It's fair that you want to catch another bus. I on the other hand, am not entirely convinced that's a bus worth getting on. But we'll see what happens. That's the beauty of this type of hectic and fast-flowing market, you never know where you'll end up until you're there.

Although there was significant amount of trading from the east, I'd venture to say that's not the only factor. Price dynamics are rarely only predicated on time factors from one segment. Chinese markets are definitely one key to it though. But I also think action driven during "down" times are also another significant factor.

I feel like some sort of transactor for smaller grocery stores and convenient stores (like the mom and pop sort of thing) that can deal in bitcoin would be highly beneficial in this arena. I feel like the amount of penetration that could be gotten in that market is quite substantial. I feel that going with the larger grocery chains would be a disadvantageous in the short to medium term at the moment.

Interesting story. Should've just gone for it right? I mean there have been quite a few stories of people using equipment that weren't their own for mining.

But then again, most of those incidents happened in a school or something. A job is a completely different beast.

That's a pretty solid way to approach things.

I don't do a 50% plan (because that's well out of my reach), but whatever spending cash I have at the beginning of the month, 25% automatically gets converted. And I carry over the on-hand from the previous month in my calculation. So it's a pretty nifty way. At the minimum, I convert 25% of what I am able to spend. It does make saving up for larger purchases trickier, but it helps me get into the mindset that I need to be in.

Sure there may be sites that arbitrarily provide that information. But honestly, it doesn't help all too much since someone could just make a coin that avoids the negative points and still manage to be a pump and dump. If there is a bright side to all of this, is that it forces people to do their due diligence when learning about this scene.

The lagging trend is quite interesting. But I think things are a little different since bitcoin has received much more significant public exposure than it has in the past. Before it was bitcoin being quite an unknown thing, now there could be a tinge of bitcoin just losing allure.

Then again, I don't necessarily take intrigue trends to correlate to prices.

Although it is a worthy endeavor to have a charity accept bitcoins, the Red Cross isn't one of those charities. There are many more worthwhile charities to be focused on. Maybe this idea should be expanded to something along those lines?

I honestly get where you're coming from. There is always that slight sting of missing out on amazing chances; but all we can do, is move past it. It's not like we all have clairvoyance right? And if we did, these sort of chances would never happen.

I've also missed a whole bunch of chances in the past (both with bitcoins and with altcoins). Now I just bide my time and let things come as they may. After all, there are much more worse things that can be lost other than an opportunity.

Thanks for posting that.

I wasn't sure if he was asking for the current rate or the exponential rate. I was recalling the calculation that was done for a rate of exponential increase over the next year (that assumed 20nm/18nm ASIC geometric technologies being taped out). I remember it concluding that if rate increase was something like e^.08t it would coincide with the end of 2015/early 2016.

Last time I checked, the block propagation rate (averaging a block for every 8ish minutes) coincides with the next block halving being sometime at the end of 2015 which is a while from now.

Very much true.

The scary thing is that I don't think that it's necessarily an attack on bitcoin per se. I think it is a consequence (that they don't care about) in a effort to sate their own greed. I think exchanges would stem this problem, but they would have to work in accordances and pacts with each other; and that'd be awfully tricky to pull off.

Heck, we can be fundamentally honest, virtually all of these sites, just like most of journalism suffers from some sort of inherent bias. And when money falls in line with the inherent bias, it just sweetens the pot.

We can't really do anything about cash for stories as it's what helps fund these sites to continue running (like all media outlets). Some sites are gonna try to work with others to gain exclusitivity rights and those sort of things. Frankly, the main thing we can do as readers, is to take everything we read with a grain of salt, and it if is important, corroborate the story or see what the other takes are.

Ah, I see what you did. 99.9% of 415 is 414.585. So in effect you are saying that all coins are crap. Fair enough. I'm gonna put all my money back into fiat.

Seriously, of course a majority are crappy clones; but really, what else is new? I'd say the number is closer to 99% (when you include all of the coins that don't even make it to coinmarketcap); so probably 10-12 legitimate ones. Probably.

Sure, whatever you say...

Look, I'm a strong believer in bitcoin, but I'm fairly confident that the domain won't fetch that much. As much as I would like it to, particularly since the proceeds go to those who got burned (assuming he's being truthful), I just don't see it.

You keep saying to think of this as a company. Well, bitcoin isn't a company. Nor is it trademarked. Those would be fundamental factors in raising the price for non-novelty reasons. I've taken a good look at the aggregates that have made up the largest sales in terms of domain names recently, and to me, bitcoin doesn't fall into that particular trendline. I look at the type of names that comprise the list of largest sales and bitcoin.com seems to fall in the second quintile rather than the first quintile.

Regarding your point on traffic, since you so conveniently make that point, you should also naturally know that bitcoin.org just barely squeaks into the top 10,000 in Alexa ranking. It's strong, but not correlatively million-dollar strong. And the fact that it's the strongest bitcoin-related traffic speaks even volumes more.

It would be nice if bitcoin.com sold for a lot as it would show where bitcoin is at this moment in time, but at this point in time I don't see it.

That's only if a domain term is either tied to something that draws popularity in the mainstream or provide significant business incentive. I don't see the term bitcoin providing that. What would a central-term like bitcoin.com provide fundamentally in terms of business return? What would be the profitable traffic-draw of a site like bitcoin.com?

After all, comparatively, how often do people go to bitcoin.org for information on bitcoin?

I see bitcoin.com having more benefit in terms of the novelty usage rather than the traffic usage. And unfortunately, that doesn't translate to as much in terms of domain auctions.

I admit something similar could happen to bitcoin, but that isn’t necessarily the case per se. If there is a multitude of incoming demand for bitcoin, this would be definitely the case. With gold, one of the key fundamental underlying factors is that gold has consistently had significant demand throughout time. In general, stocks, derivatives, and precious metals/stones continuously garner sustained support. Unfortunately, in the eyes of a lot of the mainstream economy, bitcoin doesn’t.

Although that'll likely have a positive affect on bitcoin, I don't see this even having a significant upward impact on the price of bitcoin. More so, I don't see this single event propping the marketcap by over $5B.

It could be a first spark in raising the price that high, but there'll have to be a whole bunch of other events in order for this to happen.

I agree with the sentiment stated so far in this thread. Although it's a nice sentiment, the domain name won't even come close to $750K. That particular name doesn't have any marketably unique draw to it in terms of a media location. And secondly, there are already multiple locations that serve as a hub in regards to bitcoin.

[As an example point of emphasis: if someone wants to look up bitcoins, he/she will more likely input the term into a search engine than type in bitcoin.com. So what would bitcoin.com offer that is worth $750K?]

Of course, the OP would say it's a huge blow for bitcoin (even though it isn't). I mean, just look at his sig...

I don't see this as a huge issue for bitcoin, just for the foundation. But let's be honest, it's not like they have been doing anything particularly special in the recent months. So this might affect the lobbying effort, but nothing too much beyond that.