Bitcoin

alb · 16-02-2014 3:17pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Rather the bitcoin protocol is built upon mathematically proved building blocks. As a whole it is open to scrutiny tho - mathematicians have had years to find flaws with it. None have been found yet, but it's true that there could be lurking weaknesses.

A weakness sure, but there being a chance of hidden malicious intent from Satoshi is what I was mainly disputing.

The Corinthian · 16-02-2014 3:24pm

alb wrote: »

An algorithm isn't a mathamatical proof. Satoshi didn't derive a proof, he designed an algorithm that solved a problem.

I'm aware that an algorithm isn't a mathematical proof, it's a process for arriving at a solution. Whether you can be confident that it will arrive at the correct solution depends on whether that algorithm has been proven or whether it is still theoretical.

If the latter, then it could be wrong, which is not a big deal as long as it doesn't turn out to be wrong while you're using it to manage the World's money supply.

So, with two unproven algorithms; one from a known source and one from an unknown source, which poses greater risk to use?

OK, so now you either understand what I'm saying or you don't.

The Corinthian · 16-02-2014 3:27pm

alb wrote: »

A weakness sure, but there being a chance of hidden malicious intent from Satoshi is what I was mainly disputing.

Why, are you lovers?

And how exactly were you disputing the chance of hidden malicious intent?

alb · 16-02-2014 3:34pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm aware that an algorithm isn't a mathematical proof, it's a process for arriving at a solution. Whether you can be confident that it will arrive at the correct solution depends on whether that algorithm has been proven or whether it is still theoretical.

If the latter, then it could be wrong, which is not a big deal as long as it doesn't turn out to be wrong while you're using it to manage the World's money supply.

So, with two unproven algorithms; one from a known source and one from an unknown source, which poses greater risk to use?

OK, so now you either understand what I'm saying or you don't.

Yeah, it's tough to just read the algorithm and be confident that it will work, that's why no one trusted it at first. Bitcoin had to running well for a couple of years surviving attacks, not being compromised etc before almost anyone trusted it. It's a gradual thing, the longer it's running uncompromising the more we'll be inclined to trust it. We'll never be 100% sure I guess but we may be as confident as we are in any alternative. That was what my point about gold related to.

Ok, I think I understand the confusion with the RSA point now. RSA didn't provide an algorithm, they provided a application which they said implemented an algorithm, but really that had added malicious code also.

So think of it like this:
Satoshi gave us a cake and said this tastes great and has no bad ingredients in it. If you don't trust me here's the recipe with the list of ingredients, try baking it yourself and you'll get the same cake.

RSA gave us a cake and said "we're trustworthy you don't need to know the recipe or the ingredients" but their cake was poisoned.

srsly78 · 16-02-2014 3:42pm

But at least you know who is poisoning you in that case

The Corinthian · 16-02-2014 4:09pm

alb wrote: »

Yeah, it's tough to just read the algorithm and be confident that it will work, that's why no one trusted it at first. Bitcoin had to running well for a couple of years surviving attacks, not being compromised etc before almost anyone trusted it. It's a gradual thing, the longer it's running uncompromising the more we'll be inclined to trust it.

That sounds more like a religious awakening than a logical conclusion, TBH.

We'll never be 100% sure I guess but we may be as confident as we are in any alternative. That was what my point about gold related to.

So you equate the chances of a flaw in the Bitcoin algorithm to the probability that we;ll finally discover the Philosopher's Stone?

Ok, I think I understand the confusion with the RSA point now. RSA didn't provide an algorithm, they provided a application which they said implemented an algorithm, but really that had added malicious code also.

No, srsly78 got it.

Satoshi gave us a cake and said this tastes great and has no bad ingredients in it. If you don't trust me here's the recipe with the list of ingredients, try baking it yourself and you'll get the same cake.

An anonymous stranger gave us a cake and its recipe. You do understand that we only call this person Satoshi, because we don't know who they really are?

And what happens if one of the cake ingredients happens to cause cancer? That Satoshi may have even known that it causes cancer? Or not.

Not knowing the source of something represents risk. You can take that risk, and many of us do every day; how many open source projects do we use that have access to our private data, yet most of the time we're willing to take that risk. But would you trust open source software with direct access to your bank accounts to invest in the markets? How about that open source software is based on a process designed by an unknown source?

And this is where risk analysis starts kicking in, because sometimes the risk between to choices is not the same, even if it is greater than zero in all all of them. Sometimes it is acceptable and sometimes it is not. In the long term, Bitcoin really isn't as things stand.

srsly78 · 16-02-2014 4:14pm

Open source software is used everywhere, including in banking. Are you still stuck in the 90s when businesses were afraid to use Linux etc because of it's unknown risk? Spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt was a major tactic used by microsoft et al. You are basically trying to do the same thing with bitcoin!

The Corinthian · 16-02-2014 4:50pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Open source software is used everywhere, including in banking. Are you still stuck in the 90s when businesses were afraid to use Linux etc because of it's unknown risk? Spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt was a major tactic used by microsoft et al. You are basically trying to do the same thing with bitcoin!

Banks use risk analysis before they use any open source software, because they - unlike, apparently, anyone else in this discussion - understand that risk is not a black and white affair. And so sometimes they will use open source software and other times they will not, depending upon the recommendations of that analysis (as well as other factors, including budgetary although risk is, in my experience, given priority).

So no, I am not spreading FUD tactics with regard to open source, neither am I blindly evangelizing it. Now, I think I've had enough of trying to explain the basics of risk here. And a good evening to you all.

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 3:21pm

I paid €12 for what I thought would be €12 worth of bitcoins. I received 0.0236 BTC which is equal to $6.98.

Not sure I understand this?

srsly78 · 18-02-2014 3:24pm

How did you buy the coins? What rate did you buy at?

It works the same as any currency exchange, the "mid market rate" that is usually quoted is not the rate you will actually buy/sell at. The broker will apply a spread.

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 3:28pm

srsly78 wrote: »

How did you buy the coins? What rate did you buy at?

It works the same as any currency exchange, the "mid market rate" that is usually quoted is not the rate you will actually buy/sell at. The broker will apply a spread.

I bought them on localbitcoins.com rate was 508.47.

Probably should have done a bit more reading before I purchased them. So in future if I want €50 worth of bitcoins it'll actually cost me closer to €100?

Sorry, I'm not great with this sort of thing. The way I figured was I would pay €12 and I would receive BTC that if I wanted to sell back I would get €12 for.

srsly78 · 18-02-2014 3:31pm

Pay attention to the rate.

"e50 worth of bitcoins" means nothing. What they are worth depends on the rate, how are you doing the valuation? You are clearly valuing the coins at a different rate from which you bought them at.

The "headline rate" you see commonly quoted is the one off the largest exchange, which usually has the best rate. If you buy at a lousy rate off localbitcoins then the other guy is probably going to make money off you. This is known as arbitrage (buy low sell high).

Similarly:
If I buy sterling of Bank of Ireland I get a lousy rate, but if I use a proper fx broker I get a much better rate. It's up to you to shop around and get the best rate possible.

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 3:41pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Pay attention to the rate.

"e50 worth of bitcoins" means nothing. What they are worth depends on the rate, how are you doing the valuation? You are clearly valuing the coins at a different rate from which you bought them at.

The "headline rate" you see commonly quoted is the one off the largest exchange, which usually has the best rate. If you buy at a lousy rate off localbitcoins then the other guy is probably going to make money off you. This is known as arbitrage (buy low sell high).

Similarly:
If I buy sterling of Bank of Ireland I get a lousy rate, but if I use a proper fx broker I get a much better rate. It's up to you to shop around and get the best rate possible.

So lower the rate the better? And is there a way of calculating how much the bitcoins I receive will be worth?

Say I buy BTC at the rate of 480.57 for €50 what will the bitcoins I recieve be worth?

srsly78 · 18-02-2014 3:49pm

They are worth whatever you can sell them for. This means look at the best sell orders available. As with foreign exchange, the "headline rate" you see quoted is the mid-market rate - ie between the buy and sell.

Also, you say "will be worth" - this means looking into the future...

If you are buying then you want the lowest rate possible. However if you are selling the position is reversed.

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 3:52pm

srsly78 wrote: »

They are worth whatever you can sell them for. This means look at the best sell orders available. As with foreign exchange, the "headline rate" you see quoted is the mid-market rate - ie between the buy and sell.

I understand but I paid €12 at the rate of 508.47 and the BTC came into my wallet valued at €6.98 (or thereabouts)

So say I pay €50 at the rate of 508.47 is there a way of calculating what the value of the BTC will show up as in my wallet?

srsly78 · 18-02-2014 3:54pm

You are thinking about it all wrong.

"but btc came into my wallet valued at e6.98" - this makes no sense. As said before, you seem to be buying at rate X, but valuing at rate Y.

If rate X is really bad, then you should clearly not be buying at that rate.

The wallet just shows the number of bitcoins you have, it does not show equivalent currency values. Unless you have installed some exotic wallet software that I haven't seen.... In that case it is probably using the mtgox rate for valuation - which differs from what you bought at.

Any valuation you perform is notional (ie imaginary), it only becomes real when you actually sell for a given rate.

alb · 18-02-2014 4:01pm

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

I understand but I paid €12 at the rate of 508.47 and the BTC came into my wallet valued at €6.98 (or thereabouts)

So say I pay €50 at the rate of 508.47 is there a way of calculating what the value of the BTC will show up as in my wallet?

Looks like you got the right amount to me:

volume * price = value of bitcoins
0.0236BTC * 508.47 = 11.999 euro worth

You weren't ripped off, it's just that where ever you are getting the $6.98 number from is wrong. It's probably your software using the Mt Gox price currently $284 per BTC, which is a weird price, as you currently cannot get access to any Bitcoins you buy there.

The price on bitstamp, a more reputable exchange is $627 giving your btc holding this value:

0.0236BTC * $627 = $14.79

What wallet are you using?

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 5:34pm

Yeah the wallet I had was using the MTGOX rate, I just transferred to another wallet and it's showing the correct amount. Sorry for being a bit stupid and thanks for all your help!

alb · 18-02-2014 5:42pm

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Yeah the wallet I had was using the MTGOX rate, I just transferred to another wallet and it's showing the correct amount. Sorry for being a bit stupid and thanks for all your help!

You're welcome, no need to necessarily transfer it to different wallets, the dollar amount you were seeing was just an estimate of trade value anyway. No matter what wallet you keep your BTC in, its real value is always the same.

PS: since you seem like a beginner, I'll remind you that you need to be careful about security. Password protection may be optional in the wallet you are using, if so be sure to set one. And I would not advise keeping bitcoins on any windows computer that you think may have a virus.

TheMilkyPirate · 18-02-2014 5:53pm

alb wrote: »

You're welcome, no need to necessarily transfer it to different wallets, the dollar amount you were seeing was just an estimate of trade value anyway. No matter what wallet you keep your BTC in, its real value is always the same.

PS: since you seem like a beginner, I'll remind you that you need to be careful about security. Password protection may be optional in the wallet you are using, if so be sure to set one. And I would not advise keeping bitcoins on any windows computer that you think may have a virus.

Thanks for the tip I'll only be dealing in very small amounts but will take your advice on board.

old_aussie · 26-02-2014 5:31am

Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange Collapse

Any news on this?

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/mt-gox-bitcoin-exchange-collapse/

old_aussie · 01-03-2014 2:14am

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how easy bitcoins would be to manipulate by a very big investor? Since there is a limited amount of them, what if someone like Soros decides to drop a few billion on bitcoins, and then dump them a few weeks later?

Seems they(bitcoins) have been manipulated by someone who's NOT a big investor.

Mt. Gox, once the world's biggest bitcoin exchange, filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan on Friday

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-bitcoin-mtgox-bankruptcy-idINBREA1R0FX20140228

Stamply · 01-03-2014 6:06pm

old_aussie wrote: »

Seems they(bitcoins) have been manipulated by someone who's NOT a big investor.

Mt. Gox, once the world's biggest bitcoin exchange, filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan on Friday

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-bitcoin-mtgox-bankruptcy-idINBREA1R0FX20140228

Is the Mt. Gox issue a problem with Bitcoin fundamentally? I have had no time to do any reading as of yet, but I will and if anyone here wants to point me in the right direction that would be great...

PROBLEM WITH EXCHANGE, NOT BITCOIN

Many bitcoin market participants have said Mt. Gox's problems were specific to the company and were caused by what they said was a lax attitude by Karpeles, while bitcoin itself - free of any central bank control - was still a noble venture.

"If we could agree on legal regulation, we should let (bitcoin and regulators) co-exist," said Keiichi Hida, a bitcoin investor and member of the Japan Digital Money Association. He lost about 100,000 yen worth of bitcoins, but seemed unconcerned as he became interested in the virtual currency as a form of "study".

There should not be recourse in the case of theft of bitcoin because that will break the currency...

alb · 01-03-2014 7:37pm

Stamply wrote: »

Is the Mt. Gox issue a problem with Bitcoin fundamentally? I have had no time to do any reading as of yet, but I will and if anyone here wants to point me in the right direction that would be great...

It's not a fundamental Bitcoin problem. Gox have not been communicating what exactly is going on with them. There have been problems with fiat withdrawals from them for about a year, in the last couple of weeks they halted both fiat and Bitcoin withdrawals entirely and a lot of Gox users got concerned, and panicky.

About a week ago they shut down trading entirely and the site went offline. Karpeles yesterday did press conference where he again didn't say much, but apologised and it seems they have filed for bankruptcy protection. Still no real information from them about what is going on but here are four basic theories:

1) Gox owner Mark Karpeles is a scam artist/thief, and is trying to steal all the funds in plain sight, blaming a phantom theft.
2) Gox has suffered large scale theft, most likely over time or at least in the past, they tried to hide it in the hopes of eventually making enough legit profits to cover it, but due to Bitcoin growing in price so fast insolvency finally caught up with them
3) Gox funds have been frozen by the US gov based on trying to follow the money from Silk Road. Gox is under a gag order so cannot explain what is going on, and are trying to stall long enough to get funds back. Gox is insolvent until they can get these funds back.
4) Gox screwed up their own Bitcoin security and have managed to forget or lose the access keys to a large number of coins. They are stalling while they try to recover them.

I highly doubt it's theory 1) as Karpeles has been stalling, has not gone on the run and seems hopeful of keeping gox afloat, but is also being vague about any details of what is going on. 3) kind of makes the most sense to me, but it could easily be 2) or 4). Time will tell

pedronomix · 01-03-2014 11:21pm

most likely scenario, dogs and fleas!!!

pedroeibar1 · 01-03-2014 11:27pm

alb wrote: »

It's not a fundamental Bitcoin problem. Gox have not been communicating what exactly is going on with them. There have been problems with fiat withdrawals from them for about a year, in the last couple of weeks they halted both fiat and Bitcoin withdrawals entirely and a lot of Gox users got concerned, and panicky.

About a week ago they shut down trading entirely and the site went offline. Karpeles yesterday did press conference where he again didn't say much, but apologised and it seems they have filed for bankruptcy protection. Still no real information from them about what is going on but here are four basic theories:

1) Gox owner Mark Karpeles is a scam artist/thief, and is trying to steal all the funds in plain sight, blaming a phantom theft.
2) Gox has suffered large scale theft, most likely over time or at least in the past, they tried to hide it in the hopes of eventually making enough legit profits to cover it, but due to Bitcoin growing in price so fast insolvency finally caught up with them
3) Gox funds have been frozen by the US gov based on trying to follow the money from Silk Road. Gox is under a gag order so cannot explain what is going on, and are trying to stall long enough to get funds back. Gox is insolvent until they can get these funds back.
4) Gox screwed up their own Bitcoin security and have managed to forget or lose the access keys to a large number of coins. They are stalling while they try to recover them.

I highly doubt it's theory 1) as Karpeles has been stalling, has not gone on the run and seems hopeful of keeping gox afloat, but is also being vague about any details of what is going on. 3) kind of makes the most sense to me, but it could easily be 2) or 4). Time will tell

That post is almost as hilarious le con Karpeles now announcing that he is seeking court approval for a restructuring of his business.:D:D

Mt Gox has a hole of about $30 million, with debts of about Yen7 billion (+/-$70 million) and assets of less than Y4 billion. Curiously, about 750k bitcons belonging to customers has disappeared:eek:, yet only 100k belonging to his company have – ahem - vanished:cool:. Even more curious, he is saying that the alleged, ahem ‘theft’ amounted to about $480 million. :P

Separately, Fortress investment Group, a seriously big (worth $2.6 billion), reputable and successful hedge fund managing north of $60 billion in assets last year took a very, very small punt on bitcon to monitor what was happening/see how it operated. They are top-end players, with very bright people, buckets of experience and the latest in hi-tech tools yet they managed to lose almost half of their investment. :rolleyes:
Yet idiots :pac::pac::pac::pac: here think they know better and have the temerity to lecture others on why bitcon is a good investment.

alb · 02-03-2014 1:11am

pedroeibar1, I propose a friendly wager, if Bitcoin reaches a daily average all time high price this year thus putting Fortress back in profit will you stop posting anything on any Bitcoin threads on this board? My side of the bet is if Bitcoin falls below the price it was 6 months ago ($140) daily average I'll stop posting.

Do you accept?

pedroeibar1 · 02-03-2014 2:47pm

alb wrote: »

pedroeibar1, I propose a friendly wager, if Bitcoin reaches a daily average all time high price this year thus putting Fortress back in profit will you stop posting anything on any Bitcoin threads on this board? My side of the bet is if Bitcoin falls below the price it was 6 months ago ($140) daily average I'll stop posting.

Do you accept?

Very weird post alb, you really miss the point.
Firstly, the big difference between our positions is not in a debate on price movement, but on ethics. In opposition to your posts to date, my stance always has been that in its present make-up bitcon’s survival is heavily dependent on an unregulated environment, one that attracts and is attended by illegality and one where people like Karpeles and other less than scrupulous individuals have had free rein to rip-off the unsuspecting. The hole in Mt.Gox’s finances is a typical example, one underscored by their 'management' of what happened. At first investors were told it was an ‘IT problem’, then it was ‘server issues’ and now it transpires it was ‘theft’ with allusions to hacking all of which took place over a long period at least a year ago and that are only now coming to light. Convenient! Bitcon is ‘talked up’ by those with huge conflicts of interest– e.g. the Vinklevoss brothers, who hold a few hundred million USD worth at today’s prices. That largely is where the price volatility comes from, a bit like what the economist whores in the Irish estate agency business did a few years ago.

Secondly, all that I stand for in financial regulation (particularly the recent steps taken in Ireland) would have to be ignored. Can you really expect any financial professional to be supportive of entities like Bitstamp in Slovenia and BTC-e in Bulgaria? Or Mt Gox, or its predecessor, (arguably) Silk Road, whose Mr. Shrem was recently arrested on charges of helping to facilitate drug transactions?

Thirdly, your proposal is not a bet, alb, it is a request for a futile prediction valid on 31 Dec 2014 (by which time bitcon will be considerably different if it is to remain around) so the bet ‘subject’ (i.e. price) would have had its fundamentals changed and therefore your proposal is worthless as it would prove nothing.

Finally, I will continue to assert my right to throw cold water on the hype and the s#ite that is too often written on the supposed ‘merits’ of bitcon, a commodity that is fundamentally flawed in its current guise.

alb · 02-03-2014 4:29pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Very weird post alb, you really miss the point.
Firstly, the big difference between our positions is not in a debate on price movement, but on ethics.

Agreed, I don't care about talking price, I don't think I've ever spoken about the price on this thread, you brought it up in terms of the Fortress investment. It doesn't matter, it will rise if Bitcoin continues adoption it will fall to zero if Bitcoin fails completely, everything else is short term fluctuations from speculation... lets move on.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

In opposition to your posts to date, my stance always has been that in its present make-up bitcon’s survival is heavily dependent on an unregulated environment, one that attracts and is attended by illegality and one where people like Karpeles and other less than scrupulous individuals have had free rein to rip-off the unsuspecting. The hole in Mt.Gox’s finances is a typical example, one underscored by their 'management' of what happened. At first investors were told it was an ‘IT problem’, then it was ‘server issues’ and now it transpires it was ‘theft’ with allusions to hacking all of which took place over a long period at least a year ago and that are only now coming to light. Convenient! Bitcon is ‘talked up’ by those with huge conflicts of interest– e.g. the Vinklevoss brothers, who hold a few hundred million USD worth at today’s prices. That largely is where the price volatility comes from, a bit like what the economist whores in the Irish estate agency business did a few years ago.

There's two aspects to regulation here:
1) Interfering with the Bitcoin protocol itself by trying to regulate the technology: removing fungability of coins, using centrally controlled whitelists of 'good' addresses.

I am not in favour of this. Bitcoin the technology works fine just the way it is.

2) Regulating Bitcoin companies (gox, bitstamp, bitpay etc) and services to protect consumers, in a similar manner as traditional financial companies are.

I'm not against this as long as it's not so difficult and expensive to comply with that it acts as a barrier to entry for new companies and stifles innovation. I actually think that clarity about this is what is holding Bitcoin back more than anything else. The upcoming regulation from the New York regulator can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

As for Gox, the Winklevii, Shrem we probably agree on all of this, up until recently, the ecosystem of Bitcoin companies has been wild-west amateur hour and I'm glad the bad actors are gradually being removed. I hope people get at least some of their gox coins and fiat back, but ultimately they took a risk leaving funds there. The good side of this is that Bitcoin is proving it's bigger than any of these actors or companies. Bitcoin surviving the Goxxing will show that Bitcoin is not dependent on any company.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Secondly, all that I stand for in financial regulation (particularly the recent steps taken in Ireland) would have to be ignored. Can you really expect any financial professional to be supportive of entities like Bitstamp in Slovenia and BTC-e in Bulgaria? Or Mt Gox, or its predecessor, (arguably) Silk Road, whose Mr. Shrem was recently arrested on charges of helping to facilitate drug transactions?

I don't expect anyone to trust any of these companies with serious amounts of money. I don't trust anyone at all whether it be in the Bitcoin ecosystem or the traditional banking system. I have purchased Bitcoin using bitcoin.de, Bitstamp and Kraken in the past. I'm quite risk averse, each time I never deposited large amounts at once and I withdrew my Bitcoins immediately after the purchase. I think these companies are fine, I have no reason to believe otherwise, but I still realise there's a risk. I keep my Bitcoins myself, no one else can control them, steal them, confiscate them or stop me spending them, which is the whole point for me.

An interesting point about this is that these companies are going to bear the brunt of the Gox debacle in terms of negative PR, they're going to have to find ways to convince customers that they won't steal from them. This may lead to them proving their coin reserves, allowing independent audits, insuring deposits, or even encouraging regulation themselves.

In an ideal world I would love to see completely decentralised exchanges that require no counterparty trust, but this is a difficult problem when fiat is involved. People are working on it, but it's still early days.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Thirdly, your proposal is not a bet, alb, it is a request for a futile prediction valid on 31 Dec 2014 (by which time bitcon will be considerably different if it is to remain around) so the bet ‘subject’ (i.e. price) would have had its fundamentals changed and therefore your proposal is worthless as it would prove nothing.

Finally, I will continue to assert my right to throw cold water on the hype and the s#ite that is too often written on the supposed ‘merits’ of bitcon, a commodity that is fundamentally flawed in its current guise.

I just wanted you to make a serious post like this, instead of FUD with smileys. I would much prefer to debate posts like this one.

old_aussie · 06-03-2014 2:31am

IT SEEMS controversial virtual currency bitcoin has claimed its first life.

THE American chief executive of a bitcoin exchange has been found dead at her home in Singapore.
Autumn Radtke, 28, was found dead in her apartment on February 28 and investigators are awaiting toxicology tests to confirm that her death was a suicide.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/markets/bitcoin-exchange-boss-autumn-radtke-found-dead-of-suspected-suicide-in-singapore/story-fni0d7jd-1226846560794?from=google_rss&google_editors_picks=true

ExMachina1000 · 27-12-2020 12:51pm

Mickk wrote: »

Has anyone got involved with Bitcoin? I was lucky enough to buy some at about 150 each, they are about 800 each now. I didn't buy them just to speculate, I think they have a real future and I think it's a better way to store money than in currency which will be inflated by money printing... When you look into the infrastructure that has been built up around it it's very interesting.

I hope you held on to them

jimmii · 27-12-2020 2:16pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I hope you held on to them

One of the few 7 year old threads worth digging up! Unfortunately looks like Mick hasn't posted for a while but hopefully he did hold on be pretty sweet to have picked up a couple of bitcoin for €300 at that point! Guess it would have been hard to keep hold once it became worth 5 figs.

ExMachina1000 · 27-12-2020 2:28pm

jimmii wrote: »

One of the few 7 year old threads worth digging up! Unfortunately looks like Mick hasn't posted for a while but hopefully he did hold on be pretty sweet to have picked up a couple of bitcoin for €300 at that point! Guess it would have been hard to keep hold once it became worth 5 figs.

For sure. I would have sold long ago myself. Must be people out there who bought for pennies and are still holding on.

Wonder how many out there bought 8 years ago or so and lost or lost interest in the coins and lost access

tacofries · 28-12-2020 1:43am

I'm hoping Mick is lying on a hammock in the Bahamas sipping on a tequila sunrise as we speak!

Bandara · 28-12-2020 2:18pm

Got in about 2013, lost everything in the Mnt Gox hack. Got back in again a year or two after. Holding three different currencies as wanted to cover all angles. Always had a figure in my head that I would sell for and once it hits that eventually I’ll sell. Huge believer in the technology and the concept of Crypto. Which coin is king has always been BTC but that can change hence the different holdings. Used to day trade etc but stopped that a few years ago. Your only driving yourself demented doing that. Set a notification on a Bitcoin ticker to let me know when it hits pre-set amounts. Always love it when the sound goes off !

ExMachina1000 · 28-12-2020 2:33pm

Bandara wrote: »

Got in about 2013, lost everything in the Mnt Gox hack. Got back in again a year or two after. Holding three different currencies as wanted to cover all angles. Always had a figure in my head that I would sell for and once it hits that eventually I’ll sell. Huge believer in the technology and the concept of Crypto. Which coin is king has always been BTC but that can change hence the different holdings. Used to day trade etc but stopped that a few years ago. Your only driving yourself demented doing that. Set a notification on a Bitcoin ticker to let me know when it hits pre-set amounts. Always love it when the sound goes off !

That's how it's done! Fair play to ya. I hope it breezes past your target

Gloomtastic! · 03-01-2021 6:23pm

Read in the SBP today that Bitcoin has increased 400% this year. That's extraordinary. If it wasn't a bubble, it has to be seen as one now. Am I wrong?

jimmii · 03-01-2021 8:14pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Read in the SBP today that Bitcoin has increased 400% this year. That's extraordinary. If it wasn't a bubble, it has to be seen as one now. Am I wrong?

Last year be nice if it was 400% this year! Anyone who pretends they know is just kidding themselves! Its up 50% since Christmas eve been all over the place the past year. Doubt many people would even be confident of giving a 20k range for the end of this year.

Nuttzz · 05-01-2021 1:25pm

I bought €180 worth in Sept 2017 currently worth about 1030 today, I have seen this 180 go to 700 in Jan 18 to 100 in Dec 18, I do think Bitcoin will have some utility, not sure about the rest of the coins though, I have others like litecoin, ripple and Eth, nothing has "performed" as well as bitcoin though, of a 250 portfolio its all worth about 1200 at the moment, I am just holding these out of interest more than anything else

Bitcoin

Comments