Get ready for a big jump in August if the U.S. Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling in time to avoid a default...
No one is dumping their USD into effing bitcoins. They would use gold. Bitcoins are essentially worthless as a currency right now and the entire "economy" could collapse tomorrow for any number of reasons. I know everyone on this board thinks that bitcoins are going to be the new universal currency and that every business will accept them and they will be worth thousands of dollars each, etc, etc, etc, but you have to realize that everyone on this board that says things like that is insane. Gold is kind of worthless as a currency too. Don't know many people who would accept it for goods, and even if they did, how would I get it to them? Mail it? Investing in gold assumes someone will be willing to buy it off of you for a fair price with currency you can use. At the moment, bitcoins are the same. But in the future, it might be possible to trade bitcoins directly for a variety of goods. It is easy and convenient. I don't think it will ever be that way for gold. And PS, I'm dumping a good bit of my USD into bitcoin. So somebody is. |
|
|
|
|
My bad, I missed the date. My sincerest apologies. You did managed to call this decline.
|
|
|
|
It is a figure or speech. It does not mean anything. Actual implementation will be decided later. I think most people are in favor of leaving a bitcoin where it is and using a different denomination, like a microbitcoin, as the default. |
|
|
|
Since I posted this the price has dropped from $17 to $13.
LOL, nice exaggeration. When you first posted it was bouncing around $14, not it is around $13.6. Way to turn $0.40 into $4.
In fact, when you first posted, it had already dipped to $13.2, so it is up a little.
You do know these posts are timestamped right?
EDIT The above is me being a tool because I can't read dates. I'm sorry. My bad. I leave it only as a record of my stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
Probably an overzealous attempt to quell "trolls", not market manipulation.
Although, I will admit that bear-trolls are censored more often than bull-trolls. Probably because most long term members that believe in bitcoin have said many things that seem bull-trollish. It seems more plausible that bulls are posting on good faith, and not just trying to cause a commotion. I'm not sure if I agree with that logic, but there it is.
|
|
|
|
Doesn't look that "fine". It's a deflationary currency so we should expect an upward trend and its clearly flatlined (slightly down even) for a while now. Could argue Feb-Apr was similar, but I think we're seeing a downward trend right now.
Yes, I admit a downward trend. It just isn't "the end of bitcoin" like some people are griping about. |
|
|
|
I think it's more of a feedback loop than just search volume -> price.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Why wouldn't the correlation break at that point? A huge drop in prices should generate news, which should lead to a higher trend then price. Or are you arguing that speculators haven't bailed yet? |
|
|
|
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
I agree I dont think that crash at 32 had anything to do with lack of interest.. When it was at 32, interest was at its peak. You can decide which way it relates. There is a case both ways. I think the price got to 32 because there was so much interest, but interest died down, and so did the price. |
|
|
|
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
That is because google trends 12 month chart has a delay. Perhaps I should have used the term, justified, or expected, instead of predictable. |
|
|
|
what is this?
This is the price of bitcoins over the last 12 months on a logarithmic scale. |
|
|
|
I would just like to point out to all the doom and gloomers, that everything looks just fine on the log charts (which you should be using)  |
|
|
|
Earlier I started a tread ( http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17318.0) about how price and bitcoin's google trend numbers are highly correlated. The only big price drop in the past was paired with a drop in the trend. I decided to see how well the current "crash" matches up with bitcoin's google trend numbers. It turns out, that the correlation still exists very strongly. Image Below:  The blue line is the google trend line for bitcoin, roughly scaled to match price. You can see that if we assume bitcoins popularity is the main factor driving price, that the current price is justified, and in fact, (I have to say it) lower prices might be seen. I know that correlation is not causation, but clearly there is a correlation here. It seems intuitive to me, since bitcoin is a lot like a commodity, that the number one factor driving prices is demand. Demand seems like it can be roughly estimated by getting an indication of interest, which is what google trends gives us. I think that assuming at least some causation is prudent. |
|
|
|
|
Is the Mt Gox API working yet? It hasn't worked for me since the reopening. I keep getting a "bad token" error. I thought the API would be working now that the websockets are working.
Has anyone managed to get the API to work, and if so, can you point me to some documentation about how it is working now?
|
|
|
|
We need to convince Randall Monroe (the xkcd guy) to support bitcoins openly. He is still not sure about "endorsing" it. He used to have a donation address up, but took it down. http://xkcd.com/bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
I feel bad for how stupid you are. Evidently, jokes and sarcasm still go undetected in internet postings. You have to remember your /sarc tag. </sarc> |
|
|
|
Or, the business can assume the transaction will go through once transmitted with no confirmations for small transactions.
What does this assumption entail? Does it mean a customer can initiate the transaction and not actually have the funds? If so, as I stated in the OP, that's not going to work. Why not? This has been done with checks for quite a while. |
|
|
|
|
The random pops are a glitch that have been coming up since the reopening. I'm not sure whether trades are really being executed, or whether it is just noise in the history.
|
|
|
|
|
This is just the normal weekend slump. Happens almost every weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
