Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin has been slowly and steadily rising with small bumps in between from $80 to current $120 .

I think this is a good thing imo, a steady healthy rise is always positive on the mid-term, and usually means if we see another sell off it won't go down by much.

based on this pattern, Do you see bitcoin back to $150-$180 by next week, or we gonna see another downfall to sub $100.

Slow and steady has historically always been good and sustainable.

There has to be a small downfall but the more time goes like this the less impact it will have. No double digits anytime soon IMHO.

Will rise to around 130 before falling back to 100 .

If it gets to $130, we will have no problem to get to $170+.

*if*

All this China hype is nothing more than a trap before we continue sliding further down.

Clearly you were captain of your high school debating team.

he just wants cheap coins.  It is hard to debate convincingly when you don't believe it.

Slow and steady? It went from 80 to 120 in two days!

Ha ha - I don't know what people are thinking here - 50% in two days is more then crazy even on bitcoin standards.

sell order at 125 placed  :-\ let's see if it goes thru today

Yep that's the way. The EXTREMELY fast growth always scares me :P. But tbh, this is still pretty damn fast...

rise, chikuns, rise!

it is still scared of my 125 ask  >:(

4 days actually.

There is absolutely nothing slow or steady about bitcoins price rise in the last 4 months.

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxUSD&SubmitButton=Draw&r=&i=&c=0&s=&e=&Prev=&Next=&t=C&b=&a1=&m1=10&a2=&m2=25&x=0&i1=&i2=&i3=&i4=&v=1&cv=0&ps=0&l=0&p=0&[img][/img]

Oh look, a non-logarithmic chart!

Quick. Tell me exactly why a log chart would be used here?

Come on, don't be shy.

I'll give you a clue why I didn't use one....exponential growth is unsustainable, and the barrier to entry is greater with a higher price, even if percentage of growth is the same (which is one reason you see stock splits). 

Because you are interested in the relative change.

$1 increase when you are at $1, that's a huge deal.
$1 increase when you are at $120 is nothing.

Are you telling me that when looking at stocks charts, you use a linear scale?

You must hate that chart now evolve.

Come to the light little bear. Get your fur on another time.

I already addressed why that isn't feasible, and yes, I do use linear charts with stocks.

Exactly my thoughts...ironic that the OP says slow and steady haha :P

I will...as soon as the bubble pops and we are back at a reasonable valuation.  Just like last time.

I love that quote. Some mathematical truisms, applied to a poorly understood model of reality.

To use your own words, "I'll give you a clue": Exponential growth happens everywhere. You disagree? Go argue with the bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_growth) then.

What you actually mean is: exponential growth at the same rate will eventually become unsustainable. Big difference.

Whether the growth of btc price is already unsustainable or not is up for debate. The kneejerk answer "u can never haz exponential growth!" however is utterly pointless.

Yeah, apple is in a bubble too (one that is popping as we speak).




Why dont you try making a point instead of recycling stupid memes?  Or do you have one?




No, trying to make an unrelated semantic argument (when you clearly understood the point being made) is pointless.

Agreed. Cant really compare apple to bitcoin. Two different animals.

LOL so much fail on this forum.

Based on your debating technique, you must have been in the cheerleading section.

Dude, what the hell. Just yesterday I added you to my list of commenters I keep track of, because you tend to make good points, and now you're simply acting like a dick.

The point that started it all was: should one use a log chart. You said, with heavy sarcasm, obviously not, as eventually all exponential growth must come crashing down.

Which might be true, in the long run, but until then the correct way to model a certain behavior is still to describe it via an expoential function.

To come back to the bacteria example: just because their growth will eventually cease to be expoential doesn't mean a biologist would not use an expoential function to describe their growth during the time were it does.

Applied to our case: there is nothing wrong with using a log chart. In fact, looking over the price development since 2010, it actually looks strongly like exponential growth took place. You only need to be cautious if you start drawing some long ass line in a log chart and expect it to continue into the next year... then you set yourself up for failure. But using a log chart to begin with is probably the right thing to do at the moment.

Because I already did, to which you simply answered


I'm pretty sure I also have already addressed why almost everything
should be looked with a log chart. Somewhere. Sometime.

Look up three posts above that:

I apologize.  I guess I'm getting a bit sensitive from the constant dogpiles and argument baiting around here.



I can agree with this...however, I don't see why a log chart is necessary when I am just providing a snapshot of the market to illustrate the rapid growth and volatility that we have seen in the last couple of months (as I was earlier in the thread) .

Also, there seems to be this pervasive thought around here that linear charts are useless, which I strongly disbelieve. Both have thier place depending on what you are looking at or trying to illustrate.

Subject does not make sense. "Slow and steady wins the race" What race? Where is the finish line?

The finish line is the mythical real price.

Uh.. that's your explanation?

Stock splits exist because you can't buy half a stock.

And for the exponential growth...
http://getfile2.posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/temp-2012-01-25/BtastliBqHIlCGdAHjDJvbmucAIDCjvHiGjnrzqpADflkulhevIbfoumwbbr/3656849977_c99b0a4606.jpg.scaled500.jpg
Unsustainable? Perhaps. But until we hit a hard limit, that's pretty much the best way to characterize it.
That's a double exponential, by the way.

Yes, you can definitely buy fractional portions of stock. I own 27.3347 shares of GE, for example.

Stock splits occur because the price gets too high for people to easily buy complete lots (even though stocks do not have to be bought this way). The higher price becomes a barrier to entry.

Weird, I've never been able to buy fractional stock.

But a higher price is NOT a barrier to entry for Bitcoin.

Discount brokers, I use Sharebuilder.

Of course it is. Price always matters and will always have a psychological effect on buyers.  

I wish to spend $10.

BTC @ $10 ---> 1 BTC
BTC @ $100 --> 0.1 BTC

Where is the barrier?

The psychological difference between owning 1 of something and owning 0.1 of something is the barrier.

billy witch doctor dot com -- one convenient locations -- in Africa

btc-e dot com -- one convenient locations -- in russia

HEY A$$H0L3!!!!
That particular meme is RULE and will NEVER get old.
You can troll as you wish but when you pick on innocent memes YOU HAVE STEPPED OVER A LINE   >:( >:( >:(
LEAVE THE MEMES OUT OF IT.
This offends me even more than your rampant ignorance.

This was shown on /r/bitcoin over the past couple months. There have been many threads of people saying they feel the price is too high to buy in, and that they can't afford it. Many felt they needed to buy at least a few bitcoins to really be involved/invested.

Of course this is all psychological, but it does have an impact.

Have to agree with evolve there. If we were perfectly rational beings, there would be no difference. If we were perfectly rational beings however we wouldn't need a market to determine price in the first place :P

Gigacoin: "Slow and steady wins the race."
Bitcoin: "Fuck you!"

I think that should be doable if there is a consensus in the community to change the numbers from 21 millions to 21 billions/trillions and converting all existing coinage in the blockcain, or put in another layer inbetween.
Still - I doubt it will happen. I think it is more likely that someone makes up a new name instead of millibitcoin, and that becomes the everyday unit - like silverbit(?) for 0.001 BTC or something like that.

Edit: Almost forgot - In the olden days, people were happily trading with cents and pennies in everyday-life, while pounds and dollars were reserved for larger transactions.

AFAIK, that is already the case, there is technically no such thing as a bitcoin in the block chain. And where to set the decimal point is up to the users of the currency (and the bitcoin client they're using). That said, currently we trade and think in bitcoins. To change that, we would need a major "campaign" to convince everyone otherwise.

Makes sense, don't think that could change though.

easier solution is to just start quoting all prices in mBTC instead of BTC

Satoshi set the decimal point by taking the total number of units and sticking a decimal point in the middle. (21 000 000.000 000 00)
Or you can see it is four sets of four digits, equally arranged around the decimal point (2100 0000.0000 0000)

I would be in favor of doing so, but unfortunately the Finnish reptile man is a proponent of that solution, and I'll be damned if I will look like I'm following his advice.

I have not dived into the technicallities, but if that is correct, it should be rather easy to split the BTC, and make a btc into 1/00 210 000.000 000 00 and thus make the effective market cap(in units) 100 times higher and still keep it as BTC units. One "unconverted" BTC would simply be an OBTC (original bitcoin) that was split into 100 BTCv3 or BTC for short. (add a version per decimal place)

As long as the community is agrees on such a change, I don't see any reason why it could not be done. This would most likely increase the market cap, as having a coin that is worth 1-2 USD seems less confusing than one that is worth $100-200. For users and miners the only difference would be that instead of 1 BTC, there would be 100 in the wallet, and the blocks would be 2500 BTCv3.

In-fact this have been done several times with FIATs and are frequently done with stocks to have more manageable units. Although with FIATs it's normally the other way around. (Like when 10.000 polish zloty became 1 new zloty)

Erh... Seems like I totally misunderstood and thought that 1BTC was coded as 10 000 000. 000 000 00 - Oh well.

The community won't agree. It is clearly stated that anything touching the
21 millions limit wouldn't be considered Bitcoin anymore.

And if you want to do all this for PR reason, imagine the nightmare it would be to explain that
21 millions ---> 21 milliards wasn't inflation. If people can't grasp that bitcoins are divisible,
they are certainly not going to understand that moving the decimal point changes nothing.

It's going to $50 this week, as previously predicted.

I also believe that. But in a couple of years, I don't think a base price of $100 or $200 is too far fetched.

But due to how we humans work, I think it seems more radical if a coin goes from $200 to $50 than if it goes from $2 to $0.5 even though the end result is the same.