But I was too pessimistic. I still think we can go quite lower short term, but I'm now pretty much convinced that $50 was the real bottom. In my book, thats quite bullish - heck, we where at $14 at the beginning of this year
People seem to be forgetting that you could buy thousands of Bitcoin for $15 each only four months ago. Are they really worth $113 or more right now ? Nobody seems to think so or they would not be sitting on the orderbook remaining unsold for days. The market is different from 4 months ago. Consider 11 million bitcoins. 1 million probably lost, and 75% sitting in wallets rarely moving. This leaves 2.5 million active in the market, the "free float" Winklevii have absorbed 110k for a long-term investment. Many others have done the same. Assume that 1000 people have recently taken 1000 coins each for long-term holdings as the news frenzy went on. That means the 2.5m free float has been halved. Market dynamics are complex and this could easily mean a stable 8x increase in value. This will constantly change. When BTC passes $1000 many stale coins from the 75% will wake-up and hit the market. Expect price swings like $1,700 to $700 in a few days. All the newspuppies who called Bitcoin a bubble ponzi will also wake-up and claim they were right. It continues... |
|
|
|
due to low volume I hope you guys don't mind a crosspost from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192719.msg2084624#msg2084624 to enter a bear market we need a lower low. Depending on timeframe there are 2 potential lows to break: - the $80 low on 5/3 (red)
- the $50 low on 4/16 (yellow)
if we don't make a new low below $80, it's not a bear market but a correction (by investopedia definitions quoted further above). We could then enter a bull market or at least further consolodation pattern (green). Of course there's different options for "green", I just outlined roughly one of them. A break of the $170 top would clearly mean we're in a bull market again (both higher highs and higher lows would've been reached then) I don't think we have to wait more than a month to see this resolved. Interesting, but no scenario has the rate between $80 and $120 during the last week of May, which must have a high probability... |
|
|
|
Are you saying that as soon as that one bitcoin is seeded into circulation, and another chunk of it is eventually trashed, the process can continue to repeat itself indefinitely? No. We are saying that it is not feasible to trash a significant number of bitcoins, as the value of the remaining ones (or portions) increases, so there is always an adequate quantity of bitcoins for monetary use. Basically, the bitcoin network would not have to undergo some major and costly tuning in order to accommodate such repeat cycles of coin trashing by rogue miners, am I right?Right. There is no feedback mechanism for the network to respond to coin trashing and no feedback process is required. The network, and indeed, whole ecosystem behaves perfectly well whether the number of bitcoins increases (through mining) or decreases (through trashing exceeding mining). 11 million are mined already, so "rogue miners" won't get them. Check out this address: http://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuENo private key exists, so 0.41196588 BTC has been trashed and permanently unspendable. Yet, this has no effect on the network.
|
|
|
|
I'm not leaving this issue alone until someone from the tech circles is able to clear up my concerns about the potential effect of coin trashers on the viability of bitcoin protocol. If you take that approach you will just get yourself ignored and lose your ability to get further questions answered. I ask you to be considerate of other people's time and to go back over the fairly specific answers you've been given by experienced Bitcoin users and developers, and if you have articulate questions— then ask them— but don't just keep repeating that we haven't convinced you because we don't agree with you. Sorry if that statement sounded a bit misleading from its intended purpose... I merely tried to passionately imply that I can't move forward with my plans to do something great for the bitcoin ecosystem (as the early bitcoin developers once did for the bitcoin protocol and client), unless those knowledgeable about the bitcoin technical side can help clarify the issue that nearly has me loose hope in the bitcoin's viability as a currency. The issue has been clarified until it is as crystal clear as a glacial melt-water stream. Please, please re-read all the responses above. |
|
|
|
Indeed. You do realize that Firefox is a direct code successor to Netscape Navigator, right? Netscape (the company) did not cease to exist because they failed to compete with IE, they ceased to exist because they were legally destroyed by M$.
Agreed. Netscape is not a valid comparison because it was deliberately killed off by Microsoft using their 95+% dominance of the PC market to promote their own IE. You could call that a 51% attack  Bitcoin's first mover advantage is more analogous to that obtained by the QWERTY keyboard, prevailing over other competing formats in the 100 years since. |
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in buying a couple of dozen if spec and price reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
BTConomist. What is the economic difference between a coin permanently trashed and one which sits in a wallet unspent for many years? There seems to be a million coins from 2009 which have never moved. Arguably, Bitcoin is doing very successfully right now, and the sudden appearance of a million coins would cause quite a disturbance, perhaps more disturbance than the recent oscillations in the fx rate.
Bitcoin would function just as well if that million never reappeared, although I expect most will trickle out eventually.
As kjj explains, it becomes increasingly hard to implement any threat through a process of acquisition. The biggest threats are micro-transaction flooding (now being dealt with) and outright boycotts by all the fiat handling banks with governments banning Bitcoin use by merchants. Those are the real threats.
|
|
|
|
Why so many alt-coins?
Evolution, of course. Those are the dead-end muations.
Just like during the Cambrian Explosion when a huge number of crazy body-plans competed against each other, resulting in only a few long-term surviving types...  |
|
|
|
My bold prediction:
MtGox will come back up, everyone will look at each others... and nothing will happen.
Price won't move (significantly) in any direction.
big assumption there, that everyone learns from past mistakes. Better copy / paste this one to the wall of bold predictions. Bold indeed. Can I get my parade now?  It's here!  |
|
|
|
Was looking like a definite change in trend at the time we lost data.
One/most of the big sells was probably the ddos attackers. They want to buy back cheaply afterwards. |
|
|
|
Sure. But the zero just means displacement from the mean. A car's suspension is a damped oscillation but that doesn't mean it goes through the road when you run over a squirrel.
Agreed. But because price variance observes a Cauchy distribution, rather than a Gaussian one, the "mean" is meaningless (pardon the pun) and can only be determined retrospectively from the oscillations. What is more interesting to me is why, when the oscillation has about died away, the tendency seems to be for things to fly off in one direction or the other. I don't seen any obvious mechanism.
The mechanism is the butterfly effect in Chaos theory (which I confess I don't have more than an overview of). I think we saw this at $97 when someone bought 5,000 coins and a run to $166 resulted. |
|
|
|
It's usually drawn as a triangle. But as someone with a physics background, I see it like this:  Right. But an alteration is required to reflect markets being different from analogue wave-forms. The Y-axis can't go below zero, so the quiescent state is at some positive value. For Bitcoin, during the first oscillation it was $115.34, the 2nd it was $114.66 and the last it is $110.36 (as it changes with time). |
|
|
|
Two things you're forgetting. Gold is quite often referred to as GLD and silver is referred to as SLV. Plus, in the not-too-distant future all of those other bullshit national currencies aren't going to exist anyways, flushing all of the current ISO labels right down the toilet. The new labels will be BTC, LTC, FRC, NMC, etc.
Yes. But don't you want that future to arrive faster, and help raise the probability that it arrives at all? Yes, but I'm not convinced that placating the current system is the way to do that. It's not placating, it's using a larger opponent's strength against him. I see it like this: http://www.grapplearts.com/Blog/2012/09/stabilizing-and-attacking-larger-opponents-from-sidemount/ |
|
|
|
Two things you're forgetting. Gold is quite often referred to as GLD and silver is referred to as SLV. Plus, in the not-too-distant future all of those other bullshit national currencies aren't going to exist anyways, flushing all of the current ISO labels right down the toilet. The new labels will be BTC, LTC, FRC, NMC, etc.
Yes. But don't you want that future to arrive faster, and help raise the probability that it arrives at all? |
|
|
|
Shot from the era of stability:  Imagine we are at $11 in that picture. That's 30k BTC down to $10, which is similar support to what we currently have. Agreed. The main difference now is that I would remortgage my house to murder a $12 ask wall  |
|
|
|
What the hell is up with all these old necro threads coming back this week? O.o
Are we really running out of topics to discuss?
I have just seen a bunch of threads related to this topic, I wanted to resurrect this thread since it has all been discussed before and so that the new people would see we already had this conversation a long time ago. Peter, I confess that I didn't find this thread when I kicked off the subject again a few months ago. You were certainly thinking ahead. However, one new conclusion (thanks grau) is that XBT best represents 100 satoshi, not 1 BTC. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149150.msg1630511#msg1630511There are huge advantages. It means Bitcoin can easily be represented in all the world's FX and accounting systems, plus it leaves our favorite BTC as the informal code for one Bitcoin. As the fx rate comes to exceed $1,000 then quoting rates in XBT will become more sensible. With all the talk of regulation and seeing some banks boycotting Bitcoin businesses, it is becoming more urgent than ever that Bitcoin becomes meshed into computer systems worldwide. The more it is integrated the harder it will be for the banking system to strangle it, or a single national regulator to attack it. If the Bitcoin Foundation has any purpose (apart from funding Gavin) then it should be pursuing this a matter of priority. |
|
|
|
Any really would work, Maybe try BIT?
No good, currency code "BIT" is reserved for the African country of Burundi. |
|
|
|
|
Agreed with Sgt Spike.
This may have been a risk when coins were worth a few cents. Not when they are worth $100. Danger over.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
