I got in at 200, sold at around 1030, bought couple of times since, once with zero outcome and other time a 6% profit from a strong pump. So, stop trying to justify yourself by trying to fantasize about me. Trading is not about drawing lines but about knowing the nature of the entire market, it's product or service and it's development. You can only use previous trends if the environment is the same as it was during that previous trend. If you think that BTC is the same as it was during the days of "internet play money that can be used to buy drugs", then you are an absolute fool, who can't even understand things that should be considered as common sense
But keep going, keep drawing your little lines at bitcoinwisdom and fantasize that this makes you a knowledgeable trader. It's funny how the line drawers are wrong more then right, but they are constantly speaking like they are earning profit. The mystery or life... Reminds me of the movie "Freddy got fingered" where Tom Green started to show random graphs and presented himself as an stockbroker.

I have been saying from January that BTC will only feel safe under 300$. That entire progress would be quicker if we would just let it drop, so it could actually start a real strong recovery, not just a "recovery" that is fueled by desperation and unrealistic hopes.

Until the price is under 300$, it's only good trade if you do quick temporal trades, riding some of the stronger waves that pop up from time to time. But it's not a smart choice to hold crypto for overnight until the price has settled correctly under 300$. Right now the only thing that is holding the price is the desperation of the hodlers and miners, who don't want to suffer a loss while selling. But this desperation is breaking slowly one person at a time, who decide "to hell with it" and cut their losses. This is what will cause the slow downfall. This could only be saved by new booms at central-, south-America or India, but it seems that no progress in these fields. The western market is saturated at the moment and only bitcoin nutcases can't see that.

That's me saying that your charts are meaningless. Start creating charts in a way, that they could predict the right outcome at least 50% of the time, and there would be some meaning.
It may be a shock to you but drawing lines from the bottoms and tops at bitcoinwisdom isn't exactly an advanced method of prediction, that would be hard to understand to anyone. It's just a way for some people to rationalize their gambling habits, so they could call their gambling as "investing" to girlfriend and friends.

Quickly, draw more lines... draw also ones that point up.. that will surely make the price rise! This has been the general sentiment in this forum, so it has to work!

Lemmings were buying and are now holding. Lemmings are also buying on the top of dead cat bounces like the current one. Right now is not the right time to buy. Price is still too high.

It's crashing because people get tired of waiting for Superwhale to come to the rescue and make the price rise. That is the main reason of this crash, and it was easily predictable.
Bitcoin has to either rise or fall, there is no middle ground, because people involved expect a rise or they walk.

Yup, it's better to save the entire thread, so you can blackmail later.

Could be, but I don't quite understand how Doge marketing works, so I have distanced myself from speculating on Doge. And I don't like to do long-term predictions either. Weeks or couple of months is enough for me. For the near future, LTC seems the most interesting.

For BTC, probably not. But it seems that LTC is tearing itself away from depending on BTC's price, so I'll probably gamble there.
BTC is too bloated for available pumps to create a strong enough momentum, and it's too untrustworthy for bigger pumps to enter the game. I see that LTC will be the more suitable game to play for the time being. Smaller market cap. means more movement and the name hasn't been tainted with scandals that raise serious trust issues. This makes it interesting.

Goat didn't "invest" in the manor "project" ?

Just as predicted.. LTC is interesting while BTC remains boring

As long as Stamp is behind BTC-E, then you know that fiat is moving out of the market system. Fiat holders at BTC-E just get bored sometimes and give these little pushes.

I think that the idea of market based interest rate is worth the thought. It would need to be a solid system that isn't vulnerable to the obvious ways of manipulation.

Greenspan was an ultra-liberal. Todays conspiracy theory generation has demonized the upper class more then they deserve. All of them aren't these evil geniuses with grand conspiracy plans. Most of them are just schmucks who have inherited their money and power by blood. The ratio between clever and numb minded people is about the same in every social class.
Greenspan really thought that he is doing good by giving more liberty to the private sector for putting the money into good use. He played the santa-claus to everyone, without them acknowledging that they are paying their own gifts and with interest. It is an typical behavior for an ignorant schmuck who is mainly after pleasing everyone. These are the Ponzi type schmucks, who really don't have an exit plan, and who are just taking it one day at a time. Everyone else just go into denial and hope for an miracle to make this bubble last. It's like with the majority of the bitcoin community.



I think that the problem isn't in the idea of leadership, but the problem is how people think that they have to choose their leadership. There is no honor left in this process that should involve more honor then any other job position.
I think that the only solution here is to spread realization of this solution to really, really start thinking on who to elect the next leader. Not just choose one from the pack that is offered, but people would really concentrate on the question who among others is the best suitable type. People are illusioned that they don't have the power to change this, but they do.

It isn't the best, but it is better then chaos.



When you are dealing with an group, then there has to be central leadership for the group to be effective. It is so in nature, it is so in war, and it is so in the economy. Put 10 guys who don't know eachother in the same group to preform a task, and soon it will be clear, on who will be listening who, from now on. People just are like that and it's not the best choice to deny these aspects. When you deny this core element in human nature, then you will mostly be blind on who is actually following who.
I agree that technology is changing our very consciousness and we are shifting more into the hive mind environment, where most of the people will be only following 1 source of power while remaining equal to one another. Maybe this day will someday come, but it won't happen anytime soon. For many generations to come, people will still be strongly influences by their animalistic impulses. It's better to accept these impulses and to understand them, then to deny them and have no realization or control over them.

The discussion has been pleasant.

"We have tried many times" is a weak excuse in my book. Most of the people are illusioned that they have to choose from the choice that is presented to them. "But he looked like a good guy on TV" isn't exactly research on the electee. The right people are mostly the ones that are not promoted through the media. They are the ones who you can value, only after reading their thoughts and looking at their history in-depth. If more people would vote like this, then there wouldn't be the problems that have been addressed in this topic.

From all the virtues that todays generation lacks, the lack of responsibility sticks out the most. People always find an abstract system, or some unknown dark forces to blame for the things that are happening around them. Only few are able to realize that we, the people, are the ones who are causing all of this with our lack of care and responsibility.

Yes, power can corrupt and power does attract the corrupted, but it's the job of the Good Guys to beat the Bad Guys. Whether you like it or not, but human beings have a lot on common with animals, and specifically with herd animals. If the herd is without proper leadership, then the herd isn't competitive in relation to other herds. The heard will be weaker and less capable of progression. Humans also derive from social group animals, who have the same rules of typical herd mentality. There are always the strong who stand out and there are always the weak who will instinctively start to follow the strong. You could also be the lone wolf, but every hunter knows what eventually happens to these lone wolves without a pack.

What I was talking about, was that with dynamic money supply, the prices and the inflation rate are a lot more stable then they would be with fixed supply. Decent companies also have an stable system for salary raises, to both rewards workers and to take inflation into consideration. You are blaming the faults of the greedy entrepreneurs on the system.

There is no such thing as perfect stability, and I have never claimed that there is one. I just compared two models and brought out the one that has more stability.
If the money supply will be static, then money will be much more attractive to speculative play, and the value of money will be dictated by the market leaders, who can manipulate it according to their choosing.
It's still funny to see how the same people who often present themselves as "anti-establishment" or "anti-Fed", are mostly also in favor of ultra-liberal views of Greenspan, who was actually to blame for messing up Fed together with US finance. Bernanke has just been a loyal dog who follows the same trail that Greenspan put in motion. The trail where money regulation is trusted in the hands of the private sector without the supervision or restrictions from Fed itself. This has caused the US to go into a growing bubble that is on the verge on popping. You can't just let the mob run wild without any central leadership. A person is smart, but the mob is dumb, greedy and without perception of limits.

The bitcoin nutcases are scary people who should stay far away from power.
"Haha, education and all the academics are full of crap! Not that I have often picked up a book or finished college, but I saw a really kick-ass Youtube video, that gave me a strong feeling that it's all crap!"
The previous mentality is pretty common among the bitcoin nutcases.

It's my humble opinion, that the bitcoin nutcases are even scarier people then the Bolsheviks, because at least they valued education..

It would certainly be easier to handle, if there is no handling and money could just run with a fixed rate. Corruption of the central planners is a serious issue, but that could be fixed if people would actually spend more then 5 minutes to do research on who will they elect for the public office. Corruption isn't caused by economic philosophy, but rather by intellectual development of the general society.

But still, it's more efficient to have a central planner, and to have a dynamic supply rate. If supply rate isn't regulated to cause price stability, then it would cause you a lot of problems if you are in finance or even if you're an entrepreneur. When doing prognosis, then you have to calculate in the possible inflation (or deflation for that matter). When the inflation rate is stable, then you can create more solid prognosis and predict the needed numbers. With fixed supply and unstable value of money, you can never be sure which way will it go next year, or even next month. Doing business will be more of an lottery, and that's not a good thing. It's not good when competition is decided by luck, not by competence.
To me, saying that the modern monetary system would do better without centralization, is like saying that an symphony orchestra would do better without a conductor, or an football team would do better without a captain. We don't have to change the system, we have to change the people who have control over the system. People will always be in charge, and it's a good thing. Machines automate our work, but the major choices still come from the people. We don't need an Terminator 2/I, Robot type of scenario where some A.I. takes over society. Leadership still needs heart and common sense that only humans can offer. Don't blame the system, but blame yourself for not caring enough for electing the right people to lead the system.



Goods price drops in a normal matter if you are dealing with an technological product. Then the speed of technological development will cause intense competition, and products soon become obsolete. This is the price of technological development.
But there are also resources thats extraction rate and demand growth is quite stable and predictable. The important thing is to let money follow these resources, so they would give money the same stability. Gold was a good resource for that, but it became too unstable because of the strong speculative attraction and lack of regulations. Oil was good for some time, until the price started to depend too much on the outcomes of wars, that also caused a lot of speculation and instability. I think that the future is agricultural products because of their rising importance. The phrase "bitcorn" wasn't as much as funny to me, as it was farsighted.

1. Inflation could also run with a fixed supply. Fixed supply means that there is no consideration about the present economic situation when regarding money circulation. That there is one unchangeable static rule in which new money is added to the circulation.
It doesn't work in creating a stable currency, because economic growth is not fixed. The availability of important strategic resources like fossil fuels is always changing together with production capacity. The modern finance is built in a way that money changes by following the economy, so the money in circulation is in balance with the economic development. If you keep the money supply static, while the economic growth is dynamic as usual, then the outcome is an unstable currency with constantly changing prices. You could say that people could manage this when there is a new quick IT based system to keep the prices dynamic, but it creates load of unpleasant problems and difficulties, especially with financial planning. Value of currency has to be stable, so it would be predictable and plans could be made based on these predictions.

2. I think that it is certainly possible to create an inflationary currency without a central planner. Like you said before, it could be easily done by just couple of changes from todays cryptos code to create inflation. But what remains, is the fixed supply, that is The difficult problem. I would even give it a try to a stable 1% year deflation, but fixed supply is what would create financial havoc.
I think that the answer for stable inflation vs stable deflation problem isn't very clear because it hasn't been tested in the modern world. But the answer from fixed money supply model vs dynamic supply model isn't hard. Fixed money supply is too simplistic to enable currency value stability in modern global trade.


With bitcoin, the most important flaw isn't deflation per se, but the rate in which deflation is created. Bitcoin was created to have a strong starting momentum, with attracting people to adopt because it will be much harder to adopt later. That is why the supply is 50% coins in 5 years, and the rest in 120 years. I would give bitcoin a chance if the deflation rate wouldn't be this steep, but with this curve it won't ever be an serious financial tool. The first users will adopt because of greed, and the later users won't adopt because of that same greed. It will mostly be a get-rich-quick tool for gamblers, and will be far from being a serious currency.
But I won't get tired of repeating that it doesn't mean that we should laugh at the entire idea. The idea of creating an transparent open sourced monetary system, that is supported by the internet, is a major leap in the evolution of finance. The future will probably bring forward currencies that have the complexities needed to be a quality currency in the world of modern global trade. But the difference between bitcoin and this "future currency", is like between the first digital calculators and todays PCs. If bitcoin can't handle the complexities, then it doesn't mean that no open-sourced digital currency can't do it also.

I think that our main disagreement comes between your opinion that inflation creates garbage output, and my opinion that inflation has little to do with garbage output, but the problem is in management supervision and corruption.
That is the main reason why more developed countries, with better education and tradition, can handle inflation better. They can handle the fast money flow, while still keeping constructive directions in production. When you throw a lot of money at fools, then they can't do anything constructive with it, and they are just wasteful.

I think that a rule emerges there, that better developed countries can use higher inflation where deflation could fit to less developed countries.

I'm totally pro privatized monetary systems, where people could choose the currency they use without the restrictions of legal tender. Just bitcoin itself is far from something that could be trusted. The idea has a lot of potential for the future though.