Bitcoin Forum

Best time we have had to buy in a long time.


http://i57.tinypic.com/2qki8td.png


Edit: added chart to show the reason for the post, no matter the price, if it drops over 40% within an hour...buying is probably a wise decision
the price dropped again a few days later but hovered around $1000 for the next few months

*and, not that it matters, but I did not buy until a few hours after this post so it was not a "pump" to make me money*

BUY NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

\because the price is where it was three days ago?  ::)

Buy on panic.

Damned CoinBase...by the time my phone charges to verify my account the dip will be bought up.

Don't think so
Will wait for a more obviously favourable entry point

lol it's quickly  back to $1050 maybe too late for $850 hehe.

but 24hour Chart is overall downtrending so who knows might revisit 800-900 or go up up again and stabilize at $1100

It is sporadic on BitStamp, it rises to $940 then drops to $925 then increases to $926 - so even though it has gone down a couple of hundred bucks I am sure it will level out again like it has done previously when it ditched down to $800 and made the gradual climb back to $1100.

It is a matter of time to tell really, I do not see me buying in until it drops back below $500 but at a steady rate of course, a lot of people will still and try and oversell their coins to make a sizable profit anyways.

Always try it at the pointy side up  :P

oh man exactly.. i was just telling a friend to buy at $865.... he had about $6k  

He didnt wanna buy and 20 minutes later 1000 ...

its dipped back to 950 or so now but if he originally bought 7 at 865 and then sold at 1000 thats like 945 for 25 minutes!







Good night to surf bitcoin tonight.. ive been surfin the charts like weeee  :P
 

didn't you yet notice that bitcoin is a knife that only falls upwards?

Be greedy when others are fearful --> China news
Be fearful when others are greedy --> New ATHs, euphoria, RSI at 80, overbought ^^

Bah, my phone sucks. I could not verify to log into my account on CoinBase.

I will have to hope I wake up tomorrow to a bunch of scared weak hands so I can get in cheaper.

You should all sell. Anything over $5/BTC is overpriced. Tulips, ponzi, pyramid, bubble!

FTFY

 :D

+1

Pick a door any door..

https://i.imgur.com/uP25k7u.jpg

Right now you should be careful as a crash is looming since sheepsmarket theft of >$400 million has happened which is much bigger than Silk Road and we know what happened back then. Also China banned banks from Bitcoin transactions.

Bitcoin went way up after the Silkroad seizure....what are you talking about.

Also, the person who stole those Sheep coins is never going to be able to sell a significant number of them.
They are being watched...the police want him and the drug dealers don't like being ripped off.

YAY... Doubled my holdings at $869.35 WOOOOOOOOO

It's returning to a thousand again. 900ish was a great buy and I guess MANY have taken the chance!

When someone is buying, there's always another one selling...  :)

so? either bitcoin gets accepted one day and you made lots of money or it will fail and you loose it. all in between is just wobbly wobbly speculation and market manipulation - there are only two options; and either you decide to put some money into this gamble or you don't.

Price @ time of post: "Over $1000"  :(

http://s8.postimg.org/4j3jd9plh/no1.jpg

Actually the price had dropped from over $1200 to almost $850 (MtGox price, which is what CoinBase was using at the time).

I think I was lucky enough to buy under $900 before it went back up over $1100.

It was certainly a great time to buy.

I only wish my phone didn't screw up when it was at the low.

indeed.
And the title is good time to buy, not good time to HODL forever

Price was at $800+ that day and it was on a free fall that reached $550 3 days after, it reached $1000 in a quick dead cat bounce after a while yeah, just to crash further down the following days.

You never said that your advice was supposed to be (very bad) daytrading.
It was a clear attempt to lure in suckers to buy overpriced coins and to HODL them   :-\

.@Elwar:  So you knew that shit was about to drop & dumped in a few hours, huh?  Good call!
Listen, listen tho... did you... remember to tell folks to dump?  Before, you know... dumping all over them?

Or did you wanna, maybe, surprise them? :D

Buying is not uncompilable with HODling already bought BTCS.

wasn't always a great time to buy? even at peak it was, it could have gone even higher no one knew

Yep, during the last bubble many were yelling "buy" at 200/300, you never know how high it's going (nor how low when it comes back down).

this is probably the time to buy cheap cuz btc is rising slowly then will have boom

Yes. Actually a good time to buy, indeed! It really come down to whether you are investing long term, trying to time the bubbles, try to buy on minor swings, or even day trade the hell out of our beloved coin!

^
Protip:
Buying at the peak of a bubble is generally considered not so smart.  Though the topic is currently hotly debated by Bitcoin aficionados, buying high like a fucking idiot is still considered to be inferior to buying low by teh investment orthodoxy.

the point is that, you don't know what the peak is lol

you should always buy and hold, until you are confortable to sell, until the price suit your need

yea best time to buy was after a crazy price increase  ::)

The point is I do tho.  It's you & your buddy Elwar who don't.

Im going to be buying, just waiting for it to go up 1 dollar and I will pounce. Hopefully we reach to the moon after that. After hacks is the best time to buy because of undervalued coins

Funny to read this now. It shows how difficult it is to predict anything.

Having said that, I think the low has been reached. Buy at any dips.

Everytime they say great time to buy, Bitcoin's price drops. I don't think the time has come yet. We need to see sub-150 coins first.

this is stable price for so most think its time to buy you can buy now or wait for it to drop but it wont this time

Buying bitcoin is like a great gamble. But I think the changes are bigger to get more back then loose it.

I think it also depends on your general strategy to trading.

Either a great time to buy, or bad as hell because btc is dying.
Chose your option, but I think possible reward still greatly excedes the risk.

Sub-150? You could end up waiting for ever.  :)

Anything above zero means the experiment lives on.  So far it's been 6 years in counting.

If it survives until the halving next year, maybe it isn't just a Tulip-mania or Beanie Babies scenario.  If it last that long, could it be......Legit???

Just buy now, while you still can.

Actually, I think the Feds have already legitimized it by offering Bitcoin Auctions 3 times!!  :o

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/26/00/9d2600479a074d58db0dad72fc718562.jpg

Oh, snap ninjas! I'm a Senior Member!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJg3oM_wyE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJg3oM_wyE)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ9vIUmYIQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ9vIUmYIQQ)

you sound just like op in dec 5th 2013 lol, but its true, bitcoin has that extra wildcard,halving, so even if it wanted to stay frozen in terms of price its virtualy impossible.
So the question you are asking is will it survive until the halving; sure it will, and not just that, it will probably spark up another bubble, and til that bubble bursts, another halving will happen,. etc--etc-
u get my point, bitcoin was briliantly created by someone who obviously has deep roots in economics.

cheers

Technically if you believe that bitcoin's price will rise significantly anytime after now, it's always a great time to buy.

The confidence returning to job markets means more disposable income and more interest in bitcoin.  watch out...

let just hope it will start to rise little by little

It's already lasted 6 years, like you mentioned.

Anyone using the phrases "tulip" or "beanie baby" as a parallel is a fucking idiot, and has been for a while.

If you say so, Anon :-\

You tell him boss!   :D

Let's get all these guys to short those BTCeanie BTCabies like crazy.


http://www.btcfeed.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bitcoin-crash.png

You should buy more and prove the analogy wrong, so far it's working out decently well.


http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/3/30/683356-13646381593349972-Dan-Naumov.jpg[/imghttp://i58.tinypic.com/fcqkc1.png

What I never understand when people do this kind of comparison is the lack of understanding that no matter what bubble you zoom in to, 2011, 2013, whichever, they ALWAYS look like the tulip graph.
The difference is that bitcoin always has a next one :)

The tulip bubble fits better than any other bubble in history chart wise.

The tulip bubble had 2 major bubbles as you can see.
The BTC bubble had 3. The last 2 of them look exactly as the tulip ones, the first one (the 32$ to 2$ one, on mtgox) was done when price and market cap were more than 100X less what they are today, so a lot easier to pump and insignificant in scale as the other ones.

What's your point?

His point is exactly what he said, pay attention because reading comprehension is important:


To illustrate this, I'll use the exact tulip chart you linked.  It came from this site:

http://seekingalpha.com/author/dan-naumov/instablog (http://seekingalpha.com/author/dan-naumov/instablog)

What's unintentionally funny about your post is that you used a picture that this guy posted trying to compare BTC to tulips back in April of 2013.  The top line of that blog post read as follows:

"Bitcoin Breaks 100$"

...he proposed his version of the theory and put it up on 4/2/2013.

Put very simply, He tried to say exactly what you're saying now almost two years ago.  He was wrong then.  It turned out to be a false analogy based on only the value aspect of BTC to something else that had value at some point in history.  Trying to claim the same thing now comes off as either stupid, FUD, or trolling - or some combination of the three.  Your user name and lacking content shed light on which of those three your claim is largely comprised of.

Now, the author was correct in saying BTC was in a bubble at that time.  Plenty of people were saying it and were right.  He then went on to incorrectly make the assumption that because BTC was in a bubble that it would behave identically to something else in history that also went through a bubble... despite the two assets/items in question having nothing else in common.  At one point in their history, tulips did have scarcity in common with BTC - again, given that we're discussing ridiculously different assets, their scarcity was not limited by their design.  Supply of tulips started to catch up.  The supply of BTC is fixed.  

Guess what happened after he wrote this? The bubble popped, BTC corrected, did lots of sideways movement, corrected more and then went through the fucking roof.  Again.  

Just like it did when it went up to $266 from $10.
Just like it did when it went up to $32 from <$1.

Getting back to your flawed point:


Except that it doesn't.  The tulip's value bubble correlates with all of BTC's bubbles for possibly 90% of the initial duration.  The ridiculously important detail you missed was the last 10% when Tulips go right to 0 and BTC corrects down, does some price finding and then survives, and has historically gone on to do it all the fuck over again, and see a new ATH due largely to speculation.

I see people say its great time to buy irrespective of the price all the time. But its true :P

My point is, if we have yet another bubble now, the Nov 2014 one will look like the tiny rise on the tulip graph.

Except the fact that the first 2013 bubble (the $260 one) doesn't look like that tulip chart at all.
Also, the dude from your link posted the tulip comparison during the pump, that's not a very efficient way of making an analogy like that.
I showed the tulip-BTC comparison after 1 year of bear market from the $1200 bubble to show you in hindsight that the two charts indeed look very similar.


If anything the first 2013 pump (that I repeat, doesn't look like that tulip chart that much) fits in the larger picture as the first bubble that doesn't correct completely in the tulip chart here:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-UJ2jEIEAAb-1W.jpg


Calling a top of a bubble before it even starts to dump is stupid. These comparisons make sense in hindsight.



Again, the tulip bubble had 2 bubbles. The BTC bubble had 3.
Are you saying that the first bitcoin bubble (that happened when BTC was very easily pumpable and an obscure experiment very few people knew about, perfect for smart speculators to pump&dump) alone is sufficient to invalidate the tulip-bitcoin price comparison even though the 2 tulip bubbles look EXACTLY like the last 2 bitcoin bubbles (something that you can say only in hindsight)?

NHJT livin up to his name people. Why do you bother?

Is the price of a tulip bulb zero today?

As long as bitcoin can be used for illicit activities or some people can make a quick buck with a daily pump&dump, it will have a price that is not zero. That doesn't mean that its price wasn't a bubble that bursted.



The price of quarkcoin or countless other useless shitcoins is not zero today. So what?

There are numerous shitcoins that are 0.  I don't know why you only waste your efforts hear, you can troll the hell out of everyone in the altcoin subforum.

Oh, I see what you are trying to say: "tulips were just useless flowers, bitcoin is a revolutionary technology".

The tulip comparison works well because the charts look identical and it works to prove a point using their respective charts. But sure, fundamentals wise is not quite the same. I agree.

Regarding fundamentals, another better analogy I like to bring up is pets.com (or any other domain that went into a bubble like World.com) during the dotcom bubble.
With the idea that:

distributed ledger technologies  -> the internet
cryptocurrencies -> pets.com


You can read all about it in my post here (the second part of the post, mostly)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931714.msg10236780#msg10236780



Oh, and scarcity, the thing you bitcoiners always like to talk about. bitcoin's scarcity is 100% artificial. It the world doesn't need cryptocurrencies (or at least it doesn't need them for use cases that justify a high price/marketcap), it doesn't need them, whether they are scarce or not.

So? A lot of them that are equally worthless are not at 0. That is enough to prove my point.

What is your point?  I know of no other crypto that has the infastructure that btc has?
My point is you are obviously either all pissey because you lost the 10 dollars to your name trying to be a trader or you are a paid shill making $1 a day posting. 
If you were trying to warn people, you would take your efforts to the shitcoins. 

Who is talking about infrastructure? I am saying the world doesn't need cryptocurrencies, not that a shitcoin is gonna replace BTC lol

When people here says something you don't like you start to insult them with empty personal attacks. Classic.


I don't give a fuck about no shitcoin son, never did.

If you take offense to it it must be true.  I don't insult people who make valid points, I only call the truth, sorry if it hurts.

AFAIK tulip bulbs are expansive  ;D
http://www.hollandbulbfarms.com/items.asp?cat=Cheap-Tulip-Bulbs&Cc=cheaptulipbulbs

Exactly my point  ;D

They still have a price that is not zero, of course  :D

Let's take a step back: the link I grabbed was from -your- tulip bubble chart.  Not mine.  I would not have referenced someone who ended up postulating a theory proven false and then try to claim that today it's true.


You're making a lot of weird assumptions now to try and support your point, such as BTC being easily pumpable or whatever.  Those are getting thrown out.  The main point you appear to be trying to make is that BTC is just like tulips because when looking at one view, their bubbles have a similar form - and even that is false.

Right here:


You keep using this word "EXACTLY"...

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

Because, in the chart that -you- brought up, it very clearly shows Tulips going down directly to zero.

Bitcoin has never once done that, it didn't do it after the first bubble, it didn't do it after the second, and it hasn't done it after the third

Zoom out or in to any point you want, but you appear to be adding your own speculation that it will go to zero and then trying to make the subsequent claim that tulips = BTC.



I don't know what the value of a tulip bulb is today - however, the evidence that you provided to create your theory shows this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-UJ2jEIEAAb-1W.jpg

If you'll note, at the bottom where the line stops, that number is zero.  We are using your own graphs here, so if you have an issue with it, you're more than welcome to throw it out.

Now, conveniently you say this:


The reason why it's convenient, is that once again you've contradicted your own evidence, by saying that Bitcoin will have a price that is not zero.  Here again, you're admitting that Bitcoin provides value, while Tulips went up, and then went to zero.  They never had another bubble.  The sheer fact that Bitcoin exists and has relevance *after* the bubble also disproves your theory.



Identical? No.  Nothing is identical about the two charts you posted.  I've shown it clearly many times, and your refusal to accept that is starting to become indicative of your refusal to accept the fact that words have meanings:

Identical: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identical)
Adjective
1. Similar or alike in every way

Exactly: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exactly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exactly)
Adverb
1. in an exact manner; precisely; accurately.



No offense, but nothing you've written here gives me any confidence of your ability to construct a well-thought-out argument supporting a theory.  If you want to start talking about fundamentals somewhere else, you're more than welcome.  Your original point was that BTC's recent bubbles and tulips' bubbles were exactly/identically the same (therefore, they are comparable?) but that is false.  The fundamental differences between tulips and BTC are so wildly different that bringing them up here in anything other than a cursory mention would just further derail the discussion.  I can absolutely see why you would want to derail it now given that your initial premise was inherently flawed.


Awww "you bitcoiners"? Now you're showing your true colors.  In no way was I trying to suggest that BTC's scarcity is what provides it with value, but here you've gone and taken one aspect of what I wrote and attempted to turn it into something of a point.

What you missed was that I brought up scarcity as one of the only similarities between tulips and BTC, and even then it was only a quality they shared for part of the time, as Tulips scarcity was never limited.  BTC's scarcity is limited by design.  I was arguing that tulips' scarcity was part of what drove their prices higher and the inability to limit said scarcity was certainly a contributing factor in their swift demise.

Summing everything up, your two charts were never identical/exactly the same.  Attempting to use those two charts and try to say that BTC=tulips is just poor trollsmanship.

Are you sure you're trying to make this point now? It would significantly detract from your prior, still-flawed argument.

Tulips look to be about $3.50 on that site, in today's dollars, whereas at the peak of tulipmania when an average tulip bulb was running $64,000.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/12/when-certain-tulips-cost-more-than-a-house/ (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/12/when-certain-tulips-cost-more-than-a-house/)

So you're trying to say that BTC going from $1200 -> $244 = tulips going $64,000 -> $3.50?

Math can be hard sometimes, but come on.

So you're saying that Bitcoin's a somewhat better investment than tulip bulbs?*
I guess for now, before the price really tanks.  Give it a few months/year :-\

---

*If you bought said bulbs at peak price

On "December 05, 2013" you posted an accurate prediction.
Here we are again, and now it is a great time to buy.   :)

@ThatDGuy:

Jesus Christ dude, are we talking semantics now?

I said "look identical", not identical, of course they can't be "exactly 100% identical" FFS.
What I meant is that  the charts show a bubble that doesn't retrace completely (the first tulip bubble I circled) that continues to pump fairly quickly in another one that then eventually retraces completely to reach very low prices, given enough time.
Two bubbles relatively close in time, as the initial charts I posted shows.

Simple. As. That.


Yes, in 2011 BTC was easily "pumpable", a lot of penny stocks easily pump to $1B-$10B marketcap, so anything that has a marketcap A LOT smaller than that can be easily pumped. There are countless famous examples of penny stocks pump&dumps.
It was easily pumpable especially compared to the current marketcap ($2-$3 B).

If you can't understand the difference between pumping bitcoin at $2 to reach a high of $32  and beyond and pumping it at $250 to reach a high of $1200 and beyond I don't know what to say to you.



Whatever, my point is that scarcity doesn't matter. Such similarities/differences between the two items/assets are just details.
And yes I took the occasion to talk about the so called "scarcity argument" and to say that it is a non-argument for bitcoin. So?

Why don't you comment on the pets.com analogy I mentioned instead of talking about details such as scarcity of tulips and bitcoins?



PS: can't you understand that the tulip chart I posted is highly simplified and that it probably never went to zero in the first place?

Nope, bitcoin is going to drop to $0.065 in few months
BTC going from $1200 -> $0.065 = tulips going $64,000 -> $3.50

Again, of course they are not 100% identical and they won't unfold in EXACTLY the same manner. What the hell?
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Also, there is all the time in the world for bitcoin to go way lower than what it is now, don't be so impatient.

Comment on the pets.com analogy instead of talking semantics.

Wow, okay so you're saying that "look identical" != identical.

This is why I won't be reading whatever other nonsensical post you're trying to point to.

"retraces completely, Given enough time?" oooookay... let's look at the time

Here's your picture:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-UJ2jEIEAAb-1W.jpg

Looks to be about half of a year that it retraced from the highest point there down to zero.

Now let's look at Bitcoin:

https://i.imgur.com/moAG7Sk.png

That's strange.  Here we are using a technology that is able to be transferred quickly and globally, with quite a few exchanges and on the 2 year chart we're still not at zero.

That doesn't look anything look tulips at all.



Thanks, I guess? I was arguing that they didn't share it, and it was the closest thing that they both had in common besides a bubble.  I literally was throwing that in there to try and help you out, but now you're down to the only comparison between tulips and BTC being two charts that are vaguely similar, which in your mind vaguely similar=identical/looks identical/exactly the same.


...and now you're admitting that the tulip chart was drawn on graph paper by some unknown person, possibly using incorrect or flawed data? 

Don't forget that you were the one that brought the chart up to try and make your point that BTC = Tulips.

You're doing all my work for me on disproving your point, man.

Take a real honest moment there and read what you wrote. 

You said:

"look identical" != "identical"

Now ask yourself why I would try to struggle through deciphering more of your enigmatic self-made vocabulary in a whole other maybe-related post?

There we go, good to see some acceptance of your earlier flawed argument.

Now, then - what else makes BTC similar to Tulips?

English is not my first language, so problems you have with the words I'm using may be because of that? Who cares?
The two charts show a "High degree of similarity". That is what I meant and it's just obvious they can't be 100% the same.

I hope everybody else can see you are just nitpicking about semantics, but whatever  ::)


Still no mention of anything regarding the pets.com analogy I posted, that works better if we are talking fundamentals.
Y u no talk bout that?

I'm sorry that English isn't your first language.  Considering that we're conversing via an English forum, it's important that we're all working with the same ground rules, or else there's no point in attempting honest communication.

Claiming that "tulips going from their ATH -> zero in half a year" is exactly the same as "BTC going from it's ATH -> 1/6th of the ATH in a year" is inherently false.  Chalking it up to semantics is a bad look.

If you're going to try and base an argument off of a false premise, you also have to accept that some people will choose to ignore you after that - because it ends up becoming a waste of time.


I agree that they show a lot of similarity, up until the last portion - again where Tulips drop completely and BTC hasn't dropped anywhere near close to the same point.  In fact, BTC has now been hovering just around where the previous ATH was.  The Tulips' chart didn't do anything remotely close to that.



Again, I honestly don't wish to go off on a tangent in this discussion about fundamentals and trying to correlate BTC -> Pets.com now.  I don't blame you for trying to shift the discussion away.

I'm simply tearing the weak argument that Tulips = BTC apart, and not having to work very hard to do it.

In all seriousness, trolls were comparing Tulips and BTC back in early 2013, and midway a bit, and could almost get away with it.  It just doesn't work anymore.

The chart you posted is just on a different time scale.

There is all the time in the world for the BTC price to "drop completely" (as you say, but again, tulips never went to 0 so they didn't actually "drop completely") like tulips did  ::)  :D



http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/3/30/683356-13646381593349972-Dan-Naumov.jpg[/imghttp://i58.tinypic.com/fcqkc1.png




Lol. "go off a tangent?"
My point is that bitcoin is a bubble, the pets.com analogy is arguably even more relevant to the point than the tulip chart comparison.

I take it as, "I don't know how to answer that and I don't want to go in depth"


Ok, I take it you are gonna continue nitpick about semantics for the rest of the discussion.

The world doesn't need a cryptocurrency, it might need distributed ledgers technologies, but a distributed ledger technology that makes sense doesn't necessarily need a cryptocurrency in order to work like in the bitcoin the currency-blockchain system.

You could use distributed ledger technologies in order to send fiat currencies internationally for almost zero fees (like the ripple network is trying to do, again, not ripple the coin, and again, ripple is just an example, hyperledger and others are trying to do similar things), use it for applications such as smart contracts and others. Basically for all the reasons you are saying bitcoin is great, bitcoin THE CURRENCY IS not only unnecessary, but it creates more problems than it tries to solve, such as irreversibility (0 consumer protection, a chimera any payment system should avoid like the plague), slow transactions, higher fees in the future, volatility, scalability, and countless others. And overall, fiat currencies work just fine, a new volatile irreversible currency is not what is useful or needed.

That why I am using the "cryptocurrencies = pets.com" analogy and that's why I am taking tulips only for the chart comparison as an example of a bubble that bursted even tho the two don't share much fundamentals wise.

^ For someone that doesn't believe in the need for cryptocurrencies you sure do spend a HELL of a lot of time on a forum dedicated to them.  :D

What should the reason(s) be then? The classic "he spreads FUD cuz he wants to buy cheap coins"?  :-\

I know if I thought that low about something, I would spend all my time in a forum dedicated to it as well  :D

You do understand that the currency is the incentive for people to update and maintain that distributed ledger right?

Only in a system that uses proof-of-work (or a joke like proo-of-stake) like the bitcoin blockchain  ;)



The ripple consensus protocol for example doesn't need a high marketcap token as an incentive to secure the network. Hyperledger and others are doing the same thing. Others will follow.

Ha I see. You are a shitcoin pumper.

Thing is, they all have a coins, they are all pointless and that's why nobody is developing on top of these.

I just told you that the world might need distributed ledger technologies but not cryptocurrencies (and not distributed ledgers that NEED an overpriced high marketcap cryptocurrency like bitcoin in the bitcoin blockchain to secure the network), basically saying that cryptoCURRENCIES themselves don't have a future and you call me a "shitcoin pumper"?  :D

I don't know in what world you are living but the world is already moving toward cryptoCURRENCIES because they provide the incentives for developers to develop on top of them. A distributed ledger with no coins is a distributed ledger with no incentives that no one will care. Good luck with that.

Nobody will care about a distributed ledger where you can move any fiat currency or any asset and where you can build applications, smart contracts etc?

More like "nobody will care about cryptocurrencies themselves if you can move fiat currencies and any other asset using distributed ledger technology"  :D

^I suggest you read this enlightening paper:

http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-markets/The-Bitcoin-Question-2014.pdf



"THE BITCOIN QUESTION:
CURRENCY VERSUS TRUST-LESS TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY"




Separating the useful (distributed ledger) from the useless (a cryptocurrency).

 ;)

Oh financial institutions that dislike a currency they don't control. How surprising! So enlightening!

Now let see how many developers will develop with no incentives  ;)

Obvious Ripple shill is obvious.

^Are you guys brainless zombies or something?

What incentives are you talking about? I already said that the "bitcoin incentive to secure the network" is only in proof-of-work systems like the bitcoin blockchain.

What incentives?

Are you saying that an app developer only has an incentive to build applications on top of these technologies if he buys a coin and the coin appreciates in price? What are you saying?

Exactly. The same reason why Tim Draper is giving 300 BTC to each btc company he is investing on.

Scientists recently proved they could produce gold using bacteria.  Gold will be less useful than bitcoin so yes, bitcoin is a good buy since gold will surely plummet. 

I think everyone should panic until i can buy btc back at $5, then we can have a repeat of 2013 with a more skewed bitcoin wealth distribution. come on guys, this will be fun

ha this would be fun to see

People lapping up coins in government auctions are also waiting for cheaper coins in the exchanges.
Once bitcoin falls to attractive levels, they will start accumulating.

Still waiting for a more favorable entry level before I consider it a good buy. Do you expect it to decline a little bit before you buy or do you already consider this as a good buy?

Circle March 5th-6th on your calendar to see what happens to the price during the US Marshalls Silk Road Bitcoin auction:

http://newsbtc.com/2015/02/20/look-silk-road-auctions-impact-bitcoin-price/

If you see a price dump, BUY BUY BUY.

If you see a price pump, BUY BUY BUY.

Now at least you know what to do.   8)