Bitcoin Forum

Well ever since Stamp went offline, all selling pressure ceased immediately.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/6072690d212bbf2bef07648dc8a02101/tumblr_nawpl2wG501tq4of6o1_500.gif

Discuss.

volume has gone down.
i guess everybody is waiting what bitstamp will say (at least they seem to be way more trusted than gox - otherwise we would have been below 200 by now...)

I feel like short selling is more of a culprit.

why?
every short has to buy back some day... i am more afraid of open longs ;)

Smear campaigns to drive down the price.

I'm just wondering if some of the major whales who have been "walking it down" all through 2014, now have the majority of their coins and fiat locked up on Stamp. 

Hopefully that's true, and they are now pissing their pants.  The thought of that makes me grin a big ol' shit eating grin.  ;D

Could be stamp buying back solvency elsewhere.  :o

Traders are waiting for bitstamp's next move. If they are buying back lost coins, traders do not want to be caught shorting. If they are going insolvent, they will sell all they have. It's the silence before the storm.

BTC swaps (shorts) are at all time highs. But other than that I agree.

sellpressure is back

The only way is down

I think bitcoin is dying slowly.

Because it's less than a third of its top price? Years ago it dropped to a sixteenth of its top price and it's still going strong.

the same feeling, but not sure

Pretty sure over here.

Zoom out!

Zooming doesn't help. The master-trend is broken too.

Zoom out MOAR!

I'm on max zoom out all the way to 2009!!!

I'm only zooming out 2 years long after I got in:
change: +1904.90%

Good for you! Everyone who bought in 2014 is down right now!

You can cherry pick arbitrary timelines, but Bitcoin isn't a per annum.

Dude, longest bearmarket in bitcoin history and the master-trend on logarythmic scale since 2009 is broken.
Just get it: there is no exponential growth here. Could very well dump back to 100$ or less.

Why are you still trying to convince others of your opinions? To each their own. I, for one, think you are retarded.

OK so you admit to believing in superstitious trends. Good for you. I don't share your faith. I believe in technology and human foibles. Fear may have the upper hand at the moment, but greed and technology ALWAYS win.

Few days ago this trendline was your main marketing-pitch now it's 'supersticious'. lmao! Everyone is full of it.

It's a general rule of thumb, not a scientific model. I don't see it as 'broken' because anomalous events happen. The exponential trendline is a generalization to the adoption of technologies, not a day trading tool. Even if it drops to $100, that will only change the distribution, not the technology. Personally, I would like to see an altcoin take point for awhile so I can laugh at their failure to secure every aspect of financial transactions.

The alt that takes over will be an advanced clone of bitcoin with less inflation. You're not going to laugh so much because once it surpasses bitcoin that's it for the ole BTC.

the difference then was that people only lost a few millions on that value , not where talking billions.

Pick a coin and I will tell you how it will fail.

the volatility is ridiculous!



Just wait. Bitcoin already failed. Alts going to boom this year.

What about IXC for example? Or Quark? Just two possible examples.
If its not them it'll be another one.
There's enough different approaches now. I lost faith in inflation-coins.

Less inflation, so how will it be distributed? Nobody will have any coin to spend. Merchants will have to wait many years for distribution. Or you premine and we already know how that fails.

Distribution already happened. These coins are all around for years now. They are dirt cheap. This is pretty much the last chance to accumulate some of them on ground floor.

Quak?  Are you f**** serious?
Who are your , kermit the frog?

lol, no i'm not Max  :-*

Was just an example. I will not tell you all good coins, no worries.

QRK is rising nicely though.

yeah , nicely ...from losing 30000% against btc , right?
with kolin on board , to the moon

The same for Bitcoin. No advantage there. IXC and Quark have a very small user base. You can premine a coin and do the same thing. You can pay the top 5 mining pools to MM your clone and be off and running.

Well bitcoin has its own problems. No difference there. When it started almost nobody was around and it had a very small userbase too. So that's no argument there. In fact these coins have a larger userbase than bitcoin had when it started.

If you don't like Ix take Ioc

I think the market will decide what's good and what's not. Maybe merged mined coins with btc aren't even interesting.

That's what I'm saying. They don't offer anything Bitcoin doesn't have now and that's why they failed and became pump and dump bait. That's why Bitcoin is still big daddy.

To get beck to your market analysis, it seems that almost everything is down investment-wise. January and August are usually bad months anyway.

Quark is still up 10-fold from his pre-bubble-value. It rose many hundred fold and was much more stable and found it's floor much sooner than bitcoin.
It's all how you look at it. How can something loose 30000%? You're not even making sense.

Yes they do offer something BTC doesn't: low inflation - which was the point of failure in bitcoin

Pump and dump is bitcoin too, so again no argument there.

There are a hand full of coins that aren't even down - these are the ones you should be looking at. But why do i even tell you that?

Low inflation coins have proven to hold their value (no surprise there) and they have also shown to have shorter bearmarkets (no surprise again) and they are also much less volatile (maybe a little surprise but when you think about it, it's not a surprise)

Inflation is good for nothing. There is nothing that can justify the high inflation bitcoin has. So i think bitcoin could very well decline a lot more - after all that's the effect you get from the inflation: constant downward pressure.
It jumps up and down like a fucking jojo.

A currency should be able to hold the value - if it can't hold value it's worth nothing.

You either have inflation or premine. Pick. Otherwise you have no distribution model.

Of course you have inital inflation but in a good coin that's done after 1 or 2 years. Bitcoin wants to take 2 decades which turns out to be problematic.

There you are again cherry picking timelines. I don't agree that inflation is a problem. But then, I don't care about the price... much.

If you prefer playing jojo for a few decades then that's your thing. An advantage for you in this is that you don't care about the price  ::)

As a human being we tend to loose interest if we see an investement not going anywhere within 2 or 3 years.

IMO a coin needs to be fair with the initial distribution and that should take at least 1 year so everyone has a chance to get in. After year 2 or 3 the inflation should dramatically decrease so profit becomes possible and it can be used to store value, but maybe that's just me, i don't know  ::)

I think it would come in handy to be able to store value in coins but if you say that's a thing you don't need, ok, then that's your thing.

Trading the volatile bitcoin is good fun for sure. Right now the market has just become pretty unpredictable which makes it difficult.

Two to three years is reasonable. The average price for 2014 (to use your timeline) was about 500. If you used dollar cost averaging like everyone recommends, you should double (or more) that in that amount of time.

So let's hope the best then.

Will remain pretty volatile though and the shortcomings have become obvious and tbh i prefer using other coins mainly and hope they can gain marketshare because i would love to store value in coins.

I consider Bitcoin more risky than the low inflation coins for many reasons.
I just diversify.

So yes, low inflation coins do have a number of very real advantages over bitcoin. Can't be denied. Let's see if bitcoin can make it, it will certainly have a harder time than some other coins.

All it takes is people to understand the game of inflation to spark demand in the alts. I'm just waiting for it. Bitcoin is torture to hold longterm - good fun trading tho. As basecurrency useless on the other hand.

You define "low inflation coins" as a two to three year ramp. Again, you cherry pick timelines. Bitcoin uses a number greater than the human lifespan, but curves it so most of the inflation is in one or two human generations. A longer ramp gives people enough time to adopt the technology and "bake in" the known inflation rate. So you see, there is no problem with Bitcoin inflation at all.

sure longer onramp because it is an egocentric coin that thinks of itself it would take over the world.
We don't need to all use the same coin. If you launch a coin with short onramp every few years that's all sweet and everyone could have fun and those who missed the train will get on the next one. The coins can be merge mined and would be less wastefull and in case one has a problem there are others to back it up. Bitcoin is a problem-child to me.

With the long onramp you achieve nothing btw because most coins are with the early adopters now anyways (bought for cents and single dollars in bulk). So the latecomers do not benefit from the inflation at all - nobody does.

Launching fair coins with short onramp every couple of years makes a lot more sense. The long onramp benefits who? Nobody.

I'm all for altcoins development if folks want to waste their time and money. Honey badger don't care.

lol, yeah. Got to move on now. Good chat.
Thread was totally hijacked though  :D

Have a good one.  :)

I'm not sure about that.  If we take it as a given that cryptocoin adoption will take several decades before it can become generalized (and eventually replace fiat), there's nothing wrong with smearing out inflation during that adoption phase.  You get a more random distribution of coins that way.  First adopters will have since long stepped out (losing faith) so any first adopter advantage will be lost that way, which is in principle a good thing.  Fast inflation is very similar to premining: only a handful of first adopters will hold most of the coins.  That's not good.  A very long inflation period, with a lot of "despair" passages, will distribute much more randomly the coins before general adoption sets in.

Didn't see your post.  I'm exactly on par with that.

Sure, protect the built-in torture as a good thing. Your investors surely love that. An airdrop by mail would have been quicker ...

In a less inflationary one coins get still distributed to people as initial holders take profit and market moves up and down. So there is no difference there. Only difference: your inflationcoin goes jojo and to zero while the low inflation coin goes mainly up. You need to recruit a bunch of masochists for this bitcoin shitshow.

Bitcoiners are some serious nutcases with their talking. Have fun with your built-in despair while we make profit and enjoy ourselves on the way  ;D

:-D

There are no "low inflation coins".  There are fast inflation coins, and slow inflation coins.  Every coin inflates 100% over the course of a certain time lapse, and the discussion is whether that time lapse should be short or long.

Fast inflation means that essentially all the coins end up in the hands of a few, and the total seigniorage will end up in the hands of a few (what you call "taking their profits").  Ultra-fast inflation is akin to premining.  The limit of ultra-fast inflation means that one or a few creators of the coin distribute it.

Slow inflation means that during a certain time, coins are generated.  Ideally, the inflation period is similar to the adoption curve (adoption as a *currency* of course).  If the inflation curve followed perfectly the adoption curve, price would be constant ; it would be similar to a central bank with a price inflation target of 0%.  But that is not going to happen, as adoption is not an exponentially damped process, but probably rather a very slow S-curve (if it happens).  Clearly, adoption is going to take - if it takes place - several decades.  It would hence be normal that the inflation time constant is also several decades.

What happened to bitcoin is that speculation drove its price way way over its current fundamentals (which must be in the single or maybe double digits if the black market share is still very important).  Bitcoin is not much used as a currency for the moment, and most of its market cap is essentially Ponzi-like at this point.   Several scenarios are possible where the speculative price aims for the far future fundamental price, but as the future leverage arm is of the order of a few decades (and as some speculators thought it was going to be 6 months or 2 years) most probably speculation will go up and down a lot.  This may hinder adoption in fact ; but it will also lead to despair, selling  out, losses, gains,  and hence the seigniorage will be much much more erratic, randomly distributed, than a fast inflation or preminted coin.

When (if) bitcoin is finally gaining general adoption, there will have been so many speculators that have made profits, and others that have lost, that the seigniorage (which is the net sum of all those gains and losses) will be diffuse across the globe, as well as the coin distribution.  That looks to me way fairer than a small elite of first adopters or preminters that cash in all of the seigniorage, no ?

what ur saying is that bitcoin is less suspect to schemes because it's inflation benefits nobody ??
your saying that low inflation coins benefit someone ??
who is the beneficiaries of the pump dump scam coins ??
what i wonder is why u can only buy ripple with bitcoins ??

That's exactly what makes it "fair".

Ideally, the introduction of a totally new means of payment shouldn't benefit anybody.  That benefit is called seigniorage and is generally considered bad.

Of course we are all here to capture some of that unfair seigniorage :-)  But if the coin is well-designed and fair, we should all fail in doing so, and not get rich at all, but loose our input, while nevertheless promoting adoption.  That would ideally be fair.

As seigniorage is unavoidable with any monetary unit creation (its value goes from zero to its final value), ideally it gets totally randomly distributed, independent of "smart guys" and "first adopters".

This is what the alt coins try to do.  They may fail or they may succeed.

However, continuously generating new kinds of coins which take a part of the monetary market is nothing else but inflation of "cryptocoins" in general, and is moreover totally arbitrary.  In that case, we have again uncontrolled inflation over a long period ; but this time not even a sound money principle.  Let us then just stay with fiat. 

Guys, if nobody benefits, not even investors and in the end not even the miners, it's fair?

You got some serious brain-problems.

It's going to fail because nobody benefits - not even the ones supporting it.

The one who maybe benefits is the whale who scoops it all up on the bottom and pumps and dumps it on you fanboys.

The other one who benefits is the one who shorts it. So your logic is catastrophic.

Early investors benefit heavily - and since nobody benefits after them obviously, it looks more and more like a ponzi.

The argument with short onramp would lead to a few owning most is not valid either because the same is true for bitcoin since reward decreases exponentially.
Bitcoin is as bad with the distribution as any altcoin - only difference: the useless torture of the inflation is dragged out on a longer timeframe and prevents in this way an immediate success of the project, makes it volatile and unuseable as store for value.

Bitcoin has actually a distribution worse than most non-scam/fairly launched alts because when btc was launched the community was tiny compared to now while at that time the miningrewards were the biggest.

Ok, you are now allowed to fanboy more.

Obviously most of you communists are opposed to a currency that can hold value and/or create profit in the present. Have fun with the pipedreams and don't get overrun by a value-preserving steamroller ;)

Keep protecting decay as something good.

Lol! Decay as point of fairness, LMAO!

thread for the friends of 'decay'

Please feel free to leave a comment on that thread explaining why decay is favourable in economics  ::)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919497.0

No, that's not what I'm saying.  The irregular ups and downs will shake out many, and there will be no relationship between the initial (and evidently unfair) distribution, and the final distribution.  Of course some people will benefit: the seigniorage will go somewhere.  It will go to miners (by definition, a miner is winning: a miner only mines if there is a margin to make), and it will go to SOME people buying and SOME people selling, but totally randomly determined.


As there is absolutely no possible prediction, you can just as well be ruined when shorting than when going long.  You can get ruined totally as a whale too, if the price doesn't do what you expected.


Imagine that early adopters who bought at, say, $0.5 and "hodl", see the price fall eventually to $0.1 7 years from now.  What will they do ?  Get out ?  Keep ?  Imagine that 15 years from now, it goes up to $1000,-.  Will it be the early adopters, or the crazy guys who bought from them at $0.1, who benefit ?  Will they sell at $1000,- or will they hold ? Suppose that after that, 4 years later, it goes down to $3.0 ?  Suppose it wiggles a few more times.  In the end, the coins, as well as the seigniorage, will be TOTALLY RANDOMLY distributed.

If in the end, bitcoin dies, it was a zero-sum game.  Those that are hodling at that time, are those who paid the final bill for all those that took profits. 
 If bitcoin gets adopted and goes to $300 000,- then that seigniorage will be totally randomly distributed over many generations of adopters.  Those that were hodling, are those who are the final winners.

It must be totally unexpected whether bitcoin will die or succeed for the coins to become totally randomly distributed to hodlers, and their risk must be equal to their benefit or loss.



No.  I'm talking about the secundary market, which will of course become important in the end.  The slow decrease of reward allows mining to become established before adoption is established.  If everything were mined at once (preminted), there wouldn't be any mining incentive until adoption.  The network wouldn't have been set up with high security.  


I go by the premise that adoption will IN ANY CASE take many decades, IF it happens.

What do you do with your totally minted coin, with no mining incentive, during all those decades ?

The torture is necessary to obtain the totally random distribution of coins and seigniorage before adoption.  As early adoption always has an advantage, they must go through several periods of total despair to get rid of their coins, and to redistribute them if you don't want that advantage to be systematic.

Yes. First Gox was the culprit, and now it's stamp. Nothing to do with the fact that people don't want to buy bitcoins.

No.  Miner buys a chunk of gear for $1k.  He will continue to mine as long as hosting costs (electricity, upkeep, etc.) are lower than the price of the coin mined.  Nothing suggests that the 1k initial investment will be recouped.

The amount of bitcoins created a day (mined) is too much for the market. People don't buy that much bitcoins. At least for now the first wave of adoption happened. It should be interesting if any analysis is found about this.

Yep, Stamp now back online and the dumping shenanigans resume.

Fk that stupid exchange.