Bitcoin History | Information

OpenBSD rescued from unpowered oblivion by $20K bitcoin donation | Electricity bill will be paid after intervention from the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange.

submitted by kulkke to linux [link] [comments]

why is there no truly free bitcoin stock exchange yet? MPEx clearly sucks and is a big rip-off. and there would be much much more room for experiment and actual scientific research on financial instruments using bitcoin.

submitted by helohe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MPEx, the(sic) Bitcoin stock exchange.

submitted by fireduck to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange

A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange submitted by _maximian to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

OpenBSD rescued from unpowered oblivion by $20K bitcoin donation | Electricity bill will be paid after intervention from the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange.

submitted by kulkke to BSD [link] [comments]

A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange

A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange submitted by _maximian to bitcoininvesting [link] [comments]

MPEx, the Bitcoin securities exchange.

MPEx, the Bitcoin securities exchange. submitted by NSLbot to NSL [link] [comments]

MP was approached by the SEC about Bitcoin exchanges; handled it very professionally

MP was approached by the SEC about Bitcoin exchanges; handled it very professionally submitted by dexX7 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Death Cult Propagates Among Some Chinese Miners

Death Cult Propagates Among Some Chinese Miners submitted by TurfEnough to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

First things first: Let's list and rank all of the sites that allow cryptostock trading

submitted by secret_bitcoin_login to BitcoinStocks [link] [comments]

MPEx: This is what we mean by “Bitcoin will revolutionize the banking industry”

MPEx: This is what we mean by “Bitcoin will revolutionize the banking industry” submitted by rini17 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

S.DICE second pubic offering of %5 starting at 0.0044

http://mpex.co/?mpsic=S.DICE
Quote from: evoorhees on Today at 04:11:24 AM Hey all,
S.DICE will be releasing another 5% stake starting now in five tranches of 1,000,000 shares each. Each tranche will be priced higher than the last. All tranches will be higher than the IPO price but lower than the current market price of around .0071 btc per share. Same rules apply to these shares (100% of net earnings from SD).
First tranche is 0.0044 btc per. Listing is live.
First come first serve
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134684.140
submitted by bitcad123 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MPEx owner getting letters from US gov, in danger of being extradited to US to stand trial

I'd be worried if I were an MPEx investor http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-19/gambling-website-s-bitcoin-denominated-stock-draws-sec-inquiry.html
submitted by JuicyGrabs to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Eric Voorhees is right. Users do serve miners.

Eric Voorhees is spot on.
Without 'users' handing fiat money to miners their would absolutely no mining network.
Early adopters were basically 'miners' who started first. Early adopters could not get fiat rich unless later users gave them the fiat in exchange for bitcoin.
The job of 'users' in this space is to give fiat money to bitcoin sellers and then to refrain from reselling the bitcoin. This is why the 'hodl' meme is perpetually promoted nonestop. Miners can sell but users must hold.
Eric Voorhees understood a motivation was required to get users to agree to this. He decided to promote gambling as a form of liberty by launching Satoshi Dice. On top of this he offered a share offering on a scam stock market known as MPEX. Voorhees decided just collecting winnings from gamblers wasn't enough.
If you really think miners are 'serving' users, you need to face reality. Who are you handing your money too?
Sellers of liberty like Eric Voorhees are in reality digital slavers.
submitted by libertarianstatism to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

SecondMarket and other activity

So...
Did they run out of sellers and will soon be forced to start buying on exchanges?
Are they preparing for the incoming madness or did some dude go mental on MPEX and will soon be in need of a new shirt?
I don't know but it looks like something big is coming our way and since I'm a perma bull I decided to front run them (again)...
What do you guys think?
submitted by CoinSheep to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

A Potential Solution to the Blocksize Debate

I do apologise. This turned into a far longer post than I envisaged.
TLDR: Where the developers are unable to reach an agreement, the miners are unwilling to be the jury and the economic majority has consensus for a certain action, the economic majority's only choice of acting upon it's decision, and thus enforcing it's will, may be the option of forking with a changed algo. Such option may only need to be used once for it forever to suffice as a credible threat to anyone who wishes to centrally control bitcoin:
So, what happens now?
From what we are reading it seems clear that no developer "consensus" can be reached for a blocksize increase which defacto means a settlement system and, as we all expected, nothing has come out of the conference except for a small increase to 2mb or so in about six months or so.
In a public conversation in the workshop IRC channel I had with wangchung, the F2Pool admin, he publicly stated that he would support BIP101 but starting at 2mb, then doubling every two years for the next two decades. Not ideal, of course, that would mean 2mb immediately, then 4mb in 2018, 8 in 2020 and so on, but with SW improvements and if it closes the debate then perhaps it may be a necessary compromise.
The miners however have publicly suggested that they are followers, not leaders. Therefore seem unwilling to take the initiative themselves even where their majority agrees, as in the case of BIP100. So we have a situation here where the developers are unable or unwilling to reach an agreement, and the miners are unwilling to make a decision, so it is left to the economic majority to conclude the debate.
Now, I'm just throwing ideas here for discussion in the spirit of exploratory enquiry without suggesting any course of action and I highly welcome comments to try and answer this very important governance/decision-making question:
Where the developers are unwilling or unable to reach a conclusion either due to genuine or corrupted opinions and the miners consider themselves to not be the "jury", how does the economic majority make a decision and act upon it, thus conclude the debate?
That is a general question, not specific to the debate at hand, but since the hardfork is the main issue I suppose it might be helpful to propose some specific assumptions regardless of whether they are actually true or not.
Let us suppose that the developers can never reach an agreement, thus taking them out of the decision making process. Let us further suppose that the miners will not act unless the developers reach an agreement, thus taking them out of the decision making process too. Let us suppose that if the economic majority does not act we de facto get a settlement system (as well as perhaps crown some emperor) and, quite importantly, let us suppose that the economic majority strongly supports bip101.
With the economic majority being the only party that has made a positive decision in the above scenario and the only stakeholder with consensus amongst their rank, how do they act upon this decision and conclude the debate?
To satisfactorily answer that question seems to me a difficult endeavour. To illustrate, Brian Armstrong recently stated that it is for the miners to "vote", while the miners are saying it is not for them to be the jury/voters. It is not clear to me who the miners think is the jury. With the economic majority having expressed their opinion quite clearly, and the miners still not following their decision, how does the economic majority act to enforce the only positive (in the sense of making an active/passive choice rather than good/bad) decision made so far?
The economic majority can of course implement BIP101, but with the miners not moving over there is no activation. I suppose the economic majority can wait for the miners to move over, but with the miners following the developers who are disagreeing whether due to genuine beliefs or corruption/sabotage with no likelihood of an agreement in sight, the economic majority is no longer making a positive decision. This would set a terrible precedence in my view as it would allow 1 or 2 developers to veto any changes as well as place the developers in a position of power and control, thus eventually create a hierarchy within the developers with one of them being the defacto emperor.
Unless someone smarter than me can suggest any other option/s, the only way for the economic majority to act upon its decision seems to me to be the option of forking with the mining algo changed.
I don't think anyone would want to exercise that option lightly nor am I knowledgeable enough to know how it would play out. Practically speaking security would be lower, but I would think for only a short time as the race heats up for more and more hashshare. The older chain would continue and the older miners would have no option but to continue mining it. We can expect at least 1 exchange to hold out, perhaps btcc considering its mining investment. Then there is the individual vote.
Coins can only be sold once, in each chain. Therefore the rational investor, if he takes any action at all, will sell the chain they objectively think will lose because if they sell the wrong chain then they have effectively sold their bitcoin at the market price which may at the time be far lower than once the voting war is over.
In our case, the mpex crowed has threatened to sell the bip101 chain regardless of who they think will win. If they carry out their action, they will effectively sell their coins at a, probably, far below market price. That would be an irrational decision as they would effectively be burning their own money, thus many of them would hesitate if they objectively think that bip101 would win, therefore the threat is probably a bluff. If it is not, as the economic majority would be in favour of bip101, I would think there would be plenty of buyers for their very cheap coins. Thus, at best, they would only cause some volatility to the rest, while committing suicide for themselves.
On the other hand, Roger Ver et all will prob sell the 1mb chain. As it has less than 20% public support, I doubt there would be many buyers for the 1mb coins, thus economically crippling the 1mb chain and it's miners with it.
The speculators, of course, will do their, probably decisive, part in concluding with one winning chain while the vast majority would probably just wait until the dust settles with one coin being obviously the loser and the price of the wining coin stabilising or perhaps moon landing. Thereafter, the decision having been made, we can finally move on having set an incredibly powerful precedent.
Since nukes were invented we have had to only use them once, to show their power, and in now more than 70 years have never used them again and one would hope they never are. To fork with a changed algo burns hundreds of millions, if not billions, in mining investment and would likely create some high short term price volatility.
One would think, however, that a credible threat of a serious consideration of this option would be sufficient for miners to listen to the jury/voters of the economic majority and adopt bip101 or a likewise proposal perhaps starting at 4mb or so without the need to actually go through with it.
Such credible threat perhaps can be started by some small player creating the changed algo client which necessarily would attract a lot of cpu/gpu miners, and then it may be sufficient for coinbase/bitstamp to just propose the idea of shifting to this client to place the miners on a conclusive decision mode.
Otherwise, through inaction, we are effectively concluding the debate by following a path that is being laid towards a settlement system without a white paper on how such system would work in its entirety, how miners are incentivised, how nodes are incentivised, it's usability for mum and pop, the advantages of bitcoin against other payment systems to mom and pop if we take out free or very cheap, instant, permissionless, and if we take out smart contracts as well as proof of work itself which is the whole point of bitcoin.
It may well be that some individuals who hold influential positions hold genuine beliefs in holding against scaling proof of work, but by showing the economic majority powerless to take positive action, miners as easily made to follow by some dissent, and thus developers (who can be counted by hand) as effectively the decision makers, a dangerous precedent is set for the developers themselves who become targets and for bitcoin who would be shown to easily be centrally controllable.
Thus, it is decision time for bitcoin. After almost a full year of debating all the imaginable points, two conferences, and the positions having been fully laid out by all sides at this point, the ball is on the economic majority, who is the only stakeholder that can conclude the debate, to decide whether they wish to take positive action in favour of their within rank consensus decision, or take a passive decision and thus forever give up it's power. Both have ramifications, yet only one is the choice.
TLDR: Where the developers are unable to reach an agreement, the miners are unwilling to be the jury and the economic majority has consensus for a certain action, the economic majority's only choice of acting upon it's decision, and thus enforcing it's will, may be the option of forking with a changed algo. Such option may only need to be used once for it forever to suffice as a credible threat to anyone who wishes to centrally control bitcoin.
See also: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-162#post-5545
submitted by aquentin to btc [link] [comments]

Neo & Bee - A shareholder perspective

I'm a shareholder who has watched the business closely since the early beginning, when they first presented their business plans on Let's Talk Bitcoin radio show.
What most articles about Neo's problems fail to mention is the outside factors that lead to this delicate situation.
Neo's problems started with the IPO or IPVO as they've called it. Their plan was ambitious, to raise a lot of BTC or three separate security exchanges at the same time. BTCT.TO, Havelock and Bitfunder. Out of all these three exchanges, only Havelock is operational at the moment. BTCT.TO was first exchange to shut down due to pressure from US authorities http://www.reddit.com/BitcoinStocks/comments/1iyz6p/btct_exchange_may_close_to_us_customers/ which was followed the next month by Bitfunder shutdown that was also accompanied by a mysterious fund freeze or some other issue that made access to funds impossible for customers and that included Neo & Bee funds raised in the Bitfunder IPO. A hefty chunk of IPO funds were raised on Bitfunder. Danny said in his last statement he covered those lost funds out of his own pocket. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289730.msg6030319#msg6030319 Both BTCT.TO and Bitfunder were operated by US citizens from within the US.
Danny tried to recover the Bitfunder IPVO funds, he even brought Bitfunder owner to Cyprus in an attempt to find a recovery solution https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=348468.0
Neo's March opening also coincided with the collapse of Mt.Gox, where Danny personally lost BTC which he wanted to use to inject into the company prior to completing an equity sale. Needless to mention price of BTC didn't help with sustaining ongoing EURO fiat expenses like wages and such.
What also happened in March, and this part is very important, was a forum assault from the competition MPEx exchange (an exchange mentioned in a recent article regarding Satoshi Dice investigation) who started spreading a lot of disinformation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=516460.msg5708705#msg5708705 Neo & Bee was targeted by MPEx because they are the main, highest volume listing on Havelock (an exchange they've also targeted a lot using same tools). Neo & Bee also had plans for a regulated security exchange which would have posed bigger threat for MPEx. In addition MPEx was the only BTC security exchange Neo & Bee ignored when they've decided to do the IPO, something which also didn't sit well with MPEx owner.
Most of the things MPEx claimed were flat out lies and disinformation, which is something they've constantly done for the past few months using a multitude of accounts to make such campaign more credible. One of Danny's latest posts on the Bitcointalk forum is a reply to such filthy unfounded defamaition https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=516460.msg5709849#msg5709849 MPEx is also the person Danny referred to in his last statement: "My recent silence has been forced due to the actions of two people, one of which has been posting on here thinking they know me and have the inside knowledge about my life which is largely false and they really should obtain some better sources, however those posts had much wider ramifications than they probably assumed they would have, so I hold them partially responsible for what has occurred since their posts" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289730.msg6030319#msg6030319 MPEx even went as far as to claim Danny was claiming the identity of a dead kid https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=516460.msg5710145#msg5710145 He was also using multiple accounts to spread disinformation on forum. MPEx main Bitcointalk account was permanently banned following these intense defamation campaign https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=551603.msg6010465#msg6010465 and this is something Bitcointalk libertarian mods rarely do. It came on the heels of a very malicious and targeted defamation campaign using a multitude of accounts.
By spreading all these false rumors MPEx did manage to amplify Neo's liquidity issue by making finding a buyer much harder and make both shareholders and employees edgy and ultimately lead to those threats Danny received, which I personally think were very real. There were some articles in the Cypriot press claiming that Danny didn't register complaints with Cypriot police regarding those threats but Danny only claimed he was advised to interrupt contact with all parties involved by "revelant authorities", including the employees who might have been involved in making those threats. He never mentioned going to the Cypriot police for advice. According to what other people said Danny doesn't speak Greek and he most likely contacted either UK police or the UK embassy.
According to Danny's words, he planned on returning to Cyprus before those threats were made. In the meantime, back in Cyprus 2-3 individuals that paid Danny 30-40k Euros to buy BTC, a deal which he didn't get to close following the events described above, made official complaints against Danny. (it's possible these very same people made those threats and it's also possible they are ex employees) This lead to an official police registered complaint, apparently turning Danny into person of interest in police investigation and the piece of news that came out in Cyprus Mail which you've also turned into an article recently.
It's true that employees were kept in the dark about the liquidity issue Neo faced. This doesn't make Brewster corrupt or crooked. It made sense from his point of view not to cause a panic if alternative funding could have been found. Unfortunately many of the employees gave in to the panic successfully started on forums.
If I were to draw a conclusion to this whole unfortunate situation, I'd say the regulators were the ones to mess things up by interfering. Hadn't the regulators closed Bitfunder, Neo & Bee would have still been in business and fully operational today. The liquidity issue wouldn't have brought them down.
submitted by JuicyGrabs to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Eric Voorhees is right. Users do serve miners.

The following post by libertarianstatism is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/70r7te
The original post's content was as follows:
Eric Voorhees is spot on.
Without 'users' handing fiat money to miners their would absolutely no mining network.
Early adopters were basically 'miners' who started first. Early adopters could not get fiat rich unless later users gave them the fiat in exchange for bitcoin.
The job of 'users' in this space is to give fiat money to bitcoin sellers and then to refrain from reselling the bitcoin. This is why the 'hodl' meme is perpetually promoted nonestop. Miners can sell but users must hold.
Eric Voorhees understood a motivation was required to get users to agree to this. He decided to promote gambling as a form of liberty by launching Satoshi Dice. On top of this he offered a share offering on a scam stock market known as MPEX. Voorhees decided just collecting winnings from gamblers wasn't enough.
If you really think miners are 'serving' users, you need to face reality. Who are you handing your money too?
Sellers of liberty like Eric Voorhees are in reality digital slavers.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

09-18 00:02 - 'Eric Voorhees is right. Users do serve miners.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/libertarianstatism removed from /r/Bitcoin within 2-12min

'''
Eric Voorhees is spot on.
Without 'users' handing fiat money to miners their would absolutely no mining network.
Early adopters were basically 'miners' who started first. Early adopters could not get fiat rich unless later users gave them the fiat in exchange for bitcoin.
The job of 'users' in this space is to give fiat money to bitcoin sellers and then to refrain from reselling the bitcoin. This is why the 'hodl' meme is perpetually promoted nonestop.
Eric Voorhees understand a motivation was required to get users to agree to this. He decided to promote gambling as a form of liberty by launching Satoshi Dice. On top of this he offered a share offering on a scam stock market known as MPEX. Voorhees decided just collecting winnings from gamblers wasn't enough.
If you really think miners are 'serving' users, you need to face reality. Who are you handing your money too?
'''
Eric Voorhees is right. Users do serve miners.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: libertarianstatism
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

New to bitcoin stocks, seeking some guidance

Hi guys,
1) i was wondering what exchange service to use? I have some btc in crytpostocks.com but I am not satisfied with the volumes and funds available to invest in.
From my limited research, MPEx requires you to pay 30 btc to use their exchange? This is a little pricey if this is correct.
BTC-E/976 seems like a place purely to buy and and sell bitcoin
2) Also....which funds to invest in? Which have potential and have some momentum behind them
3) Also, in these exchanges can you buy ltc stocks with btc? and vise versa?
Thanks, sincerely a noob trying to get some info
submitted by GenGerbs to BitcoinStocks [link] [comments]

Investments in Bitcoins

I bought round 30 bitcoins 4 months ago, and with my new found wealth I decided to imitate rich people and start compounding my money. 30 Bitcoins isn't much, but it has become enough to make me seriously consider investment options. Instead of just holding bitcoins and waiting for them to appreciate you can buy equity in bitcoin stocks and bonds and get paid interest in bitcoins!
To me, this is a no brainer. You get paid interest on the bitcoins you hold, your stocks have potential for growth, and the bitcoin exchange rate has potential for growth. And you are contributing to a growing bitcoin economy by doing something slightly more productive with your coins (instead of hoarding).
Here are some I considered, if you know of any more please post!
HavelockInvestments: Have some nice funds. HIM is mining fund, KCIM is a bond. Site is relatively easy to use, transfers are easy and I have not heard of anyone having any trouble with it yet. SDICE is a fund that pays out dividends from S.DICE (satoshi dice stock) on MPEX, currently paying out 30 percent.
MPEx: Claims to be the only bitcoin service that has not been hacked. One problem with this exchange is that they require 30BTC to set up an account, and I dont really have that kind of cash to squander. It would be a better idea to buy S.DICE through this exchange since there are no management fees. They have quite a few listings, some with fairly low volume, a lot of them mysterious to me.
BTC-TC: Bitcoin Trading Corporation. This one actually looks really interesting. They are marketing their site as a "Virtual Currency" trading platform, most likely to get around some laws regarding registering exchanges and such. They feature options, a ton of stocks, Bonds, and Funds. Similar to Havelock, they also have an SDICE fund.
submitted by caleborp to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Another topic request: the seedy underbelly of existing bitcoin finance

And I don't mean silkroad. Rather, I mean aspects of bitcoin finance that date to a year or more ago, involve early movers with substantial (10KBTC+) holding, and/or are only well-documented in the darkest bowels of the bitcointalk forum.
Two examples:
submitted by sflicht to letstalkbitcoin [link] [comments]

HOW TO BUY BITCOINS? THE BEST EXCHANGE & MARKETPLACE. DOUBLE YOUR BITCOIN WITH THESE 5 SNEAKY HACKS Bitcoin Miner Supply Sent to Exchanges Fell to 12-Month Lows in Q2 2020 What's the Best Bitcoin Exchange!? How to buy bitcoin and cryptocurrency using exchange?';';';;[;?

Every bitcoin exchange has a slightly different fee structure to suit differing usage patterns and for distinct audiences. Almost every exchange uses a volume-based fee schedule with fees a percentage of the transaction amount and generally capped around 0.30 percent. A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. In February, 2012 the exchange began offering equity positions, . A third party operated a fund on GLBSE that held equity in the exchange as well. On April 11, 2012 MPOe was rebranded as MPEx after the beta for MPEx had concluded. On December 10, 2012 the exchange began offering bitcoin-settled futures contracts. See Also The simplicity of MPEx's front-end allowed its author to focus things that actually matter. For instance, security. The latter being "cheap and angry," like a Kalashnikov rifle: bitcoins and other cryptographic valuables are kept on a machine electrically-separate from the automated exchange, and all operations involving incoming or outgoing coins are handled by human hands. Exchange software Warning: Please be careful with your money. When sending funds to an exchange or other counterparty you are trusting that the operator will not abscond with your bitcoins and that the operator maintains secure systems that protect against internal or external theft.

[index] [9295] [13055] [2096] [10863] [13376] [30829] [27470] [24804] [7500] [21555]

HOW TO BUY BITCOINS? THE BEST EXCHANGE & MARKETPLACE.

The ranking criteria is rather simple, what cryptocurrency exchanges are the best for someone in the USA to turn their dollars into Bitcoin and other coins AND THEN offer them services that ... What is the best exchange to buy Bitcoin at? This can be a difficult question, especially for people new to Bitcoin. In the video I go over the most popular exchanges, (USA), and give pros and ... Best Crypto Exchanges To Buy Bitcoin & Trade Cryptocurrencies Easily! (2020) - Duration: 12:27. MaxDapp 6,337 views. 12:27. BitMEX is the leading crypto margin trading exchange, with the highest amount of volume, as of 2019. BitMEX allows to leverage up to 100X, both long and short positions on Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum ... JOIN EXCHANGE FOR TRADING Click the link for binance https://accounts.binance.com/en/regis...

Flag Counter