You can make real profit by letting Bitcoin grow and not by speculating against it... speculators are motherf...... Destroy everything on this world Speculators tend to buy low and sell high, which stabilizes the price. Unless they're very stupid and panic-prone or very smart and know how to manipulate the price to cause artificial instability that works in their favor.  The stupid and panic-prone quickly get weeded out. The manipulators can only jink with the market while it's tiny. |
|
|
|
|
I think OP's point is to make fun of the term "crash" being used. Many people calling normal tiny fluctuation (logarithmically speaking) in the prise rise "crashes".
|
|
|
|
|
The high is a huge emotional pain point for many early adopters. We could see some serious pullbacks each time the battering ram swings toward $32, but the more heaves and hoes we see, the greater the gush of euphoria is going to be once we bust through that psychological wall.
Long term (over the next few weeks/months) it should all even out as we continue the organic exponential growth path of 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon some people who have held agonizingly since the 2011 bubble are finally selling now that they are about to be "redeemed."
|
|
|
|
We run a shopping cart software as a service ( http://www.foxycart.com) who's primary focus is serving developers. The Bitcoin community seems to have a lot of developers. We're hoping, if we do support it on our platform, it could create some buzz, drive some traffic and actually get people using Bitcoins for every day commerce. We're not in the 10's of thousands of stores (yet), but we do have more than a couple thousand using our system and, according to these guys, we're #8 out of 177 this month for fastest growing ecommerce technologies: http://trends.builtwith.com/shop/growthIf we can help move the needle a little bit and get every-day merchants thinking about Bitcoin, that's a win for everyone. So please keep an eye out for us and give us some love if we do launch Bitcoin support. Our first tiptoe in the water may involve bitpay support and who knows about the future. Wonderful! Let us know if you have any questions about anything at all. |
|
|
|
I was wondering who'd be the first to notice my little gimmick  Note: I assigned the prediction 20% confidence, meaning I have 80% confidence the price won't appreciate this rapidly - not very exuberant. It's just an interesting reference prediction to compare the actual results with to keep us sane if the price goes up even faster (probably that'd be a bubble), and if it conforms to the prediction people will freak out less than if I hadn't made this post. I mostly just don't want to hear cries of "bubble" constantly as we climb what could be a gigantic wall of worry at what could be a breakneck, brain-destroying pace. |
|
|
|
|
No hard fork will be introduced unless it's clear who will win. It's extremely unlikely that we'd come to a point where anything close enough to an exact split would happen. As long as there's even a 60-40 majority, once the fork happens most people would abandon the smaller fork, though it might live on as a tiny alt-coin (even if that alt-coin is technically the original protocol).
The holdouts would call the losing fork the "true Bitcoin" and have some other name for the majority fork, and the rest of the world would carry on as if nothing, after a few hickups and probably a medium-term price crash while people learned to stop thinking in terms of "Bitcoin" but instead in terms of "the de facto standard currency protocol of the internet."
|
|
|
|
|
Simple extrapolation of the very steady exponential growth trend since January.
That also means we pass $50 by late March.
|
|
|
|
|
100's the new 1.
Cents are the new coins.
|
|
|
|
I've wrote on my blog about various economic forces behind block size limit. Here's the most important part: If the miners hit the block limit, it would only mean one thing: there is a desire to process more transactions, but historical untested agreement does not allow it. Then miners will either raise the limit (the smaller the increment, the bigger support it will have), or transaction fees will go up as people compete for the space in blocks. As transaction fees go up, not only miners, but also regular users and service companies using the full blockchain would desire to raise the limit. So it will be easier to make a consensus as demand grows. My prediction is that the block size limit will probably never be abolished, but will be constantly pushed up by a factor of two as amount of transactions approaches the limit. Maybe after a couple of updates, people would decide that it’s safe to abolish the limit completely if it is cheaper to account for it, than to have uncertainty of a hard fork. Other concerns are addressed in the full post: http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43677417318/economics-of-block-size-limitI did not go deep into analyzing complex schemes like adjustable size limit. Please feel free correct me where I am wrong. Finally, common sense. Static thinking and imagining people are robots who won't change their behavior dynamically in response to change is rife, maybe because coders are not used to incorporating human action into their considerations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGKkV-WoYg |
|
|
|
|
You say "we," but to be more accurate it depends on when each person bought in and how much they invested. If at $32, relief. If half their net worth at $2, euphoria. If at $25, optimism.
I think many people will answer where their own emotion cycle is at, but the more relevant question for investors is where the general public is at in the cycle. Yet the catch is, the general public has not really been exposed to Bitcoin yet. This is wild west territory as far as pricing, and anything is possible, though not as wild as it used to be, and it does seem the price has settled into a nice exponential growth curve for now.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is a poll on how well people parse double-negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good workaround.
|
|
|
|
|
It's really inverse defenestration, because it doesn't involve throwing things out of windows but throwing Windows out of things.
|
|
|
|
|
For clarification, what happens if a single high-bandwidth miner were to actually start creating huge blocks that push out half the other miners. What would be the reaction? Is there really nothing the cut-off half could do? And even if they could do nothing, why would the surviving half go along with this, knowing that this spirals inevitably higher, leaving them out?
This is another apparent contradiction: if the scenario in the OP is really a problem, why would even the upper-tier miners go along with unreasonable blocksize inflation, knowing half of them could be next to fall? It seems we must look not only at the incentives of the highest-bandwidth miners, but those of all miners - or at least the top 50% whose cooperation they apparently need.
The other miners aren't robots; they can anticipate such a problem just like retep did, and take pains to ensure it does not happen. They could ostracize pools that allow unreasonable blocksizes, etc. It feels like the dynamic human factor is being ignored.
|
|
|
|
No, because the hard limit is a hard limit on how large of a "little guy" they could push out, and that limit is, basically, guys so frikkin tiny that pushing them out gains so little the effect is lost in the noise of more not quite that extremely tiny guys coming online all the time.
Basically you can't kick out the little guy, given the current hard limit; you can only kick out the trivially tiny guy who isn't even worth the trouble of kicking out.
OK, that makes sense. I withdraw the argument. |
|
|
|
Either way, the incentives are to create blocks so large that they only reliably propagate to a bit over 50% of the hashing power, *not* 100%
Anticipating what humans would be motivated to do in dynamic situations involving other humans is notoriously difficult. If there is already a soft limit in place below the hard one, yet we do not have miners padding their blocks to shut out the little guys, doesn't that immediately call the existence of this incentive into question? And if the reason no one does this is because the soft limit is so effective, doesn't that then suggest that hard limits are unnecessary? Either "the incentives are to create blocks so large that they only reliably propagate to a bit over 50% of the hashing power," or they are not. At least prima facie, it looks like you're trying to argue both halves of a contradiction. |
|
|
|
^ +1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
