|
It looks like some holders already started.
|
|
|
|
|
And I think it will be far from boring very soon. Either it breaks the support and goes to 300 (and maybe even breaks that) or it bounces back - and possibly tests 470 again.
|
|
|
|
i voted for long to the hilt, i assume this means that i am holding till the end. if yes, then i voted for the right option. i am here for the very long term and don't care about all the negativity.
Actualy I meant "I bought as much as I can" - I've now added an explanation. |
|
|
|
|
I think this might be a bit more concrete.
|
|
|
|
I really think the price will go lower to 300 dollars. You've seen bitmaintech selling their stuff against 'bargain prices'
Which means their pump is over.
it cannot, simply because the diff rised by a lot, since we were at 300, people tend to forget that miners need their reward. and must remain the same so if there is the halving, the value must increase, if the diff increase(because the value increased before the halving) the value must increase again, etc... Why? Do you believe that it is impossible that miners lose money? |
|
|
|
...
But for time being, give or take a retrace back down to lower $370 or upper $360s, I think there is a strong case to be made for a range trade back up to $410. $410, cos the last logical Stop Order for shorts is at $407, and all Bitcoin is doing right now is trying to suck n00b bears n bulls in, and them wipe em out.
The shaking up can happen also without intentional manipulation. People have different stop levels - but they tend to cluster, when the price gets into such cluster the move gets accelerated by the stop orders. |
|
|
|
...
a) It actually isn't anonymous at all. Indeed, build the right infrastructure around it and every single transaction is trackable, forever! Bitcoin was billed as Magic Internet Money of Freedom but this all sounds a bit 'Evil Empire' to me.
I updated my post - what I really meant for the group number 1 was 'Improved Privacy'. The CryptoNote based coins and Zcash try to fix exactly this. Do you think they could replace Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
In speculating on bitcoin price it is important to keep track of the alternatives. Most of the alts are just copy cats - improving on some meaningless aspect (like the time for newblocks) - but there are some that do try to improve something that might have an impact. I would group them in three groups: 1) Improved Privacy. There are coins based on CryptoNote https://cryptonote.org/inside - but it is not clear for me how sound this approach is. Now we have a well founded startup with Zcash. This is the area where improvements seem inevitable, some for sure will be incorporated into BTC - but some others will require too much change for that. 2) The craziness of the Proof of Work economy. I will not elaborate on this - not everyone agrees with this view. PeerCoin tried the alternative Proof of Stake approach - but can this be really decentralized? 3) Ethereum - has its own category. Very ambitious. I don't quite understand it in its entirety. A programmer in me is sceptical about so complex projects - at least in any timeframe that would make it financially feasible. The current blocksize crisis can create another fourth group for systems with bigger throughput than BTC. What are your views. Do you think that BTC could be passed in popularity by some alternative? In what timeframe? Personally I believe that given enough time there surely will be some coin that would be better than BTC in some important aspect - alternatively BTC would have to hard fork more often. |
|
|
|
400 is the new 200
If the price rises in the future, the 400 will become a new 200. I expect the price to be over $1200 after the halving. People talked about over 1200 $ to be before 2016. For me that is way to optimistic. I would be satisfied if we reach 1000 $. And as we see we are around 400 $ last months, definitely 400 is new 200, hope we will rise and maintain price, I'm not so interested in spikes and fast earning. Hopefully we'll see a continuous rise from here till the halving. This is definitely the year for btc. How did you determine that? |
|
|
|
|
I give it one, max two weeks. Then down.
|
|
|
|
What about now? Still think China will pump again?
China's Central Bank Discusses Digital Currency Launch if this thing happened, Yes Crypto will go to the Moon i think The People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the country's central bank, is moving toward the launch of its own digital currency. ... I don't think this will be a good time for BTC - this looks like a move to close the crypto backdoor to their financial controls. Once they do that they will want people to switch from BTC to that new cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
as i see it , this how it work, everytime for all these changes and possible fear about the bitcoin value
after the thing happen usually people dump and instigate a panic sell , around 20-30% of the value will fall, then there is a stop of that fake dump, as a result the price initiate to slowly recover
we have seen this thing many times, already, to not think what the outcome will be for the future of bitcoin and all the changes related to it, that may possibly happen
Hard fork will be worse than the crises so far - because those who will buy coins from one of the forks will eventually lose their money. But yeah - after some turmoil the market will adopt - and next time a similar event happens it will be 'just normal operation'. The interesting question is how that adaptation will happen. |
|
|
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size!
Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.
I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.
It's probably Mike Hearn trying to prove his point about larger block sizes ^^; Do you understand that Mike Hearn talked about block size in bytes - and this is about block size in BTC (sent)? |
|
|
|
It will be a huge fricking mess. The market will react badly because the only thing markets want is stability: this situation could be pure destruction or a new beginning.
After Mike's revelation an hard fork now will bring BTC to the floor simply because the market will not understand it. But there can be a recovery only at a price of even more centralization which is something will bring more panic in the community.
To me, this whole thing is just a big mess.
I don't think it would be that bad. It should work just like it works now with normal chain forks - after some time one of them just dies. If one of the forks is less popular it will die quickly - those who invested in coins mined in it will lose - but all the old coins will do just fine, and by definition there will not be that much of those new coins. Then at another fork - we'll know how to behave. |
|
|
|
What are your theories about the price of BTC if a hard fork happens? Sure there would be a drop in price because of the uncertainity - but what next? The situation will be very interesting. I am sure that it will happen at some point. It looks like it might happen soon ( http://bitcoinist.net/f2pool-statement-indicates-plan-to-hard-fork-2mb-bitcoin-block-size/) - but if not this time - there will be other occasions. Some will be not be even noticed by the general public - if a few miners start mining incompatible blocks - then their branches would soon be very short, nobody would accept their block rewards and they would lose incentives to maintain them. But lets assume that there is a real fork - that is there are two parts of the community and each one does not want to fade away quickly. There will be three groups of BTC then: - those that don't have any input from any of the incompatible blocks - they owners would be able to spend them on either branch - two groups of BTC that have inputs from one of the forks It will be possible that there will be miners that try to mine blocks that are compatible with both forks - so the first group would not be only historical bitcoins - but it might also contain new bitcoins and newly transfered bitcoins. But it is also possible that the forks would make this not possible by special marking of their blocks and only accepting historical blocks and blocks marked specially - I guess this would require a very complex coordination. Obviously the first group should trade higher than any of the other groups. The most interesting question is what would the exchanges do. |
|
|
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size!
...
The current problem with block size is about bytes and spamming is about generating lots of transactions or transactions with very big reprsentation (in bytes). This title refers to blocksize in bitcoins sent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
