Bitcoin Forum

Becasue..

Its twice as much as 2

Its 1 more than 3.


The end.


Basebaru = Baseball..

4 is the number of errors in the above post: because, it's, it's, and overall punctuation. Please pay 1 BTC to Tril's proofreading service, 1EoLozcKjLy6ENr59VFyNje8Ejx8dqzyp7

On the topic, I do believe you are right and the benevolent stabilizers will run out of money to keep it at 3, possibly in the next few weeks.  It's just a matter of how much money they have left.  I have a feeling exponential growth will catch up to their limited pockets soon. And don't forget dollars are very easy to come by.  I'm not sure anyone knows how many dollars were borrowed in the run up to $31 and for mining hardware and when those will be paid back.  Assumedly the technical analysis guys believe all this information is already present in the charts!

You mean it's "it's".

The speeling police strikes again!

The need to correct people is a diesease

That seems bass-ackwards. If they have limited pockets, they would be buying up BTC to keep the price higher than it "should" be. A better statement would be that the "benevolent stabilizers" are going to run out of BTC to sell and thus the demand will outpace what they have to sell. Unfortunately, I think that's highly unlikely, given an extra 7200 BTC on average show up each and every day. I'd say right now we've "stabilized" at around $2.75 -- we're high now, but we'll drop below soon to make up for it again, and then we'll go high again, etc.

Did you really make two spelling errors and forget punctuation in so few words?   ;)

From one Eric to another Eric, eye really don,t see why er'one is so concerned about how my digits cant keep up with what my mind is saying..

Correcting my spelling and punctuation is something my secretary is usually in charge of..

So you guy(z) git me in my un-adulterated state! 

Continue to correct me if your bored and useless! I encourage the wasting of time! I'm just working anyways..

But, anyways..

4 is also easily divisible by 2...  and is one less than 5

4 is the smallest number that's surrounded directly by 2 prime numbers.

And who might those be? Who exactly would gain from having bitcoins hover around $3?

I'm sorry but I just can't imagine someone benefiting from keeping the price stable. The doomsayers want bitcoin at $0, and the believers want bitcoin at $100, $1000, and even total M0 of the world /21 million.

There's actually a project to rally people to make "benevolent stabilizer" trade bots. Lemme see if I can find the link.

eh, well, no dice on the search. I should've bookmarked it @.@

For it is written in the script: "Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. "

Thus, four is too high, and not the magic number. Do not try to argue with the script, for my logic is implacable, impeccable, imperceptible, implicit, inopportune and imputed.

I three what you did there…

Meow what are you talking about ?

Well it's obviously easy to profit if you use other people's money to stabilize the price at X. If the price is lower than X you buy and then make a thread saying "hey guys let's stabilize it to X" and profit. That's just Fraud 101. There's nothing special about the value of X and the stabilization thereof.

I was saying there's no benefit whatsoever for using your own money to stabilize the price. A minor exception would be perhaps if the price is ever close to parity all the merchants could benefit from the simpler mental arithmetics.

oh oh, rather than spelling, number time:  Being pedantic, the two smallest primes are 2 and 3 so any number between them would work (for example 2.2 is a number surrounded directly by two primes, and is smaller than 4).

why couldn't we just have prices stabilise between e and pi  (lack of capitals deliberate)