Only if there's a newsworthy bank run. It's not Cypriots, it's everyone else.

The 5,500 people in line at MtGox would like a word with you.

Touching $100 - either on the nose, just under ($99 or $99.9), or maybe a few dollars over. Quite possibly we will hover and slosh around under $100 for a few weeks, or we may just blast right past it. Neither would surprise me. Even back the the 40s wouldn't surprise me; it's all within exponential trendline support around $50, which we are floating well above right now.

So your prediction is that we'll revert to the exponential growth trendline (50s, maybe a brief stint below as overcorrection) and your advice is to "SELL"?! That same trendline that has us at $100 in just a few more weeks? You'd risk giving up your position just for a few tens of percents?

Yes, we'll be gladly taking your money. You and anyone who takes your advice. But thanks for helping to decentralize bitcoin wealth  

Who's next? Jim Rogers?

Things are getting more complex as Bitstamp now has 10% of the volume. Soon the old patterns will be disrupted (weekend dip, Tuesday rally, etc.). Localbitcoins may even start to become a major force.

Anyway, if we really reach $10K by end of year, it will be one hell of a ride. Hooooooooooooooooooold!

I won't be surprised if we pull back to exponential support at $50, nor will I be surprised if we bum-rush $100 in a few days.

Because if we're now reaching the millionaires' club, we're going to have to shift up to a new exponent at some point. A steeper slope on the log-scale chart.

If so we may see many more endorsements (and massive buy-in) over the next few days, followed by a tidal wave once Coinlab opens.

We are already floating well above the Exponential Growth Trendline of 2013. People called me an insane permabull for predicting that trendline would continue. Now I don't even know what to think. I guess I won't be surprised if we revert to the trendline, but really...this is Bitcoin, anything could happen. We could possibly go over $100 this week, instead of at the end of next month as the trendline predicts.

+1

Please elaborate. If the CIA actually started to depend on Bitcoin for some of its functions, that would pretty much ensure Bitcoin is here to stay. It would change the picture completely.

Reminded me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9L7UUp0FxY

The news has 6 confirmations on Twitter, so that's good enough for me. He seems to like it because he's into technology, he thinks Bitcoin has a low carbon footprint, and he's apparently studied up on it quite a bit.

Shall we twitterbot him some BTC?

It looks like  Al Gore just endorsed Bitcoin


"I'm a big fan of BitCoin"

"Regulation of money supply needs to be depoliticized.... especially as it applies to virtual currencies"

Walk into MtGox HQ, whip it out and thrust forward while announcing, "IM ALL IN!!!"

Erik Voorhees for the TED talk. He's always on point, and seems good at PR as well.

Moldbug is just a pot-stirrer. He is good at what he does. Don't give him any more attention.

"Network currency" is good.

However, I'm thinking the most favorable angle to take is to call it an "emergent Internet commodity" or "network commodity." That might keep regulators more bamboozled for longer.

I am not a lawyer, but I'm very skeptical of Murck's interpretation that simply selling BTC for cash makes one a money transmitter. I think this is just a case of the drafters of the guidance neglecting to re-specify every single term all the way through, because although at one point it says any person who sells for cash is a money transmitter, before that it defines money transmitter as a sub-type of "exchanger" or "administrator," which are previously very clearly defined as persons operating as a business. It is my impression that, in law, definitions of terms are paramount, and what seems crystal clear here is that no one can fit the definition of "money transmitter" unless they are doing so as a business (this would also make sense).

Probably they didn't anticipate that investors in virtual currencies exist, so there's no named slot for them. However, the very fact that "exchangers" and "money transmitters" are given a label suggests quite logically that they have actual customers (buyers and sellers of virtual currencies for real ones, and vice versa). By the lack of mention of the customers of these businesses, and by common sense, it seems in my layman's view that these customers are exempt from these requirements.

Money transmitters and exchangers have to be transmitting and exchanging for someone, and presumably that someone does not himself qualify as a money transmitter or exchanger. It's disconcerting that the Bitcoin Foundation would post what looks to be an alarmist interpretation. More money for the Foundation, I guess.

Wow, great job! Makes me wish I had hacker skillz.

Someone oughta make a graph of the growth of this thread vs. BTC price, and vs. volatility.