort of green and red blocks, so to speak. Thanks for the help, though!

There is a possibility I am mistaken about it being a website and it's just someone's software, however. I think I saw it in this thread, if I can find it, I'll quote it.

This is what I'm talking about, looks like btccharts.com, although when I visit it doesn't look as cool as the screen shot. Do you have to register to change the layout or is there something I'm missing?

Thanks for the link uhoh, not the one I was thinking of, but useful, nonetheless.

Ahh, okay. Thanks for the help!

Werebears.

Isn't that just anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously unscientific?

Right. The fact that "knowing" comes before "observation" in his post suggests confirmation bias, as well.

Try clearing your cookies? It's working for me.

Yeah I have that problem sometimes, and clearing cookies and cache does it for me most times.

At least make it 2 bucks, No sense in being greedy, you'd be kicking yourself if they missed you by, say, 50 cents.

It was pulled fairly quickly.

Is it safe to say we are officially entering the panic phase now?

If you're hoping for a price rise, be careful what you wish for regarding the bid wall. Many times a large bid wall has come up, it has either been eaten and caused panic sells, or been a fake wall designed to get people to place bids above it, only so they can pull it and sell into all those accumulated bids at a higher price than they would have gotten otherwise.

Jaroslaw, obv.

I would think it's much harder to troll a bear than a bull in this situation. Most bears accept the risk that the price could go up, since their logic is more likely to be grounded in reality. No dreams of 300k BTC in a bears world, for example.

Your level of hilarity is inversely proportional to the number of bitcoins one owns.

I'm sure all those "weak hands" who sold out at $200+ are kicking themselves now.

You forgot the other option, which is holders get scared and start to sell out.

I hear this a lot, and it doesn't make any sense to me. I have visions of BTC rich people flying in blimps, showering the masses with Casascius coins. Good thought for a chuckle, not very realistic.

The simple fact is, there are a select few who own a lot of bitcoins. Those people are not likely to suddenly start distributing them to "the people" just when they're at their highest. All that I foresee happening is we will have a new set of "select few."

How does one invest in Ripple, anyway? I'm nowhere near as sold on it as you are, but it's so cheap I'm willing to take a shot.

Don't worry, I don't plan to invest very much. I'm just looking to have some hanging around.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate your time.

I might be mistaken, but couldn't a lot of that be because people were placing orders for ASIC miners at that time? I would be more interested in how they did in the months after the initial crash.

Cocaine is addictive; bitcoin is not.

680ish, plus about 140 in smaller bursts a minute or two later.

Nice little battle for 350.

I see about 700 BTC bought at $335 roughly 3 minutes ago.

Make no mistake about it, Fox news is an enemy of holders, and they have a lot of sway in the US due to a relatively large viewership. I would be shocked if Bitcoin were ever presented in a positive light on that station.

I'm not saying the volume is faked, because I really have no idea, but couldn't a big player use the lack of trading fees to their advantage by setting up big sell walls, buying them out, and creating the illusion of incredible buying pressure at no cost? Or vice versa, I suppose.

According to the order book, the bid-ask gap is like $50. Not sure if that's correct, considering the sites current problems, but that's what I saw.

Are you sure this isn't just because of that dude who keeps putting up and pulling his 1500BTC wall on Gox?

Are you SURE it wasn't just that person putting up and pulling the phantom sell walls causing the price to temporarily decrease?

Wrath of rpietila?

All those 1000BTC buy walls got pulled.

I think bitstamp is messed up. Their ticker up top says 570 but their orderbook shows 590 and 591.

You must not have been looking hard enough. I did a simple google search for bitcoin crash to see how the media would interpret that whale cashout (crashout?), and I found numerous write-ups about it. The fact that the market handled it well despite all the negative press the next day could be a good sign, though.

That you can later exchange for a bitcoin, if I understood correctly.

I think there is a very real possibility that all the big players (that would be willing to get in at all) we're hoping to get in and jack up the price got in at the $150-$250 range, and now all the good news is designed to set up some bag holders when they inevitably sell out.

Just an observation. I do not claim to be in their heads, to be sure, all I am saying is perhaps we should tread carefully and make sure to take some profit on the way up in case we get royally screwed at the end of this. I wouldn't sell to day-trade, but I have sold some to make sure my children have a real nice Christmas. If it goes up, so be it. I'm not going to get greedy.

If you market sell/buy but there aren't enough bitcoins at the price you're offering, it goes down or up to the next price in the list. So for example, if you sell 20BTC at 1150 in a market order, but there are only 10BTC on the book being bought at 1150, and the next 10 at 1145, you will sell the first 10 at 1150 and the last 10 at 1145. The 50 you lose vs selling them all at 1150 is your slippage.

I was addressing your question regarding slippage. I have no idea what happened in your specific case.

5% is a small amount of your holdings. I would just consider it taking profit, personally, but I won't tell you what to do with your money.

I would assume he meant at 1k price, since I imagine he wouldn't be panicking if he had 20k BTC, or worrying about whether he should buy back.

So far it seems like the states haven't been panicking too much. Fingers crossed for simply a huge correction?

All of this works the other way, though: the holders will talk about how it's not over, it's just a correction, etc. I feel that for the most part, extreme posts from either side tell little more than their creators current position.

Some would choose that over having to admit to a potential mate that they still live with their parents.

EDIT: Besides, nothing is worse than sex with your parents in the same house.

Now that's just kinky.

   

Why don't you just buy back in before the train leaves without you? 

Guy that predicted a $3300 top just posted that he is selling.

http://btctrading.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/short-term-update-h1-chart-bitstamp/

Last bubble he predicted like 600-900.

I can tell you this much: that prediction, plus the "1000 cheap coins" sentiment, plus my buddy giving me a call a few days ago asking me if he should buy bitcoin (I told him hell no!), all had me looking for an exit for all the BTC I was willing to sell.

They were ahead by 10% for almost the entire rally. I don't think it means anything either way.

What I do think means something is the huge walls near $650. Gonna be tough to break through those, assuming they don't retreat.

Monday 7AMish I believe.

The time to sell was at 1100-1200. Buying had really died down, and the tops were flat. You could kind of justify selling at 950 now, I guess, but if you sold at, like, 600, that's kind of silly. Even if you think it will continue to go down, at least wait for the almost inevitable bounce.

The more important point was the not selling at 600 part.

*shrug* I guess I got lucky, then.

Might be a bit premature to know for sure, but I think we've reached the bottom for now.

Why do you guys so vehemently commit to buy and hold, only to blow it when it's at the very bottom and sell?

If you committed to buy and hold on the way up, what it SHOULD mean is that you have already psychologically braced yourself for any sort of drop like this. You've probably decided you're not good at day-trading, so you hold. The problem is it's very easy to commit to buy and hold when it's going to da moon, but will you maintain that sort of mentality when it is dropping like a stone? If you cannot do so, you should probably have cashed out enough while it was going up so that a drop wouldn't crush you. You know it will go down eventually, whether it be in a bear trap or a crash, so if you really want to stay in bitcoins, just save the proceeds from your bitcoins until it goes down, then buy some more.

Were you the one who said you lost more money than you've ever had during this drop? If you sold portions after large advances instead of large declines, you would have had a lot more money, and wouldn't have to have that lurching in your stomach during drops. Now, if it continues to advance after you sell some, you will miss out on some profits, but you'll still likely make plenty. If it starts to drop, the money you have accumulated will help you keep your head on straight and not panic when a drop comes. That means you're going to be sticking to your original buy and hold plan. It also means you will have extra money with which to BUY when it's dropping.

I think for some of you, it stems from greed. "If I sell 10 BTC now at 1000, that's 10 million less I'll have when it hits 1 million!" I promise you it's not going to go to a million tomorrow. Take some profit during uptrends, buy yourself something nice, and hold onto the rest for rebuying later.

One might argue "well if your plan is to buy and hold, why are you selling?" Well, you're temporarily adjusting your plan to involve selling because you want some profits and you want to reduce your risk to prevent panic selling. The question is, are you going to adjust your plan rationally while it's going up, or in a panic when it's tanking?

Then you have balls of steel or enough money to not panic. The idea is you want to stick to buy and hold, so put yourself in a position where you won't feel the need to abandon your plan because you need to pay your bills or whatever. If you can buy and hold without panic even without having taken that profit first, and that's what you want to do, then my advice would not apply to you.

The price might go down, but I seriously doubt it would even get close to that in the time it would take your average person to sleep.

Wow, some of the posts in this thread are a celebration to fiscal irresponsibility.

Dude, she just lost her son, of course she will be irrational. Don't blame her for having emotions, blame the idiots that overreact to this shit, i.e. politicians and the media.

Are you saying I'm saying it's because of bitcoin, or she is saying it's because of bitcoin? I never said anything like that. I, as a completely rational, outside observer, can easily see bitcoin is not at all to blame. You, as a completely rational, outside observer, can also. She, however, is incapable of being rational due to the loss of her son, and needs something to focus on other than maddening grief. Bitcoin became that focus. It's irrational, but it doesn't make her an idiot. It makes her human. Cut her some slack, and blame the people who deserve it: politicians kowtowing to the irrational rantings of a grieving woman to get votes, and the media for exploiting said irrational woman to get ratings/fulfill an agenda.

As for him being 21, totally irrelevant to my argument. Your kids don't matter less to you, nor does it hurt less to lose them, simply because they're adults. To blame this woman is to lose focus on what is really important: politicians and the media sucking balls.

I don't disagree with any of this. I disagree that she is necessarily an idiot because of what she is doing.

So minute 31 after your child son dies, you're cool with it? Acceptance and all that?

Sure.

Possible, but paranoid.

Yes, irrational.

She's blaming one thing, and while it's certainly the wrong thing, I blame the media for clinging to it like a bunch of dingleberries on the ass-crack of bitcoin.


I agree wholeheartedly.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see the error in "I had an epiphany at lunch." It's a bit of a stretch, since epiphany implies that something mundane led you to your flash of enlightenment (think: Dr. House), but as far as I know it is not out-and-out incorrect.

I'd estimate that this diet is probably healthier than at least half of the other fad diets out there.

No. That would be a diet of ingesting too many fonzie posts.

There is a difference between "I think bitcoin is going down, here is my objective analysis" and "OMFG SELL SELL SELL BITCOIN IS DEAD!" If you say the first one, and I disagree with you, I will calmly explain why. I will dismiss the second one as ridiculous and ignore it.

Notice that the same can be said for bull trolls, it's just that they get less heat because they're saying what most on here want to hear.

Wow, the last time I read this much bullshit in a single post, it ended by telling me a story about the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

That uncle Phil did have some wisdom.

Manipulates the ask sum.

They ran out of the barrel of "stay with your wife" cookies?

EDIT: Oh, and you people use the word "troll" extremely liberally.

Rivers and rivers of blood on Gox right now.

Is bitcoinbuilder a legitimate thing or just a scam to run off with funds?

Fully prepared to eat my words here, but I'd say the dumping on Gox is probably just about over.

Whelp 110 wall on Gox gone. Consider my words eaten. I'm still buying, though. Imagine if I can get a 2 digit average buyin price on these things?

Getting some small cuts along the way, but I'm trying to catch it!

I'm sure the fact that Gox is automatically closing support desk requests is not helping things at all.

I'll thank them as soon as I can withdrawal.


Dude, it dropped over 80% in two weeks, you have to expect a bounce. Sure, the bulls are delusional when they think it's going up up up forever, but bears are just as bad when they think it's going to slam straight back to $10 without any resistance.

I believe they are called bag hodlers.

Was that all? I was expecting so much more.

You can never be 100% certain, but I'd say chances are good you will be disappointed if you're still hoping to get those 117 bids filled.

It's probably not over for bitstamp, but it looks pretty over for Gox.

Then when he dumps the rest, he'll use the money you gave him to buy it all back lower, with a nice profit to go along with it.

Considering we are deflating from a bubble, I doubt Gox going away is going to bring up the price immediately to $1000+ like most of you are thinking.

Extrapolating from Chinese --> English on google translate, it's all stuff people reading this thread already know. It seems to say that Mt. Gox had to close bitcoin withdrawals, prices crashed as a result, and he's out of the Bitcoin Foundation.

You might get those 117 bids filled after all. I doubt $10 though.

Dude pulled his wall and dumped it, I'm guessing.

Haven't seen any trades on Gox in about 10 minutes. Is trading down?

Why are you even entertaining that utter stupidity with any sort of reasonable response?

Wherever you go, some people are just going to suck. Don't stress yourself out over it too much.

Nice thinking well of people there, eh? I'm sure he'll lose so much sleep being ignored by a misogynist asshole.

I don't care about TERA's claims, nor do I care about defending Jorge. I'm just pointing out that someone who considers "woman" an insult should not be acting so high and mighty.

I could have a debate with you regarding society's contribution in excluding women from those fields (and the other way around regarding traditionally "feminine" things that men might enjoy) by forcing members of both sexes to adhere to their gender roles through shaming and judgment, i.e. men are good at math, women are good at sewing, etc., AKA exactly the dumb shit you are doing now.

Considering that debate would be an enormous waste of my time when done with a troglodyte such as yourself, however, I will instead say that there is no need to justify the fact that you're an awful human being. I was merely pointing it out.

Noted. You are arrogant and easily insulted, therefore must justify your inane beliefs to some random on the internet? Just asking.

Sounds like the classic "I was 'nice' (read: a wimp) with my ex and she mistreated me, therefore I degrade all women and think they deserve to be mistreated, and anybody/man who disagrees gets the full brunt of my bitterness" trope.

Are you hot for your mom or something? Geez, dude, your problems are worse than I could imagine. My mother was beautiful, but even thinking about her in comparison to women I am/have been sexually active with feels bizarre, to say the least.

Fuck that's not cheap, that's like blowjob from a decent looking hooker prices.

She cheated on you, didn't she? And you're scared to love again? Be honest, your life is a bad Barry Manilow song, isn't it? Come on, admit it, we won't judge you.

Don't worry. Nothing you've said on the topic so far has made you look good.

I'd say my opinion is a lot more valid than "wimminz do wimminz stuff, menz do menz stuff," but the reality is I don't get to decide whether my opinion matters or not. That choice is left to the reader.

If you hated your ex-wife so much, why did you leave her?

Well there's one thing we can agree on, at least.

Clearly you believe this, as evidenced by how highly you speak of them in general conversation. Oh wait...

What makes you think your opinion of whether my opinion matters or not matters?

If it has been, I can almost guarantee you he couldn't present an argument for it. I mean, he can't even figure out that you're just testing him to see if he's full of shit.

Am I referring to you? Nah. Am I siding with Tailor? Not necessarily. Does that mean I think the word of everyone who disagrees with him is gold, and will take it without a second thought, and without sources or references? Nope.

If you know something someone else doesn't, you don't tell them to do their own research. That's not helpful or adding anything to the conversation. Besides, even if the person you are addressing is a troll, and you have no hope of convincing them, maybe you convince someone who stumbled onto the forum and is lurking, and you make the community look good because you remained polite in the face of adversity. You also make it a lot harder for the people who accuse bitcoiners of being a cult to make their case when you're handling disagreement with politeness. It benefits pro-bitcoiners to actually argue their side, and argue it repeatedly so newbies can see without having to scour the forums. I really dislike the whole "it's the same old shit." Well, of course it is! They're newbies, they weren't around for the explanation the first time, and they're probably getting a bunch of stuff that you disagree with drilled into their heads. In their minds, they have done the research. It's your job to convince them their information is flawed, if that's what you think.

Just remember, YOU (collective you) asked those questions when YOU first found out about bitcoin, and if you didn't, I would consider that highly irresponsible. Be nice to the newbies, if it's ever going to get to 5k+, it will likely be on their backs.

I am very curious what no government means to you, and why you'd want to live in a place without one. I mean, it's one thing to want less government intrusion, but are we talking less/no taxes, or are we talking no police department, no public schooling, no fire department. Where do you draw the line?

What is difficult for me to imagine is why anyone not wealthy would want to live in that sort of environment.

 

Yeah, let's build them! Let's take your knowledge of building roads, my knowledge of building roads, and combined, I'm willing to bet that we'll have a total of zero knowledge of how to build roads. Since we can't do it, someone will have to. But that someone is going to want to be paid for their investment/hard work, so you'll probably have to pay tolls every few miles. Oh, wait, some people can't afford those tolls. Those people better stay home or get ready to walk it, because they're fucked.

The same logic can be applied to pretty much everything else. It's a good society...for those who can afford it. But hey, at least we don't need those poor deadbeats mooching off our roads and having police protection and shit. That's reserved for the people who deserve it. That's for the people with wealth.

Dreams and reality rarely intersect.

Sure, they'll have more money and be "makin' it rain" with all the extra proceeds from not paying taxes. Except, oh wait, their wages will probably be less than the taxes they would have paid, since there won't be any government mandated minimum wage anymore. "Oh, you want $7 an hour? Sorry, this dude's willing to work for $4. Can I get you to come down to $3.50?" That's before we consider all the price collusion they'll now face at the stores they buy goods at. They might be able to barter, but if they can't afford the privatized protection, who is to stop them from getting robbed?

This is assuming you don't mean that "omg I want the government to die so we can live survival of the fittest style" kind of anarchy. I know others tend to toss people into that mold of anarchy as soon as the word comes up, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't want to pull out your bat and shotgun and win your food the old fashioned way, but if this IS what you meant, I imagine would leave most of the poor pillaged and murdered inside of 2 months by other poor, since the victim can't afford the protection and the thief can't really afford food. Presumably the thief will be "fitter" than the victim. EDIT: This should be addressed to the 2nd guy, not you.

See why this situation sucks for the poor?

We're both speculating, to be sure, but it's definitely not as simple as some of you are making it.


Please show me where I said that. I said SOMEONE will have to do it, and they're going to want to make something for it, which is understandable. The problem comes for those who can't afford it, and read my logic above for why they likely won't be able to.

True, and nothing you said would suggest you were. That is my mistake for addressing that point to the wrong person, as noted in my edit.


Positions of power will still exist, they'll just be different. If it turns out your way, those will likely be higher ups in corporations. If it turns out the way I think, it will be gang leaders and large families/groups that are in control. Sociopaths will simply tend to gravitate toward the top of whatever heap you throw them in.


The government is inefficient (which I agree with), but charities somehow magically aren't? Not to mention now nobody is obligated to pay into them, and no matter how idealistically you want to look at humanity, the fact is there are a lot of greedy and selfish people in the world, and none of them will be giving to charity unless they deem it good for their image.

Perhaps what this boils down to is a fundamental difference of opinion regarding how humanity functions and how things would go down in this new world. You have faith in humanity, I do not. You think it is possible to live in harmony without a government, I say many people need structure so as to not start killing each other, and some are so heartless and selfish that they wouldn't piss on someone on fire unless it benefited them in some way.

The devil you know, or the devil you don't.

You are assuming most people pay as much attention as you do. Most people donate to the charity they see on TV the most. They don't give a shit about said charity's efficiency, they just want to say, "Oh, I got this pretty pink ribbon, see how great I am!"

And who will build them in your ideal world? The same private companies. Then who will pay for them? Who gets to drive on them? If it's tolls, the poor with commutes to their jobs will be adversely affected by it, especially when taken in the context of minimum wage no longer being a thing. If it's everyone pays a flat fee, again the burden is on the poor because paying $1,000 out of $10,000 hurts a hell of a lot more than paying $1,000 out of $100,000 (similar arguments work for thing like police and fire departments, etc.) If it's everyone pays a percentage of what they make, that's straight up taxes and the government is whoever is collecting those taxes.

No matter how you slice it, your world will in all likelihood suck for the have-nots.

What would change about our culture in your ideal world that would make charities better or more efficient?

EDIT: And what about our culture would change to make those who wouldn't otherwise give to charities suddenly decide to? Or what would change that would convince those donators to give to the now thousands of additional charities we have for every single basic human need that was in some part provided for previously?

Oh come on man, you are really stretching here. Most of them aren't assuming anything at all. They don't think about it. They did their good, leave them alone is the mentality.

It's human nature to seek rewards for what we perceive to be good deeds. If anybody is taking advantage of these people, it's the charities handing out the goddamn ribbons and throwing their ads on candy bars and shit (where probably a whole 5 cents will go to the charity), or talking about how a portion of proceeds for that $600 dress goes to charity (and almost certainly as relatively small a portion). And they're not exploiting sheep. People are not sheep. People are glorified, tribal monkeys. They're exploiting our monkey tendencies to seek out rewards and get mad when we are given a slice of cucumber for our good job rather than a grape.

Or corporations choke job offerings for a while, until people are outbidding each other to work for bottom dollar. How certain can you be that will not happen?

Yeah, fuck those assholes who like, need to drive to work and feed their kids and shit. They don't deserve jobs if their job doesn't pay them enough to pay tolls.

Unskilled labor does not pay very well, and it would get much worse without a minimum wage. What you would be talking about are the homeless, but even people with jobs often struggle, and working for $4 an hour, tax free as it may be, will not help very much.

I know the arguments, I disagree. You won't. Moving on.

Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?

Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.

My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.

Governments aren't corrupt. People are corrupt. Why do so many people think getting rid of the government gets rid of corruption? All it does is changes where it takes place.

For comparison, let's look at getting rid of ALL guns. What happens? Does murder stop, or do we only see a sudden jump in the number of stabbing deaths? I argue the latter.

What is involuntary about it? It says "let's say you COULD," not "what if the rules changed." It's a voluntary option to get out of paying taxes, and I think it does a pretty good job of simulating what it would be like if we relied on voluntary contributions. The thing is, you all say that support will come from voluntary contributions, but when it comes time to actually, you know, contribute, all of you will be passing the buck. It's because it's not about the ideal, it's about the money, so stop bullshitting and acting like it's not. If the government charged no taxes, I assume a lot of you would care much less about getting rid of it.

If your painfully obvious, self serving points ever did actually go over my head, I might have to kill myself for being so stupid. Thanks for the talking head commentary, care to add something useful?

Please avoid the point that you will not be donating to charities voluntarily (and will be instead passing the buck) some more.

Free riders currently are free riders because they can't afford to pay. In your world, free riders will be free riders because they don't want to help.

You still haven't answered the question: Will you, or will you not be donating to charities voluntarily in your world? I'm assuming the answer is no, and you will be passing the buck, mainly because if it wasn't, you likely would have rammed that fact so far up my ass I'd be tasting your thoughts by now.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

Agreed. You cannot fight the natural inclinations of humans, you have to work around them.

One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.

Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.

Nah, I gave him just the right amount of credit. He did indeed say it was about the money. It doesn't make me agree with him, but I am acknowledging that he did mention that the money was the most important part to him.

So is this an admission that you aren't actually sure that a society without government would be so much better?

Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.

Eh, take the word proof out, then. The burden is on you to explain why we should change, and how. I'm seeing a lot of why's. Some I disagree with, some are okay, but absolutely no how's. You can change this by telling us how you envision us making this change as painlessly as possible. How do we get there? These are questions you should be able to answer, being a strong supporter of this idea. It's definitely something you should have put time to thinking about. I'm not asking what works best, because that is information neither of us can provide. What I want to know is what you think will work, but specifically in terms of getting there.


You can't provide proof, only opinions. I know that. Just don't try to present them as undeniable, ironclad facts, and we're cool. My contrasts regarding current society and your ideal society are similarly opinions. Why would I want to shut you out, when I want your opinion and ideas (if nothing else out of curiosity and to strengthen my own arguments next time I have this debate). Winning the debate is overrated, all the fun is in the debate, since that's when you learn about how other people think.


Do what the rest of us are doing, speculate and explain how you think we should go about getting to this point of decentralized society. Pretend we're completely oblivious. How do we get rid of government, and once that happens, what steps do we take to get functioning again? Humans are animals, and like to form tribes. How do you ensure that there's not a bunch of local leaders, or is that sort of thing acceptable? I originally asked where you draw the line, and you never really clarified. Is a sheriff okay? How about a treasurer? Is a leader okay? At what point does this become the government you're trying so hard to oust?

So, will you be voluntarily donating, or not?

Weren't you supposed to be explaining the steps we're going to take to achieve your ideal? Maybe your buddies will help you, but given the history of them ducking me whenever I ask them to explain the hard stuff, I'd say you might be on your own.

Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?

Either/or, I'll take whatever I can get at this point, which so far is still nothing.

I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.

Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?

Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

Two points:

1) You completely ignored the first part of my post, which is in my opinion far more important.

2) What if I want to interfere with others? What if I want to do it violently and aggressively, and rob all their stuff? What if I find a crew of like-minded individuals, and together we try to rob their stuff with force and overrun their paid protection? They could call us the "Tax Men," but I guarantee you our rates are far higher than the governments. Have all the faith in humanity you want, but this is a possibility that must be accounted for.

Okay, so you're willing to take things piece-meal. Great, but you didn't provide any solution to the problem. Pretend you're taking things piece-meal, and this information has just come up. I'm personally not the type who is comfortable with "crossing that bridge when you come to it."

For that matter, what if there are no solutions to the problems that come up? What if it turns out that, for most, your idea is, in fact, a dismal failure? Or what if it's not even possible, for example forms of government start popping up because that's what people want. What if all these small governments start warring with each other? How do we set up an army to fight off an invasion from a country who doesn't share our approach? All of these are questions that need to be addressed before you take the leap.

I'm still lacking answers on the whole "what if I decide to get a large crew together to violently take your shit" argument I presented earlier, as well. That's a general statement to all who agree with you, not specifically directed at you. You can say all you want "it won't happen," but it will. There will always be monsters in this world who will take full advantage of whatever situation they are put in. It's just a question of how widespread it will be.

I have a lot of questions for libertarians that I want answered. I've been asking them for years. Most of them still haven't been answered. I thought that might change here, but I'm starting to lose hope and am almost to the point of writing it off as another lost cause.

You say that you have dealt with "people like" me "all too often," yet if that were truly the case, one would think you would have immediate answers to these issues I've brought up, because they are so painfully obvious concerns. If you can't show me you have some understanding of what YOU want, and that you haven't thought critically about the negative aspects of your idea, why should I bother taking your word for it and waste my time reading your books? If those books didn't provide you with answers to my questions, then why do I need to read them as of right now? I'll read them after I'm convinced that it's worth my time to, and I won't be convinced until obvious counter-arguments are addressed.

I've committed myself to the pursuit of knowledge, but nobody can learn everything, and we only have so much time to do things before we die. Convince me that this is worth my limited time if you want me to read those books. You've read the books, you're passionate about them, and you think they will help me learn, so save me hours upon hours of time and sum up the parts that are relevant to my issues, if indeed those books contain any.

If you are trying to say that you have provided me real answers specifically to the issues I brought up, please quote yourself, because I am actually interested and must have missed it the first time around.

Actual good rebuttal, but this assumes all will be rational and well-adjusted. The killers and stealers won't think like this (or won't care/won't have the skills needed to make it in the world), and people who refuse to live by the sword will not be able to allow themselves to starve if they can help it. If we both turn out to be right, you about killing and stealing losing efficacy over time, and me about killers and stealers doing killing and stealing anyway, that's a potential huge blow for your ideal. Having your reasonable people inevitably starved to death at the hand of greedy murderers and thieves is a likely death knell.

Personally, I'd rather people game the system by collecting more food stamps than they are legally allowed, rather then having them just straight up try to blow my brains out and take all my stuff. While I wish we could deal with them on a case by case basis, under the current system I think that would cost more than the money saved by catching fraud. If you think the ability and cost-effectiveness of doing this would be improved in your ideal world, or even if you think there is a way to improve it under the current system, I'd be very interested in hearing about that.

Sounds kind of like that welfare queen story Ronald Reagan used to feed Americans, which turned out to be complete bullshit. I'm sorry, but I need a little more than "my one friend one time," especially when I find it hard to believe that your friend would have a plan to game the system, but simultaneously would admit it to the very doctor he was relying on for the ability to do so. If that was his plan, he could have simply said he needed assistance for mental retardation and he wouldn't have been lying. I imagine doctor's aren't supposed to be giving out statements that they know are false, anyway, so the doctor and your friend are to blame, assuming the story is even true. And if you live in America, this is certainly never happening. I'm not saying nobody games the system, I'm just saying that nobody is living like a king by gaming the welfare system. Nobody.

The story just doesn't really add up in my mind, and reads like homespun propaganda. Even if it is true, why should the legitimately needy suffer because of some bad seeds? Would you amputate your leg to fix a broken toe?

People that say stuff like this sound like they subscribe to the Just World fallacy, for this case specifically that every problem someone has stems from themselves, and that you can't possibly be struggling if you're working hard. It's a lie some people tell themselves to make them feel better, usually out of either a fear of it happening to them, believing that it cannot happen to them, or believing that since it has never happened to them, the poor must be doing something wrong. Every ex-CEO probably subscribed to that theory until they had to start delivering pizzas.

Either that, or you have a heavy and unwarranted disdain for poor people, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

He is specifically talking about people getting "paid not to work." If you are rich, you do not need to be "paid not to work," as he puts it, so I fail to see how your point applies.

I personally see it as providing assistance until someone can get back on their feet, but then again I do not lie to myself and say that it could never happen to me, and I do not lie to myself and say that it is always their fault they are suffering.

Will people abuse this system? Sure. Am I willing to let children of families who legitimately need it starve because of it? Nope.

How much a month in total cash and food benefits do you think someone with 5 kids gets paid in the US?

EDIT: You guys are defending your arguments with ill-conceived judgments of how struggling people live. I think that a lot of you believe what you believe because you have no idea how things are really going down among the poor and struggling. Some of you still have images of welfare queens eating caviar dancing in your head.

Okay, well how much do they make there, and where is there? I don't have exact numbers because they calculate it based on certain factors like monthly income and expenses, which will obviously be different in each case. but for the US (NY specifically, which is a fairly liberal state), the absolute maximum, that is, no income, huge dependent costs (I put in $20,000 per month, which is obviously way too high and will automatically put your income per month into a huge negative), etc., is $900. And that's for FIVE kids (which would be considered 6 household members, a couple with 5 kids would be 7, or $995). Most needy families do not actually have that many children. In fact, most families period don't have that many children. That's simply propaganda. The absolute maximum for a family of 3 is $497, again that is the maximum, and will frequently be far less.

Also note how increasing from 3 family members to 6 only increased the maximum benefits from $497 to $900.

Play with the numbers yourself if you like. I just googled SNAP benefits calculator in google. Note that you make significantly less than the working poor if you're not working, because you can earn up to a certain amount and still be eligible for (less) assistance. The calculator below shows you what that number is based on household members (by far the most important number):

http://benefitsplus.cssny.org/benefit-tool/benefits-plus-snap-calculator

If you are a couple with 2 kids making $2000 a month in employment income, you are eligible for $200 of the $600 maximum allotment. That's a full $1600 more because you have an okay job.

Regardless of anything else, nobody can argue that these benefits are allowing anybody to live like royalty, and nobody can argue that no job is better than having a job. The fact that you can work and still collect is what rewards these people for working, because now you can actually afford to enjoy yourself a little bit and get some breathing room.

I can't demonize someone I don't know, I can only speculate. If I'm wrong, say I'm wrong and tell me why. I might counter you, but if you honestly and earnestly address me, I will extend you the same courtesy. Stop letting stupid people from my side influence your judgment of me. I might come off as arrogant and a dick sometimes, but there is totally a method to my madness, and besides, let's face it, I would get totally trucked by all of you if I tried to be too nice.

I think we've determined already that you have far more faith in humanity than I do, and it shows. Yes, private individuals would have more wealth to share, but would they? I am of the opinion that it's human nature to horde and be greedy, and from the tone of your post and others, I'm sure you disagree. You sound like a really nice guy, but take care not to too readily project that onto others. As for WHO takes care of social security and welfare, I don't care who it is, as long as it's done. The government sucks and is probably quite inefficient, but how else are we going to do it? You can't take away something without offering either a reason for why it shouldn't be done (which some of you have. I disagree with most of those reasons, but some of you have), or with a suitable replacement.

The Just World fallacy is not an attempt to "come to terms" with anything, really. It is primarily a state of denial and emotional self-protection. It hurts us to see people suffer, so if we can convince ourselves that it was their fault, and that it can't happen to us because we work hard or whatever, it somehow makes it feel better, or just. If you wanted to make a proper analogy, if I were to see that homeless man and say "get a fucking job, you bum, if you had any skills or cared about yourself, you wouldn't need to mooch" without ever stopping to consider how he got into that situation, that would be a much better example of the Just World fallacy. Based on what I've argued so far, does this sound like anything I would ever say about someone in need?

As for giving him the feeling that he is a human being, too, man you are a really nice guy (no sarcasm). It is true that good feelings help people get through the tough times, but all the goodwill in the world won't feed you. I never give money, they get food or nothing. I have no idea what they will spend my money on. After all, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone in hard times got there despite hard work, some people really are just incorrigible fuckups, just not as many as you might be led to believe. When I give food, unless they can find someone who wants to buy a sandwich from a homeless man, all he can do is eat it.

For the record, maybe you're just pulling the wool over my eyes, but you don't seem to be anywhere near the "disdain" category. I do think a lot of you are in the "misconception" category, though.

Oh, Canada. You guys are way more liberal than US, aren't you? Do you still collect decent benefits if you work? If you don't collect anything simply for having a job and your numbers are accurate, then yes that system is terrible and totally rewards not working.

You say monopoly government, do you mean, for example, the federal government of the US specifically? Would you consider it an improvement if we were more heavily state-run?

My negative view does extend to politicians, you got me there. I've always thought the solution to our problems was getting the money out of politics. It might seem ridiculous to you, but I see no problem with having the government allot a certain amount of funding money for everyone running (not a large amount or else it ruins the whole point). This idea definitely doesn't float well with the "keep the debt down" crowd, but I consider it an investment in corruption reduction. If you really can't get past the debt thing, allow contributions, but significantly limit the amount one can spend on their campaign, and return the rest based on how much was donated. All you have to do is get enough to hit the limit. Now maybe they don't have to spend 4 hours of their working day sucking dick for fundraising. Could you imagine, you get paid a pretty damn good salary, and 4 hours of your day is essentially begging for money? The fact that a presidental candidate can spend a billion dollars campaigning blows my mind. Barack Obama spent 985.7 million, and Mitt Romney spent 992 million to lose the fucking election. Could you imagine if that went to charity?

So sure, you got me on the politicians, no doubt.

Anyway, my idea significantly reduces the level of corruption...theoretically.

The problem with my idea is there's always flat-out under the table bribes, and the people who are necessary to put this idea into motion -- the politicians -- are never going to let it pass. And government waste is always going to be a thing, regardless. I'm not kidding myself, my idea is dead in the water. I'm sure you and everyone else can probably throw about 2-4 more nails into that coffin. I'm not deluded. The US has become decadent, and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it.

As for taxes, I don't mind them too much. What I mind is, again, how they waste it. That 30% "charitable" (yes I know it's not technically charity) buyout? I would take it in a second, because then I know a good amount more is going to things that I care about. I would probably be willing to go up to 40%, actually. I've been called a sucker for that, among other things. Do your worst if you must, I will be unaffected. I'd rather feed starving kids and help cancer patients than pay for some assholes to fly first class (or in some cases, private) when a large portion of their constituents fly coach.

I know it's a misnomer, but I like the idea of mandatory charity. It's chipping in, and I respect that you disagree with that. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

I hate beer, and I demand you explain in full detail why you think it is so great.

Just kidding!

He likes beer so much, he even drinks beer-flavored water. That's hardcore, man.

If you don't want people to open the links, it would probably help if you deleted them from your post.

No shit, really? I'd have never guessed. 




 

Why do you equate bitcoin price with it failing in any way? The idea and technology are amazing even if bitcoin is only worth $50.

I see these types of bets all the time, and it's dumb for the other side, every time. When you win, your prize is worth less than if you lose. If he were to take this, he would be in a sense laying you odds.

Why don't you instead make him an offer for $XXXX USD worth of bitcoin when the bet is settled, and have the person holding them divvy the bitcoin up accordingly (so you get a refund if you don't have to give all the bitcoins on escrow away to cover the $XXXX). That's much more attractive for the bear side of the bet.

I suppose it depends on whether you want to be a pimp or a john.

So you bait him, antagonize him, call him names, then ask him why he gets so defensive? I have no idea if he is a paid troll, but I'm pretty sure you're an unpaid one.

Fear.

Or he could be testing his beliefs by presenting them to a heavily dissenting audience. I mean, it's roughly the same thing viewed from the outside, but with significantly less assumed derisive laughter and sadistic enjoyment on his end.

His opponents aren't exactly the pinnacle of class, either. People tend to act as they are treated. Treat them like assholes, they're gonna be assholes.

How can the sentiment be so bearish if half the posters on here are arguing the same thing that you are?

What I am finding is confirmation bias from both sides. Ignore that which doesn't suit your agenda, and select that which does.

I'm on my own side, and my side has no fucking clue what's going to happen next, although I suspect some sort of at least temporary rise needs to happen after all this plummeting. The only bears really spouting off to a great degree are the same guys who seem to be pretty much always bearish. Same thing goes for the other side (super bulls being bullish), which I guess is more bearish than before we started dropping, since when we were on the initial rise to >1,000, almost everyone who is not a super-bear was heavily bullish, whereas now some of the newer bulls are sitting on the sidelines in terms of posting.

The sentiment is definitely bearish compared to when we were skyrocketing to 1000, but if you rate extreme bullishness as 100, and extreme bearishness as 0, during the huge rise we were somewhere around 98, and now we're more at 30-40. <5 is when guys who shout HODL at the top of their lungs at times like this come on and say something like "wow, I can't take this anymore, this is going to shit. I'm cutting my losses and selling to rebuy lower."

I gauge each individual by what they post, not what someone else posts about them (although I do use what someone says about others to gauge their own character).

I work with the information I have. I don't know any of you personally, so posts are all I have to go on. You neither need nor not need me judging you. It should be neutral for you. That is to say, since we don't know each other at all, my opinion of you should mean nothing to you on an emotional level.

Posters talking about other posters are opinions, not facts, and are not reliable information. When someone is publicly slamming another person, it's kind of redundant to say it's been made personal.

EDIT: If my opinion does actually turn out to matter to you, I don't have a problem with you (or creekbore, really), if that's what you're assuming by my responses.

The article says that cash can be stolen, but can't your bitcoin card be stolen just as easily? Is there some sort of PIN on it or something?

Some of you people are talking as if you are shocked that it didn't go straight to 20k. You had to realize this was a bubble, it's happened so many times. Those of you who didn't sell on the way up got greedy, and are getting burned for it. Now you face a tough choice: wait it out and hope that this isn't a complete deflation back to $10 or $50 or whatever, or take the profit you have remaining. If you bought at $1000, why in holy hell would you do that? You could have at least waited for a correction -- the first one went down to about $400 (EDIT: okay technically the 2nd one, 1st down to $700, even still the point remains), and even if you didn't catch the bottom, you could have been buying all the way down and gotten in for an average of about $700. Buying that high shows a complete lack of patience. Suck it up that you missed that particular ride, and wait for the pullback.

As for the people on the other side, saying this is the end of bitcoin or bitcoin being a failure or a scam, cut that shit out. Bitcoin does not need to be worth anywhere near 4-5 figures to be a success. The technology itself is amazing whether bitcoin is worth $10 or $10,000.

Fixed that for you.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

Right underneath where it tells you what it pays, it says:

Sure, but you could also wind up winning more. Depends on how bearish the bettors are.

Yeah, probably best to wait until the last minute since the payout is changing. I would never make a bet where the odds could change.

Yeah I didn't notice your post until after I made mine. Interesting...

Descending triangle?

When you get new information day trading, you can react to it and change your bet. No such option there.

Two pages of "to da moon" from a relatively small rise, and there are people who think the sentiment is unbelievably bearish. Whether it goes up or not, sentiment is not as bearish as bulls think.

Semantics, etc.

They say don't risk more than you can afford to lose. Your mind is clearly more than most can afford to lose.

A Martingale strategy does NOT work. If you do the math, you will find you will lose money long-term unless you have infinite funds and no betting limits. Yes, it's unlikely that you will lose 10 times in a row or whatever, but when you do you are wiped out for an enormous amount of money, and it's that scenario which makes you lose money on the strategy long-term.

Well I am assuming you are talking about in a casino, since nobody in their right mind is going to let you keep doubling your bet on something until you win when the bet is break even. Martingales used in casinos lose just as much as any other strategy, but a lot quicker because you are often risking a lot more money per bet by the end of it. I said 10x because, starting at $1 (which most casinos won't even let you do), after about 8-10 losses you will hit the betting limit.

Assuming you are playing true 50-50's, with infinite bankroll and no betting limits, yes you will break even. But you will also break even betting $5 each time in that scenario, so why go bonkers with doubling your bet?

As for roulette, you DO realize that that is not a 50-50, right? The 0 (and sometimes 00) screw your odds and give the casino their edge on that bet. It has to be a TRUE 50-50 to break even, and if it's a true 50-50 (and even money bets as well), you will break even long term no matter what.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure casinos love the Martingale, since it gets you betting more and more on losing bets.

A casino will totally let you double from $1 to $500, or $5 to $500, or whatever their minimum and maximum is. You're making losing bets, why wouldn't they let you risk more money?

Each event in and of itself is a statistical loser. Why do you think combining these events would make them suddenly profitable? Casinos love Martingale because it has you risking more money on losing bets.

Actually it's like 1 or 2 dudes and the rest jumping on their shit.

Fixed

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.

Right, which was exactly my point when I originally said the sentiment is not as bearish as he thinks.

So I take it you are suggesting that just a day or two ago, you were not shouting to the rafters about how bearish the sentiment is?

How do you know the reason they're holding isn't simply because they can't find buyers for all that they've got? How do you know this fund they're starting isn't designed as a way to help them get out without collapsing the market? Neither of us know, but I find the fact in and of itself to be neither bullish nor bearish.

Obviously.  

I would recommend the perplexed not trade before I recommend they take advice from some random on the internet.

If Ayn Rand had a dick, how far down your throat do you think it would be? 3 inches? 4? The whole goddamn 8?

Can you breathe through your nose or do you have to take breaks?

Don't forget, there is going to be a point where some people who are still in the green from buying in at, say, $150-250, may look to take profit if they think it will eventually sink below that.

What is heartbleed?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it on google. Wow.

Fuck, I'm terrified to log into anything important, now.

He didn't say bitcoin was a ponzi. He said if all that supports the price is people hoarding them, then in that moment it is functioning sort of as if it were a ponzi.

I would imagine it depends on which way proves the point and suits the agenda of the person you're speaking to in the moment.

That was during an uptrend, though.

Reverse psychology, or did you panic sell?

Eh, maybe, maybe not. I was just wondering if you were using reverse psychology because your confidence was so easily shaken.

If you ever get an irresistible urge to sell, send me a PM then don't do it. It will be the bottom.

Isn't buying at $1000+ like, the opposite of buying on the way down?

How can you call it "on the way down" when you started at the very top? Clearly that $1200 purchase was waaaay on the way up.

My point is exactly what I said, you didn't start by buying on the way down. Starting by buying on the way down would have put your first purchase at about $800 or something. It's easy to buy on the way down when all it's doing is going down, but be honest: if the bubble had ended at $2000, would you have been buying straight up to the top thinking it would never end?

Overconfidence: the loudmouth killer.

I grilled you some, so I suppose I could give you a little back: I had a decent amount of bitcoin that I bought for an average of $5, held straight through the first bubble. I sold at $200 originally, then when I saw all the buying pressure at $266 bought back in, and started selling all the way up in small but increasing amounts once we hit about 400 (started too early, for sure). I sold everything leftover that I was willing to sell (which was still a good chunk of it) at a little over 1000 based on some sentiment indicators: my friend who never gave a shit about bitcoin suddenly asked if he should buy (I told him no, of course), I read a bitcoin market analyst who a lot of people listen to (you can see some of his analysis being regurgitated by people on this forum) call a 3300 top, and because I noticed that buying pressure subsided substantially after 1000. If you look back, I was dropping warning hints that maybe people shouldn't be so overzealous a little ways after we broke 1000. After the initial double top and drop, I was told I was just lucky, which, who knows? That could very well be the case.

I never understood the whole ignore thing in general. For most, all it does is make you have to click an extra button when you read their post. And let's face it, if you hate them enough to ignore them, you're going to hate them enough to want to see if you can find some way to start shit with them.

Trolls are fishing for a response, any response. Most are not trolls on here per se, merely talking up their position.

Do you mean the talking up their position trolls or the fishing for a response trolls?

If you think typical trolls are boring, you are probably handling them the best possible way you can: don't respond. I guess in that sense I have to show respect for the ignore function.

It's going to be really tough banning all quotes from the thread.

Yeah, it's very obvious. It's like a solid 90% of posters on here.

Come on, you know there are plenty of bull "trolls" on here, too. You know, the guys who call sellers idiots and scream HODL all day long?

Now, if you mean ignore all the bear trolls, that's fine, but you have to specify that. Yeah, it's a smaller portion (simply due to the fact that this is a heavily pro bitcoin forum), and yes, it's pretty obvious who those people are.

There were plenty of them during the run up. I see it as the uptrend was the bulls turn, and now it's the bears turn, so I don't complain about either, really.

During a bubble, anyone screaming "up up up" will be pretty accurate. I recall it being pretty much nonstop with the exception of a couple of guys like ElectricMucus. Pages upon pages, waves upon waves of trains, choo choo, HODL, etc.

Would you even entertain the possibility that this could be either selective memory on your part, or possibly the bear posts are more fresh in your mind?

We go up because of China: Yay china! CHOO CHOO! China rocks! They're gonna take us TO DA MOON!

We go down because of China: Man fuck China China sucks they're so irrelevant. Fucking sheeple selling because of stupid irrelevant China.

How do you know that the first drop from 260 wasn't just a large correction in an overall bubble? Sure, this could be, too, but if it isn't, and this winds up being a complete deflation, the question is where do we end up, then?

I notice chessnut hasn't posted in a while. Hey chessnut, now you've got your bearish sentiment.

EDIT: Could be a nice bounce to 390-410. If you got a little bit of gamble in you and don't get greedy on the bounce, might be a good short term buying opportunity.

You said you're a buyer when the sentiment is bearish. The sentiment is definitely bearish now. Told you it would get much worse.

Well, if you're a sentiment trader, this definitely ain't the worst time to be buying.

I understand you're being clever, but it's not like he held a gun to their heads and forced them to take his advice.

3.00?

Naaaah I'm trollin'. If we do go to 3, I can fully and honestly say I would not have expected that at all.

Jumping the gun there a little bit, aren't we?

Wouldn't you make more money just buying bitcoins then?

No guarantees here, but if you bought at $350ish, there's a decent chance $400-$410 was the time to sell. GL holders.

He's not annoying to me, but he does seem kinda full if it, considering he was calling bottom like $100-$150 ago.

Yeah I believe the post was edited before I saw it because I'm not sure what you're referencing with the misrepresentation thing.

There are plenty of people who pull the same nonsense. If you keep calling the bottom/top all the way down/up, you're eventually going to be right, and then you can brag about it while editing posts in which you were wrong.

Your best bet in my opinion is not to waste your time crusading against it, because it won't work, and because the only people suckered in are the ones who don't care to spend the time to educate themselves on how to do the analysis on their own. That being said, I don't tell people what to do with their lives, so if you wish to continue arguing with people like that, you don't need my permission. You guys are kinda crushing him, and it is pretty entertaining, so if it floats your boat, do your thing.

So you're perfectly content to compare a "professional" business to some randoms on the internet, yet it's everyone else that is the thumb sucker?

I'd lay 4:1 if it had said "BULL TRAP" you'd be outraged.

Fair enough. I will say that the posts make it seem like someone important at Stamp might be looking to get out of their BTC position.

Why do some of you assume that because someone rich is getting into something that it must necessarily mean that that something will make money? Even smart people get burned sometimes, and that's before you consider the rich people who are stupid and born into money.

If I don't direct it at anybody, nobody feels required to respond or put on the defensive, which is good because that means I get significantly less whining from responses.

Calm down. The guy is a self professed newbie who prefaces like 90% of his questions with "newbie question." He's not the troll you are looking for. Drink some tea or something, goddamn.

He's always been goofy. It's just that now you disagree with him, and thus aren't viewing him through rose-tinted glasses anymore.

What did the falsely created post say?

Honestly, you make yourself look stupid to anyone who isn't.

So you'll ignore the 70% racism and IQ bullshit (IQ is ironically a very dumb way to measure intelligence) and pick out what you like, and use that to defend him? Oh, but you won't "address the snipped bits," because there is no way you could defend him on that.

The guy is a racist, sexist, raving lunatic. Nobody needs more stupid like that.

He has his moments, when he's not bloviating and being generally boorish.


Tsk, tsk. If anyone should be fearing anything, it should be you fearing that you've stuck your neck out too far in your assumptions. Completely baseless, and entirely incorrect. I grew up lower middle class and lived in mixed race neighborhoods of the city my entire life. I have about equal amounts of white friends and friends of other races, and what I've learned is that every race has smart people, stupid people, nice people cruel people. Ultimately, we're all human, just different pigments. I don't give a shit about political correctness, I don't have any white guilt, and I'm colorblind: I don't give other races a pass just because they are a different race. It would be hypocritical of me to treat other races differently, even in a way that is positive for them, when I berate others for doing that.

What I do care about is the implication that one race is better than another simply because they are that race, then using some bullshit like IQ and "oh your country sucks" to back it up. If you're going to make such a strong assertion, it'd better not be with those weak arguments.

Yes I can have it both ways. IQ is irrelevant to me because of the research I've done on it, but you are treating it as relevant so you can judge other races, so it's a dumb argument on two counts.

As for that "my daughter is half mexican" argument, that's not shutting down shit. It's just a variation on the classic "but I have black friends!" nonsense that racist people use to "prove" they're not racist.

Your last line is not at all racist. The easiest example is the closer to the equator you get, generally the darker the skin pigment gets. An adaptation to deal with differences in exposure to the sun. That has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, though. Natural selection should tend to favor the more intelligent of the species, regardless of skin color, so natural selection will tend to make all races smarter over a long period of time.

Maybe because for many black males in our shitty public school system that keeps getting funding cuts because of ignorant idiots like you, many black males from poor neighborhoods have no opportunities other than to play sports, perhaps? This is before you consider that you are comparing physical traits with mental traits. Yes, women are objectively weaker physically than men due to less testosterone. Yes, natural selection will tend to make certain races have certain different physical attributes. But if your main argument is natural selection, address my argument of how natural selection will tend to make all races smarter, or shut the fuck up, because all I'm reading right now is more blowjoballen bullshit.

Explain how, or again, shut the fuck up.

The choice was explain how, or shut the fuck up. I explained how when I made my argument, so I did take my own advice.

Your comeback was useless, congratulations.

"Hey BRO, make my argument for me, because I am incapable."

That's all cool with me, actually. It's just jokes. *shrug*

Nope. As I said previously, some individuals are smart, some are dumb, some are in-between. My outright statement (not implication) is that it is not at all determined by what the color of their skin is or what country/continent/whatever they come from.

I doubt it. I imagine gathering food in any location would require ingenuity, and if it was indeed less, I doubt it would be so much less that it would have a profound effect on evolution to the level we are speaking here. I think it would be relatively unnoticeable, compared to when you consider we had to evolve into huge things like simply having language and communication.

The "points to distribute" argument seems suspect, but I'll entertain it and counter that this would likely pertain to individuals and not a group of people as a whole.

Regardless, you can't lord a couple of IQ points over anybody, because IQ fails to take into account a lot of factors regarding intelligence. There's plenty of articles available on the internet on why IQ tests alone are useless to determine someone's actual intelligence level. Seriously, a simple google search for "IQ tests inaccurate" will turn up dozens of results. Here's one: http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence  -- The gist of it is IQ can be useful, but is wholly inadequate in getting a good determination on how intelligent someone is. You need multiple tests focusing on various factors to get a better idea.

Ever met the guy who was a logic and math wiz, but couldn't navigate a social situation to save his life and was quite aloof? If he took an IQ test, he'd crush it, but if you tried to socially interact with the guy, you'd wonder how many types of idiot he was.

I do not at all believe in creationism, by the way.

You've got to take into account things like opportunities for learning that are available, though. Maybe schools in some places aren't teaching as well as schools in other places, and that causes the disparity. The simple fact is, there was not even close to enough evidence provided by anyone in this thread for them to be able to assert as fact that one group of people is smarter than another.

You were one of his favorite posters until you disagreed with him.

Basically true. Men have more grey matter, women have more connective tissue, and grow up with a stronger connection between the left and ride side of their brains. Women will tend to be better at emotion, intuition, and memory, men will tend to be better at things involving coordination, motor skills, and spatial reasoning. Men and women even activate different parts of their brains when performing the same tasks.

There will be differences in every individual, of course. Maybe you have more of a female brain than you realize.

Notice how all those people he listed are guys. Language skills are a female brain strength.

Your brain might not be completely female, but it definitely likes to throw on dresses and go out on the town every now and then. 

I don't mean this as an insult, glad to see you're not taking it that way.

Yeah I'm teasin'. I don't actually know enough about the subject to comment in depth on what you're saying here, but since what I do know lines up with what you've said, I'll take your word for the rest.

People are going to speak in certainties to you here. Remember this: nothing is certain. If you dump in now, you could wind up wealthy in a few years, or you could wind up deeply in the hole never to return if this whole thing turns out to be one huge bubble in the process of popping. If you disappear for a few years and come back, you could find that you were wealthy for a while, but then bitcoin got destroyed. Then again, you could find bitcoin at $2500 and be up a nice chunk. Who knows? The point is, again, nothing is certain. Take any advice that guarantees something, such as "bitcoin to single digits," or "bitcoin to $100,000 within 2 years," with a grain of salt and a lot of skepticism.

Others will talk up their position, screaming bitcoin is dead or bitcoin to da moon based on their position.

I've got to tell you, though. You seem desperate. If you're desperately hoping for a ton of money to fall in your lap in a couple of weeks, that leaves you vulnerable to panic buying when you see it going up. You also seem kind of poor, which means if you over-invest, you will be very vulnerable to panic selling. All of this equates to a personality that is very likely to buy high and sell low. Now is not the time to be investing in bitcoin to get rich quick, that time was at $5. People investing now will need to work to make money, although there's a lot of fish in this pond relative to other markets, so if you get skilled, you can presumably make a killing. I can tell from your posts that you are very unlikely to be skilled, so be careful.

I've found the best time to buy is when everyone else is crying that the price is never going to recover, and every rise is met with cynicism and "bull trap!" The best time to sell is when every drop is met with "bear trap!" and equal amounts of cynicism in the other direction. The first means everyone is out and hoping the price will drop, the second means everyone is in and hoping the price will rise. When there's a mix, that's too risky for me. I don't like making quick trades, I just go for the big ones. I start my buying when the price is getting obliterated, and sell on the way up. The speed at which I sell depends on whether I think we're in a downtrend or uptrend. Uptrends I tend to let it go more, downtrends I try to get out quickly and be more conservative.

And don't ever short bitcoin, and never use leverage. You don't sound like you can afford to do either. There are even some people who are seemingly bears all the time who think shorting is dumb, probably from getting banged hard for doing so at some point.

Learn TA. There are people who hate on it, but I disagree. Spend your time learning how to read charts, and always take your own path. Do not buy or sell simply because someone that seems respectable tells you to. You're probably not skilled enough to be a good judge of who to trust. You can use the posts of others as confirmation of something you're already feeling strongly about, but don't take anybody's word for it without putting in the time educating yourself before you take a position.

If you want to day trade, you've got to educate yourself, and learn to control your emotions. If you don't do that before you start getting into the thick of it, you will almost certainly get destroyed if you don't luck out. Don't rely on luck, luck is for lottery players. Put in the work, and you might just be able to reap the rewards.

Ah, slowrolled by a lurker! I respect your approach, actually. I did the same thing as you, read for months and months before I even created an account.

You're 100% correct that I don't know you, which is why I never spoke in certainties. I just went on the information you gave us in your posts, which was relatively quite a bit for only 7 posts, you've got to admit. It was enough for me to be comfortable with the assumptions I made even though they turned out to be somewhat incorrect. When the risk is not great, and here it was not, I'm fine working with limited information.

If my post does not help you, I'm pretty sure it will help someone. If you feel you've got the knowledge, who am I to argue? Now you've got to apply it. But based on the last portion of your response, you knew that already.

I've always wondered why you call them "pigs." Going after the scraps? Feeding from the trough? Plain old greedy? I can't figure it out.

I've always thought that was bitcoin's biggest weakness in terms of adoption for actual use as opposed to speculation: how does it benefit the consumer? It's advertised as a great way to protect merchants, but if the consumer won't use it because they don't get any additional benefit for going through the trouble, it doesn't matter how many merchants accept it.

Keyser is making my arguments for me.

I will add that I don't think bitcoin is as easy to secure as many of you think. Someone with a lot of experience knows how to secure themselves, sure, but the vast majority of people are going to remain vulnerable to losing coins from hardware failure and hacking. I'm sure plenty of people are not going to see the advantage of bitcoin over just using a credit card. The merchant pays all the fees, and since it's the consumer doing the buying, nobody cares about the merchant. That's assuming you pay off the credit card every month, otherwise you are borrowing money and are rightfully charged for that.

In my opinion, the real future of bitcoin lies in the ability to send large amounts of value in a short amount of time, not to make small transactions that are immediately converted to dollars to avoid being subject to volatility. Then again, once the bitcoins get there, they will probably be immediately sold for the same reason the merchants are immediately selling them: to avoid volatility.

You do realize that goes both ways, right?

Jesus, chessnut. What did you do to make them hate you so much! 

My buddy recommends electrum wallets to newbies, but I haven't seen it mentioned here to protect from at least losing your coins accidentally. Is there something wrong with it that I don't know about?

People tend to overrate themselves on pretty much everything that they're not amazing at (and ironically may sometimes doubt themselves if they are actually good), so obviously if they can't do it, it can't be possible. That's usually why losing players/traders say it's not possible, and winning players/traders question every single move that cost them money.

I don't know exactly how it works, but it's basically...I think they call it a "light" wallet, no blockchain or anything like that, and if you accidentally delete your bitcoins, there's 12 words they give you that you're supposed to memorize that you can use to recover them.

Oops, that's what I meant.

It is?

You spoke in present tense. I don't see the price going up presently.

You might be right, but boy are you setting yourself up for some humble pie if you're not. 

Personally I prefer Color=#E0EEEE

Hint: Highlight

"Uncle Sam" takes forever to get anything done. There is no way they could go from "bitcoin's aiight" to "let's undermine this shit" in like, 5 months, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Where have I heard that before? Oh wait, $600.

Let me rephrase that: when's the last time I heard that. 

 

Somebody listened, yay!

Why do people equate the success of bitcoin with the price of bitcoin?

Bitcoin does what it was intended to do pretty much just as well whether the price is $50 or $5000.

EDIT: Really the only thing I can think of that it doesn't do at $50 is making holders/hoarders rich.

Coinbase charges fees. Bitpay charges fees. Exchanges charge fees. Investors in bitcoin infrastructure don't care about current price, all they care about is fees, which means they care about more people using it, regardless of price.

Would higher price mean more people would use it? Well, some would argue that a cheaper bitcoin price -- with less volatility, god forbid -- would encourage adoption. It's hard for some people to psychologically pay $5000 for a bit of funny money. Like it or not, there are a good number of people who think that way.

So am I correct that you are suggesting that there are a large number of people interested in using something that has shown the capability of dropping 40% or more inside of a week as a long-term store of value? If that's what you are suggesting, I wholeheartedly disagree.

If by "force of arms" you mean "taxes" then yeah, sure, I guess. But if you literally mean someone assaulting you into giving up your bitcoins, the $5 wrench method is a hack that can be initiated by anybody and is proven effective at cracking passwords (and teeth) in one shot.

He never offered him 7:1 odds, for one thing. He only mentioned that is what he would be willing to accept after the fact.

If you're talking shit that it's NEVER going to break 435 again, putting your money where your mouth is would be taking pretty much any bet for any odds that came your way, assuming you weren't bullshitting, which he obviously was. Not taking an even money bet on something you perceive to be a lock is ridiculous, so his mouth said "never below 435" but his money said "eh, like 20% chance of not under 435." See the difference?

Yeah I don't care about the dick-swinging contest you two are having, I'm just pointing out that your assumptions about the bet were incorrect based on my recall of the situation. I'd also add that assuming someone who thinks their side of the bet is an absolute lock wants 7:1 and immediately offering them that would be incredibly stupid in windjc's position. The guy is talking as if there is no doubt in his mind he will win, why the hell would you offer someone talking like that odds? Of course, rpietila needed an out, because, as he readily admitted himself, he was nowhere near certain that it would not drop below 435.

But why would anybody offer you 7:1 if you run up to them screaming that your bet is a guaranteed winner? You didn't ask for 7:1, you asked for "significantly better than 1:1." Well, what does that mean? I would call 4:1 significantly better, but according to your own assumptions that you admitted to later (20%), that would have been a break-even bet for you.

If you wanted a real bet, you completely played it wrong. You could have come up all sheepish about your opinion, and probably gotten decent odds. Some arrogant bear might have given you as high as 10:1 if you had been smart about it. If, however, you just wanted to bullshit about to da moon and rock bottom, with no real bet, then you played it precisely right. I have no idea what your intention was, so I won't speculate, all I am saying is if you actually wanted a bet, you went about it very wrong.

As for the standing and trolls stuff, eh whatever, I take all that with a grain of salt. Human nature makes social standing a popularity contest. Of course nobody in high standing is going to disagree with you. To make an absolutely sweeping generalization without consideration for any individual it may include, most of them are permabulls, and even the bears in high standing have their "cold storage" that has been plummeting in value. You are saying things those people want to hear. Why would they criticize you?

I am much more strict with the term troll than most on this forum. I don't consider most posters on here to be trolls. I consider a number of "trolls" to simply be people saying things the people who call them trolls don't want to hear. People talking their book is about the heaviest trolling you'll usually see around here, barring the obvious "single digits incoming" or "100k in 3 months" nonsense.

EDIT: Oh and I honestly have no clue whatsoever what you mean by fitting the description in your lamentation.

Sure, sure, but even at my extreme it would not have been a profitable bet for him, by his own numbers. My point is simply why would he expect someone to go immediately to something like 7:1 if he is touting his prediction as if it were infallible. The most likely reason seems he doesn't want to actually bet, of course.

If Shaq-Fu 2 is anywhere near as terrible as the original, then quarkcoin is doomed.

Freedom from taxes, of course.

Actually <10 seconds on google reveals India to be one of the worst places for traffic accidents in the world.

The population of most of the places they mention are like 10k or less people. The place where the "utopia" has become a "reality" has a population of about 1000 people, and that's according to the article itself.

Is your strategy to keep saying it all the way down until the inevitable time when you are correct? 

Then of course the classic follow-up: "called it!"

You know how that movie ends, right?

First wave dies before they go to war.

I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.

A cop is not the person to ask. An officers job is to catch people committing crimes and arrest them. You don't get to scream "entrapment!" and walk away without an arrest. Your lawyer just gets an additional potential defense to get you off.

First two relevant (as in, not yahoo answers) google search results for "entrapment examples" turns up:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/Entrapment.asp

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html

Some copy and pastes from those sites, for the lazy.

Case Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry up. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.

Case Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme to constitute entrapment and result in a not guilty verdict.

Case Example. Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution. In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime. A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions.

1) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one afternoon when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred has never used the services of a prostitute before, but he decides to give it a try and he takes Wilma up on her offer. Wilma leads Fred to a nearby motel room and, once inside, she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this situation, an entrapment defense will probably not be available to Fred because Fred responded readily to the opportunity to commit this crime. Therefore, although Wilma provided Fred with the opportunity to commit the crime, she did not induce him to do it.

2) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one day when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers him her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred tells Wilma he is not interested and continues walking. Over the next several blocks Wilma follows Fred and repeatedly offers her services to him, which Fred repeatedly rejects. However, after a few minutes, Wilma’s repeated offers pique Fred’s curiosity and he decides to give it a try. Wilma then leads Fred to a nearby motel room and once inside she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this case, Fred will have the entrapment defense at his disposal because Wilma repeatedly requested that Fred commit the crime and it was only after several rejections by Fred that Wilma succeeded in getting him to actually commit the crime. Therefore, in this case, Wilma has actually induced Fred, who does not seem to be predisposed to committing this kind of crime, into committing the crime.

Note how the localbitcoins scenario involves no undue pressure to buy, and it would be quite easy to convince a jury that you would have bought those bitcoins regardless of whether you had seen their ad.

So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. If you didn't plan to buy bitcoins/drugs on these websites and were just visiting out of curiosity, none of the ads on there could pressure you into changing your mind about it.

There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment.

EDIT: To further address your comments, "turning you into a criminal" is entirely entrapment. Passively offering to sell you something that you likely would have purchased anyway is not "turning you into a criminal," because you had plans to commit the crime, anyway, and just happened to be unfortunate enough to do it with an undercover officer.

That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it.

What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense.

I don't think it would be illegal unless bitcoin itself were illegal. I'm just saying that if bitcoin were illegal, catching you buying or selling it this way would almost certainly not be considered entrapment under current law. Even if you were laundering money, I doubt you could get a conviction for proof of a bitcoin purchase/sale (which are legal to buy and sell) alone. Any decent lawyer (read: not a public defender) should be able to get you off easily if that was all they had.

See my above post: I don't think it's a problem as long as bitcoins are legal, and I would not at all be worried about buying or selling bitcoins on localbitcoins. All I'm saying is if bitcoins became illegal, catching you purchasing or selling them through an ad would not be considered entrapment under current law.