Bitcoins - anyone else mining? (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

Here you go DrJ, a simple question, you are asserting Bitcoin prices are being manipulated today.The USD market cap of Bitcoin is $8BHow many bitcoins / how much volume needs to be traded to manipulate the current price of $630USD/Bitcoin?

Very little if someone is sitting on all of them in a holding account and has virtually complete control over available supply.

Define "very little", you are the one trying to convince us price is being manipulated, I need to know how many bitcoins I need to buy to manipulate the price myself, very little sounds like something I could afford.

Well, the first step is owning almost all of them. You're too late there unless you're Zuckerberg or something, and even then Zuckerberg can only buy what the bitcoin cartel will allow him.

Once you do that, you have complete control over the market. There's only so much demand, so I just need to adjust the supply I make available based on which direction I'd like it to move. Sometimes I want it to move down so I can buy them all back at lower prices - I don't actually want to reduce my share of the market and let these into the wild, I just want to buy and sell in ranges where I take ever increasing piles of money. At least, that's how I'd do it...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Here you go DrJ, a simple question, you are asserting Bitcoin prices are being manipulated today.The USD market cap of Bitcoin is $8BHow many bitcoins / how much volume needs to be traded to manipulate the current price of $630USD/Bitcoin?

Very little if someone is sitting on all of them in a holding account and has virtually complete control over available supply.

Define "very little", you are the one trying to convince us price is being manipulated, I need to know how many bitcoins I need to buy to manipulate the price myself, very little sounds like something I could afford.

Well, the first step is owning almost all of them. You're too late there unless you're Zuckerberg or something, and even then Zuckerberg can only buy what the bitcoin cartel will allow him.

Once you do that, you have complete control over the market. There's only so much demand, so I just need to adjust the supply I make available based on which direction I'd like it to move. Sometimes I want it to move down so I can buy them all back at lower prices - I don't actually want to reduce my share of the market and let these into the wild, I just want to buy and sell in ranges where I take ever increasing piles of money. At least, that's how I'd do it...

If you can prove price is being manipulated today then it should be easy for you to tell us how many bitcoins I need to own and how many I need to trade tomorrow to either bring the price down to $100 a coin so I can buy more (as you say) or drive the price up to $2000 a coin so I take a profit.

You said you have seen evidence of this so all I am asking for are specific numbers but you continue to talk in vague abstracts like price manipulation is a possibility but not an absolute. So which is it?

 

[DrJ]

Here you go DrJ, a simple question, you are asserting Bitcoin prices are being manipulated today.The USD market cap of Bitcoin is $8BHow many bitcoins / how much volume needs to be traded to manipulate the current price of $630USD/Bitcoin?

Very little if someone is sitting on all of them in a holding account and has virtually complete control over available supply.

Define "very little", you are the one trying to convince us price is being manipulated, I need to know how many bitcoins I need to buy to manipulate the price myself, very little sounds like something I could afford.

Well, the first step is owning almost all of them. You're too late there unless you're Zuckerberg or something, and even then Zuckerberg can only buy what the bitcoin cartel will allow him.Once you do that, you have complete control over the market. There's only so much demand, so I just need to adjust the supply I make available based on which direction I'd like it to move. Sometimes I want it to move down so I can buy them all back at lower prices - I don't actually want to reduce my share of the market and let these into the wild, I just want to buy and sell in ranges where I take ever increasing piles of money. At least, that's how I'd do it...

If you can prove price is being manipulated today then it should be easy for you to tell us how many bitcoins I need to own and how many I need to trade tomorrow to either bring the price down to $100 a coin so I can buy more (as you say) or drive the price up to $2000 a coin so I take a profit.You said you have seen evidence of this so all I am asking for are specific numbers but you continue to talk in vague abstracts like price manipulation is a possibility but not an absolute. So which is it?

You don't get it - I can't give you this answer because I'm not the bitcoin cartel.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Here you go DrJ, a simple question, you are asserting Bitcoin prices are being manipulated today.The USD market cap of Bitcoin is $8BHow many bitcoins / how much volume needs to be traded to manipulate the current price of $630USD/Bitcoin?

Very little if someone is sitting on all of them in a holding account and has virtually complete control over available supply.

Define "very little", you are the one trying to convince us price is being manipulated, I need to know how many bitcoins I need to buy to manipulate the price myself, very little sounds like something I could afford.

Well, the first step is owning almost all of them. You're too late there unless you're Zuckerberg or something, and even then Zuckerberg can only buy what the bitcoin cartel will allow him.Once you do that, you have complete control over the market. There's only so much demand, so I just need to adjust the supply I make available based on which direction I'd like it to move. Sometimes I want it to move down so I can buy them all back at lower prices - I don't actually want to reduce my share of the market and let these into the wild, I just want to buy and sell in ranges where I take ever increasing piles of money. At least, that's how I'd do it...

If you can prove price is being manipulated today then it should be easy for you to tell us how many bitcoins I need to own and how many I need to trade tomorrow to either bring the price down to $100 a coin so I can buy more (as you say) or drive the price up to $2000 a coin so I take a profit.You said you have seen evidence of this so all I am asking for are specific numbers but you continue to talk in vague abstracts like price manipulation is a possibility but not an absolute. So which is it?

You don't get it - I can't give you this answer because I'm not the bitcoin cartel.

Who is the bitcoin cartel? Even if you aren't the bitcoin cartel you should be able to answer these questions to backup your claim of price manipulation.Typically when people blame cartels that is a sign of paranoia. I guess you don't have any proof that prices are being manipulated today other than your wild speculation.

 

[DrJ]

Although, maybe you're on to something here. Let's say I make some code that identifies these patterns and puts dollar amounts to some of it, it might actually be possible to make profit by having significant better data to work with than others. If I can actually make a profit while someone like you gets their ### handed to them by the cartel... Hmmmm....

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

dr j just hit the twins' radar.

in the movie you will be played by mel gibson or possibly julia roberts

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":

http://btc.ondn.net/

The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin?

ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

 

[DrJ]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Proof that any of this was traded on an exchange and that this happened within the past week?

Furthermore you need to prove that this is directly responsible for price manipulation.

Lastly how are you proving any of these 5k accounts are related? What is the largest combined single owner of these accounts and who is it? (HINT: Bitcoin cartel is synonymous with "boogie man")

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Just noting this for future reference:

Paypal processed about $175,000,000,000.00 in transactions this year

As of 12/11/13 Bitpay has processed over $100,000,000.00 or about 0.05% of Paypal's volume this year - I'm surprised they have done that much, a ton of room to grow there

"Bitpay" ≠ "Bitcoin", but merely an electronic payment processing system for the bitcoin currency, albeit the largest

Run by the creators and controllers of the currency. That all makes me feel better.

It's statements like this where you lose all credibility.

Bitpay processes bitcoin transactions for merchants at a very low fee structure ($30 per month flat rate w/ 0% commission charges), they even take price movement risk so that merchants are not subject to price volatility. What on earth do you have against bitpay?

 

[DrJ]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Proof that any of this was traded on an exchange and that this happened within the past week?

Furthermore you need to prove that this is directly responsible for price manipulation.

Plenty of times it probably didn't. It was to obscure the fact that they had hundreds of thousands of bitcoins. Some of these accounts seem to sit idle for years at a time, like the ones that moved like a hundred thousand of them yesterday. The money moved all over like mad back in March of 2011, all coming off one giant mega account that was then broken into a bunch of 5Kish accounts that move all over like mad for a couple days and then sit idle for years. Until yesterday when it got moved in what appears to be a nice hundred and something thousand bitcoin transfer to a whole new set of accounts. It was a bunch of clean transfers from one account to another account of the exact same size - like 20 of them. To who or what and for what exact reason - who really knows.

Others appear to be used for trading/spending where they break off a small piece that appears to get traded, transfer the rest of it to a new account, break off another small piece that appears to be traded, transfer the rest to a new account, etc, etc until the account gets eaten up by the small trades or the remainder gets merged to another big account to do the same thing again. And then when you look at what happens to the small pieces that get broken off, some of them seem to go to legit bitcoiners that are using it as currency and do little trades with that amount. Others get dumped, usually pretty quickly afterwards, and move back into one of the giant accounts. It's quite an intricate process they've got going here. I'm pretty sure you might actually be on to something with your idea.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

 

[DrJ]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

Bottom line is there doesn't really need to be "proof". A currency where 50 people control almost all of it is open to manipulation - that's one of the founding ideas this was supposedly built off of. It's also why they went through a lot of effort to obscure the fact that 50 people do indeed control most of it. Whether they are manipulating it today or not isn't the only concern here, the fact is the possibility exists. It's very easy.

Now the fact that we have a lot of evidence that a small group of people do control most of this and went through some fair effort to obscure the amount of control they have - well, that just really doesn't help to build a lot of trust. And without trust, the currency is worthless.

 

[Woogie Lee]

great stuff guys....keep it coming.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

Bottom line is there doesn't really need to be "proof". A currency where 50 people control almost all of it is open to manipulation - that's one of the founding ideas this was supposedly built off of. It's also why they went through a lot of effort to obscure the fact that 50 people do indeed control most of it. Whether they are manipulating it today or not isn't the only concern here, the fact is the possibility exists. It's very easy.

Now the fact that we have a lot of evidence that a small group of people do control most of this and went through some fair effort to obscure the amount of control they have - well, that just really doesn't help to build a lot of trust. And without trust, the currency is worthless.

See here's the flaw with your logic:

47 people own 28.9% of all bitcoins to date

927 people own 50.4% of all bitcoins to date

None of these people (with the exception of a few) know each other. To assume that 927 strangers are going to act as 1 to manipulate the price is beyond ludicrous. So stop spreading FUD that "50 people control almost all of it" since it is blatantly false.

To put this in perspective, according to Michael Moore, 400 Americans own half of the U.S. wealth - that is a similar if not even smaller ratio (0.0001%) of rich people to total set controlling half of the currency, yet you have no worries about the value of the dollar. There would need to be 35 million people that own bitcoin to make the comparison on par with USD numbers, or roughly 10% of the US population.

 

[DrJ]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

Bottom line is there doesn't really need to be "proof". A currency where 50 people control almost all of it is open to manipulation - that's one of the founding ideas this was supposedly built off of. It's also why they went through a lot of effort to obscure the fact that 50 people do indeed control most of it. Whether they are manipulating it today or not isn't the only concern here, the fact is the possibility exists. It's very easy.

Now the fact that we have a lot of evidence that a small group of people do control most of this and went through some fair effort to obscure the amount of control they have - well, that just really doesn't help to build a lot of trust. And without trust, the currency is worthless.

See here's the flaw with your logic:

47 people own 28.9% of all bitcoins to date

927 people own 50.4% of all bitcoins to date

None of these people (with the exception of a few) know each other. To assume that 927 strangers are going to act as 1 to manipulate the price is beyond ludicrous. So stop spreading FUD that "50 people control almost all of it" since it is blatantly false.

To put this in perspective, according to Michael Moore, 400 Americans own half of the U.S. wealth - that is a similar if not even smaller ratio (0.0001%) of rich people to total set controlling half of the currency, yet you have no worries about the value of the dollar. There would need to be 35 million people that own bitcoin to make the comparison on par with USD numbers, or roughly 10% of the US population.

You have no idea what the number really are:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/22/the-bitcoin-richest-accumulating-large-balances/

The Bitcoin Richest ranks the top worldwide holders of bitcoin wealth on the blockchain. The caveats are that we cannot identify the affluent person or business (but you know who you are) and the same entity may hold the private keys to multiple bitcoin addresses.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

Bottom line is there doesn't really need to be "proof". A currency where 50 people control almost all of it is open to manipulation - that's one of the founding ideas this was supposedly built off of. It's also why they went through a lot of effort to obscure the fact that 50 people do indeed control most of it. Whether they are manipulating it today or not isn't the only concern here, the fact is the possibility exists. It's very easy.

Now the fact that we have a lot of evidence that a small group of people do control most of this and went through some fair effort to obscure the amount of control they have - well, that just really doesn't help to build a lot of trust. And without trust, the currency is worthless.

See here's the flaw with your logic:

47 people own 28.9% of all bitcoins to date

927 people own 50.4% of all bitcoins to date

None of these people (with the exception of a few) know each other. To assume that 927 strangers are going to act as 1 to manipulate the price is beyond ludicrous. So stop spreading FUD that "50 people control almost all of it" since it is blatantly false.

To put this in perspective, according to Michael Moore, 400 Americans own half of the U.S. wealth - that is a similar if not even smaller ratio (0.0001%) of rich people to total set controlling half of the currency, yet you have no worries about the value of the dollar. There would need to be 35 million people that own bitcoin to make the comparison on par with USD numbers, or roughly 10% of the US population.

You have no idea what the number really are:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/22/the-bitcoin-richest-accumulating-large-balances/

The Bitcoin Richest ranks the top worldwide holders of bitcoin wealth on the blockchain. The caveats are that we cannot identify the affluent person or business (but you know who you are) and the same entity may hold the private keys to multiple bitcoin addresses.

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

 

[cstu]

Yeah I'm the idiot making ludicrous assumptions based on my paranoid beliefs, you have no ####### clue what is going on here and you are talking out of your ###. You lack the fundamental understanding of how bitcoin is explicitly designed to permit multiple owners, individually and independently adding signatures to a single transaction such as in shared coin pools (web wallets) and change transactions where bitcoins are sent back to the creator. But please continue to post your crap about your paranoid theories, I'm done arguing with someone that does not understand the basic principles and will ignore your posts.

You're very naive if you don't think the price is being manipulated.

 

[cstu]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DrJ]

To who or what - who really knows.

I can't continue to argue with you, you are just wildly speculating, you have zero proof price on the exchanges are being manipulated today.

Bottom line is there doesn't really need to be "proof". A currency where 50 people control almost all of it is open to manipulation - that's one of the founding ideas this was supposedly built off of. It's also why they went through a lot of effort to obscure the fact that 50 people do indeed control most of it. Whether they are manipulating it today or not isn't the only concern here, the fact is the possibility exists. It's very easy.

Now the fact that we have a lot of evidence that a small group of people do control most of this and went through some fair effort to obscure the amount of control they have - well, that just really doesn't help to build a lot of trust. And without trust, the currency is worthless.

See here's the flaw with your logic:

47 people own 28.9% of all bitcoins to date

927 people own 50.4% of all bitcoins to date

None of these people (with the exception of a few) know each other. To assume that 927 strangers are going to act as 1 to manipulate the price is beyond ludicrous. So stop spreading FUD that "50 people control almost all of it" since it is blatantly false.

To put this in perspective, according to Michael Moore, 400 Americans own half of the U.S. wealth - that is a similar if not even smaller ratio (0.0001%) of rich people to total set controlling half of the currency, yet you have no worries about the value of the dollar. There would need to be 35 million people that own bitcoin to make the comparison on par with USD numbers, or roughly 10% of the US population.

You have no idea what the number really are:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/22/the-bitcoin-richest-accumulating-large-balances/

The Bitcoin Richest ranks the top worldwide holders of bitcoin wealth on the blockchain. The caveats are that we cannot identify the affluent person or business (but you know who you are) and the same entity may hold the private keys to multiple bitcoin addresses.

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

Right. That's the problem. Along with the evidence that seems to point to the fact that at least as of May of 2012 it was a very small subset of accounts that spread them out into a bunch of smaller accounts completely invalidating any measure using "top 100 accounts" or anything along those lines.

I don't really want to compare this system to the crappy system we presently have. It was supposed to be an answer to that. You've been reduced to battling over which form of manipulation and greed is superior - think about that.

 

[Maelstrom]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Jojo doesn't really read and respond to valid points, he just picks at what he sees as flaws or point he can try to "win" in order to try to fuzz over the issue at hand.

 

[DrJ]

And even using just your numbers jojo - that we can actually prove for a fact that 47 people have 28.9% - that's a problem and opens it up to easy manipulation. And that's the absolute best case scenario, which has at best a 10% probability of being true. I'm trying to be generous there.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Yeah I'm the idiot making ludicrous assumptions based on my paranoid beliefs, you have no ####### clue what is going on here and you are talking out of your ###. You lack the fundamental understanding of how bitcoin is explicitly designed to permit multiple owners, individually and independently adding signatures to a single transaction such as in shared coin pools (web wallets) and change transactions where bitcoins are sent back to the creator. But please continue to post your crap about your paranoid theories, I'm done arguing with someone that does not understand the basic principles and will ignore your posts.

You're very naive if you don't think the price is being manipulated.

Give me dates, prices and examples, rather than insults.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

And even using just your numbers jojo - that we can actually prove for a fact that 47 people have 28.9% - that's a problem and opens it up to easy manipulation. And that's the absolute best case scenario, which has at best a 10% probability of being true. I'm trying to be generous there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0

You can't claim the sky is falling when you have no proof, only possibilities.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Jojo doesn't really read and respond to valid points, he just picks at what he sees as flaws or point he can try to "win" in order to try to fuzz over the issue at hand.

What valid points? You are just as bad as the others cheerleading for bitcoin to fail. DrJ even said himself he has no proof that price is being manipulated just that if enough people got together they could control the market, but the problem remains and a very big problem at that is the people do not know each other.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

So now you go from price fixing is definitely happening by calling me naive for disagreeing with you...to now saying how easy it is for random strangers to work together to fix prices - you are just as bad as DrJ, unless you start posting examples to back up your claim of price fixing you go into the same paranoid bracket as DrJ and Maelstrom.

You would have to control both the supply and the demand, you can only push the price so high before the other 99% of bitcoin holders start taking profits driving your price down, this is econ 101.

Satoshi who owns 1% of all bitcoin to date, if he really wanted to, possibly, could drive the price up by himself, but no way in hell could he sustain keeping the price high as the other 99% would start taking profits.

The only recorded examples of price manipulation which have been discussed ad naseum are the DDoS attacks and they no longer appear to be a problem.

 

[DrJ]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

So now you go from price fixing is definitely happening by calling me naive for disagreeing with you...to now saying how easy it is for random strangers to work together to fix prices - you are just as bad as DrJ, unless you start posting examples to back up your claim of price fixing you go into the same paranoid bracket as DrJ and Maelstrom.

You would have to control both the supply and the demand, you can only push the price so high before the other 99% of bitcoin holders start taking profits driving your price down, this is econ 101.

Satoshi who owns 1% of all bitcoin to date, if he really wanted to, possibly, could drive the price up by himself, but no way in hell could he sustain keeping the price high as the other 99% would start taking profits.

The only recorded examples of price manipulation which have been discussed ad naseum are the DDoS attacks and they no longer appear to be a problem.

Satoshi is closer to 10% of all bitcoin today. And that's not sitting in one account - again demonstrating that you do realize that a person's assets can very well be spread across several, even thousands of accounts. If 47 people have provable assets of 28.9%, on average they each have provable assets of .6%. Not all too far off of the amount you admit could move this by itself. But the reality is that it's certainly higher than that and they're probably closer to 1% each at least.

 

[Maelstrom]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Jojo doesn't really read and respond to valid points, he just picks at what he sees as flaws or point he can try to "win" in order to try to fuzz over the issue at hand.

What valid points? You are just as bad as the others cheerleading for bitcoin to fail. DrJ even said himself he has no proof that price is being manipulated just that if enough people got together they could control the market, but the problem remains and a very big problem at that is the people do not know each other.

I've said multiple times I'm not "cheerleading" for it to fail. I would love to see it succeed. I just don't think that all of the questions have been answered, starting with (but not ending with) the mystery of it's creator. I listed a list of questions earlier in this thread that have never been answered to my satisfaction with proof. For me, Bitcoin is way too unstable and has too many questions to be considered ready to cheerlead for. That doesn't automatically make me "cheerleading against" though. I do cheerlead against your blind support of Bitcoin though, it does not help make me more comfortable in the future of Bitcoin if the best representative we have here is you, Jojo.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

So now you go from price fixing is definitely happening by calling me naive for disagreeing with you...to now saying how easy it is for random strangers to work together to fix prices - you are just as bad as DrJ, unless you start posting examples to back up your claim of price fixing you go into the same paranoid bracket as DrJ and Maelstrom.

You would have to control both the supply and the demand, you can only push the price so high before the other 99% of bitcoin holders start taking profits driving your price down, this is econ 101.

Satoshi who owns 1% of all bitcoin to date, if he really wanted to, possibly, could drive the price up by himself, but no way in hell could he sustain keeping the price high as the other 99% would start taking profits.

The only recorded examples of price manipulation which have been discussed ad naseum are the DDoS attacks and they no longer appear to be a problem.

Satoshi is closer to 10% of all bitcoin to day. And that's not sitting in one account - again demonstrating that you do realize that a person's assets can very well be spread across several, even thousands of accounts. If 47 people have provable assets of 28.9%, on average they each have provable assets of .6%. But the reality is that it's certainly higher than that.

Right 980k to 10M, I stand corrected on Satoshi's holdings, you'd pretty much have to get him involved to price fix and even then it would not be sustainable - so unless you have proof of that then stop complaining about possibilities since it is a horrible argument to make.

 

[Maelstrom]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

So now you go from price fixing is definitely happening by calling me naive for disagreeing with you...to now saying how easy it is for random strangers to work together to fix prices - you are just as bad as DrJ, unless you start posting examples to back up your claim of price fixing you go into the same paranoid bracket as DrJ and Maelstrom.

You would have to control both the supply and the demand, you can only push the price so high before the other 99% of bitcoin holders start taking profits driving your price down, this is econ 101.

Satoshi who owns 1% of all bitcoin to date, if he really wanted to, possibly, could drive the price up by himself, but no way in hell could he sustain keeping the price high as the other 99% would start taking profits.

The only recorded examples of price manipulation which have been discussed ad naseum are the DDoS attacks and they no longer appear to be a problem.

Satoshi is closer to 10% of all bitcoin to day. And that's not sitting in one account - again demonstrating that you do realize that a person's assets can very well be spread across several, even thousands of accounts. If 47 people have provable assets of 28.9%, on average they each have provable assets of .6%. But the reality is that it's certainly higher than that.

Right 980k to 10M, I stand corrected on Satoshi's holdings, you'd pretty much have to get him involved to price fix and even then it would not be sustainable - so unless you have proof of that then stop complaining about possibilities since it is a horrible argument to make.

There is no way to know if he is or isn't involved in anything at all, or if he is even a real person. I think for Bitcoin to be a serious contender for anything more than a niche curiosity, he needs to reveal who he is and discuss why he has stayed "secret" so long.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Top 100 bitcoin wallets, not seeing a cartel listed here that owns "almost all of them":http://btc.ondn.net/The FBI own's the silk road wallet at number 1, maybe the FBI is price fixing bitcoin? ETA: Even with the FBI's wallet you are only talking a 1.4% stake.

So basically you didn't read any of the paper I linked, or the block chain I followed, or the chain on the transactions from yesterday which shows that the big money was spread across a ton of accounts in a very binary tree structure. It appears to me these accounts have under 5k a piece for the most part.

Jojo doesn't really read and respond to valid points, he just picks at what he sees as flaws or point he can try to "win" in order to try to fuzz over the issue at hand.

What valid points? You are just as bad as the others cheerleading for bitcoin to fail. DrJ even said himself he has no proof that price is being manipulated just that if enough people got together they could control the market, but the problem remains and a very big problem at that is the people do not know each other.

I've said multiple times I'm not "cheerleading" for it to fail. I would love to see it succeed. I just don't think that all of the questions have been answered, starting with (but not ending with) the mystery of it's creator. I listed a list of questions earlier in this thread that have never been answered to my satisfaction with proof. For me, Bitcoin is way too unstable and has too many questions to be considered ready to cheerlead for. That doesn't automatically make me "cheerleading against" though. I do cheerlead against your blind support of Bitcoin though, it does not help make me more comfortable in the future of Bitcoin if the best representative we have here is you, Jojo.

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

 

[DrJ]

AND neither do you, and neither do the people that own the most coins - that is the whole freaking point - your price fixing scam / hoax is all based on flawed logic that all of these anonymous individuals WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER are going to act in unison to fix the price! Like I said you are wildly speculating, you yourself admit you have no proof this is going on the exchanges today, zero, nil, only that the possibility exists, well the possibility exists that the 400 richest people in America could screw over the dollar, but you don't see anyone crying that the sky is falling because the possibility exists - it is even more probable because these 400 people are known individuals that can coordinate with each other.

One guy owns ~10% of all bitcoins and ~1% of all bitcoins are traded every day. If you don't understand how easily prices can be manipulated I don't know what to tell you.

So now you go from price fixing is definitely happening by calling me naive for disagreeing with you...to now saying how easy it is for random strangers to work together to fix prices - you are just as bad as DrJ, unless you start posting examples to back up your claim of price fixing you go into the same paranoid bracket as DrJ and Maelstrom.

You would have to control both the supply and the demand, you can only push the price so high before the other 99% of bitcoin holders start taking profits driving your price down, this is econ 101.

Satoshi who owns 1% of all bitcoin to date, if he really wanted to, possibly, could drive the price up by himself, but no way in hell could he sustain keeping the price high as the other 99% would start taking profits.

The only recorded examples of price manipulation which have been discussed ad naseum are the DDoS attacks and they no longer appear to be a problem.

Satoshi is closer to 10% of all bitcoin to day. And that's not sitting in one account - again demonstrating that you do realize that a person's assets can very well be spread across several, even thousands of accounts. If 47 people have provable assets of 28.9%, on average they each have provable assets of .6%. But the reality is that it's certainly higher than that.

Right 980k to 10M, I stand corrected on Satoshi's holdings, you'd pretty much have to get him involved to price fix and even then it would not be sustainable - so unless you have proof of that then stop complaining about possibilities since it is a horrible argument to make.

Actually, Satoshi sitting on the 1M tends to make it easier. That's another 1M that just sit and aren't part of the actual economy. 28.9% is based off of there being 11.6M of these, but we can actually say it's more like 10.6 if Satoshi just sits on the sidelines. 3.5M now represents 33% of what's out there, giving each of the 47 a provable average of .7%. With the truth actually being worse than that.

 

[Maelstrom]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

 

[DrJ]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

 

[DrJ]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

If this is as disruptive as someone like jojo is trying to make it seem, this still could be the ground floor. It could be the world currency and worth 1 million a piece. The twins say it's going to 40K, and that's "small bull". "Spartans hold" and all that jazz. Some guy said it needs to go to 10K so that Amazon will take it, and that's within a couple years here as jojo has assured us. So there's still plenty of chance to be rich. But they all seem to be glossing over a lot of details and problems...

 

[DrJ]

Also, for a comparison to the world's wealth figures, it's estimated to be about 241 trillion. https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-suisse-research-institute/news-and-videos.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/10/en/global-wealth-reaches-new-all-time-high.html

(Giving each bitcoin an actual value of $11,476,190 and growing)

Here's the Forbes billionaire list - The richest guy in the world's at 73B.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

So the richest guy in the world has .03% of its wealth. In the bitcoin world, richest guy has about 10% (333 times larger) and you have 47 people that on average have about 20 times as much as that....that they're willing to let you know about, at least.

 

[DrJ]

Chinse Bitcoin Exchange OKCoin Accused Of Faking Trading Data (7 hours ago)

http://www.coindesk.com/chinese-bitcoin-exchange-okcoin-accused-faking-trading-data/

 

[DrJ]

Here's an article that actually demonstrates some of the price fixing in action:

http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/13/bitcoins-vast-overvaluation-seems-to-be-caused-by-usually-illegal-price-fixing/

 

[DrJ]

Another site alleging price fixing:

http://www.binaryoptionsleader.com/making-the-news/bticoin-market-manipulation/

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Actually, Satoshi sitting on the 1M tends to make it easier. That's another 1M that just sit and aren't part of the actual economy. 28.9% is based off of there being 11.6M of these, but we can actually say it's more like 10.6 if Satoshi just sits on the sidelines. 3.5M now represents 33% of what's out there, giving each of the 47 a provable average of .7%. With the truth actually being worse than that.

Don't bother spinning it, since it doesn't help or hurt your price manipulation theory.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

If this is as disruptive as someone like jojo is trying to make it seem, this still could be the ground floor. It could be the world currency and worth 1 million a piece. The twins say it's going to 40K, and that's "small bull". "Spartans hold" and all that jazz. Some guy said it needs to go to 10K so that Amazon will take it, and that's within a couple years here as jojo has assured us. So there's still plenty of chance to be rich. But they all seem to be glossing over a lot of details and problems...

Again all you are doing is looking to make a quick buck off of it, you are missing the point completely.

 

[DrJ]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

Great, so why can't I just use Litecoins, Worldcoins, DigiCoins, etc, etc and get the same effect? Also:

Disclosure: I own some bitcoins.

Personally, I'm never going to actually trust Forbes as a viable source of information after all of these articles I've seen either.

 

[DrJ]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Burden of proof to why I should even consider it a trustworthy medium of exchange. It needs to be that before it can be anything you're talking about.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Chinse Bitcoin Exchange OKCoin Accused Of Faking Trading Data (7 hours ago)

http://www.coindesk.com/chinese-bitcoin-exchange-okcoin-accused-faking-trading-data/

China's been a mess, I don't think anyone here is trying to trade bitcoin with China given the risks in just getting money in or out of their exchanges due to the recent news out of their government.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

Great, so why can't I just use Litecoins, Worldcoins, DigiCoins, etc, etc and get the same effect? Also:

Disclosure: I own some bitcoins.

Personally, I'm never going to actually trust Forbes as a viable source of information after all of these articles I've seen either.

Yeah keep googling trash on bitcoin and posting blog links from guys that describe themselves as:

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

ETA: And again you prove your ignorance by comparing bitcoin to all of the alt's like you can just trade a silver coin for a gold coin - really a waste of my time repeating this.

 

[DrJ]

Your problem is you, like many others in this thread, only look at Bitcoin as a digital currency. Everyone is looking for the quick buck and if they can't get it they root against it out of jealously - at least that is how they come across.

What do you think my motivation is to support it other than I understand and appreciate it for the disruptive technology that it represents. I'm really tired of arguing with people that only look at it as a currency since it is a very short sighted view of what it represents.

I have no "jealousy" for "not getting in early". There are tons of things I missed the "ground floor" on, and if I was jealous of others that did get success for doing well (because they were in a good position to get in early and took on the risk of backing something before it was big) I'd be miserable (and I'm not, at least not about missed opportunities, ha).

I guess I don't see it as a disruptive technology. I see it as a interesting technical piece of code - maybe you could expound more on how it is disruptive (and not as a currency, obviously, I see how that "could" be disruptive if it became trusted and stable enough).

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

Great, so why can't I just use Litecoins, Worldcoins, DigiCoins, etc, etc and get the same effect? Also:

Disclosure: I own some bitcoins.

Personally, I'm never going to actually trust Forbes as a viable source of information after all of these articles I've seen either.

Yeah keep googling trash on bitcoin and posting blog links from guys that describe themselves as:

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

ETA: And again you prove your ignorance by comparing bitcoin to all of the alt's like you can just trade a silver coin for a gold coin - really a waste of my time repeating this.

I thought it was "more than currency". What does bitcoin bring to the table in regards to being "more than currency" that these others don't?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by DrJ. View it anyway?

much better

 

[DrJ]

And yeah, I can see why you'd take exception to Falkvinge. It seems like he actually cares about all of the things bitcoin is supposed to represent other than replacing the world's currency and making people rich:

About Rick Falkvinge:

Rick Falkvinge is the founder of the first Pirate Party, and a political evangelist for its ideas of freedoms of speech and expression. In particular, he stresses how industrial interests of the 1900s are fighting the net’s core values, the ability for everybody to publish their ideas and creations, and how these industries drive us towards a Big Brother society. On this platform of civil liberties, his party became the largest in the below-30 demographic in the 2009 European Elections, beating the political competition on less than one percent of their campaign budget. This can be largely attributed to new ways of organizing large numbers of people that he created and applied while leading the party. An entrepreneur at heart, he founded his first company at 16, and has remained a trailblazer since. Because of his successes in cost-effective management and changing policy, he has been named a Top Global Thinker by Foreign Policy magazine, as well as shortlisted as one of the world’s most influential people by TIME Magazine. When not making policy, keynoting about cost-effective management, or exploring technical subjects in detail, Mr. Falkvinge can usually be seen cooking, sampling a scotch whisky, or riding a fast motorcycle.

Here's his entry on the Time 100 nomination list:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2107952_2107953_2110143,00.html

Age: 40
Occupation: Political evangelist

Falkvinge turned a fringe political group dubbed the Pirate Party into an international movement with a presence in more than 25 countries. Its focus on Internet privacy, government transparency and copyright law helped it sweep into Berlin's state parliament last September with a stunning 9% of the vote. The group has certainly tapped into the zeitgeist. As the recent demonstrations over the Stop Online Piracy Act in the U.S. illustrate, the Pirate philosophy is moving toward the mainstream.