2k ask wall at 144.70919

I'm mulling over the idea of SMS price alerts once I implement non-USD currencies, but maybe a native iOS and Android app would be a better idea.

Sorry for the clueless question, but does coinbase act as an exchange? If so, at which volume compared to the others?

So if I wanted to sell off a little bitcoin right this second, and have it readily available to buy back in at any given price, which exchange would be the best option?

I am in the US. My guess would be bitstamp, but are they even reliable anymore?

Who can say what will happen in 10 years time - we may be bashing each other over the heads scrabbling for food.

But if we hold it together then BTC will be the gold standard for crypto although I agree that a number of the current alt coins and probably new innovative ones will probably be used for smaller purchases/every day.  

I thought there were limits at coinbase - can you sell 1,000 coins on Coinbase?

What if Western union installed Bitcoin ATM's in every shop?

second market trust was announced in september, from then there was a run up from $130 to a peak of about 10x that in less than three months. fortress fund is supposed to be a lot bigger

lol ripple.

 

I just saw this as well. I think everyone on the show (based on the future) uses bitcoin. They just only investigate criminals, so it makes it seems that it is only used by criminals. It is weird that the first two times they mention bitcoin on the show, the show a usb drive like device. I'm guessing its the future "hardware wallet". I want one now!

Enjoy!..... http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/    ....Watch any show/movie whenever you want!

For those who may not be aware.

As many have implied, Bitcoin economy has come under speculative pressure not only by new adopters of BTC but of Crypto coins in general.  The "alt-coin" mining landscape have opened up the opportunity for speculative miners have taken up the mine and dump for BTC and then sell for USD strategy. This applies to both SHA256 or Scrypt "alt-coins".

Bitcoin / litecoin have been under pressure in the sense that many speculators have been trading them for the "Flavor of the Day" "scam coins" that have been popping up in the wild.

The return for miners to Jump on this strategy of mining is high when you factor what it costs to get 1BTC using traditional ASIC hardware.

Please review this link below.

http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sha256HashRate=4500000.00&sha256Power=8000.00&sha256PowerCost=0.1000&scryptHashRate=50000.00&scryptPower=12000.00&scryptPowerCost=0.1000&sha256Check=false&scryptCheck=true

It shows the type of return one could expect running a GPU operation at 50,000 KH/s and what you would get if you just mined and dumped every 24 hours.

With the advent of scrypt ASIC hardware seeming possible some time this year. I wonder how long this strategy will hold until 1 coin scrypt emerges winner.

Yes I may have let the cat out of the bag however I feel people should be informed as to what may be putting added pressure in keeping btc and its "network" at such an undervalued state.

For those who don't Reddit, here is some more Gox information/ knowledgeable speculation (reposting off another thread):

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1x93tf/some_irc_chatter_about_what_is_going_on_at_mtgox/

Quote
[–]nullc 14 Punkte 3 Stunden zuvor
Because the quotes are irreparably messed up I'll write up a long form explanation:
Some background: MtGox runs custom wallet software.
This is a reasonable and common practice for a service of its size and nature.
Getting a wallet implementing right isn't easy as there is very little room for error, much like the rest of the Bitcoin system.
Some have criticized their use of custom software here but it is a reasonable and common practice for a service of its size and nature. The reference client's wallet is basically suitable for small scale single party use. I would not recommend something like MtGox use the reference node wallet, at least not without a healthy layer of abstraction on top of it— relieving it of duties harder than key management and chain monitoring— or otherwise improving it greatly.
(For that matter, MtGox's wallet software has caused them fewer concerning problems than some other companies. (E.g. some have completely re-implemented the Bitcoin protocol, incorrectly, and exposed it to the outside world and suffered numerous local blockchain rejecting glitches). Though its certainly taken Gox a fair amount of time to sort things out.)
I first heard people reporting stuck transactions back in ~September. I looked into it and determined that Mtgox was spending immature coins. Freshly generated Bitcoins (from mining) can not be spend until they are at least 100 blocks deep in the blockchain. This prevents the funds from vanishing forever if the chain reorgs. I pinged magicaltux and after a couple tries got ahold of him. I think they also wasted some time on dead ends trying to resolve this before the actual nature of the problem was brought to their attention, e.g. raising their transaction fees with a mistaken belief that their fees weren't high enough.
Mtgox wasn't tracking if the coins were freshly generated or what their height was in their software. Including this data would apparently be a non-trivial change, and for high risk finance software even a trivial change takes a lot of work. I suggested a workaround (basically, just try to spend the oldest coins), and as far as I know they implemented it and it was effective.
They continued to have problems with stuck transactions after, and further analysis revealed that they were producing transactions with excessively padded signatures. A minor tangent is required here:
There is a design flaw in the Bitcoin protocol where its possible for a third party to take a valid transaction of yours and mutate it in a way which leaves it valid and functionally identical but with a different transaction ID. This greatly complicates writing correct wallet software, and it can be used abusively to invalidate long chains of unconfirmed transactions that depend on the non-mutant transaction (since transactions refer to each other by txid).
This issue arises from several sources, one of them being OpenSSL's willingness to accept and make sense of signatures with invalid encodings. A normal ECDSA signature encodes two large integers, the encoding isn't constant length— if there are leading zeros you are supposed to drop them.
It's easy to write software that assumes the signature will be a constant length and then leave extra leading zeros in them.
In order to eventually remove this malleability flaw we've been gradually tightening the rules that govern what transactions nodes in the network will consider valid when they relay them or mine them. In Bitcoin 0.8— after months of work chasing down software authors to get them to fix their bugs transactions with these invalid encodings were no longer relayed.
This caused some problems for a few things.. For example bc.i's iphone app— BC.i itself had been fixed long before but they couldn't update the Iphone app without fear of triggering another review by Apple. Eventually this was just worked around on the server side by mutating the transactions produced by the iphone wallets. (And is moot now, I guess!).
MtGox also had problems with occasionally producing invalid signatures. This would normally be a simple fix. E.g. here is an example where I fixed this type of issue in some python wallet code I've never used (but saw a lot of people were copying): https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinlib/commit/4c64603ab60b0fa23c51090b3112be2f163aeeac
But as I said before, in high value systems like Mtgox, even simple fixes aren't simple and it took them quite some time to deploy a fix. However, I believe that it is actually fixed now.
My current understanding and inference is that the remaining issues are because while MtGox was producing transactions of the bad form that the network won't relay anymore— some people decided to help out by 'fixing' these transactions like BC.i did for iphone users— making the signatures normal and broadcasting them. Of course, the new transactions— while functionally identical— have different TXIDs.
The difference here is that the MtGox wallet software appears to have not handled this case gracefully at all, and apparently simply wouldn't notice transactions that it "didn't make" spending its own coins.
As a result the Mtgox wallet believed some coins were available for spending which really had already been spent and it began double spending those inputs. This may have interacted particularly poorly with the earlier workaround I mentioned— trying to always use the oldest available coins— if they did implement that workaround.
Worse, some of this may have resulted in users getting paid multiple times and could have been intentionally triggered with that end in mind if someone helpfully fixed some transactions and then noticed they got paid twice. (I think this is unlikely to have caused large losses, before people run off worrying about that, both because of the reuse of the oldest inputs and because of the hot wallet/cold wallet split).
At this point they likely have an accounting mess to clean up— figuring out who did and didn't get paid now with none of the txids matching. Cleaning that up will be somewhat tricky E.g. say there were three payments of MtGox coins to 1Apple in the block chain... and three users that attempted to pay 1Apple, and MtGox's records thinks that only one went through.. etc. So software will have to be written that matches up transactions with their mutants in order to figure out what went where.
I am not personally concerned— at least not by any of the details here. MtGox's slow speed at resolving these sorts of issues and poor communications are not terribly inspiring. They seem to be horribly short staffed— but competent and trustworthy people in this space may be hard to find: The regulatory morass of that business is sure to make many steer clear.
The claims that the delays indicate insolvency strike me as just hysteria: the technical background doesn't support this conclusion, and there may be a bit of opportunism at play from people who want to manipulate the market too. Don't get me wrong: I have not seen their books: Gox may well have financial problems— though with their income its hard for me to see how— but if any problems like that exist they're not being indicated here.
Of course, none of this suggests anyone should be happy with the service MtGox has been providing, but our anger should at least be well informed.

I really can't understand this.

I would prefer losing all, than selling for this prices.

I don't think you understand that problem.  

Now the exchanges have all updated their custom wallets to work the way they should have worked there's no major problems facing Bitcoin.  Some exchanges e.g. Kraken were not directly affected the whole time.

Is that a US-specific?  I've used them to SEPA deposit Euros and withdrew BTC all on the same day twice this week.  

What if Gox is actually broke and all that selling is just them selling imaginary coins that they dont have to get the last bit of money they can get?

Only if MtGox keeps a good archive with backups. And with Gox and their technical prowess, I'm not convinced.

Newsweek reporter interview on Bloomberg TV:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/can-the-real-dorian-nakamoto-please-stand-up-vSiahPV4ReyViJX2_IJhZw.html

I can't find words to describe it.  I hope Dorian Nakamoto sues her for everything she has.

Someone is regularly dumping in $640.

HAHAHHAHA YES SIR!! 

Our learning-impaired whale friend continues to dump.  Why he doesn't just sweep the bid stack down to zero, I do not know, because he obviously doesn't care how much money he leaves on the table. 

I will call him Dipstick.

The problem we're having in reality is that we're working on a bottom up approach where consumers have the desire to spend BTC, but companies need to accept it.  Then those companies just turn it into fiat, rather then being able to use it to buy things like power, food, materials, etc.  There needs to be some startups that accept BTC and use BTC to pay for their needs as well.  If only we could get some power companies to accept it as payment, then have those companies pay their employees with it and buy upgrades and such.  Silly economic workings...

It will go on

I will roll over the world
But price for now seems boring again ...

Come on BTC!

When there is no major dump 2+ hours(usually even more, like 4-5h) before the "news" - you can bet its just a re-hashed old stuff

Exactly, yet every time a news story that is positive, such as the Square Market news, pops up as #1 on google search, another rehashed story about the IRS guidelines pops up. All with outlandish headlines like "Bitcoin bites the dust" and "the end of Bitcoin" blah blah blah. Each article usually has some finance industry person bloviating about the doom and gloom that is pending for bitcoin. There seems to be a desperate effort to suppress Bitcoins acceptance at large. Desperate indeed. It is not even known if the IRS will stick with the guidelines and it is certainly starting to look more benign than many would have us believe. This constant recycling of old news is going to backfire, because people do catch on to bullshit eventually. Especially with a steady stream of fresh news pointing the the opposite trend that these FUD stories attempt to create.

I'm not saying there isn't potential, I'm saying that it can't increase that much every year until the end of time

So the only way that you can trade on Bitstamp is if you have NOT been logged out.. How long could that last?  I do NOT have a Bitstamp account, but I know that on some of my bitcoin accounts, I get automatically logged off, periodically.

If this is true, Carrefour will pick it up, they don't like smaller competitors who try to be ahead of themself.
Carrefour is second after Walmart.

What concentration? I really don't see it. The vast majority of hashrate is individual miners in pools and they can switch pools whenever they feel like it. The industrialization of mining will not mean any further centralization other than possible near misses at certain times throughout the early adoption cycle. Asicminer had 30% plus of the hashrate briefly but lost that status and even with Gen 3 will likely not come close to that again with a projected 1600Ph/s

I confess that my math has not got there yet (sincerely). What will happen then? Will the miners start charging fees to make up for the difference?  Or is the price of bitcoin expected to double at that moment?  Or none of the above?  Or both of the above?

Anybody get a circle.com invite yet? 

From my understanding, you have to go to their website to request an invite, and I made such an invitation request about a week ago. 

However, I have received No invite from them, so far.

I would also be curious whether anyone has used their service(s) to purchase and/or sell bitcoin, yet.

Thanks.  Their answer seems a bit strange to be attempting to expand into a certain kind of user based on their invitation request.  Probably, they fear that  people will over use their site if they expand very quickly at all - b/c zero fees will create a trading incentive (like what goes on in china).  Zero fees seems to good to be true.

A solution that involved the need for human beings to not be greedy is not a viable and realistic solution.

+1

Block withholding attack far more serious issue I think than people realize.

Can you write a summary for the non italians?

Can you say the overall punchline of it, especially since it is in Italian? 

Was the proceeding positive? 

Was it just gathering evidence for consideration of the government concerning future legislation?

Can you help us out a little with some kind of overview?

I'll try.  It's like 3 hours long. I missed it live, so I'll report back when I'm done watching it.

Like the US House of Representatives (lower house of Parliament).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bpNivBeTaM
this guy buys ice cream with bitcoin 

Anyone read the Eyal/Sirer proposal to fix the hashing power centralization problem?

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/18/how-to-disincentivize-large-bitcoin-mining-pools/

Looks good to me (apart maybe from the 'high variance for solo mining' issue which drives miners to pools in the first place).

Anyone else got some deeper thoughts on the proposal?

Don't post very often guys, but been around for a while, got most of my coins in the 80 -120 bracket. Because of that i have pretty much just hodl through a few of the ups and downs and never had to worry about losing money cause it has rarely dropped below that whilst i have owned. Knew it was a bubble late last year but just didnt want to sell at gox where i had an account, and was just too lazy to set up stamp, so i have just kept hodling though the up and down.

Just wanted to say it feels a lot like it did when it was in the 120 -150 range for a while, before exploding to 1000. Occasionally i have doubts cause my coins are worth a reasonable chunk of change and it would suck to lose my bitcoin nest egg, but i have to say, from a rational perspective, bitcoin has lot more going for it now than it did 12 months ago.

Trade if you think you are smart AND lucky. Otherwise buy, hold, and look forward to the future!!

For the moment  -  methinks they would prefer the suitcases of Fiat  -  easy to play games with,  plus they are not fans of change not unless they control it.

Probably the same way they influenced e-mail adoption.... not a whole lot,  but then I guess maybe some money laundering but they would probably use a different crypto than BTC-  one of the 'darker'  coins,  maybe some fraud and extortion scams,  some general racketeering,  and possible even BTC loan sharks-  or protection  money  "  Where is this months BTC ?  transfer the fukin'  crypto paisan or maybe in the future you don't walk so good capish? y'fukin Jabroni   "  so basically business as usual.  

If anything once they get their heads around it they will be no doubt exercising their control and influence over the local politicians to enable them to get away with blue bloody murder,  then in Italy where do the banks, and politicians and police and mafia begin and end  ?  they see to all role into one non?  


Ha - I am just foolin'  but yes I guess it will be interesting to see how organized crime comes into play.


EDIT -  actually I am struggling to think of a place anywhere now where the banks, and politicians/government and police and mafia/  organised crime  do not at some point roll into one..  think it is just more obvious in Italy than many other places.
 

Hmm tell that to the people of Naples - the mafia are still in charge there, the pile of rubbish is one of many physical manifestations easy enough to see- talking of which careful where your mozzarella comes from.

Though you may be right there has been a crackdown- the Italians are on the brink, the mafia have more money and a closer network ... than the Italian government.....  I think you are also right that is will be impossible to stamp out completely or even meaningfully for quite some time.

 
 

I meant a 51% attack by a government.

You borrow USD to buy coins.  You borrow coins to buy USD (this is shorting BTC).

Or you can borrow all available USD and not buy coins, just to deny these funds to real longs.  Then you can borrow all available coins and short, pushing the market down.  This would show as the market dropping due to a lack of buying, which is what TERA has been pointing at for a while now.

If you look at the Chart Blitz posted, it doesn't appear that the borrowed $ (on balance) has been used to purchase BTC otherwise the price would have moved up as margin increased.  Right?

Dosent work for me

Interesting idea. If miners mined directly into customers wallet, that would be extremely hard to trace.

Yup...if you don't have Bitcoin using fiat is easier and cheaper.

LOL, superimposed on the video stream: APPLE WATCH: TELL YOU THE ACTUAL TIME! A WATCH THAT YOU WEAR ON YOUR WRIST!!

So... What is the point of the watch? Didn't people stop wearing watches because they got phones?

it seems very confusing market - wise. Yes, Iwatch is new and some people are going to get them, but they just introduced a bigger screen on the iphone. People want bigger screens on phones but smaller screens to wear? I don't get it. I'll be happy to read the reviews, especially for book reading and gaming - both of which I use my phone for. I can't imagine reading a book on a watch, but maybe I'm wrong. 

You would think that the miners could figure out a way to manipulate the price upwards then, for their own benefit?  Perhaps seriously slowing down mining when the price is this low or using some cash reserves to pump up price to sell higher?

try to sell 10 k + coins on bitstamp and watch what will happen with the price.