Because of the various and specialized senses of the term "value" I think it is helpfully clarifying to say instead that you consider btc to be overbought in the near term. In this way I hope to avoid confusion between distinct concepts with differing relationships to price.
Regarding a 1.000.000 usd exponential trend price in 2017, I think our intuitions are a poor guide, having been trained in radically different domains. In the past people, notably including Risto, have rationalized the possibilty of such valuations in terms of supplies and the subsumption of pre-existing value into the value of bitcoin. But what if we instead consider marginal flows, and admit the possibility that bitcoin may create novel economic value - value the magnitude of which we can not presently estimate and therefore can not rationally limit or circumscribe.
Bitcoin ETP would trade against perhaps as much as 1 mm btc of float. The market cap of a single exchange traded company may range as high as 1 tn usd. Btc represents not just a single company but an entire economy. 1 marginal dollar of moneyflow can easily move price enough to result in 10 additional dollars of market cap. If ETPs on 1 mm float were to attract 1 tn in investor funds ( and there exist single investors each capable of investing about that much, such as Norway and PIMCO), which resulted in a market cap float of 10 tn, then each bitcoin would be trading for 10 mm usd.
The scenario is perhaps unlikely, but it is entirely conceivable and I know of no credible or principled way to rule it out. I could rationalize an additional factor of 10 if pressed -- after all, you can never have too much overkill.
If btc is replaced by another crypto, whatever value would have accrued in btc will just accrue in newcoin instead - even more , in as much as newcoin will only be able to displace btc by offering an order of magnitude improvement in utility.
I don't see why bitcoin would absorb the whole value of the economy "it" supports in its market cap. The main reason that I see is altcoins like AnonyMint mentions. The situation is that the infrastructure that is being built around bitcoin requires very little update to start accepting an altcoin. I don't think an altcoin would offer an order of magnitude improvement over bitcoin (unless AnonyMint convinces me otherwise), but it might offer some forms of specialisations and localisations that we probably didn't think about yet. When the regulations are made thanks to bitcoin opening the way, the path will be wide open for all kinds of entities to launch their own crypto-currency. Local or national governments, big companies, and many other big and small entities. Let's give an exemple : reward points from retail chains. Instead of giving reward points, why not to give some units of that new WallMart crypto currency ? You can then use it to pay your future purchases - or trade it on an exchange that accepts WallMart crypto. Now if WallMart can create a crypto-currency with its own branding and specificities that are aiming at improving the shopping experience of its customers, why would it use bitcoin instead of its own ? I just don't see the logic there. It is likely that the services and infrastructure that are now being built around bitcoin, will end up accepting all crypto-currencies once there is an exchange that does and that can link to that service/infrastructure. Updating them for that will be trivial. If an entity is able to draw a crowd to use its own crypto, giving value to its own crypto, that crypto will be traded against bitcoin and then what is the incentive of an entity who has such capacity to choose bitcoin ? Someone please explain. It doesn't mean that bitcoin would be dropped and die, it could stay at the top and remain the main unit of exchange of the whole crypto world. Or not. |
|
|
|
[Anyway one has to recognise that the past exponential trend line MUST be broken sooner or later. The questions is only if it is broken this year (which I believe), the year after that, or the next. What would be the price of BTC in April 2017 if we would stay on the trend line ?  I have a logistic model of bitcoin adoption that suggests an expected price of $840,503 on July 1, 2017, if we stay on that trend line. Close enough? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2cThe probability of such price in 2017 is very low in my opinion. This model, or rather the belief that it still has predictive interest, will not hold much longer. I am a medium-term bull on bitcoin but this is way too much. I don't say it has 0 probability of happening, but even if we factor the hyperinflation risks, probability remains very low to see a market cap in the 11 trillions USD in three years, imho. |
|
|
|
What we have now is the adjustment to the reality that the adoption curve is really log-logistic as I have shown, thus rpietila's claim from his linear adoption projection chart that the price should be $900+ is likely incorrect.
My best way to convince you this is so, is to note that there is no way the universe would remove all competition to make it so easy for lazy investors to become so insanely rich. To become very wealthy requires active knowledge in developing and managing. The universe doesn't hand great sustained wealth to people who make one lucky decision. Rather (even the greatest of all time such as Jesse Livermore) speculators always end up back at 0 eventually.
Bitcoin is not going to $0 and it is going higher eventually. But the rate of price appreciation will not be "to the moon" although another speculative frenzy might make you believe that one more time (to your great demise because next time it will really crash hard because adoption will have drastically slowed and there will be other vastly superior competitors taking over the ecosystem).
Btw, I have looked into the eye of the future of crypto-currency and I have seen that Bitcoin is going to be wiped out. I have seen some new designs in the past few days that blew my mind.
You are going to be hit with an onslaught of very serious altcoins and not just my designs.
I agree with the fact that we are probably not going to continue following the exponential trendline that Risto is using as a basis for his TA. The question is : how long will we have to remain under the trendline for the recognition that, although is was a good model for the first phase of bitcoin rise, it is not for the next phase that is starting. Anyway one has to recognise that the past exponential trend line MUST be broken sooner or later. The questions is only if it is broken this year (which I believe), the year after that, or the next. What would be the price of BTC in April 2017 if we would stay on the trend line ? |
|
|
|
Just my BTC0.00000002
I wished that we could fix these decimal places.. it is too complicated to count 8-ish decimal places. For some reason, my brain starts to swim after about 4 decimal places. I agree it's very unconvenient. This is why we use separators for numbers with many digits : 9,000,000.045 - to improve readability. We should move the decimal at least 3 digits further : 2.18 BTC = 1 USD |
|
|
|
Btc is worth $10k alone on notary.. now add other use cases.. speculative is a special word here.
in theory, it has huge intrinsic value. but it needs the infrastructure, which it doesn't have right now. I cant think of a single use of bitcoin that can support a price of more than, say, $50 today. speculators exiting the market would crush that price support. All speculators exiting at the same time would require that everyone recognizes at the same time that bitcoin has no value whatsoever. Of course 50 USD would be crushed. The probability of that happening right now is close to 0. Millions of USD are being invested by angel investors in the infrastructure right now, hundreds of ATM are being planned and installed. The money is not going in the bitcoin for now but in its infrastructure. When bitcoin price is going up, it increases the relative return on capital on companies and infrastructure investment as compared to direct bitcoin investment. Which means more interesting to invest in infrastructure. As the money is going to infrastructure, it is not going in BTC anymore which is depressing the price while investments are being made in infrastructure (current situation). The last bull run has triggered massive investment decisions in the startups and infrastructure. This money is going "in" bitcoin but not affecting the BTC price. Yet. |
|
|
|
Everyone thinks we're due for a rally now and most people's reasoning includes that there has been a rally every 9 months. "It has happened 4 times, and now it will happen again", right? Well, if you look at a one week candle chart, and you look at the rsi, you will see a divergence in this last rally, indicating that the trend is over. This could be seen all the way back in December.
The price would not be 450 USD if everyone was expecting a rally... We are probably months away from a rally. Which does not mean we'll see new lows. |
|
|
|
Without anonymity we are toast.
I don't think the elites will allow the propagation and popularisation of a crypto that ruins their plans. There are many things they can do, the first of which is to allow bitcoin to take the lead. You once used the analogy of the shift from MySpace to Facebook to justify the fact that we could shift to another crypto, but Facebook has accepted allegiance to the elites and the elites have accepted Facebook in their planning. This is very clear by the way it is shutting off all pages that the mainstream don't like or that are too critical to the elites. The difference in our case is that the elites will not accept a currency that frees the people and thus the shift will never happen. If they allow bitcoin, it means that either 1. bitcoin is a creation of their master(s) and its purpose is further enslavement or 2. they found ways to use it to their own advantage. In any case the people are enslaved by the power grabbers and I think it is only wishful thinking to believe we can change this by launching some specific new crypto. Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary.
We have been hitting the peak of numerous natural resources while demographics are strongly up worldwide and consumption of land, water, rare minerals, energy resources etc... is completely unsustainable. The fact is that GDP must collapse. The elites only want to make sure that they have or create as much power as possible through and after the GDP collapse and are planning accordingly. It is unavoidable. Bitcoin either was part of or is being integrated in the planning of the elites. Actually, the elites do have the choice in front of defaults : inflation. But they probably prefer to do some rounds of confiscation first to lower the power of the wealthy outside of their ranks. |
|
|
|
Really loving all the bulls who are in such denial.  denial of ? |
|
|
|
I consistently saw negative articles while the price was being pushed down. I was searching "Bitcoin price" several times per day recently.
Then it means we have bottomed  Or it means you were really looking hard for an excuse as to why we might be reversing despite your arguments  |
|
|
|
Which bitcoin entrepreneur doesn't ? But consider the timing and the publication source. It shows up at the first listing on Google when I search for "Bitcoin price" because I am trying to find out the current price. I am given the answer that it is going to 1 million. In the past days when I did that same search, I got very negative news articles at the top. As if someone is manipulating or cycling sentiment. Maybe it is just my search foo or lack thereof. When I search "Bitcoin current price" then this is at top: http://memeburn.com/2014/04/understanding-the-value-of-bitcoin-means-finding-the-right-balance/I don't see anything special with the timing. There are optimist and pessimist articles on google news every day about bitcoin. I don't think this one was specifically put at the top of google to engineer some new bull run. |
|
|
|
Which bitcoin entrepreneur doesn't ? |
|
|
|
Allowing myself one more OT comment, simply because I participated in a discussion of this topic earlier in this thread: This is also the reason that these nutcase theories that bitcoin was invented by government to track people, is just that, a nutcase conspiracy theory. The government is cracking down on exchanges and arresting people like Charlie Shrem, that is not the behavior of someone who wants it to be widely adopted. They want to limit it. They don't want you to have it because it hurts them and benefits you.
Smearing those with whom you disagree as nutcases is deeply pernicious. At least give them the decent respect of calling them stupid. The former is defamatory and irrefutable. The latter is defamatory but refutable. Yours is a conspiracy theory beyond credibility: The idea that "the government" is the expression of some malign, monolithic will. It's a demon of imagination. The evils of government stem from other, more fundamental, sources. Sorry, but I stand by "nutcase". These people are clearly not stupid. They just have some areas of important belief, where they cannot think clearly. I don't give this label to everyone I disagree with, just the conspiracy theory folks who, no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, respond by increasing the size of the conspiracy to include that evidence. Ok, I am guilty of personifying "the government", it is a gross oversimplification. Yes, the IRS and FinCEN are separate entities who don't apparently agree on what bitcoin is. But I there is still an overall trend of the response to bitcoin, that can be attributed to "the government". (in this case the US government). Clearly the government and its agencies is too dumb to invent bitcoin. But what about the "entity" that controls the government ? Do you think that entity reveals all its plans to the government which is only one of its tools ? The government is not an expression of some malign will but its main tool. The true masters are 100% in the shadows. It is well known that most western high rank politicians are part of one or another satanist "secret society". It is obvious that straight government support would create a revolution against such system that would be seen as abusing privacy etc... The malign power above governments is smarter than that. I don't say it is behind the launch of bitcoin, I don't know. But if I wanted to launch it in an intelligent way so that people see it as good and actually choose to adopt it, I would have launched it exactly as it has been done - and not with outright initial government support. |
|
|
|
On the subject of why $500 millionaires should not buy Bitcoin and why I disagree with Risto's claim that the only thing that matters is how many BTC you own...
1. A bitcoin is not an heirloom. The chances that it will hold its value long-term are very slim. Gold is a much better heirloom.
2. The 21 million supply limit is a lie. This WILL be violated and there are numerous ways it can happen. The most likely way is Bitcoin is obviously moving towards offchain storage and services. In fact, Bitcoin can't have instant transactions without offchain fractional reserves (technically the exchange has to be fractional for it to happen instantly). Also the government could today regulate the few pools who have 51% and the few ASIC miners who have large datacenters, and produce as many coins per coinbase as they wanted. Later when the masses are all using government regulated offchain Coinbase.com and Bitpay.com, etc, then government can do what ever it wants to the mining and the masses won't care.
3. For the reason I stated in #2, the government can easily confiscate your coins by blacklisting them in the future. They can surely make you pay any tax they want. And they could simply blacklist every onchain coin that can't present a certificate of tax compliance from the G20. And worse you can't hide your onchain coin from the government control. Gold is much better for that. So the government can replace your onchain coins with offchain and give them to the masses to pay for this upcoming financial crisis. And I think that is a very likely outcome.
4. Altcoins will proliferate the # of coins in the ecosystem.
5. There are zillions of other investments in the world. The audacious claim that BTC is the only good investment in the world is unadulterated delirium or snake oil salesmanship.
6. There are many more reasons I can give, but I am growing tired of typing.... for now...
These are probably all valid points. But does it mean a 500 millionnaire should not invest anything at all in BTC ? Sure it comes with many risks, but investing at least 0.x% of their net worth should be tempting - maybe not as a very long term investment but short-medium term diversification. |
|
|
|
i think millionnaires are buying bitcoin. they just do so by other channels than public exchanges and/or if they deal with the latest, they probably paid someone to sneak in at a greater profit, which could then explain such volatility: with weak hands actually selling their coins to huge whales/funds/banks/greedymillionaires without noticing it.
There are millionnaires and millionnaires. Someone with a net worth of USD 5 million is something very different than someone with a net worth of 500 million. Whatever the channel, someone looking to invest say 10 millions would have difficulties to do it using something else than exchanges. I think there should be more websites for private deals (limits on localbitcoins are a joke, it takes too many time consuming transactions to trade amounts larger than 5-10k) Why to affect the price on exchanges when a transaction can be done directly ? I think the crash of GOX is putting lots of transactions off-exchanges which could explain lower volumes on exchanges. That would mean higher demand would take more time to impact the prices that are always based on exchanges. I also have difficulties to understand why the people controlling very large sums of fiat are not converting at least 0.5 to 1% to BTC. We also have to remember that since quite recently, lots of investment money is going to angel investment rather than bitcoin itself directly. Big investors see the possibility of getting higher returns than bitcoin in launching a successful bitcoin service. This was not the case in the first years where all money went to bitcoin only. Arguably, this is money that is invested in the network but it is not immediately creating higher bids for the BTC itself while increasing the NPV of BTC nonetheless. Still it does not explain why we don't see the big numbers pouring into BTC yet. |
|
|
|
I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future. |
|
|
|
So you all think that that is it ? we are reversing ? I am not buying it...
That was not "all" of us. Only two people. I think the chinese ban rumor is well exhausted and is getting established into the "past news" territory. I think reversal happens about here. I mean, who will sell coins below 400 ? I will be buying heavily if we get there. |
|
|
|
I am open to read any helpful response that is not lacking certain components of human communication. You, however, assume that I put up a facade for myself, you assume that I have the inability to create something of value (which I do btw almost every day after work), you assume that it's all about me getting wealthy, you insult me, you state something neither Risto nor I have said in the way you display --> you lack certain components of human communication --> communication with you seems to be unsuccessful It's a shame, because you have some good points to make, but you just spoil your wisdom. I won't respond anymor but this one time to you, because more responses would not make sense, so please feel free to disprove all of my words in your next response without me answering.
If you think Bitcoin is going to $100,000 in 6 months, then you are not calculating probabilities correctly. If you said, there is a 1% chance Bitcoin goes to $100,000 by 2017, there is no way I can disagree. If you increased it to 10% by 2017, I would quibble but I wouldn't have strong confidence to disagree. If you raised it to 33% in the next 6 months as Risto is, I would say you are irrational and emphatically disagree.
So my point in replying to you is you will never be wealthy because you whorEship fantasy. Your excuse that you will give to charity is just a veiled facade to cover for your inability to actually go create something of value in this world that makes you wealthy.
You wrote you are not wealthy. You wrote you hope to become wealthy because of Risto. You wrote your motivation is to give to charity. You don't get wealthy for those reasons. To get wealthy requires being able to think for yourself correctly. God doesn't entrust talents in surrogates who are just following another person. He would put the talents in the person who is actually making the decisions. And people don't like to hear someone tell them frankly. AnonyMint, I think you should let the wealthy philosophise about who is getting wealthy and how. Maybe, just maybe, people get wealthy for many different reasons. If followers didn't have any talent, the leaders and decision-makers would have no support to make anything happen. |
|
|
|
That is irrelevant as I have explained. What it does is reduce the network effects (merchants accepting and holding Bitcoin thus being nodes in the Metcalf law valuation) within the Bitcoin ecosystem that those holding fiat must buy BTC to attain. If everything they can buy with BTC they can also buy with fiat, then there is no great need to buy BTC with their fiat.
That was precisely my point about why lose 3-5% on double exchange, when one can just buy with their credit card for 0%.
Many people prefer to use BTC rather than credit cards, even though they can use either, because BTC is faster and more convenient for online payments. They buy, wait for the price to increase, then spend when needed. It's that simple. I do not think this 3-5% double exchange loss you are talking is a significant factor in whether or not people choose to use or accept Bitcoin. More importantly, bitcoin will be (is) finding direct ways to the wallets of people. I suspect some companies that earn bitcoin will offer their employees to be paid in part with bitcoin (rather than loosing the 3-5% on an exchange). Online freelancers of all kinds will increasingly accept to be paid with bitcoin in part or in full. Lots of jobs are going online right now and payment, especially international, is often a headache. There are no reasons why all bitcoins used to buy something must be purchased on an exchange just before. People will be (are) "making" bitcoins directly. |
|
|
|
I want some of that stuff that makes you think clearly  Quick TA update: - 6H candle color/volume: one green with high volume, awaiting for more which confirms the bottom of March 31, conclusion: hopeful - Bid/ask strengh at market: slippage to sell 5k: $32, slippage to buy: $98, conclusion: explosive upside potential - Trendline comparison: we are now at -0.291 log units. The trendline is at $932 and rising $7 per day, conclusion: rock bottom - Sentiment: last week was quite extreme in fear, fud and bearishness, conclusion: supports that the bottom is behind us, deceitful - Prognosis: intact from yesterday I will perhaps start to publish a "rpietila we will hit $X never again" indicator, which is my tender for a binary bet where I take the side that it will "never" go that low again (in practice like 3-6 months because I want to collect the winnings). That allows the "pay up or shut up" commenters to actually pay up if they thing bitcoin is going down and not ridicule. Similarly if I'm bearish myself, I could start to offer bet that "it will certainly go that low". I need to check the legal structuring and don't anticipate to actually make many bets but a number gives more accountability than hazy predictions. Well anyway today I am about to play Dominion whole day with my friend and tomorrow go to the castle where I close all connections and just enjoy the countryside and the planning meetings with county officials, building managers and such. If you had an amount waiting to be invested in BTC, would you invest 100% of it right now or try to go by bits and cost-average for the case of a new bottom lower ? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is slave to fiat for as long as the merchants predominantly want fiat, because this drains fiat from the ecosystem as investors bring fiat into the ecosystem.
It's not only "investors" that are bringing money in the system but also any person who is converting Fiat for bitcoin with the intent to use it to make payments. In this case it is closer to a currency conversion. If I sell my EUR to buy USD to buy something in the USA, I am not "investing" in the USD. If people are happy with the way the transaction happened, they are likely to convert their fiat into more bitcoin for later use. Probably a bit more than they used last time because past experience increases confidence in the technology and perceived utility. About the investors and their use of bitcoin, of course they are less likely to buy-back right away after a purchase at a time when the price is going down. For this reason the point of Risto makes sense in that it only makes the reversal more pronounced when all the people who spent coins feel that we have bottomed, price keeps rising and they have to panic buy. If Bitpay grows 3 times faster than adoption, the question lies in the rate of replacement amongst the buyers with bitcoin. Do you know how the bitcoin position of consumers in bitcoin is evolving ? What if they would be re-converting as much as they spend ? Then even a stagnant adoption would mean a stagnant price, not an endless drop. And a growing adoption would mean a rising price. And what if existing bitcoin consumers are actually converting more fiat than last time at each conversion ? The question is : do you have data that proves that the bitcoin going through bitpay are "getting rid of", as opposed to "being used and replaced" ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
