Printable View
The problem is that arbitrage with fiat is a near impossibility. The forex would be the same thing without brokerage accounts and people arbitraging the different currencies. The exchanges would level out pretty damn quickly if say I or you could buy 10k worth of bitcoins at one exchange, send them to another sell them take the profit and repeat 2-3 times a day and the difference would be almost gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
A recent MIT report discounts that as people do not spend collectable items. Do you spend collectables? This report says that Bitcoins are most likely to be spent than hoarded. Dismissing crypto-currencies because 1.) you don't agree with it our see value, 2.) prefer a commodity backed currency is a little short sighted and does a complete disservice not only to you, but as a society as whole. There's only been one gold backed currency that wasn't debased and it lasted for 700 years. I am tired of governments and banks thinking the realm of money belongs to them, and them alone. It's time we used whatever we wish as the medium of exchange and sidelined them completely. Having multiple currencies to exchange in has been a dream of Dr. Paul for years. He's even said that he doesn't completely understand Bitcoins, but says if it competes government fiat than it's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-b...spent-hoarded/
Bitcoins could be the currency that is regulated, so people spend those on the open market, while alternative currencies will remain in the wild west sort of speak of being unregulated. Others will come along that obfuscate the sender and receiver making identifying someone completely impossible. (Zerocoin) I like to think of it as whack a mole, or a 100 headed hydra. There's no way they can stop, regulate or remove them all.
What you should be trying, is what this Jew is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
http://47mb5740sj2k1xsfst40mqbb16bh....oins-IHB20.png
I don't think a currency can be backed, although I do like the idea of the Aurum gold infused note.
The sales pitch for bitcoins started out as: it's decentralized, anonymous and can transfer money over borders.
I don't know how it's decentralized when the government controls the exchanges and banks.
It is not anonymous. Yes, there's a record of all your transactions too.
How many times have you transfered more then $10,000 over borders...or anyone you know has? Not a very large maket there.
The uber-rich that need to secretly move their money around the world, do it with assets, diamonds/gemstones, fine art, rare coins, etc.
I'm fine with paper currency as a medium of exchange. If people would just get the simple solution to debasement, to store your wealth in precious metals and only convert them to dollars as needed...the government/Fed thieves would not be able to hide their unlimited printing of dollars
Ares, this is not an indictment on trying something different. It's more an assessment of the current attempt. The positive characteristic of these digital currencies are that they are not controlled by governments, who tend toward corruption. But there are many negatives to overcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
1) Fundamentally, it's too ethereal; there's no conversion to a tangible asset, even a paper one. As such, it's too dependent upon electronics and electronics. One could say that this is 95% true of sovereign currencies, but that 5% capability makes all the difference in the world. That's why we get anxious about a "paperless" currency. If we needed to, we could convert far more than 5% to tangible FRNs as a fallback to an electronic/digital failure.
2) This is compounded by no "insurance" in the event of failure. If a bank messes up digitally, they have redundant backups, and are obligated to compensate a deposit, with insurance from the government. Now, we all agree that a collapse would be problematic in that the government does not have enough assets set aside to insure a massive collapse. But they could create those assets in an emergency. It would lead to a massive dilution of the paper value, but better to lose 25-50% then 100%. And that scenario requires a complete collapse, and not regional or local collapse. These digital currency local failures are causing 100% loss.
3) Currencies work because everyone participating in the fiat process has agreed to them. When they lose faith, the currency implodes. With no limit on creation of digital currencies, it's will be hard for a global rally around a single one. Multiple currencies work now because they serve individual regions. To tell you the truth, I think there are two paths toward a global digital currency, and one of them is very scary. The scary one is a digital currency established by the banking system or government. The less scary one is a currency established by a globally accepted innovator like Google. Of course, this would then put everyone at the mercy of Google. However, if they were to organize an "open source" mechanism for it (like bitcoin), it might work. The difference from bitcoin and all it's variants is that they are originating from unfamiliar sources, which make it difficult for widespread acceptance.
So, it's not as though bitcoin critics can think outside the box. It's more that this particular attempt (and its variants) still have too many weaknesses.
LOL Maxcoin. I place that in the category of Dogecoin, a complete novelty, and internet meme..Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_
Given history of currency debasement by almost every country that had a gold backed currency I agree. I love gold and silver, and by right it should be a currency. It has a 5,000+ year history of being used as a currency. But there are those *cough* Zionist Jew *Cough* who can't let those of us be without their greedy hands in our economic dealings and advancement.Quote:
I don't think a currency can be backed, although I do like the idea of the Aurum gold infused note.
Outside of the United States, governments don't really control the Bitcoin exchanges. They do however control the banks and the means of funding the exchanges. Which is where you're seeing the bottle neck and strangulation. They are attempting to choke off the funding to prevent people from piling into crypto currencies. Leaving the only avenue of either mining, or purchasing bitcoins locally at a risk to you due to in person transactions with large amounts of fiat.Quote:
The sales pitch for bitcoins started out as: it's decentralized, anonymous and can transfer money over borders.
I don't know how it's decentralized when the government controls the exchanges and banks.
No, but it CAN be anonymous. Especially when you involve mixing services in darknet. Also the creator of the 3D printed gun is working on a project called "dark wallet" where all transactions are mixed and it's impossible to tell who sent what to who. It's still in development.Quote:
It is not anonymous. Yes, there's a record of all your transactions too.
Honestly, I've done it twice. Once when I purchased a server from China. It took 2 weeks for me to just get the money to Hong Kong. The other was sending 12k to family in Germany as they were traveling. It took a week just to get it there, and I got a friendly notification from the government that I needed to inform them what the nature of that transaction was. It may not be a large market, but sending money internationally is a huge hindrance.. I could of sent bitcoins, or any other crypto in a matter of minutes. With no reporting, and no nosey government assholes asking why I'm sending it and to whom.Quote:
How many times have you transfered more then $10,000 over borders...or anyone you know has? Not a very large maket there.
Yep, that they do. I remember reading an article where there was a section of an airport completely fabricated for fine art, and wealth storage. Found it, they're called "Freeports"Quote:
The uber-rich that need to secretly move their money around the world, do it with assets, diamonds/gemstones, fine art, rare coins, etc.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...omers-they-are
I couldn't agree more. I see the root of the problem is trusting government and banks to manage the money in the first place. I guess that's why I'm drawn to the decentralized nature of crypto currencies. We've all seen the video's of Mark Dice trying to sell an American Gold Eagle at face value of 50 dollars, and as far as I know, no one has taken him up on the offer. You and I would purchase it in a heart beat. But most people won't. You can thank our government indoctrination centers called public schools. They actually teach that gold is just a commodity and hasn't been used as a currency because it's "cumbersome" for over 100 years. They don't even talk about Nixon severing the gold standard in 1971, or the gold confiscation of FDR in 1933. Completely ignored. So people place their trust in a government / central bank and are continually raped over and over again and don't even know why..Quote:
I'm fine with paper currency as a medium of exchange. If people would just get the simple solution to debasement, to store your wealth in precious metals and only convert them to dollars as needed...the government/Fed thieves would not be able to hide their unlimited printing of dollars
True, but you can also take Bitcoins / Litecoins and convert them to physical gold or silver. http://www.amagimetals.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
How is that different than the dollar which as you said is already 95% digital? I don't really view that as a weakness more as a strength. If electricity goes out, I don't think we'll get much with our FRN's either. Why having physical gold / silver is good for that type of SHTF commerce.
I'm going to have to disagree here. The insurance you mention isn't even insurance. It's just another rubber stamp to print. I can almost guarantee that in a collapse you'll get 100% of nothing. If you aren't part of the elite, you'll get absolutely nothing. Because they have no obligation to reimburse you for losses. I accept the risk of being in Bitcoin of no insurance because I know the risk and I accept that risk. Some might not, that's totally their call. But let's not kid ourselves here and rely on newly printed money that has next to nothing purchasing power.Quote:
2) This is compounded by no "insurance" in the event of failure. If a bank messes up digitally, they have redundant backups, and are obligated to compensate a deposit, with insurance from the government. Now, we all agree that a collapse would be problematic in that the government does not have enough assets set aside to insure a massive collapse. But they could create those assets in an emergency. It would lead to a massive dilution of the paper value, but better to lose 25-50% then 100%. And that scenario requires a complete collapse, and not regional or local collapse. These digital currency local failures are causing 100% loss.
Going to have to disagree with you here as well. Fiat currency's only work because of legal tender laws. Not because we agree to use them. We are FORCED to accept them at the barrel of a gun. We only start losing faith in their use when we start noticing that when we go to buy something it requires more than our ability to earn. That's when alternatives are sought after. I believe your scenario the banking system attempting to create their own digital currency, but it'll have to offer and do something that the multitude of others don't. Yet at the same time be limited so as to not be debased like past currencies. Central banks and governments don't really have a strong track record of keeping their word. There have been leaked emails from google that they might implement Bitcoin. So it doesn't sound like they're going to reinvent the wheel and create their own. There are some technical and fundamental issues with bitcoin that will prevent it from being adapted for mainstream point of sales. Time and confirmation being the main factor.Quote:
3) Currencies work because everyone participating in the fiat process has agreed to them. When they lose faith, the currency implodes. With no limit on creation of digital currencies, it's will be hard for a global rally around a single one. Multiple currencies work now because they serve individual regions. To tell you the truth, I think there are two paths toward a global digital currency, and one of them is very scary. The scary one is a digital currency established by the banking system or government. The less scary one is a currency established by a globally accepted innovator like Google. Of course, this would then put everyone at the mercy of Google. However, if they were to organize an "open source" mechanism for it (like bitcoin), it might work. The difference from bitcoin and all it's variants is that they are originating from unfamiliar sources, which make it difficult for widespread acceptance.
Bitcoin most likely will not win out in the end, due to some current technical limitations. But it definitely showed what is possible without government or central bank control.Quote:
So, it's not as though bitcoin critics can think outside the box. It's more that this particular attempt (and its variants) still have too many weaknesses.
Ares, thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess we just disagree.
But I do want to counter on one point: You say that if the electricity goes out, we won't get much for our FRN's. On the contrary, if the electricity goes out, FRNs will be king. Your local store or your neighbor will not suddenly be enlightened to the virtues of gold and silver as soon as the lights go out. They will be much more comfortable accepting the familiar currency, which will suddenly be in short supply and high demand. FRNs would actually carry a premium for a while.
Gold and silver have their highest potential value during increasing fear of collapse, when the system continues to run but is being exposed as increasingly tenuous. During this period, there will continue to be an expansion of fiat, and people will be turning to gold and silver to preserve their wealth as the exchange rate to fiat becomes volatile. But immediately after collapse, FRNs and tangible items would have the highest value. If the government response is a flood of paper, then FRNs would diminish in value. After that, gold and silver will resume their high value during the restoration phase to a new system, whatever that may be.
These kinds of debates tend to be circular in nature anyway. I don't prefer one (gold / silver) over the other (Bitcoin) I believe they don't need to be against each other. I prefer to use them in a fashion that compliment each other. That's my own personal choice, because I do love gold and silver, but I also love the ease of use and functionality of bitcoin which gold and silver lack. That's entirely due to being physical in an ever increasing digital world. If we are to have a digital currency, I prefer one that isn't under their control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
I agree because if the lights go out, physical paper notes will be limited. But you also might get yourself a better price with real gold and silver with some good old fashion bartering. :)Quote:
But I do want to counter on one point: You say that if the electricity goes out, we won't get much for our FRN's. On the contrary, if the electricity goes out, FRNs will be king. Your local store or your neighbor will not suddenly be enlightened to the virtues of gold and silver as soon as the lights go out. They will be much more comfortable accepting the familiar currency, which will suddenly be in short supply and high demand. FRNs would actually carry a premium for a while.
Also agree, why I believe gold and silver are rising in value again. The sand at the bottom of our financial foundation is beginning to shift again. It has yet to be seen if that shift will be cataclysmic. We all know it will eventually collapse, the timing is always the unknown factor.Quote:
Gold and silver have their highest potential value during increasing fear of collapse, when the system continues to run but is being exposed as increasingly tenuous. During this period, there will continue to be an expansion of fiat, and people will be turning to gold and silver to preserve their wealth as the exchange rate to fiat becomes volatile. But immediately after collapse, FRNs and tangible items would have the highest value. If the government response is a flood of paper, then FRNs would diminish in value. After that, gold and silver will resume their high value during the restoration phase to a new system, whatever that may be.
Price of Bitcoin has fallen significantly from about $1,200 to $400 now. Might be a good time to buy. I just loaded up myself.
I have been following BTC and I have been "nibbling" (i.e. making small purchases) on it via Coinbase each time that it went down by a certain amount. It looks like it will break $400 on the downside. The low so far is right at $400. I suspect that China is spooking Bitcoin at the moment with some sort of "announcement" about Bitcoin. We will see.
It looks like one of the 4 big China banks is already starting to tell Bitcoin exchanges about their upcoming policy (i.e. halting RMB "recharges" (i.e. no BTC/RMB transactions) by next Tuesday. The story is here..............http://thebitcoinnews.co.uk/2014/04/...by-april-15th/Quote:
Originally Posted by 1970 silver art
Because of China, Bitcoin did break $400 on the downside to a low of $382.70 today (so far). I managed to "nibble" again on Bitcoin. I bought 0.10 BTC at Coinbase at $384.90 (costs of $39.02 including fees). If BTC continues to drop further and if it results in a price that it is well below $375 (based on Bitstamp quote), then another "nibble" is possible. I will see.
Once China bans it the Bitcoin should skyrocket. Nothing stimulates demand like outlawing it!
I think a likely downside target is the high of April last year (around $250). Not much in terms of resistance before that...
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/char...&ps=0&l=0&p=0&
Russia already tried that in the beginning of February and it didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
Did Horn just say something remotely positive about Bitcoin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...03_964x531.jpg
Reaching your head with the cold, sudden fury of a divine messengerQuote:
Originally Posted by Shami-Amourae
Let me tell you about heartache and the loss of god
Wandering, wandering in hopeless night
Out here in the perimeter there are no stars
Out here we is stoned... Immaculate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHNa_f28Q-s
Regulators line up to crack down on bitcoin
It’s not so much a question of whether bitcoin and other virtual currencies should be regulated.
Rather, it’s more a question of which government agency or agencies should regulate bitcoins and when it will happen. These are just some of the questions that must be answered if virtual currencies have any hope of becoming a mainstream and trustworthy way of paying for goods and services, according to experts who participated recently in a MarketWatch panel discussion about bitcoin in New York.
“There has to be regulation,” said Mark T. Williams, a Boston University professor and critic of bitcoin who was joined by Todd Harrison, the present and founder of Minyanville, and Barry Silbert, the creator of the Bitcoin Investment Trust and the founder and president of SecondMarket, on the panel. “We have to have more regulation. We have to have, in particular, focus on consumer protection.”
Silbert took issue with the notion that bitcoin is not regulated. For instance, Silbert said, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) had released guidance, which, in essence, says: “if you are operating basically as a money-changing business, an exchange, you have to register as a money services business (MSB).” And there are rules for MSBs, Silbert said.
According to that guidance, a user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting and record-keeping regulations. However, an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person. Read Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies.
Williams, however, disagreed with Silbert’s point of view that bitcoin is regulated. “I will tell you bitcoin is unregulated,” Williams said. “And that is the problem.”
Part of the problem, according to the panelists, is that few know which agency or agencies should regulate bitcoin. And many federal government agencies have taken a pass on proposing regulations, for one reason or another.
According to Silbert, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are unlikely to regulate bitcoin. The CFTC might propose regulations if derivatives of bitcoin are created, said Silbert.
Consider:
In late February, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said the central bank doesn’t have authority to regulate bitcoin. Read Yellen on Bitcoin: Fed Doesn’t Have Authority to Regulate It in Any Way.
And then there’s this conundrum The SEC, the nation’s top stock cop, says bitcoin is not a security and issued an alert to investors about the dangers of investing in bitcoin.Read Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra), which regulates broker/dealers for the benefit of investors, issued a similar release: Bitcoin: More than a Bit Risky.
Meanwhile, the IRS in late March said it would treat bitcoin and other virtual currencies like property such as stocks, and not currency. Read IRS Virtual Currency Guidance: Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.
So which entity or entities will regulate bitcoin? Williams suggested that state banking departments and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are in the best position and the most likely to regulate bitcoin. “State bank commissioners are going to regulate it,” said Williams. He noted that a committee of nine state bank commissioners including those from Massachusetts, Washington, California and Florida has been formed to address the bitcoin regulation question.
According to Williams, state banking regulators are the “boots on the ground” needed to put in place regulations. “These are folks that actually have been working with money transfer companies,” he said. “They go through the whole chain of distribution. When you think about the payment system, it’s handled at the state level. So these bank examiners, in particular the state bank examiners, are perfectly aligned for that.”
Williams said several state banking regulators, including David Cotney, the commissioner of banks in Massachusetts, and Benjamin Lawsky, the head of New York’s DFS, are among those taking a leadership role.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reg...oin-2014-04-09
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
I agree with this. Banning bitcoin is not going to make it go away and the people who live in a country that banned Bitcoin, a person in that country will just try much harder to find a way to get it IMO. As for where the BTC $ price goes from here, it is certainly possible for it to go down further before it bounces back. It appeared that BTC slightly bounced up to a current level of $390 after it got down to the $382 level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
$339 seems to be the low for the time being which Bitcoin seemed to have bounced off from that level and it is back to the $400 level. I did not take another "nibble" when BTC was in the $340's range when I had the chance to. However, I do not trust the current "rally" from the $339 low and I suspect that there will be a retest of that $339 low very soon since the China's crackdown on Bitcoin is still fresh news. If I am wrong on this and Bitcoin truly continues to recover and go up from the current $400 level, then at least I can say that I took the opportunity to "nibble" on it when the $ price was under $400. It is a win-win situation for me as far as I am concerned. Perhaps if Bitcoin goes back down to between the $330 - $340 range then I might "nibble" again on it and perhaps another "nibble" on BTC if/when it goes down to under $300. Just thinking out loud here. For the time being, I am just waiting for the next good opportunity to "nibble" on it.
Chinese Bitcoin exchange readies fallback plans amid crackdown worries
- Apr 10, 2014 4:45 AM
Once the largest Bitcoin exchange in the country, BTC China has seen better days. Trading volume on the site is down over 80 percent from its peak, and customers are fleeing amid rumors China is preparing a crackdown on the virtual currency, said the exchange’s CEO Bobby Lee.
“People are scared, people are sitting on the sidelines,” he said on Thursday. BTC China, though, is preparing fall back plans to keep the virtual currency in circulation even as local exchanges face a more hostile market.
Chinese Bitcoin exchanges have been on alert since media reports emerged claiming that China is readying another crackdown on the virtual currency. By April 15, Chinese banks will have to close the accounts used by the local exchanges to take funds from customers wanting bitcoins in return.
Gradually, more banks are shutting down services to local exchanges. On Thursday, another prominent exchange, called Huobi, reported that one of its banks has been forced to close its account by April 18. Huobi’s accounts with other Chinese banks, however, remain in operation.
Although BTC China has yet to receive any formal notification of any bank account closures, the rumors have been enough to send customers packing, Lee said in an interview. Since December, when China first announced it would ban banks from trading in bitcoins, the virtual currency’s price has fallen from 7000 yuan (US$1,136) to 2487 yuan.
“The people who are actively trading are few and far between,” he said. “Certainly, the mainstream audience, if they ever get back in, is sitting on the sidelines.”
Fans of new technology make up most of the remaining investors. But despite the beating BTC China has taken from today’s market, the exchange is optimistic it can remain viable, Lee said. He pointed to recent statements from China’s central bank that, while authorities believe bitcoins should not be treated as a currency, consumers are still free to buy and sell them.
“So there’s no doubt in my mind that these activities are legal and allowed,” he said. “It’s just about what hoops you have to jump through to conduct these activities.”
BTC China is also coming up with legal “workarounds” to get bitcoins in the hands of wanting customers, he said. Shutting down the bank accounts would mean customers could no longer wire money to the local exchanges, although they could still buy bitcoins with cash, Lee said.
Lee declined to offer more details on how local exchanges might end up taking customer deposits in the future. However, some exchanges are experimenting with methods revolving around customer’s personal debit cards. The exchanges could also conceivably sell pre-paid cards filled with bitcoins that are then delivered to customer’s doorsteps, he added.
For China’s Bitcoin market, “It’s a cooling off period,” he said, adding, “We are still very excited. Everything will have ups and downs.”
http://www.pcworld.com/article/21422...n-worries.html
Well, it looks like I was wrong and this current Bitcoin rally from the $339 intra-day low seems to be for real which I am not surprised since Bitcoin is very resilient from bad news that comes out about it. Bitcoin got back briefly to over $500 (intraday high so far is $515). It went slightly back down to $497 but still it just shows that despite the bad news, BTC will not stay down for long. Going from an intraday low of $339 to just over $500 in the face of China's supposed "crackdown" on Bitcoin just shows how resilient bitcoin is and that is why I "nibbled" a little on it when it was at $450 and nibbled again when it was below $430 and again when it was below $400. I was fortunate to get some BTC at those levels. However, if Bitcoin falls from here and it goes back to under $400, then I will "nibble" again and if it goes back to the $340-$350 range, then I will "nibble" there as well. If it somehow went down to under $300 (always a possibility), then I will "nibble" at that price point as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1970 silver art
You don't happen to be a hypnotist?Quote:
Originally Posted by 1970 silver art
BTC price is floating back up to the $500 range. I think this is based on BTC-China's release of their new mobile ATM platform.
http://www.coindesk.com/btc-china-la...ional-markets/
Nope. I am not a hypnotist and I do not play one on TV and I do not play one on the Internet. However, I am a Bitcoin investor and I play one on the Internet. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
This may be the beginning of a new rally. We'll see how it goes but if it is, I can see it going to $5,000 to $7,000 range by late summer.
I also think that this rally is for real once it got past $450. It bounced off the low of $339 and has gone up as high as nearly $550 before backing off to the $520's range. As par the course, Bitcoin ia able to shake off any bad news that it is thrown at it and the China banks crackdown on Bitcoin is no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by optionT
The $550 $-price level apparently ended up being the temporary high for Bitcoin since it has gone down from that level. It is currently at $478.38 as I type this post and it is certainly possible that a retest of the recent lows. I do not know. This is just a WAG on my part. I will "nibble" on it if/when it goes down to the $340 - $375 level and will "nibble" again if/when it goes below $300. In the meantime, I will just continue to win satoshi worth of BTC every hour (when I am home) from Freebitcoin.in and Bitcoin Zebra to continue to build up my bitcoin inventory.
Bitcoin on the rise, $538.
crazy. The last few days must have had some good news.Quote:
Originally Posted by optionT
I think there's a trend out of alt-coins and back into Bitcoins.
Since Bitcoin was stuck in the $430-$460 trading range for several weeks, then this must be the upside breakout from that trading range. I am guessing that Bitcoin is shaking off the negative China news from last month. I think that the $550 level is be the next level that bitcoin has to go through to sustain the current rally.Quote:
Originally Posted by madfranks
Bitcoin is currently at $592.99 (Coinbase quote). The highest price that I have seen so far today was $597.77 (Bitstamp quote). Maybe bitcoin will get past $600 today. We will see.
There's a shift generally out of alt-coins back to the "safety" of Bitcoin right now in my opinion. I wouldn't be shocked if Bitcoin hits $2,000 this year.
My money is still on litecoin having greater gains this year. Charlie Lee is working on getting LTC adopted into Coinbase; this alone will help propel LTC back into an easy 0.4-0.5 ratio to bitcoin. So I'm expecting a 4-5x increase in LTC by the end of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami-Amourae
Bitcoin is currently at $628.14 (Coinbase quote). For me personally, that means that my 0.231 BTC investment is currently up 49.4% from my cost basis. I'm not complaining at all. I am happy with it.
I'm seriously watching Dogecoin now. It's crashing hard and still has a very strong community behind it. Looks like a good buy to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by madfranks
Darkcoin has opened up a wormrift in the fabric of spacetime.
http://www.darkcoin.io/img/slider/slider1.jpg
Computer Giant Dell Now Accepts Bitcoin
Multinational computer technology specialist Dell has announced it is now accepting bitcoin through a partnership with Coinbase.
With annual revenue approaching $57bn, Dell is roughly four times the size of DISH Network – the previous biggest bitcoin-accepting business.
Following today’s announcement, consumers and small business owners.......
http://www.coindesk.com/computer-gia...cepts-bitcoin/
Good news for bitcoin! I wish I bought more at $40 when I had the chance. Right now I have about 7 bitcoins, which I plan to just hold and not sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by optionT