People here have been telling me this all the way down from 1000$.
What I have learned is that most people here have no clue what they're talking about. So, I think that I can manage without your advice.
Without the coming of new markets with proper volume, in new geographical locations, everything above 300 is too fragile for my taste. And I don't care if I miss out some temporal rises, because buying and selling those is not trading but gambling.

My money goes to a slow downfall for a couple of days, with couple of bulltraps incl.
I still think that bitcoin won't be an attractive investment until it goes to 200-300$ region.

Eric Cartman and Mark Karpeles isn't the same person?

Things like this actually increase the cult status of bitcoin, and that actually drives a lot of new potential adopters away because it associates with pyramid/ponzi schemes. People usually act crazy when they are trapped in some pyramid while desperately trying to market their overpriced product.
Just stay calm, and don't try to act like bitcoin is the holy savior of the world.

Don't underestimate the chance, that this "sellout" will actually be illusionary. With proper paperwork, Karpeles can just hide his ownership of the new "gox".
If gox is in fact sold, then they are doing it sloppy. What they should be doing at the moment are public statements to specify all the details involved. The only goal to buy gox would be to save the integrity of the bitcoin market system. You can't do that while your actions are secretive and unclear.

Currently my money goes on Karpeles just spinning more plates to get as much money out of bitcoin as possible. If the new owners are unknown or like to remain anonymous, then I'm quite sure of it.

Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme, because it's just a neutral piece of software. What it is however, is a very good platform to grow ponzi schemes (goxes) on.

Regulations don't have to come from state. The bitcoin market system can be self-regulatory when it would just get off it's ass and act. Nice to see that this idea isn't getting so much numb-minded "regulation is eeevil! eeevil I tell you! the free market will sort out everything!" as it got couple of weeks ago.

You can check out this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458364.msg5055548#msg5055548

Freedom? Freedom to change the current banksters with the sharks and geeks of the bitcoin community?
With bitcoins wealth distribution, it's a joke to talk how bitcoin is about freedom. It's just about wealth redistribution and I'm not so sure that uneducated geeks are actually better then educated banksters. Both lack ethics and moral, but one at least knows what he's doing.

If he is selling out, then this means that some rich bitcoin investors actually took responsibility and bailed out that exchange. I was calling for capable people to do that a couple of weeks ago. Got angry replies by most of the forum users for it, but it would be great if someone financially capable enough actually had the same vision.
I hope that they know that this acquisition doesn't mean anything if there won't be market regulations. They may have saved the bitcoin market system with saving gox, but without regulations there will be an increasing number of new goxes. All you have to do is build trust towards your exchange for a year, and then you will have enough loot to split with. Easiest profitable confidence trick of the modern times.

But anyway, I'm still skeptical about this acquisition rumor. History has shown that with MtGox, you can't be sure of anything.

I think that it could actually be a nice idea that rpietila is going for. Sadly I think that his personality will get in the way of that idea.

It's funny how Karpeles sees the bitcoin community as a mindless flock of emus. You can take their money and use it for your personal risky investments, and then, all you have to do is create a new exchange and say sorry and promise to pay everything back when you can. And.. everything goes smoothly, because emus tend to hide their heads in the sand and hope that no action needs to be taken and the free market will eventually sort everything out.
I think that bitcoin is heaven for those who lack ethics or morals.

Picture of that manor in a less modified state:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Malla_m%C3%B5isa_peahoone_2012.jpg
It's funny that rpietila actually deleted this link from his thread.
If he is able enough to restore that manor, then my respects. Always good to see historical manors restored in my country.
I don't consider bad photoshopping as proper restoration though.

It's funny how people think that this was the bottom again, while the issues causing the downfall haven't been solved and have even escalated.

You just can't comprehend, that the money isn't flowing into bitcoin, but into the development of handling cryptos in general?

Bitcoin is different from protocols because it does have a very specific unit price.
Imagine if e-mail would have been created in a way that later adopters have to fill the pockets of early adopters, so they can also send an e-mail. People wouldn't accept this and would create an alternative where everyone has a fair chance with using this protocol.
So, in my idea, bitcoin is not neutral enough to be called an protocol. Gaming suits better to it, especially with the amount of gambling that's happening at the markets.

I agree that it means something, but if you want to develop into the range of 100bil.$+ market cap, then it's very little something.
It would be great if bitcoin could get it's act together and would speed up code development and the development of the market system.

It doesn't matter that they are building bitcoin infrastucture, because if "googlecoin" would be created, and it would be of better code quality, then they can easily just take in "googlecoin" aswell.
What I am telling you is that the support services are not dependent on bitcoin. So, it does not mean that the funds invested into the industry will guarantee the success of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is like the worlds first computer game. The entire industry won't concentrate in developing this single game. The industry will build many games with increasing levels of complexity and depth. The industry is not dependent of this one first game.

So, you see that good old "it's too big to fail" will hold up bitcoin.
You clearly have no clue that by building support services, then you are not dependent on bitcoin and you can jump cryptos with relatively easy reconfiguration. It's smart, because this idea has potential and they don't have to worry if bitcoin fails. There will always be a better coin, that can be pumped and marketed.
Creating a new coin has a lot of marketing value. If google would create a free open sourced coin, then it would profit enough from everyone calling it as "googlecoin". Open sourced project could be funded for advertisement perks.
I think that Bitcoins pride and joy is Armory, that makes bitcoin different from other alts. Armory is the program that let's you store your coins with cold wallet security and relative comfort at the same time. For instance, if someone would adopt Armory to an altcoin, then that altcoin would probably go to da m00n.
If someone can create a secure system with even better speed, usability and stability, for another coin. Then that coin would probably overtake bitcoin soon.
Currently the market is raw and stupid, and the price is 95% made up from hype. But in the future the quality of code will decide the winner coin.
This idea is important, so bitcoin will be facing some though competition.

Yeah, I agree. The future should be more decentralized. What has to go are pools and privately owned and unregulated exchanges. Something autonomously run has to be created. Hard to see how, but I have a feeling that it can be done.

What you don't get is that the bitcoin code is not special as an invention, but it is special as an innovation. Meaning that it can be copied and improved easily. Meaning it's just a matter of time when it will get replaced.
Only reason why it hasn't been replaced yet is that there are no serious teams with experience and financial backing. Most altcoins are made by students and hobbyists, just for the fun of it. So, it's not hard to understand why there isn't any serious competition yet.
But the time will come, because this idea is an important step in the evolution of finance. To create an transparent open sourced monetary system that is supported by the internet. Bitcoin is too simplistic and childish to fill the shoes of that idea. If bitcoin would have faster development, then I would believe that bitcoin could evolve enough to fit the spot. But to me, it's more probable, that a more capable team will pick up this idea and make something that is better and developing faster.