Excuse me, but Frankfurt is one of the most boring, dull and ugly cities in Europe. Why Frankfurt? I can propose many better locations, for example if you want to do it in Germany - why not Berlin? Party never ends in Berlin  |
|
|
|
Not that it matters, but to be clear, I am a Critical Marxist.
Which means I don't play fair.
Taking into account that, among other many things, the very meaning of the world capitalism (=private ownership of means of production) was defined by Marx in "The Capital", its simply a shame that almost nobody under 50 has read that work. You really cannot understand the history of the last 200 years without having read it. I have read it. And Marxism, and Capitalism have moved on. So... You are a capitalist marxist? Wow, that would be a nice evolution indeed In the best tradition of Milton Friedman. The grand architect of modern central planning. Wow, I could write 10 posts about this, but lets respect the other folks as this is heavily OT. We should start a thread perhaps. Let me just tell you that Marx would probably profoundly despise Friedman (and all New Keynesianism, BTW) if he'd be alive. You just cannot believe in a "better" or "heathy" capitalism if you think Marx's analysis is correct. And its a matter of fact that nobody did such a big favor to capitalism as New Keynesianists like Friedman. Back on topic: I really cannot see where the market is going ATM. Until Gox solves his problems, the spread between exchanges goes back to normal, and people can normally receive their fiat, any kind of technical analysis is just pointless IMO. |
|
|
|
Just a small summary of where we are standing at: - the highest BID is 0.02BTC (1BTC = 50MS)
- the lowest ASK is 0.05BTC (1BTC = 20MS)
Big spread, let's see where supply and demand meet |
|
|
|
Not that it matters, but to be clear, I am a Critical Marxist.
Which means I don't play fair.
Taking into account that, among other many things, the very meaning of the world capitalism (=private ownership of means of production) was defined by Marx in "The Capital", its simply a shame that almost nobody under 50 has read that work. You really cannot understand the history of the last 200 years without having read it. I have read it. And Marxism, and Capitalism have moved on. So... You are a capitalist marxist? Wow, that would be a nice evolution indeed |
|
|
|
Not that it matters, but to be clear, I am a Critical Marxist.
Which means I don't play fair.
Taking into account that, among other many things, the very meaning of the world capitalism (=private ownership of means of production) was defined by Marx in "The Capital", its simply a shame that almost nobody under 50 has read that work. You really cannot understand the history of the last 200 years without having read it. |
|
|
|
Nah. Bitcoin is too Communist for eBay.
Tell that to the libertarians here It seems very capitalistic to me. As with any other currency, there's a small number of people with huge stashes ruining things for everyone else, such as by dirty tricks like dumping about 25000BTC onto a rising market last night, and manipulating the price with huge ask/bid walls. Its not communist or capitalist - its just a currency. It is for sure a demon for Keynesianists, which usually label themselves as "left wing economists", as the ability to inflate the currency is a must for the Keynesianist "stimulus strategy" in crisis times, which is a central point of Keynesianism. That said, a communist government would never accept a national currency they cannot fully control - on the contrary, libertarian capitalists or more generially austrian echonomy followers would embrace it with joy. Anyhow, I can see anarchists/communists/anti-capitalists supporting Bitcoin just because is a "bank killer", and right now the financial elites are the ones ruling the world, so we could say that Bitcoin could turn upside down the current status quo, which might be a desiderable intermediate step for communists/anarchists/anti-capitalists in general. Bitcoin would never been the end goal for anti-capitalists, but it could be a first step to radically change the power balances in the world. Who owns Bitcoin? It is Anarcho Syndicalist. Communism simply means that workers control the means of production, instead of a State (Nationalism), or rentiers (Capitalism). Communism isn't a dirty word. Get over it. And Keynsian economics just means that you have a bigger toolbox, it does not preclude other economic systems. Sorry, but no. Anarcho-syndicalism = workers control the means of production. You work in a factory - you control directly the production process, you participate directly in the decision making and you OWN the fruit of your labour. Communism = social ownership of means of production. It might seem similar, but its not at all - as a worker you do not "own" the means of production nor the fruits of your labour in a communist system, the "society" does, which basically means that the State owns them. That's why Bakunin said communism was going to be "the biggest lie of the Century", and it even said communism was just a form of "state capitalism", as the worker did not control the means of production nor the fruit of his labour. An exception would be Pannekoek's council communism, which was totally opposed to russian bolshevism, and was in many ways much closer to Kropotkin's anarcho-communism. And again: Bitcoin is just a currency, and it has no political sign - but saying is "anarcho-syndicalist" is simply wrong. Most of original anarchists (or "left" anarchists, as some would say, especially in the US) wouldn't even use money as we know it (an exception would be Proudhon's mutualism), in fact during the most relevant anarcho-syndicalist experience in history (Aragón, Spain: 1930-1938) the "Peseta" of the Spanish Republica was not used at all. They had no currency nor legal tender, they just seldomly issued their own "money" which were just vouchers or IOU's with very specific uses. Fascinating experience BTW, it was a pity that both the spanish fascists and the KPSS (Russian communists) joined forced to crush what could have been one of the most relevant and game-changing revolutions in Europe's history. Sorry of the OT, folks. You can find those definitions variously applied by your choice of authority. It does not detract from my point, which is that eBay has no intention of empowering any sort of democratic, actually PtoP, technology without the ability to insert their very heavy hand. Their recent activity with Mailpile is just one indication of this. My choice of authorities regarding anarchism and communism are Marx, Engels, Pannaekok, Trotsky, Lenin, Gramsci, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Diego Abad de Santillana and a long etcetera, and they all agree on the definitions. Oh, and they also agree on being anti-capitalists... And finally, they also agree that for a total liberation money needs to cease to exist. For bolshevics, that would happen in the "final" stage of the revolution (anarchy or libertarian communism). For anarchists, from the very first moment. That's why stating that a currency (BTC) is "communist" or "anarcho-syndicalist" (which BTW is just a strategy to reach anarcho-collectivism) is quite strange. |
|
|
|
Nah. Bitcoin is too Communist for eBay.
Tell that to the libertarians here It seems very capitalistic to me. As with any other currency, there's a small number of people with huge stashes ruining things for everyone else, such as by dirty tricks like dumping about 25000BTC onto a rising market last night, and manipulating the price with huge ask/bid walls. Its not communist or capitalist - its just a currency. It is for sure a demon for Keynesianists, which usually label themselves as "left wing economists", as the ability to inflate the currency is a must for the Keynesianist "stimulus strategy" in crisis times, which is a central point of Keynesianism. That said, a communist government would never accept a national currency they cannot fully control - on the contrary, libertarian capitalists or more generially austrian echonomy followers would embrace it with joy. Anyhow, I can see anarchists/communists/anti-capitalists supporting Bitcoin just because is a "bank killer", and right now the financial elites are the ones ruling the world, so we could say that Bitcoin could turn upside down the current status quo, which might be a desiderable intermediate step for communists/anarchists/anti-capitalists in general. Bitcoin would never been the end goal for anti-capitalists, but it could be a first step to radically change the power balances in the world. Who owns Bitcoin? It is Anarcho Syndicalist. Communism simply means that workers control the means of production, instead of a State (Nationalism), or rentiers (Capitalism). Communism isn't a dirty word. Get over it. And Keynsian economics just means that you have a bigger toolbox, it does not preclude other economic systems. Sorry, but no. Anarcho-syndicalism = workers control the means of production. You work in a factory - you control directly the production process, you participate directly in the decision making and you OWN the fruit of your labour. Communism = social ownership of means of production. It might seem similar, but its not at all - as a worker you do not "own" the means of production nor the fruits of your labour in a communist system, the "society" does, which basically means that the State owns them. That's why Bakunin said communism was going to be "the biggest lie of the Century", and it even said communism was just a form of "state capitalism", as the worker did not control the means of production nor the fruit of his labour. An exception would be Pannekoek's council communism, which was totally opposed to russian bolshevism, and was in many ways much closer to Kropotkin's and Bakunnin's anarcho-communism. And again: Bitcoin is just a currency, and it has no political sign - but saying is "anarcho-syndicalist" is simply wrong. Most of original anarchists (or "left" anarchists, as some would say, especially in the US) wouldn't even use money as we know it (an exception would be Proudhon's mutualism), in fact during the most relevant anarcho-syndicalist experience in history (Aragón, Spain: 1930-1938) the "Peseta" of the Spanish Republica was not used at all. They had no currency nor legal tender, they just seldomly issued their own "money" which were just vouchers or IOU's with very specific uses. And BTW: anarcho-syndicalism is just a WAY or STRATEGY to reach "anarchy", or "anarcho-communism" or "libertarian communism", as many US folks like to name them to distinguish them from their very own, ill-named "anarcho-capitalism") Fascinating experience BTW (the one in Aragón), it was a pity that both the spanish fascists and the KPSS (Russian communists) joined forced to crush what could have been one of the most relevant and game-changing revolutions in Europe's history. Sorry of the OT, folks. |
|
|
|
Absolutely right about fees and slippage being inversely proportional. In fact I'd consider for a backtest between 0.2% and 0.3% fee (which is still CRAZY high by the way) but a much higher slippage (+1%). Seriously, market depth at Gox (lets leave alone Bitstamp) is usually a joke, I have had 3% slippage (!!!) in the past by selling something like 500 BTC which is a modest amount for a professional trader. That was quite an extreme situation, but nevertheless +1% slippage is completely normal with medium volume. And that's a lot when trading hourly EMA crossings.
Your only choice to avoid slippage is to either a) place a limit order, which is obviously totally ineffective when trading EMA crossings; or b) waiting for a bid wall big enough to sell into it, which is again out of the question if your strategy is to systematically trade EMA crossings.
Well, I use a crossover strategy like that (not really, but sort of, let's say) and I do place limit orders. In fact, the order placing is the one part where intuition really comes into play with this: waiting for a wall to appear (but obviously not too long), waiting for a mini-retracement of the price to buy/sell into, things like that. I don't have quite the volume you mention, but not that far from it, and I actually trade on bitstamp. Note also that, at least on bitstamp, slippage when selling can be even higher than your example, but when buying, it's near zero on that exchange  On average then, it's not that bad. Hourly EMA crossings are not an option for me either, at least not with the usual parameters. What I do is look at recent history, decide after the fact which swings I would have liked to trade, and adjust my parameters accordingly. It usually runs down to 2 to 3 trades per month, depending on volatility. I guess I see your point: mechanically following an EMA strategy that is also fast is not an option. I agree. But there are a) slower methods based on averages that can be traded pretty much mechanically, and b) you can take the average based method signal as your main input, and then make the final decision based on additional indicators/methods, and then execute the trade with a bit of craftsmanship. The latter is what I do, and I'm doing much better now than when I traded purely intuitively when I arrived here. When I'm daytrading I also consider EMA crossings, but my point is that doing it systematically (which is the whole point of using a system  ) is much inferior to b&h, and in fact is unprofitable many (if not most of) times. Some of Goombo's posts suggests the opposite, but then he admits he is not following his own system I think this is your course of action: you check the EMAs and use that info to decide whether to trade or not, but you factor other elements (market depth, sentiment, overbought/oversold indicators, money flow, etc. etc. etc.). Plus, you place limit orders (as I do 99% of the times), so you probably miss quite a lot trades because the order is not met after the cross signal was triggered. During a down/up move, a wall as small as 500BTC in the opposite direction of the trend will be probably eaten just a little, if at all. Breaking it in smaller walls spreaded on a bigger price range is also not very effective when the price is going in the opposite direction . At the end of the day, that's very time consuming and pretty much like gambling, there are a lot of factors to consider, and it is in no way the cold, systematic, robot-like approach Goombo seems to suggest in his thread. Following my experience, the time consumed in analyzing all the different indicators to daytrade (should I wait for a bid wall to raise so I can sell into it? are we overbought? how close are we from the 50/100/whatever day EMA? etc. etc. etc.) is usually not worth it. This is not Forex, the market is so small that a single whale buy/dump invalidates all the technical analysis you did by taking the price many points up or down, regardless of what technicals were saying. I've personally increased my BTC "trading funds" by aprox. 50% in the last months, but honestly I invested too much time on daytrading, and I was able to have that result just because it was too obvious that the price was going down after a bubble pop. Before the April, 10th crash I just held, and I think it was a good choice. I'm now giving a try to arbitrage (waiting +10 days for a SEPA transfer coming from Gox), but my "daytrading" time is finished for now. I increased my coins during an obvious opportunity (post-bubble crash), now in my opinion is time to hold again (at least for me, taken into consideration my average entry point is in the $10-20 range). I'm not saying price won't go sub $100 again (I think $100 will be tested again sooner or later), just that for me its not time any more to risk coins by daytrading unless some other obvious situation happens. |
|
|
|
|
The mike from ebay guy is heavily involved in Paypal too, just Google his full name.
I still cannot believe they are seriously considering integrating BTC, that would be like AT&T selling phones with an open source version of Skype pre-installed in order "to be ahead of the curve".
It just does not make sense for Paypal/Ebay. On the other hand a Paypal proprietary crypto would make much more sense.
|
|
|
|
I got burned too last night (was on a date and couldn't really respond to alerts, watched in horror as price plummeted on my iphone notification centre while kissing this girl at a bar, my hands were full and I wanted to do a market sell at 138. Lost a few hundred dollars in that respect and dropped an extra hundred on this date so last night was an expensive one for me but worth it You lost because only stone age types of orders are available at MtGox. Had you been able to put a stop loss, your trade wouldn't have turned out a mess. Stop loss? WTF? There are no stop losses when you trade Magic The Gathering cards. What did you think this was - forex? |
|
|
|
Just a very quick reply: a) I edited my post to make more clear that I do think b&h is a good strategy for most investors, especially those who are not interested in putting in a lot of effort, but even for them, using some TA to determine the entry point for b&h is IMO extremely useful.
b) fees and slippage was the starting point of my little test series: Most people in the goomboo thread set trading cost to 0.4%. I started from the assumption that those costs were too low,. I decided on a fixed cost of 1%, estimating 0.5% fees and 0.5% slippage, per trade(*) -- I'm sure you will agree that's pretty costly, and greatly favors b&h which has zero costs.
(*) fees and slippage are inverseley proportional, I'm sure you agree: higher volume means lowers fees, on all exchanges I know, but more slippage, and vice versa.
Absolutely right about fees and slippage being inversely proportional. In fact I'd consider for a backtest between 0.2% and 0.3% fee (which is still CRAZY high by the way) but a much higher slippage (+1%). Seriously, market depth at Gox (lets leave alone Bitstamp) is usually a joke, I have had 3% slippage (!!!) in the past by selling something like 500 BTC which is a modest amount for a professional trader. That was quite an extreme situation, but nevertheless +1% slippage is completely normal with medium volume. And that's a lot when trading hourly EMA crossings. Your only choice to avoid slippage is to either a) place a limit order, which is obviously totally ineffective when trading EMA crossings; or b) waiting for a bid wall big enough to sell into it, which is again out of the question if your strategy is to systematically trade EMA crossings. |
|
|
|
|
I sell 100 Mastercoins for 6 BTC (0.06 BTC per Mastercoin)
|
|
|
|
When I got the voicemail that was my first concern. I assumed this was a follow up to the locking oft PayPal account and funds being held. I called my friend who introduced me to PayPal in late 2011. I told him that I didn't know if I felt comfortable with making a call like this to discuss a matter that had been settled. He said a call wouldn't hurt.
When I called back Mike was very nice. He stated that I have sold a lot of Bitcoin on eBay and wanted to know my experience with it and was it positive. I told him that it was a very good experience up until the PayPal incident. I let him know that I thought eBay was one of the quickest and easiest methods for people to acquire bitcoin because they already have accounts and funds attached so purchasing was easy an instant and most people don't want to wait when they want something. We laughed about living in a world where everything has to be "right now". He mentioned that they were considering policy changes to allow it to be sold but he stated that "we can't ask our user to register with Fincen" I agreed its too costly. We then discussed that campbx only makes you register your KYC and AML info if it is above $1,000 per day per person so maybe there is a level of sales they could permit without being a MSB? He said that was a good question and believes it may be a $1,000 threshold. Then we spoke about PayPal already being a MSB so when I sell something to someone abroad and they pay in Euros I don't receive Euros I receive USD so why couldn't PayPal convert the currency a user paid with to BTC and transfer me BTC for BTC? If I sold a bitcoin/Casascius coin for $200 and BTC was $100 at the time of payment they convert it and send me 2BTC instead of USD. Or instead of making that complicated since the payment was being made to PayPal who is a MSB and then transferred to me wouldn't that mean only Paypal had to be the MSB? We spoke a little more about it and he said they are just trying to wrap themselves around it and stay out front.
Like I said I would love to have any hero member call today and verify it to be a truthful conversation. It's pretty simple call him up and say "My acquaintance Adam Graham said that you reached out to him regarding Bitcoin and possibly allowing some use of it on eBay and PayPal and he suggested I give you a call, he felt I would be better equipped to handle some of your questions regarding it as I have been involved with bitcoin for quite sometime" and see where the conversation goes.
I think we will see a policy update in the near future allowing virtual currency sales in small amounts that don't violate Fincen guidelines and possibly BTC integrated into the PayPal system. BTC could easily be integrated into PayPal because you would still need a physical currency funding source attached to your account and if a claim was filed against you and they paid you $200 USD worth of BTC at the time of sale they would simply take $200 USD out of your fiat account. It's not that difficult if you think about it. User pays $200 USD PayPal sends $200 BTC, user files claim and wins, PayPal deducts $200 from your fiat account.
So who is going to call and verify I am telling the truth that I received a call regarding this?
Michael Carson's duties at Ebay (taken from his Linkedin profile): - Responsible for developing and implementing policies to effectively manage regulatory, industry and brand risks.
- Interface with third parties, including government officials, law enforcement, trade groups and individual companies. Sweet |
|
|
|
Chances are that Bitcoin will grow exponentially in the years to come - that's the trend, and fixed allocation will cost you a lot of coins on the way up. Would you care to backtest the fixed allocation strategy since Gox opened trading in 2010 till today, and compare it with buy&hold?
"Invest in BTC as much money as you could comfortably lose" is the best simple advice you could have given to anyone in the last years, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. Obviously this is a volatile market and I do think we will test again $100 sooner than later, so Id recommend buying gradually, but the end goal in my book is to accumulate as much coins as possible - fixed allocation kills that purpose.
For the faint of heart, day trading is just a very expensive gambling, not only because the market is very small and thus volatility wild and unpredictable, but also because of huge fees and slippage.
As the most simple strategy, b&h is probably not bad advice for newcomers, but I would still advise against it, for two reasons: (1) a realistic estimation will see the number of new investors correlate with price and volume, i.e. more new people entered the market in April than now, for example. Agreed so far? The newcomers who bought in close to the April peak are still sitting on a loss -- even though they will turn a profit the long run in all likelihood. I suspect however that quite a few of them left the market again in frustration. My conclusion: I can only see benefits from teaching newcomers a modicum of TA to determine if conditions are severely overbought and about to correct, and if price is extremely volatile and it would be better to wait before buying in. Using very "conservative" tools, a new market participant whose money arrived on the exchange in April should have probably waited until early May, then bought in at a reasonable 100 to 120 USD, compared to buying in immediately at 160 to 200, or even more in the worst cases. tl;dr assuming bitcoin continues its growth path, it ultimately doesn't matter at which price you buy in, but for very understandable human reasons, it actually matters a lot. Some TA can help with that. (2) Buy and hold is outperformed by several parameter combinations of a simple average crossover strategy -- I backtested this myself. There is reasonable doubt about this of course: the parameters were optimized on the trading period itself, which is problematic. I have a long post saved that I'll post in goomboo's thread at some point, where I backtest several parameter combinations that outperform b&h under a more realistic methodology. What I'm trying to say is: I'm pretty sure that careful use of relatively simple (and testable) TA methods will allow some people to outperform b&h reliably. Not everyone perhaps, as it requires a bit of patience and willingness to get technical -- if you simply try to apply a recipe, you're probably going to lose. Thanks for your interesting (as usual) insight, just a question: did you factor a) slippage and b) trading fees in your backtests? What kind of trading volume did you consider in your backtests? Following my experience Goombo's strategy is inferior to b&h when taking into consideration slippage and fees, especially if you have a medium/high volume per trade as the slippage is HUGE as soon as you sell/buy a few hundred coins. In fact, Goombo's backtests are for hourly 10/21 EMA crossings, but then he admits that he does not trade on that timeframe - he trades weekly or daily at most, precisely because he has to hand-pick very seldom which "cross signals" to trade, as otherwise slippage and fees will eat all his profit. In my opinion that kills his system's purpose. At the end of the day, he writes a lot about emotionless trading based on EMA crossings, but he admits he is not using a bot (the only way to be 100% emotionless) because it would be unprofitable (again: fees and slippage + a lot of false signals), so he has to "hand pick" daily or weekly when to trade. In fact, he never specified what "strategy" he follows to choose which crossing to trade and which not, which leads me to think that his choices are not based on a precise system as it looks like and are somewhat arbitrarily chosen taking into consideration diverse factors... At the end of the day he is making an "informed gamble" as all the others TA daytraders do. |
|
|
|
I thought the secret code/QR code would recover any "lost" google auth issues.
So as long as I have a backup of the QR code used to generate a working Google Authenticator token... it really doesn't matter what Google does, I can always get some copy of Authenticator from somewhere at some time and I can simply rescan and log in to Bitstamp or Mt. Gox, or whatever... Is this a correct assessment? Yes it is. In fact you should have a paper backup (just print the QR code) of ALL your Google Auth tokens. I guess I should have a Post-It note with all my passwords pasted to my monitor too. What will you do in case you lose your phone? A paper backup for the Google Auth tokens is mandatory - you obviously do not stick it to your monitor, you store it in a secure place. If you are extra paranoid, you store it GPG-encrypted. our phone can get lost, it can brick because of a failed update, etc. - Using Google Auth without a backup of the security token is plain and simply retarded. Your phone can get lost, it can brick because of a failed update, etc. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, so here's the latest update so far... Contacting and getting a hold of Ragin has been touch and go, at best. I literally call him 45-50 times and text him 65-70 times a day, most of the times with no response from his end. When I finally do get a hold of him, it's sporadic at best. Basically it's only once every few days. He's not very stable at the moment. A few of you have pledged 10% of your refunds to me and I appreciate that greatly. That has really inspired me to work overtime for you guys. I'm spending several hours a day working on this, between trying to contact Ragin, updating everybody's refund info and following this thread and writing back to people. The silver lining in all this is that I'm coming very close to a full resolution in this entire debacle. Thank you to all those that are sending me PMs, all your info has been entered in the Official Refund List. I'm posting it here so that it can be peer reviewed, please let me know if I missed any details: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag33NSOc15F-dGhlVGltbmZWSDBMTjR1SXRBS2dqb1E&usp=sharingI'm driving down from Boston on Friday to meet Thomas at his house, we're gonna have a long chat. That'll hopefully bring this fiasco to an end. I will be pressing hard for a full refund for everybody. Will post the results of our discussion here. I am fighting for us all. No keyboard warrior here. This sounds like a joke or a stall attempt. Let's get the facts clear: - when were the orders paid? - did the OP sold the coins on August, 20th and cashed in a 20% profit? |
|
|
|
Pictures are hosted on edccdn.com, a private host by some guy. Notice how this isn't linked to the deal.ebay.com/blog site anywhere. My best guess is it's a rouge admin. This blog post is completely embedded as an iframe: http://edccdn.com/bitcoin/Thanks, that makes it even more fishy. To the guy responsible for this, (I'm pretty sure he read this): You dun' goofed. Yep, "consequences will never be the same" LOL |
|
|
|
|
I've had this problem, but only if my laptop runs out of power and shut offs without going to "sleep". If I correctly close Bitcoin-QT and I wait for it to close completely there is no issue in my case.
|
|
|
|
|
@RationalSpeculator: I have the impression you might not like the "buy&hold" strategy because you want to make a lot of money with Bitcoin, and you believe that by investing "only what you can afford to lose" you won't radically change your life, because the amount you can afford to lose is too small. Thus, you throw to BTC money you can't comfortably risk to lose, and that's why you embrace an historically losing strategy as fixed allocation.
Honest question: I am a getting close? I would appreciate an honest reply.
My opinion on the above, is that your "fixed allocation" strategy is driven by greed at the end of the day - you want to make a lot of money ASAP, thus you throw at BTC a too high % of your total wealth. You want to make a lot, so you invest more that you can lose, thus you need to mitigate the risks with your strategy.
Let me tell you that IMO the above would be an emotion-driven decision, and thus a huge mistake.
You speak about $1,000 like being a remarkable milestone - let me tell you that it's very short sighted. You seem like a thoughtful guy, so I'm sure you have analyzed the forums. Didn't you read what people said about $10 in 2010? It seemed completely crazy. And $100 in 2012? Only some permabulls (like Adam) wrote that $100 would have happened in 2013, and they were laughed at.
$1,000 its around the corner. If the Winklevils ETF is accepted, you will see 5 figures per BTC before you can even blink your eye. You know the very characteristics of BTC, its unique properties, the real problems it solves... And that there will only ever be 21 millions, right?
Just lurk the forums: in 2011, a lots of guys with thousands of BTC cashed out for good during the bubble inflation/deflation. They posted about how they bought a nice house, how they made a killing... But now in 2013 we know they did a mistake. They made a few hundred of k's denominated in fiat - now they would be millionaires, probably "all set for life". But yeah, hindsight is 20/20 - in 2011 nobody really knew if BTC was going to fully recover from the bubble pop, the sentiment after the crash was nefarious, the beating on the media continuos and the "this is a ponzi" crowd might had a point.
In 2013, there is no excuse. You know how the market performed in the past, you know what's the historical BTC trend, you know that the ones who held on their coins bought or mined sub-dollar are the ones winning big time.
Do you think BTC is just another commodity? Or on the opposite you think there is much more in BTC, that is a revolutionary tool that could profoundly change the world, an experiment that will probably just skyrocket or go bust? If you believe the latter, there's no better advice than "invest all the money you can comfortably lose". And if you are a trader, trade to increase your BTC stash and forget about short-sighted fiat profits, because you will probably regret it in the future - as all those who "secured profits" in 2011 are doing now.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
