Bitcoin Forum

I'm amazed at the level of denial here. "Bitcoin will one day rise again like the phoenix." "The price is great the way it is going." "The lower the price gets the more I am considering the possibility that this is intentional." It's far too late for that.  This thing is over.

Again, if you have cash in any of the exchanges, get it out now. None of those guys are audited.

I know why i'm still around, what about you?

It's in no one's interests to see a microcosm of groupthink develop on bitcoin.  This place is big enough for all opinions.  But maybe it is time to cool it a bit on the 'bitcoin is dead, hahaha!' posts, as they essentially serve no purpose.

Hey Nagle, can I borrow your time machine? I'd like to find out who wins the world series.

True, I would hate it if MtGox would eat money I hold there as USD, but that would be heavy fraud. But otherwise, what's the point of your post? If I get out instead of buying, other people won't get that money for the coins. People who wanted to sell in the end, who weren't suited to take the risk from the start.

I am willing to lose money if Bitcoin fails, and I am aware there is a good chance that will happen. I see myself as a fundamental speculator and have accepted the fact that I have no exit strategy for any value held in BTC if Bitcoin dies.

Those who don't think like that should have quit a long time ago. They pay now, almost as much as I, but without the chance to make profit if Bitcoin succeeds. That's not speculation, it's burning money.

Reality is probabilistic. Live with it, you do not know for a fact that Bitcoin will die. If you disagree, I accept a 1:100 asymmetric bet in addition to my speculations here. ;)

I like reading Mr Nagle's posts - they are very one-sided.  If I made as many predictions I'm sure at least one would succeed.

I don't think it will rise like a phoenix (and you might want to check your mythology about rebirth of phoenix).

The main point is one of time-scale.  If I applied the same logic to the world financial system in 2007/08, we all would have given up a couple of years ago.  I have a longer term view, years, not weeks like most of the panicky people that love to post gloom and bonanza all over the forum.

Nagle - clearly you know what you're talking about. So, why are you not shorting tens of thousands of bitcoins? My goodness if it falls to zero you'll be rich!

So why not?

Am I the only one that thinks that posting a new thread every day, re-stating their same, unchanging opinion, is obnoxious?

There is no safe way to short bitcoin.  Bitcoinica's fortunes are just as uncertain as MtGoX's.

nowhere to go but up!

If you tell a person they're ugly, long enough, eventually they'll believe it!

Some sooner than others!

When FUD is spread constantly, over time it becomes believed or accepted. Then little by little, it snowballs to what we have today!

BOT;
I'm not in denial! I have no clue what's in store for Bitcoin. I do however, make money from it, in turn making the small pile of BTC I keep essentially free to me, so I have no worries!

some people run bots on exchanges, some run bots on forums

Nagle has said the same warning over the past few months and now those statements are starting to bother you because you that he was right all along.

I see now that he was right all along.

I'm so happy that Bitcoinica exists so I can get back my money by shorting.  I really didn't understand that stuff about stop-loss, but it sounds like something for woosies and I don't see why it would be necessary since so many really smart people are saying that Bitcoin is dead and headed to zero.

Pretty soon I'll be riding around in my new Ferrari with a real live woman and laughing at all you looozers.

---

Update:  Please help!  They stole my money :(   'Migraine call' or some BS like that.  Can I get some more advice form the the wise and experienced bears who bless this forum with their insight?

On the contrary, it's significantly more susceptible to dropping in value by $1~ and halving in value overnight.

would the Bears like Nagle and Shinobi please short into the bid wall at $2 and take it down?

haha

priceless  :D

What wall, it's clearly another fake wall from The manipulator. 

http://www.downside.com/

everyone please go to this piece of sh*t and draw your own conclusions.

fixed.

Bitcoin is a brilliant technical achievement and has (so far) proven to be resilient to attacks.  I just wish a few economists were consulted during its development.  It was clear from the beginning that it wasn't a currency, as it encouraged hoarding through its deflationary model.  

There are many miners out there right now creating more bitcoins but not selling them, as to sell now would mean selling at a loss (assuming they're not power thieves, 'free' power, etc).  That will create a huge overhang of bitcoins to liquidate should the price show signs of strengthening.

Bitcoin will either stagnate (but never die, as long as one person is mining) or experience some moderate growth in the next few years.

I wonder how this guy is feeling right now:
http://falkvinge.net/2011/05/29/why-im-putting-all-my-savings-into-bitcoin/

"These past days, I have done a lot of thinking about bitcoin that ended up with me investing all of the money I had saved and all that I can borrow into the currency. "

That was in late May, when the price was still under $10.

"and all that I can borrow into the currency".  That's a mighty big hole he's dug for himself.

Maybe he's the equivalent of the shoe shine boy giving stock advice in 1929 right before the crash.  When you read madness like putting all your savings and borrowed money into highly speculative X, sell X as quickly as possible.

don't forget though that every investment has a speculative component which is entirely unpredictable.  if wealthy people come to realize that they can move large amounts of fiat currency across borders via Bitcoin in the blink of an eye anonymously (if they are very careful via routing) you could see a price rise similar to gold.

they can't.  Because all money movement is centralized at mtgox.

you're assuming that the money couldn't be broken up into tranches and distributed to intermediaries for an eventual cashout via mtgox or anyone of a number of the other exchanges.  it can be done especially if you're involved in a network of say money launderers.

It's really puzzling to me.

I've seen this mentioned more than a few times on this forum.  Wealthy people with money to hide/transfer can use bitcoins to move it.

There are two problems:

1: Transactions are not anonymous.  Everyone can see everyone else's transactions, and exactly how many bitcoins are being transferred.  Link the address to a known person and you can take down the whole network.  A bunch of unmarked, circulated banknotes or a gold bar are superior.

2: Those bitcoins have to be converted to money sooner or later, somewhere, connected to a real bank.  Maybe bitcoins will have value as an actual bitcoin sometime in the future.  The current value is solely measured by what other currency you can convert it to.  Even the bitcoin businesses on the internet (the vast majority being small concerns) are just a proxy for converting bitcoins into cash.  The products they sell weren't bought with bitcoins, and the taxes on those products weren't paid in bitcoins either.

Oh yeah? Who's behind MyBitcoin?  Where did the thief of the 25k bitcoins go earlier this summer? Who is he? Can you even label one individual by name who was involved in any Bitcoin theft?

No? Then Bitcoin is pretty damn anonymous - and you can assume anyone trying to move more money in secret, with a modicum of expertise, could be even more anonymous.

And that has nothing to do with promises of staggering returns. Nope, nothing at all.

Finally, you get it.

Bruce Wagner.  But then again, I LOVE pointing fingers...

That has what to do with what I said?


Don't you realize how dumb this sounds? "OH I thought you meant a reduction of the money supply! LOL OOPS!"

Cluster said "its deflationary model" referring to the specific model of money that bitcoin uses. You know, the one where 50% of the money to ever be produced is given away in the first 4 years?

Believe it or not, there are other ways to achieve deflation than Bitcoin's model.
Believe it or not, there are other ways to achieve inflation than central banks.

Instead of allowing a natural economy to develop, Bitcoin promoted hoarding, caused a bubble, and now a collapse that is continuing to make people lose faith in its ability to be a currency.

Being able to buy a loaf of bread for 1 BTC one year and 0.25 BTC the next is a staggering return. It has little to do with whether or not you convert it to USD. If there were an actual economy to speak of, this would be more evident, but you assume I mean USD because that is the mentality of bitcoin users.


Any variant of bitcoin does essentially the same thing. Again, Cluster was referring to the specific idealism of the bitcoin model. Bitcoin could have been inflationary, bitcoin could have been deflationary with a much less early-heavy scheme.


Both of these definitions are undeniably wrong. Inflation refers to an increase in prices over time; deflation refers to a decrease in prices over time. *Monetary* inflation refers to expanding the money supply; it does not necessarily cause *price* inflation. *Monetary* deflation generally does not exist because you can't force the removal of currency from circulation except in extreme scenarios. Nobody in their right mind would ever refer to bitcoin as being monetary deflative. Too many people confuse these terms because they equate monetary inflation with price inflation because of how fiat currencies work and how pitifully bad central banks are at doing their job, or alternatively how good they are at keeping the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. Funnily enough, bitcoin has achieved basically the same thing.


And you may personally feel that way because you have a lot of coins. Maybe you don't. I don't have any way of knowing and you can't prove you don't because of the nature of pseudo-anonymous wallets.

Regardless, you are going to have a lot harder time convincing new suckers that bitcoins are worthwhile when they were $35 and are now $2. And there was a large sentiment expressed that bitcoins had nowhere to go but up when they were $35. I could only laugh and get squelched for telling those people they were stupid. *I* was accused of being a paid shill for predicting what eventually happened. I'm quite sure it happened without regard to anything I said. And *I* certainly didn't have anything to gain by screaming to the world that bitcoins were going to drop like a rock. Those who claimed it would hit $100 certainly had something to gain. But were they ever accused of being paid shills? Naw...


I may be abrasive, but my goal is to convince people on the fence that bitcoin is a great idea with a terrible execution. I know there is no hope for convincing early adopters who believe that transferring wealth from newcomers to them is just how it has to be. I don't care. It is not you I am trying to convince. You have an interest in seeing an ungainly return on your investment; I have an interest in making sure people don't lose their money to you. Why? I don't know, maybe I just actually have a conscience.

Explain why this is a bad thing. Why should people not be able to save money and have it benefit from the increased productivity of the economy, rather than having it sucked away by monetary inflation?

most of us here who believe in Bitcoin also believe in the Austrian definition of inflation/deflation which is related to the money supply (currency plus credit), not the price.  price is a secondary phenomenon which responds to the supply.  no wonder we disagree so vehemently on the outlook for Bitcoin.

Lol in what universe does doing absolutely nothing and achieving a 300% return equate to "increased productivity"? I don't have a specific problem with deflation that is any worse than inflation, but the model of bitcoin obviously and intentionally causes unwarranted gain to those who were there first. Value does not appear out of thin air. The ability to use a digital trash token does not merit you a 300% or 3 million % return--as in the case of the earliest adopters. It is a transfer of wealth. Isn't the main complaint about inflation is how it makes our money worth less? What am I missing here that hasn't happened in bitcoin? That after enough millions in wealth are transferred that it will happen less often and will be spread across the backs of more copper-scrounging slaves in the future? Wow, what a refreshing redefinition of money. And these copper-scrounging slaves are the ones expected to keep the network running, ROFLMAO.

It's great that a bunch of people who have never heard of the austrian school of economics before bitcoin believe Mises's definition of inflation, but if you want to talk with people who actually have common sense, the word should mean what it means in a dictionary. When someone is obviously using the "mainstream" definition, correcting them to the Mises's definition is pedantic. Especially when his definition is targeted towards how central bank fiat currencies operate, not how a fixed-money supply like bitcoin would, assuming it had inflation.

all you have to do is go back in history the last 4 decades and ask yourself how did Greenspan/Bernanke deal with every lapse in the economy?  they lowered interest rates which by definition is increasing the money supply via purchasing UST's.  no, they didn't raise the CPI first.

You seem to be unaware why the purchasing power of money increases when there is no change in the supply or demand of the money. Let's say the total yearly output of an economy is a dozen apples, and $1 buys one apple. If there is a breakthrough in apple production and the economy is now 25% more efficient, 15 apples are now produced. If the supply of money remains the same, $1 will now buy 1.25 apples.


Now it seems you don't understand human incentives with regard to risk.

Early adopters spent time and money working on a project that produced a worthless digital token. Had they not done so, we would not be here to discuss Bitcoin. However, one of the real reasons they did so is the knowledge that due to its properties, it could one day be worth much more than nothing. To say that it causes "unwarranted gain" is to say that you don't believe Bitcoin is worthwhile.

Also, you can call Bitcoin a "digital trash token" all you want, but the fact that individuals of their own free will exchange dollars with which they can buy anything for Bitcoins flies in the face of that claim. I can already hear you foaming at the mouth, spittle flying everywhere "BUT THEY JUST WANTS THEY PROFITSSSS!" - so fucking what?


Nope. It is a creation of wealth. Bitcoins were worth nothing, then early adopters came along, now Bitcoin is worth something. They built this system that drew others, which increased the value of the system and their holdings in it. No central bank forced people to exchange dollars for bitcoins, they did it freely.


Kind of. There's two complaints about inflation in a system such as ours.

1) The inflation is arbitrary - those with information profit at the expense of those without
2) The inflation is centralized - those who receive new money first profit at the expense of those who receive it later
3) Inflation disincentivizes saving - saving is consuming less than necessary in the present, in order to use that surplus to build better capital for the future

So really, I think a decentralized, crypto-currency with algorithmic inflation would be much better than the current system, but it still disincentivizes saving.

Yes, Bitcoin is currently going through an inflationary period. That's how the initial units of money are being distributed. It was never designed to have a stable exchange rate against the dollar. The rules of the network have been public for anyone to see since the beginning. There is complete transparency here, unlike at central banks.


What? How about you use more logic and less rhetoric?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-inherently-anon.html

My point is that bitcoin transactions are broadcast to the whole network.  Everyone knows when 10,000btc is transfered from user X to user Y.  The transfer can be tracked to each subsequent user.  Identify one and you have a good chance of identifying more.  If I hand a $20k brick of used banknotes to a guy in London, do people all over the world hear about it?  That's true anonymity.

If bitcoins were officially recognised as a valuable commodity you can bet law enforcement agencies would be interested in tracking down the thieves. 

And this has what to do with a fixed supply of money? Oh, nothing. In fact, I would almost call it an intentional attempt to conflate two very different things to cause obfuscation.


And you don't understand risk. You can say you do and you can repeat the same bullshit every bitcoin supporter around here does, but that doesn't make it true buddy!


Currencies don't create wealth. I'm pretty sure all schools of economics agree on this. Currencies, however, can strongly influence the direction in which wealth moves. Mises has a big problem with inflation because it hurts the middle and lower class. Bitcoin substitutes the government and the wealthy for early adopters; spitting in Mises's face while shaking his hand.


Hundreds of thousands of unspent, hoarded, untraceable coins is transparent? Between 5 and 10 people monopolizing 10-20% of the total amount of coins to EVER BE PRODUCED is transparent? No, I don't believe it's transparent at all and can only be discovered by digging through the block chain and doing some math. Perhaps it is known to you and I who have spent time studying the system, but to someone who knows little about bitcoin? Not a chance. And you will never convince me that this is unintended. Satoshi's anonymity and disappearance. Fuck you Satoshi you fucking scumbag.

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.

I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.


Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?


Yes, Bitcoin has an inflationary period, which is public knowledge. It is also known at the inflationary period will slow down, leading to a period of a stable amount of money. Can you think of a better way to initially distribute a digital commodity in a decentralized fashion?


Yes. The total amount of currency and inflation rate - past, present, and future - is known to all.


Monopolizing? Again, why weren't you mining Bitcoins at the beginning? Transparency for the system, not individual accounts. Do you demand to know how much your neighbor has in his bank account?


No it cannot.


I think perhaps you should seek therapy.


You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

Here's a hint, there's nothing the early adopters (or we) can do to change the rate that Bitcoin are created.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.

He has a point though. Some people don't seem to realize that they have a responsibility to spent a fraction of massive bitcoin holdings if the economy should get booming so there is a overall 50% coins in circulation.
[/quote]

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

The fact that the masses aren't going to keep 100% of their coins in circulation so in order to to compensate the people owning the upper 50% of all bitcoins issued have to spend some of them.

Well they don't but the economy needs 50% in circulation to be as healthy as possible. So any moral obligation is pretty much irrelevant.

how would you know?  if Bitcoin goes to $1000 or whatever the true equlibrium price is assuming its higher than current, then hoarders would be happy to spend their Bitcoin and redistribute them.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go: http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Deflation


No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.


Um, yes. Ease in, ease out for one--with the majority of coins being awarded in the middle of the distribution. That would not effect early adopters with nearly so much control. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out a dozen others. The intent is quite clear that latecomers should be sucking on the teat of early comers. And this fosters people like you who do the advertising work for them.


No, but I would like to know that if I plan on investing a lot of money in crypto digital trash tokens that 5 or 10 people control 10-20% of all the tokens to ever be produced while 60,000 fight for 300, soon to be 150, coins an hour.


You are just asking to get internet bitchslapped.

The same could be said for $10000, $100000, 1mil, 10mil or any figure you could come up with.
Bitcoins will never be reach that figure without a economy behind it so this argument is invalid, sorry.

It's the iterated prisoners dilemma all over again... we are seeing the consequences right now.

You are confusing the amount of actual paper with the total amount in circulation, FYI. And the vast majority of currency not in the "supply" per se in an inflationary economy is in investments. Bitcoins are in hoarding in hopes of future scarcity.


As in, keeping the price from going to $2 to $35 to $2? Or do you think that this is a good thing?

how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

Well people are certainly in denial about something....  ::)

I could go on about secondary circulation and how increases the value in a healthy economy but people just don't wanna hear it. :(  

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed. Even if the scenario you propose were true, it is still Satoshi's fault for designing the currency this way. I mean fuck, can none of you add the pieces together? Inability to trace who controls what coins, completely buttfucking anonymous creator, creator has disappeared without a word of what his intentions are... and you just buy this shit up and assume he's doing it for the good of the world? How naive do you have to be?


Because companies in the real world hurt the real world economy in pursuit of their own greed, that makes it ok for bitcoin to do it and should be a system you recommend to everybody? I'm not sure I see your logic, broseph.

I guess we'll have to take your word for it.

Or, instead of "buying in" with hopes of "cashing out" (most inappropriate terms ever), we could use it whenever it's better than the alternatives and not invest in it as if it's a business.

Is developing tools for it to be useful considered naive too?

I state that 50% is the optimal figure for the maximum growth potential. 10% would also be fine for bitcoin but we are far far away from that....

Supply has been overpowering demand for the past few months, one of the reasons we're in decline.

You are asking others to release their holdings, what do you think would happen if there were 3 million bitcoins offered for sale at the same time? - super cheap bitcoins, and who knows how that would be treated by the market and rest of the world. Wouldn't people be asking themselves if early adopters mass selling their holdings, is it safe and worth getting in to?

you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

It's a massive correction, not a decline. Bitcoins should have never been worth more than a buck or two.


If the early adopters had said "hey we're going to keep selling off some of our hordes every time bitcoin creeps above $1 so that there is a controlled inflation of the money supply until we run out" the system would have worked BEAUTIFULLY from an economic standpoint, and those early adopters would have made a lot of money for their "effort" in creating a stable economy. Problem is, not many people would have signed up because there was no profit to be had (no ponzi scheme here, just an obvious profit for those "hardworking" early CPUs). In reality, there is still no profit to be had and never has for the great majority of people.

Far too many coins exist for what is actually being used. The money supply and economy are so unbelievably out of whack that it's almost funny that anyone thinks there is a stable economy somewhere in here. If the money supply and the economy grow together, then you could eventually halt the money supply and allow deflation to take over. As it is now, it is a blatant, intentional transfer of wealth.

The part where everybody profits is when there is actual PRODUCTIVITY created from bitcoin. And this is absolutely possible for the values it has as a cryptocurrency. The ponzi scheme screws this from ever happening for years if not decades though, if ever because bitcoin is likely to fail because of it.


But M0 is physical currency... M1 which includes "funds that are readily accessible for spending" is around 25% today of M2, and was 30-35% in 1990--all for the US, obviously it differs from country to country.

edit: I see M1 includes fractional reserve. So there is no real total measure of liquid, non-debt based assets. Pretty shitty.

To be honest, I barely even read your second statement because all it is is another poor rationalization for how fucked up the bitcoin economy is and how early adopters deserve to profit off of doing absolutely nothing productive, and profit in the millions of percent ROI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

honestly, whats with you and the early adopters?  geez.  i'm not one and i respect them for what they've done.  they spent all those hard earned USD's and time in the form of hardware, electricity, labor, and innovation in verifying and securing all those early tx's that went on before the ramp in the Spring.  they took risks when Bitcoin was worthless.  how many billions of USD's do we pay the banksters to verify and secure our corrupt banking system?

so why shouldn't they be paid off via a ramping Bitcoin price?

give me a break dude.

no way.  explain the fallacy in that argument.

sounds legit to me

+1

Maybe the purpose of influencing people to place more trust in traditional economic concepts institutions (i.e. banks)?
EEEwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...

An all time bear is as foolish and stupid as an all time bull.

Nagle is an all time bear.

Nagle explained that he is interested in alternatives.  Honestly I am too, but for different reasons.

Maybe Satoshi really planned Bitcoin as some sort of pyramid. So what? What matters is what Bitcoin is NOW.

Or maybe this is the work of skynet. Just instead of terminators it sends Bitcoin to destroy us  ;)

Skynet is too busy mining.


Erm, a block chain that steals money from investors? I don't think your idea of a good system coincides with mine.

Actually there is inflation in Bitcoin already - maybe you mean that it is too small.  Anyway my contention has nothing to do with money supply but with the extravagant cost of maintaining the system, what I would like to see is a system that does not spend so much on electricity.  I don't think we can have a system like this before Bitcoin succeeds.

recent chart looks bullish to me

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5166/chart2zn.png

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=640&m=mtgoxUSD&k=&r=5&i=&c=0&s=&v=0&cv=1&ps=0&l=1&p=0&t=S&b=&a1=&m1=30&a2=&m2=25&x=0
Bitcoin/USD, last 5 days.

Not as upbeat as a one-day chart for October 29th.

We're seeing more volatility as the price declines. It takes less money now to move the market. Welcome to penny stock land.

What bitcoin is now is a tiny market that is manipulated by the drop of a hat. And may forever be so easily manipulated. As (if) bitcoin increases in popularity, it will become more and more well-known that a small number of people control a huge portion of the supply. I don't see a good long-term outlook on the health of that kind of economy. For all we know, satoshi or the early group of adopters have been manipulating the price the whole way. Sell and make a big profit, scare others, wait for the price to drop like it has, buy up with only a portion of the money gained from selling, wait for the price to rise again (and wait for the cries of "stability!" and "they probably sold through, it's safe now!") only to start the process all over. We can't know, and they sure as hell aren't saying.


Steal money from the pockets of investors? Like bitcoin? I don't really get what you're saying there. If what you meant was to steal money from the pockets of people trying to manipulate the supply, then my proposal for encoin does address that by allowing the market to mint more coins as they are demanded. Any supply manipulation will be very short-lived, and will, in fact, cost them money. It is based much more around being a currency rather than a speculative or investment vehicle. Regardless of what you may think of me, the proposal could use more discussion and fleshing out, and interest so that I would be confident in moving forward. If everyone is perfectly happy with an easily manipulated coin, why would I waste more time than I already have in an alternative?

The talk needs to be talked before progress can be made. At least progress beyond a one or two line hackjob on the bitcoin source.

Words are cheap. Where can I download Encoin?

Rome wasn't built in a day. :P I am not confident in my abilities as a programmer to write everything I would need. So I'm looking for help. Unless I try to raise interest, help isn't going to come. But at least I have started the process of putting my money where my mouth is.

How come this thread has never been resurrected from the dead? It's very timely!

I'm still in denial. Anyone else?  ;)

Nagle has quit contributing comedic value to the speculation forum. He was sighted a few times and if mtgox really goes belly up he might come back for a little while longer.

Oh boy.

Nagle used to grate on my nerves. His latest posts aren't that bad though. Maybe it's because he is ragging on Gox instead of Bitcoin. ;)

im very much in denial

This is one of the most sensible and true posts that I have read on these boards. Nobody...I don't care if you are Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet...knows whether Bitcoin is going to go up, down, sideways or in fucking circles...least of all people on this board!

I love seeing this post. This dumbass talked himself out of THE opportunity of our lifetimes. He sure sounds like Igor, bitcoinlitcoindicklick and Fonzie today doesn't he...

IIRC, Nagle admitted one time where he did his buy-in.  Right about $2.00 which was about the ideal timing.  He also mentioned this before the values started to rise significantly as well as going dark on the forum at the same which made his assertion of the buy-in credible to me.

There is not even an implied requirement to be honest and truthful on this forum much less a mechanism to enforce such a thing.  It's simply a personal choice.  I doubt that Nagle's efforts here on the forum had much impact on prices whether he imagines it or not, but I don't at doubt that he has a knack for picking price points.

Several people on these boards make consistently good calls, both positive and negative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS7cMrIxghg