would it be fair to say we would only see decent liquidity when btc is around the 100K to 1M mark in today's buying power, as this is the kinda scale you need to be able to absorb buys and sell vs usage in other fora?
eg. at say 1M a btc there are far less actors that can just throw 100M at it then there are that can throw 100K.
At 1M the total market cap is 21T and that become quite a bit harder to shift, though remember the cap is sorta magnified by the slippage.
It looks to me that BTC needs to be 2.1T to 21T for liquidity to be essentially solved.
The price of bitcoin has little to do with volatility of the market, the volatility is coming from those who control those coins, regardless of the price, i would even say that if its making a difference, the bigger price makes it even harder to stabilise the price, since you need more fiat money to pass through the banks to make buying power. To even consier such values, the mining reward must be insanely small, to eliminate large effects of miners dropping their shares, the time between traders decision to buy,to passing through banks to exchange must be minimal, and without regulatory issues, and overall bitcoin must be spread out and used in commerce, to furthermore smoothen out price jumps and dives. Theres a lot of things that bitcoin has to pass to dream of such numbers, and it wont happen soon, atleast i dont see how it could be done in 10 years.. cheers I not quite sure volatility follows in quite that way, but sorta I am saying this would make it less volatile I suppose. I am maily interest in what sorta price we would need to say support large chunks of the economy of wealth transfer, eg Houseing purchase in a situation where there is still a large FIAT based system. Eg say 1000 houses sell a day (Which is kinda low ball) and this needed BTC exchange, that would be 1B and day which is 1/2000 th of 2.1T market cap but a hell of a lot more at the slippage front. 1B a day is not that much really It says to me we need about a $21 T cap to make BTC workable for alot of transactions/companies etc/wealth transfer |
|
|
|
|
would it be fair to say we would only see decent liquidity when btc is around the 100K to 1M mark in today's buying power, as this is the kinda scale you need to be able to absorb buys and sell vs usage in other fora?
eg. at say 1M a btc there are far less actors that can just throw 100M at it then there are that can throw 100K.
At 1M the total market cap is 21T and that become quite a bit harder to shift, though remember the cap is sorta magnified by the slippage.
It looks to me that BTC needs to be 2.1T to 21T for liquidity to be essentially solved.
|
|
|
|
I doubt it the bitcoin amount they are concerned with but most likely the USD amount. The man wants his cut! Especially when the amounts start to get anywhere close to 10k.
Right now one is free to stack Bitcoins to the sky with minimal reprecussion but once you start dealing in USD you better have your shit straight.
This is why its better to wait for the economy to catch up to BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Banks are a way to transmit money are are worth alot, also the check is only the front end, what about all the processing behind it eg the Banking system.
|
|
|
|
I think it's starting to become clear that bears are losing their hold over this market. They try to instigate a panic with huge market sell orders or attempt to erode bull confidence with pump and dump tactics but the price still seems to be slowly but steadily pushing upwards if you filter out all that noise. Once the daily MACD goes into positive territory we could see a huge spike into the stratosphere. And I mean really huge because it will coincide with a breakout of the bullish wedge that has been forming since December 2013. I'm looking forward to the next couple of weeks.  I think the Bears have had their day(s), and the Huge Rally is finally starting to form.  I believe no matter how they manipulate the market, eventually it is still the fundamentals that is going to dictate the direction where the price is heading. If the buying support is strong, I'm sure every new coins that made its way to the market will be bought. And talk about adoption rate, participation and support from the community, new joiners, fresh funds, all these do a make a difference. And the bears will certainly have a hard time trying to manipulate the price. lots of qe means less fresh funds are needed! |
|
|
|
|
bpay some how go all the Australian banks to open up their codes and servers to let any one pay any one.....why can't some bitcoin company do this?
|
|
|
|
I like your theory.
The only problem is someone/something dumps coins every morning as I drink my coffee still. I have no idea why this happens every morning, but the day I see the price actual increase before I go to work, I will be happy about a reversal, rally, whatever.
what good is though theres only so many coins to dump....unless of course faked exchange and fake coins are being dumped. though the number of buys v sell over the main exchanges over time should be able to show this..... |
|
|
|
|
its just going to be so funny when btc is 100K$ (current buying power) each in about 5~7 years and everyone is left scratching their head about how id happened any why the missed out.
BTC does this....we have just shaken out alot of miners....
also the 10K will hit goto i dunno 13K? then crash back to $700 or something rinse repeat to 100000K plus. sability will be found in the 100K to 1M range, not that I care about stability aslo BTC will go pos or something else will likely take over.
At 1M the distribution will be large enough to go pos as so much btc will have changed hands and spread out, there are waves of early adopters that just could not hold on and we have not finished yet.
people just don't get the depths of shakledom the current banking system plus its ineffcency and corrupt/in efficent nature is and what BTC means to that and as a new tech. Hell its a new way of organizing society that has never even been thought possible
|
|
|
|
I think if you're at all capable of grasping bitcoin, the whole concept, in the first place, there's little damn chance you're at risk of being mentally ill. The required level of intelligence to understand bitcoin, the foundation of bitcoin, the blockchain, the point, the nuances of economics, and the dynamics of bitcoin is not a sign of a weak mind susceptible to mental illness. The idiots in comment sections who continually call people names, troll these and similar forums hollering bitcoin's end times and have nothing else to do but post over and over day in and day out trying to warn everyone against it, it's in its "death throws" as one put it in a comments section earlier - now those ones are soft in the head and could probably make do with a visit to a psychiatrist.  this....especially as we have been non educated about what currency is, that is Fiat is just given as a fait accompli. In 2004 I gave a lecture to my fellow law of banking elective takers in a top 20 law school in the world, and their eyes glazed over when I started to explain Fiat to them, CRR, FRB etc...hell I had to phone the central bank just to confirm everything I had said was right. Satoshi has now put that squarely in the discourse. FRB/Central banking is not always bad, but it is almost always corrupted without competition. Competition to the state monopoly is a facet of BTC. |
|
|
|
how are bitusd backed by usd? |
|
|
|
|
yawn.
call me when its 100k.
|
|
|
|
|
is their a filter by posts, membership level, that would be a good hi pass filter against trolls
|
|
|
|
|
could we not have block size increase by some function of storage cost v size going down. Thus bootstraping into a quasi moores law approach, which would mean we would hit say 20 MB or larger but with no increasing cost to the user base.
This would seem to please all parties and provide a road map of when fork would take place. Indeed this would be less like a fork, more like a feature of BTC much like the predetermined coin supply.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel often threads like this are part of the pump...I wish their was a sage function here
|
|
|
|
|
this looks like spam...PND has moved no where.
Also given the number of coins you seem to have, you probably have a keylogger and malicious software on your computer anyway.
|
|
|
|
I hate to admit it, but Gates is completely right.
There is no question Satoshi is a genius, many aspects of his innovation are really remarkable, however Gates (who is very good at the implementation level) correctly spots the biggest issue with Bitcoin: that without a regulated third party it's not fit for trade and hard to integrate it in the existing regulated legal and financial structures. No wonder large adopters like Paypal and Microsoft use Bitcoin in a strictly regulated environment where the third parties can verify who is paying for who. In modern societies where drug traders, money launderers and terrorist organizations pose security risk from the state viewpoint only regulated financial instruments will be allowed by law enforcement, and therefore Gates very correctly states that it seems Bitcoin cannot be such financial instrument. What Gates said (despite what the OP states) nothing to do with privacy, it is all about the ability to comply with regulations.
In the meantime ignorant Bitcoin fanboys state that the lack of regulation what Gates points out is the strength of Bitcoin. In fantasy land yes, but in reality it is not. The reality is that without regulated third parties Bitcoin won't be able to succeed. Only regulated third parties can take Bitcoin to the mainstream ... which completely defies the purpose of the decentralized aspect of Satoshi's great innovation.
The thing is fucked up from wider integration and regulation viewpoint, so it is better we the Bitcoin community and investors listen to smart people like Bill Gates.
100% spot on. There can be no such thing as 100% decentralization in this world with current technology as frankly everyone is not equal intellectually(Thus a 100% decentralized system could never hope to be the dominant system i.e what some people hope is Bitcoin). But the twist is, Bitcoin isn't fully decentralized, which is a good thing, in fact it's a great thing. If countries start taking Bitcoin seriously, and banning the creation of exchanges that don't register for money transmitter licenses and comply with regulation etc, then Bitcoin would actually be on the road to stability and security. Of course that only partly fixes the issue, there's still Bitcoin's volatility at hand. However, that issue can also be addressed through adoption i.e the more people are using Bitcoin at a consumer level, instead of hoarding it or using it as a speculative investment, the less volatile Bitcoin's price will become. Frankly, all the idiots here who oppose regulation are also harming Bitcoin, as regulation is the only way for Bitcoin to reach both a secure and less volatile state. you don't say why to any of your assertions. |
|
|
|
I hate to admit it, but Gates is completely right.
There is no question Satoshi is a genius, many aspects of his innovation are really remarkable, however Gates (who is very good at the implementation level) correctly spots the biggest issue with Bitcoin: that without a regulated third party it's not fit for trade and hard to integrate it in the existing regulated legal and financial structures. No wonder large adopters like Paypal and Microsoft use Bitcoin in a strictly regulated environment where the third parties can verify who is paying for who. In modern societies where drug traders, money launderers and terrorist organizations pose security risk from the state viewpoint only regulated financial instruments will be allowed by law enforcement, and therefore Gates very correctly states that it seems Bitcoin cannot be such financial instrument. What Gates said (despite what the OP states) nothing to do with privacy, it is all about the ability to comply with regulations.
In the meantime ignorant Bitcoin fanboys state that the lack of regulation what Gates points out is the strength of Bitcoin. In fantasy land yes, but in reality it is not. The reality is that without regulated third parties Bitcoin won't be able to succeed. Only regulated third parties can take Bitcoin to the mainstream ... which completely defies the purpose of the decentralized aspect of Satoshi's great innovation.
The thing is fucked up from wider integration and regulation viewpoint, so it is better we the Bitcoin community and investors listen to smart people like Bill Gates.
Much of Gov action is way way worse that drugs/terrorism. That's absolutely true, but still the reality is that the government define the rules and not jubalix hero member from Bitcointalk. That means regardless what jubalix hero member and altcoinUK user think law enforcement will be deployed to hunt down all Bitcoin operators and traders that fail to comply with regulations. Since jubalix and altcoinUK users from Bitcointalk are unable to change how society operates Bitcoin either comply with regulations by working with regulated third parties or remains a niche solution used by 0.0001% of computer users. Gates merely stated the fact that it is impossible for the society to adopt Bitcoin in its current unregulated form. Gates is the messenger here and you can blame and characterize the government as long as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we live in this society ruled by (often) corrupt governments and any innovations need to find its way in this government regulated environment. nah see bitcoin attacks the soft point of govs. As they have been captured by market ideology for the most part they like to make the best circumstances to attract capitial inflows, value and human capital. The people demand it. It's a race to the bottom, and as soon as one jurisdiction leaps the rest follow or face oblivion. Look at the tax breaks apple and friends make through the Ireland/dutch arrangement. How many years has this taken to stop? How many more such systems of tax minimization exist. Bitcoin is the means for us to do this for the rest of us. Capital can now flow without restriction or near that. Any one can now send 10M$ to some one in china or any one anywhere. No bank or capital restrictions. This was un do able before. The gov is weak where its tax base goes/ currency devalues and it can't pay its workers, employees, police, tax officers etc. You money is no good here will be the withering of the state. A semi downward spiral. Govs will exist but in a radically altered form, through a death by a thousand cuts leading to the tipping point Your right Society won't adopt bitcoin, but rather be adopted by bitcoin, by the elision of sovereignty from the state to the individual that btc can enable in a practice sence. Further the money/commodity/currency of btc, is just a facet of the btc protocol. |
|
|
|
I hate to admit it, but Gates is completely right.
There is no question Satoshi is a genius, many aspects of his innovation are really remarkable, however Gates (who is very good at the implementation level) correctly spots the biggest issue with Bitcoin: that without a regulated third party it's not fit for trade and hard to integrate it in the existing regulated legal and financial structures. No wonder large adopters like Paypal and Microsoft use Bitcoin in a strictly regulated environment where the third parties can verify who is paying for who. In modern societies where drug traders, money launderers and terrorist organizations pose security risk from the state viewpoint only regulated financial instruments will be allowed by law enforcement, and therefore Gates very correctly states that it seems Bitcoin cannot be such financial instrument. What Gates said (despite what the OP states) nothing to do with privacy, it is all about the ability to comply with regulations.
In the meantime ignorant Bitcoin fanboys state that the lack of regulation what Gates points out is the strength of Bitcoin. In fantasy land yes, but in reality it is not. The reality is that without regulated third parties Bitcoin won't be able to succeed. Only regulated third parties can take Bitcoin to the mainstream ... which completely defies the purpose of the decentralized aspect of Satoshi's great innovation.
The thing is fucked up from wider integration and regulation viewpoint, so it is better we the Bitcoin community and investors listen to smart people like Bill Gates.
no...traders will become better and build trust by merit. Eg BTCe gave a full refund where it was hacked. Much of Gov action is way way worse that drugs/terrorism. Consider the cold war at its height. Govs had nukes pointed at everyone. This is >>>> worse than *terrorism* and drugs. or money laundering. In fact the fact that people in gov can money launder and get wealth out of a country, say china to Australia or US makes it less likley we would have war as they would be destroying their own safe havens |
|
|
|
Poor people cannot currently rely on bitcoin
“The effort to make sure your bitcoin provider isn’t going to lose your money and your understanding of the volatility of bitcoin — I’d hardly say that it’s ready for, you know, poor people to have it go up and down by a factor of two and, you know — ‘Oops, I was at Mt. Gox. Now that’s not good. Now I’m at Bit-whatever.’” Lack of transaction reversals
“So that basic technology shows that digital can do these things very cheaply, and the fees that have been building up over time won’t stand up even for small transactions. Now making sure that the thing is fraud-resistant and that money can be refunded – there’s somebody that you call up if you think you transferred to the wrong account or your account balance is not what you’d expect.” Potential Anonymity
“Also governments, for most transactions, will want attribution, that is, the idea of a system where you can’t see — is that drug money, is it terrorist money? Should that be taxed? You’re going to have some tension between the attributed systems like credit card [or] debit card systems where there’s actually a record of who’s engaging and the purely anonymous ones. The one where I see it getting to critical mass, along with the government regulatory support we need is where it’s attributed; where we can see who actually did this transaction.” http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bill-gates-3-criticisms-of-bitcoinThe last one isn't a problem for me but the first two are. The bigger problem is having no incentive to adopt BTC for ordinary people. I guess gates is fairly torn over BTC as it makes his 50 Billion or so fairly worthless either way. See, if he buys BTC for all his money, he just pushes the price up, and can not control BTC. He would become richer over time, but in some one elses pond, (satoshis) where he would just be small fry. His gates fund would be irrelevant as well as much of his legacy as an open source system basically wins out. The tech side, yes many people may struggle with this, however this will be fixed by hardware and software killer platfroms and apps. The volatility is only really one way over time, and the tech issue will keep alot of people out until this can work. Drugs enforcement costs way more than Drugs, taxation can now be jurisdiction-ally arbitraged. there is alot of fat on the bone in reducing taxes and gov. in some senses btc is the vehicle to help the withering of the state, well that and peercoin plus a few others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
