I am tempted to think $135=$13.5*10, although I know any supposed implication is probably nonsense.  |
|
|
|
we'll likely stay in the $120-$160 range in the short term.
That would be good I think, businesses can operate. |
|
|
|
|
Would there be any risk If I make a backup of my encrypted Armory wallet on Dropbox? The worst they can do is deleting my backup right? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Why not? Next time someone tries to borrow money from you you can tell him:"Well ,you know that stupid Bitcoin business fucked me up and I am now broken..." |
|
|
|
So where does his elitism come from? Perhaps from all those people paid attention to and scrutinized whatever he said?  ROFL, Are you going to his "conference" that is supposed to be "COOL"?  Read again, I was saying you maybe just confirming his perception about himself by making a big deal out of whatever he said. Why give a damn when the speculation subforum is already full of self-important trolls? Didn't we just see a noob who claimed to have"two doctorates, one master" or some shit like that? Read again, you didn't answer my question lol. If he paid for my flight ticket and visa service then yes LMAO. I would like to go to the San Jose conference, but your government has a problem with people like me.  |
|
|
|
So where does his elitism come from? Perhaps from all those people paid attention to and scrutinized whatever he said? ROFL, Are you going to his "conference" that is supposed to be "COOL"? Read again, I was saying you maybe just confirming his perception about himself by making a big deal out of whatever he said. Why give a damn when the speculation subforum is already full of self-important trolls? Didn't we just see a noob who claimed to have"two doctorates, one master" or some shit like that? |
|
|
|
So where does his elitism come from? Perhaps from all those people paid attention to and scrutinized whatever he said? |
|
|
|
Well, Bitcoin was just a matter of time and coding power. |
|
|
|
It is too bad the USD withdrawal issue cannot be solved in some creative way as Bitcoin charts has btceUSD volume at > 5,000 BTC for the last 24 hours and in fact btceUSD 30 day USD volume is higher than bitstampUSD.
I know BTC-E would be good, but they are always far below the price of Mtgox/Bitstamp, and our USD reserve would be quickly exhausted and we would have to keep sending them money.
It can be foreseen, that -- the moment Bitfinex would create an easy arbitration possibility -- this would create a huge and constant flow of USD towards BTC-e. This situation would persist, until BTC-e is effectively coupled to the "weight center" of the overall BTC exchange market. From that point on, there would be occasional high swings of money flow over this "Bitfinex-link", both in USD and BTC from time to time. A similar situation would arise if Bitfinex would manage to establish a link to some Chinese exchange. The first one managing to establish such a thing will get a huge proportion of newly created volume, reap a lot of trading fees, but also gets to handle the major problem of any growing pains, and especially the uncertainty of the legal situation. Building such large scale new structures in the BTC exchange market is indeed a major undertaking, and would require a lot of preparation and actual negotiations. Both sides would have to cooperate really on such a thing, maybe even involving a third partner (BitInstant, AurumXchange or the like) for managing the money flow. I think, for us Bitfinex users it is understandable that not all of this can be achieved right now, with a single blow. Bitfinex has seen a tremendous growth, seems to have a larger team now, and overall has managed quite well to keep the technical side of things up to the challenge. But I'm sure they need some additional efforts behind the scenes to consolidate all these achievements. Yup, as I said, you guys at Bitfinex are perhaps pioneers when it comes to Bitcoin trading decentralization, yes always work with things at your hand but think farther.  |
|
|
|
感觉波纹没有比特靠谱，怎么看着有点像买q币的感觉  那玩意就是Q币，一个组织自己全部一次性造出来，然后由它自己决定发给谁，呵呵。 |
|
|
|
|
I think it's by far the only real work done in the direction of decentralization, other people are either just talking or still at the planning/prototyping stage.
|
|
|
|
20 seconds of lag and people are panic selling at $132 while others panic buy at $139 - gotta love this This:  I think it's noobs getting trolled. Nice edit :p The manipulator was like saying:" I sure as hell can push the price past $140, as I almost did($139.88), but, I am not going to let you know my decision yet."  |
|
|
|
20 seconds of lag and people are panic selling at $132 while others panic buy at $139 - gotta love this This: I think it's noobs getting trolled. |
|
|
|
Some troll traders feeling bored and decide to kick the ass of some noobs. |
|
|
|
I see the Bitstamp orders, very nice, testing it out! I predict that very soon the arbitrage opportunity between Gox and Bitstamp will disappear, while the Bitfinex volume will spike up. |
|
|
|
|
How can things like this happen? Nearly 10 minutes with hardly any trading(No, it still worked, I test-traded one 0.01 BTC order).
|
|
|
|
I just have a question for those that think this will play out like in 2011, with an eventual decline to pre-bubble levels.
Do you think this will still happen if some of the things being worked on right now come through? I'm mostly referring to the projects that will make bitcoins much easier to buy.
These include the ATMs, Coinlab, Coinsetter, and several other exchanges.
Coinlab and the first ATM are coming out next week, and there's plenty of other projects being worked on. Some of these fundamental improvements seem too important to support a decline back to $30. They would also bring back media coverage and increase the user base.
Bearish scenario to $30 (let's entertain this): 1. Price crashes to $30 2. Media starts saying "SEE WE TOLD YOU IT WAS A BUBBLE" 3. Most start buying like crazy (buy ASK side is super thin) because they realize shit I get a second chance to ride the BTC train! CHOO CHOO! 4. Back to $150 in 48 hours lol 5. Profits ** This is what all the so called "bears" are masterbating about on this forum. I think it could have happened, but it didn't, through various means, buyers somehow reached a kinda Byzantine General style consensus that the battlefield would be $50-$100. But anyway the particular price point isn't irrelevant, had the support been moved to $32, it could do very little to change people's perceptions about the crash, but the more than 200 million dollars spent on $50-100 could instead buy....7 million bitcoins, so good luck bears with finding so many bitcoins to sell. |
|
|
|
Here's an interesting question: What will happen once Litecoin begins to trade on MtGox as they recently confirmed and share the same pool of USD that Bitcoin currently enjoys? Sure, they already trade on BTC-E, but that is a trivial amount of volume and attention compared to MtGox. Even trivially modified altcoins have grown immensely popular in a way I would have never imagined. What happens once the media starts to report on them? I don't think I ever owned any Litecoins, but this will certainly be interesting to watch. @arepo I thought much the same near the bottom and I agree, we are at a crossroad. One thing to consider is that I believe the risk in Bitcoins is currently far higher than prices justify, in my view. Further factors making me more bearish in the mid term: Bitcoin exchanges are being eliminated and MtGox is returning to its monopoly status from years ago. Bitcoin still extremely centralized through mining pools (2 people conspiring can do a 51% attack, and actually have done so during the coin fork), block size limit hindering growth (see SatoshiDice), altcoin popularity rising (LTC soon to be added to MtGox; Ripple emerging as possible alternative). I'm ready to be proven wrong by the price action. I don't care much missing out here on a measly 20-50% as the immense risk no longer justifies it, I've already played the bottom. A thought: If you are right and we are at the verge of the next bull market, how much does it really matter if one buys in at 137 at a rather high risk, rather than at 166, 200 or even 266 at a more reduced risk of being wrong? I acknowledge the possibility, I just think the probability combined with upside is not worth it at the current stage. A good speculator sees that most of the easy money is most probably gone for a while. these are all good points to temper a bullish attitude. it's not even that the fundamentals are improving -- the fundamentals are changing. deflation is kicking in.
Man, what a marketing language/buzzword bullshit, I thought better of you. Perhaps the thing to deflate will be the Bitcoin price. this is a more serious point than it sounds, i admit, but i've been talking about this since February, and i dare say that i was expecting the kind of event that happened on April 10. it wasn't really a bubble, it was growing pains in response to the market cap growing two orders of magnitude in size, quite suddenly. PS: I hate to do ad hominems, but why are you getting so certain recently + on the verge of spam with the topics? To sell your reports? I remember you were wrong during the whole rally and then barely said anything. It would be too ironic if the same thing happened now.
... which brings me to this point. i was a bear when the rally started, and it was a spectacularly bad call, i'll freely admit. after three or four calls of 'tops' i realized that there was something terribly wrong with my methods. i took a break from posting publicly and turned a critical eye to my assumptions and methods. i realized a large part was misreading the 'overbought' signals on the oscillators, because they really only work ideally when the influx of money is small comapred to the market cap, which was not the case during the rally. this recent push to $160 also completely defied the 'normal' behavior of these indicators, but this time i accounted for this fact, and anticipated the movement. but this large influx of money is exactly what i'm talking about -- i'm not sure we're going to see the same kind of 'depression' that occurred last time because i do not think that the market contracted by the same magnitude in percentages as it did in '11. [this is a bit OT, skip if you want] as for a personal note, i apologize for seeming so self-assured.. sometimes i get a little too excited about my projections i know that my models are fallible, but the improvements i made during the rally i missed (which included better techniques for quantifying error, and the development of a brand new hypothesis supported by data i had been collecting) should reflect the fact that i was determined to never make so bad of a call again i don't mean to spam, and i'm certainly not trying to 'sell my report'. i only published the report because of requests from users in the first place. i am really only motivated to continue improving my methods and models, as i did not know much about speculation at all 2 years ago, before i discovered bitcoin, and now (as a BS in physics), I am utterly fascinated by the complexity of finance and economics. also i've been a tutor for many years, and i tend to retain that mind set in everything i do. i love to teach. and i hope you can agree that i'm learning a little more every day --arepo Great, exactly what I felt about you, Arepo. I think one fundamental difference between a real prediction/analysis and a FUD is you always post a target in a real prediction and stand by it, so admitting your wrong call is very important. And you know what, your TA assumption is starting to make some sense to me(though I still think it's too broad a generalization): it's funny to see people on this forum start to feel uncertain and doubtful when price becomes stagnated, yet remain polarized during the rally/chainfork/DDOS+crash etc, as the price may effectively be reflecting their emotions. |
|
|
|
@arepo
Yes, Bitcoin has a great brand awareness going for it. I don't care for seeds that don't bear fruit. I don't think Seals with Clubs is anywhere as popular as SD or SR, but feel free to prove me wrong. Still, this is arguing over details. My main point is that there's no such thing as a Bitcoin economy, and there are only 2 truly successful Bitcoin businesses apart from exchanges, mining pools and other intermediaries like Bitpay. It's a commodity and a payment mechanism for fiat money, but certainly no currency so far.
who cares what it is, as long as it's being used? ignoring (negligent) inflation, a 20x increase of the volume of demand of bitcoin since $5/btc is the only thing necessary for $100 to be a stable price. this is why i said it's finding its niches. it's not really being used in one way (it still hasn't figured out what it is), but it's being used in a large variety of small ways, in a manner which creates demand. not to mention plenty of evidence that its attractiveness as a store of value has inspired some new big players to enter the market. it's not even that the fundamentals are improving -- the fundamentals are changing. deflation is kicking in. --arepo Why I am long term bullish: 1. Digital cash is here to say, face it, the idea itself can be replaced, but can not be killed, the governments/banks cannot just tell people to get back to the old days and live there happily ever after, no chance, no precedence. 2. If someone figures out how to overcome some of Bitcoin's flaws, his best bet of making his idea useful is to try to include it in the Bitcoin protocol/clients, where he gets greatest interest/network support/financial support, as long as it is not disruptive enough to be utterly incompatible. So if no design exists that can fundamentally triumph over the blockchain, I will stay long term bullish. |
|
|
|
But I am curious to know how do you manipulate this metric?
Someone large moves his coins to another address of his, destroying lots of days. Manipulation may not be the right word for that. However, even looking at the graph taking it seriously, the current Bitcoin Days Destroyed peak is nearly identical to the one at the end of june in 2011 with 15 vs. 14 million. The "weak hands, strong hands" thing is a fascinating new thing. You don't know how bearish I became with that sentiment being normal. I particularly liked the spartan 300 submissions on r/bitcoin that got to the top everytime the price declined. The people who most often cry it out are usually the ones to sell at the bottom. And once they capitulate, Bitcoin can resume its rise. Whether that really happened at 50 remains to be seen. Only "old coins"(older than 1 year) are counted, that means, you can only play with each coin once per year, so the manipulation would only be effective if you have an exceptionally large holding, at which point I doubt you will try to move your money out of your cold storage just to fool with a metric that not many will check. More importantly, it has nothing to do with my original post as this sort of manipulation increases rather than decreases the days destroyed value.(in June 2011 this statistics didn't even exist) About the metric value: it has been 2 years since June 2011, so if a similar amount of early coins are moved during the recent crash, the peak value should be 2-3 times as high as the 2011 peak, rather than 80% of it. I only talked about weak hands, not strong hands, the two don't have to come together, what I emphasized is a lot of lucky guys that joined in the early stage and accumulated an amount of wealth disproportional to their investment and financial management capability must be removed from the equation for us to see the normal dynamics of the market. So the 2013 crash and 2011 crash are not that comparable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
