 ops le price lol this is the best |
|
|
|
Its going up!
I feel it in my bones,
I know that ask wall's bout to blow
Several indicators are looking good, but not great. To really go up we need the 1.0 - 1.5 million $ that are not seen on the bid sum at MtGox. So right now it could be just a flash in the pan.  Oh dont worry about me, remember I'm the guy who sold like an idiot at $102.65. |
|
|
|
zeroday when you moved your money, did you have to convert it to USD? What if these "tax havens" are only in place to devalue the Euro, by having everyone convert them to USD?
Yes it's true. All of EUR is now converted into USD. Usually there are no euro accounts in offshore banks. BTW, as I know, billions of russian and east-european oligarchs' capitals, that escaped Cyprus robbery and capital control, are now migrated to Belize banks. Out of curiosity who has these banks? I mean, like, whoever manages these banks' money can probably do a lot. Tax Haven Bank Accounts are estimated to have 30 Trillion dollars. The value in these accounts could be used to buy all of ORCL (Servers), T (service provider using those servers), aapl (hardware needing that service), goog (software running on that hardware), fb (site viewed on that software), amzn (vendor of item purchased using advertisements displayed on that site), V (allows user to pay for that item), fdx (shipper of that item), F (manufacturer of the vehicle used by that shipper), xom (provider of energy used to power that vehicle), and TSLA (to hedge just in case F's model is outdated). Talk about a vertical monopoly. And thats just less than half of the money in those bank accounts. So yea, I sorta want to know who manages the money in these banks. |
|
|
|
Otherwise you get into silly situations like if you sell bitcoin to re-buy more, you are helping Bitcoin, etc...
I've helped more than 100 people buy Bitcoins for the first time by reselling Bitcoins. Most of them probably would have bought eventually, but more than one has told me they only bought because there was somebody in their area with a good reputation that was willing to meet them and explain the process. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it certainly is one way to help adoption of the currency grow. No, I meant something like "i'm going to sell my Bitcoins on Gox, so that through some method (like the one in my sig *blatant plug*) I can obtain more Bitcoins later, and thus by obtaining more bitcoins I have effectively forced the purchase of more bitcoins, driving the price up, helping bitcoin." Thats why I dont consider causing a price increase like the OP is doing to be necessarily "helping bitcoin". (I'm not saying its hurting bitcoin, just that its not really helping it as you imply). |
|
|
|
Some people are willing to risk their entirely livelyhood on this thing and I think I'm a daredevil because I own more BTC than XIV. Many people underestimate what Bitcoin represents - I'm not exaggerating in my signature. Sure, but I doubt that buying Bitcoins really aids bitcoin in that purpose. Otherwise you get into silly situations like if you sell bitcoin to re-buy more, you are helping Bitcoin, etc... |
|
|
|
Its posts like this that make me want to start a BTC-based company or something.
Some people are willing to risk their entirely livelyhood on this thing and I think I'm a daredevil because I own more BTC than XIV.
XIV is far better than traditional stock index fund!!! Really glad to see some sophistication in finance When Bernanke spoke, I felt the exact opposite of sophisticated. Now i'm feeling rather sophisticated, however  That contango just keeps on rollin' |
|
|
|
I have over 20 addresses with BTC in them, counting my 'change' addresses. I.e, this thread is the exact opposite of 'rational speculation' |
|
|
|
The only way a merchant would want BTC is if a supplier wanted BTC. This could be just somebody selling a service, which would be fine, but if you are buying an actual product, you'd need the manufacturer to want BTC, which would mean you'd need some of the people working for the manufacturer to want BTC (or I suppose the raw goods provider).
What I'm trying to say is that no big company is going to want BTC at this point unless they are either (A) created from the ground up around BTC or (B) they have some way of offloading that BTC to individuals that want BTC. Companies at this point wont want BTC, people will.
i've sold goods and services ( sold ad space on my site...) for bitcoin, i keep the BTC! I also buy good and services using BTC  You are an individual, not a company. Contrary to 'popular belief' companies are not people thats still up for debate corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law. so it would be perfectly legal for paypal to pump and dump bitcoin ; )But I can't wire money to my Bitstamp account because I have an individual account but the money is coming from a corporate bank account. And money is a form of speech, but AML laws aren't infringing on our freedom of speech. Them politician guys are a fun bunch |
|
|
|
The only way a merchant would want BTC is if a supplier wanted BTC. This could be just somebody selling a service, which would be fine, but if you are buying an actual product, you'd need the manufacturer to want BTC, which would mean you'd need some of the people working for the manufacturer to want BTC (or I suppose the raw goods provider).
What I'm trying to say is that no big company is going to want BTC at this point unless they are either (A) created from the ground up around BTC or (B) they have some way of offloading that BTC to individuals that want BTC. Companies at this point wont want BTC, people will.
i've sold goods and services ( sold ad space on my site...) for bitcoin, i keep the BTC! I also buy good and services using BTC You are an individual, not a company. Contrary to 'popular belief' companies are not people |
|
|
|
|
Its posts like this that make me want to start a BTC-based company or something.
Some people are willing to risk their entirely livelyhood on this thing and I think I'm a daredevil because I own more BTC than XIV.
|
|
|
|
|
The only way a merchant would want BTC is if a supplier wanted BTC. This could be just somebody selling a service, which would be fine, but if you are buying an actual product, you'd need the manufacturer to want BTC, which would mean you'd need some of the people working for the manufacturer to want BTC (or I suppose the raw goods provider).
What I'm trying to say is that no big company is going to want BTC at this point unless they are either (A) created from the ground up around BTC or (B) they have some way of offloading that BTC to individuals that want BTC. Companies at this point wont want BTC, people will.
|
|
|
|
Merchants want fiat not BTC. Unless paypal merchants can receive BTC payments in USD, it will mean nothing. The only other benefit is people can buy BTC with Paypal. Cool addition but hardly an earth shattering update. Even if such rumors were true, any rise in value would be little more than a speculative bubble if its just BTC -> BTC transactions. My $0.02.
Would be worth more if it was 0.02 BTC |
|
|
|
I have created the following chart comparing the various implementations of my strategy.  (Please ignore the random dollar signs that show up occasionally.) This does take into account fees. I'm just treating the broker1 fee as 0.7%, Bitstamp of 0.5%, both of which actually overestimates their real fees. The % move column shows how long you are going to wait before closing both positions. Note that in the real world, if I did trade, I wouldn't hit the % move on the dot, maybe I'd get a 26% move or a 24% move, which would affect the performance (a slightly bigger move would increase performance by a fraction of a percent, a slightly smaller move would decrease performance by a fraction of a percent). Again this is assuming that the two prices have the same % move. If the Bitstamp price moved downward slightly more than the volume weighted average, and the volume weighted average moved downward by 25%, I'd make a fraction of a percent more than I otherwise would have. If the Bitstamp price moves downward slightly less than the volume weighted average, and the average moved downward by 25%, I'd make a fraction of a percent less than I otherwise would have. Note that if the same percent moves happen, but at different prices (for example, Bitstamp goes from $95/BTC to $71.25, while the volume weighted average moved from $100 to $75), the profit would remain unaffected. In any case, clearly a larger % move strategy would maximize profitability in a highly trending market, while a smaller % move strategy would maximize profitability in a range trading market (so long as that range is big enough to cover the % move in at least one direction). A smaller % move strategy cares less if the Bitcoin price moves up or down, though in all cases you will make many more Bitcoins if the price goes down. A larger levered strategy will in general make more money no matter the % move you choose. This increased profitability is offset by larger exposure to deviating exchange rates. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if Paypal / Ebay is so forward looking.
The cynical me suggests I would go borrow all kinds of money and sweep up all the bitcoins I can find if I really do have the inside scoop. After all, no one would know this 'insider' trade and there's no criminal punishment either.
Somebody like Western Union is WAAAAAAY more likely to do something like this. Wu is all about moving money from point A to point B, while conducting exchange in the middle if there are different currencies. Paypal is getting money from point A and B, putting it inside of itself, and hoping nobody ever takes it out since it can be moved around within itself for cheap, Liberty Reserve style. |
|
|
|
It'd be almost like if Microsoft would promote Linux. You don't help your future killer, you fight him. if you can't beat them join them, or die. I think its fair to say that msft (and appl) have combined 'beat' linux, at least in terms of home OS. |
|
|
|
If so, then assuming the latter scenario, you're predicting that we go to about $130-ish, then go down to $100 again, and then back up again (when we start new wave)? That makes sense.
I'm not predicting 130, I just presented the 2 scenarios I see as possible. For now, it's not looking good, the small players have been unable to keep the price at 106. Well its looking good for me, I shorted at $102.65, lol. |
|
|
|
If small players take it to 106 and not more, then we are in the 5th part of a type 5 Elliot wave.
If big players take it to 110 - 112, then we are in the 1st part of a type 5 Elliot wave.
What is a type 5 Elliot wave? I assume you are trying to say that it is the first subwave of the 5th Elliot wave of a larger order? If so, then assuming the latter scenario, you're predicting that we go to about $130-ish, then go down to $100 again, and then back up again (when we start new wave)? That makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Wow absolutely nothing is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
