Except the $136 to $124 drop...
136 to 124 = done by one person wich do not representative at all low volume started around may 7th and we were at 110, we're actually at 129 wich is not for me a "down" but you can hope for an other big sell if your trading management is based on hope it doesn't bother me. EDIT: i'm not telling everyone it's going up or down im just telling that taking a position right now is rly risky business to me You can hope for another rally, it doesn't bother me. Just as a heads up, we started going down (after $136) before the huge wall appeared. In addition, if the market was sure of its direction, 7k BTC would not have dropped the price more than $10, like it did. Well, we might have some rough days ahead but I would say the order book won't tell the whole story. I'm sure vested interests have buy programs to limit downside. If not, with BTC's growth, we can imagine buyers would surface pretty quickly. Long term picture here and perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about the short term. I expect more "attacks" on funding mechanisms in a regulated centric way. But that will definitely fail as properly regulated (larger firms like Bitinstant and such) are or will fill those voids. It will become a PR war, throwing around words like "money laundering" and "terrorism" but we have HSBC (8 billion in drug money laundering) and Wachova (100's of billions in laundered drug money) on "our" side.  BTC was really designed for what is coming as were the people supporting it, at least in part... |
|
|
|
Yes should have said they see it as a 'potential' threat. It is a long document, quite entertaining in some ways, they refer to fiat money as real money. And that only if central banks issue it is it proper money etc. obviously i'm paraphrasing.
Well, we can't fool ourselves into thinking they are unaware of it or that they don't see it as a threat (and won't eventually come after it when other indirect methods fail - and they will). That would be silly. Banking is the center of the western world and all the wars that go with it. Ideally as money leaves that system and goes into systems that are more compassionate, we will see change. It will take time, though their system of banking as currently constructed is in danger of popping. There only hope is to have people believe the upward stock market and growing money supply and zero % interest rates are a good thing. That seems to be changing in many peoples minds. I'd say they are losing the propaganda war. Between now and next war that system can pop and I hope enough people high up in the military don't go along with another BS war. So, as that system goes it might really be too late to act on the BTC one. After all, it is going to look terrible going after a system that is holding value, people based, etc. Luckily there isn't a "new world order" or one world government to make things easier for these criminals. We have the Universe on our side. Regarding the point of this thread, BTC is too much to just analyze with a trendline. Though I favor watching it with a logarithmic one... IAS |
|
|
|
This is great news and a big thank you for working on this. I said this in the other decentralized thread: OP sounds like he is describing Bitcoin.de's system. Buyer and seller have verified bank accounts, buyer transfers the money after purchase (and bitcoin.de freezes the coins purchased), when the money arrives at sellers account it is mark as received and then Bitcoin.de releases the coins. There are problems with this but overall it works quite well.
What I see in a decentralized distributed exchange though, is the money being stored in the "BTC Cloud" and all transactions happening there. So, it is like having a virtual bank online. To share with you some things that can go wrong I'll mention what happened to me at Bitcoin.de (They have since lowered their "mark purchase as paid" from 24 to 12 hours). I sold some Bitcoin in a down market to a person and they watched the price fall for a few hours before deciding not to pay me the money. In that 24 hour time my Bitcoin was not sellable as it was locked up for their purchase. They got a bad star rating (now they can be kicked out). Anyway, the point is we need short confirmation times and if we can link bank accounts somehow, to show that a payment was sent, this would solve that problem. I learned my lesson now to only sell to buyers with perfect ratings (in a down market anyway.) I wonder if we could also, in addition to the buyer to seller account transfer method, also have bank accounts (e.g. - from other countries that are approved of as being legit) used to transfer money into for purchase, thereby having a more transparent transfer). Then it would be easy to see that the money was sent out. I look forward to this project, IAS |
|
|
|
I often wonder why it is that some violently fight the idea of any aspect of human interaction being unregulated by some sort of central authority. Why is that? Not being able to conceive of such arrangements working due to lack of imagination? General mistrust of people? Sincere belief that everything under the sun just works out better if we have a single set of rules enforced by deadly force? Honestly, I don't really get it.
I'm happy to see a concept like Bitcoin coming along and (so far) proving that free human interaction is not only possible, but desirable.
Also to all those people wanting Bitcoin (and everything else) to submit to regulation: there is a number of people (like me) who desire freedom from regulation. Due to moral/ethical considerations or due to their conviction that plurality of options and freedom to experiment ultimately bring about better results and stability. This number keeps growing with every disaster brought about by regulation and central planning. Perhaps one day we will reach a critical mass of people desiring freedom and being willing and able to take responsibility for it.
As long as there is no choice and no option for people not wanting to submit, all we really have tyranny.
I think Human history (and those that control it) have give people the idea that we, humans, are inherently bad. That is false, but when you control the past and present, you have a way of effecting the future. But, it does appear we are coming out of that mindset. This learning takes some time.  The regulation part is just terrible - in some ways it does protect us but clearly in other ways it imprisons us (and perhaps that is the idea.) Just look at how much money it costs to get involved in money transmitting/trading - by just the cost it excludes small companies (who often bring innovation). Look at large companies involved in the drug trade - HSBC (8 billion laundered?), Wachovia (100's of Billions laundered), CIA -  - it is clear regulation is not protecting many people but the criminals themselves. Sort of like being trapped in a matrix within a matrix. But again, we are coming out of it... |
|
|
|
@Coinseeker: 1) you don't seem to understand that black market is not "tiny". It's a 1,800 billion/year economy. Do the maths. 2) you don't seem to know that the Bitcoin concept was born in cyberpunk and crypto-anarchists circles, and that was designed with very "unpatriotic" characteristics at its core. It's decentralized and trust-free (do you understand what does this implies for the US Gov and the FED?), and it is conceived from the very beginning to be resilient to Governments attacks. I wonder why someone like you is interested in such a concept. Then, you mock me up because I said that real demand brought BTC to "a whole $14" from $0.07. You are blind if you do not see how immense growth is x200 in just a couple of years because of the demand generated by two tiny businesses (SD and SR). And you are just plainly ignorant if you do not understand how huge is the potential growth regardless of BTC being banned or semi-illegal. Give it time, and then we will discuss. Just because the value has gone up to 130 , it doesn't mean there are 10x users than last year or we're doing 10x transactions.
Currently the price is based more on "what bitcoin will be" than is actual value.
True, the current price is based on speculation. The "natural" demand of BTC brought us to $14, and based on current electricity costs (miners won't sell their coins at a loss) the speculation-less price for 1BTC it's around $50. This is hard math, not speculation. Just check the numbers yourself. Difficulty and thus electricity cost per BTC will keep increasing, and "real economy" around BTC will grow accordingly, as it always did: if there is a global ban (almost impossible), we will still have black market economy + "idealists" using it, and that will lead to steady (but slower) growth. If there is an US ban (unlikely at this point, but a possibility somewhere in the future), we will still have increasing demand all over the rest of the world, which will lead us to exponential growth. If there is no ban at all, even better for us all. There are only two lethal threats to Bitcoin: a) the development of a superior crypto-currency with the same core characteristics (trust-free and decentralized and thus immune to Government attacks) b) a fatal flaw in the technology of the protocol (highly unlikely at this point) Every other scenario has been analyzed, and Bitcoin is designed to rise stronger from those scenarios, including a Government ban. Actually, he does understand all that. He is here to spread FUD. You can see his alter ego's quite transparently. He is just trying to bring fear into the BTC equation. I only reply to bring some as-semblance of balance to those reading his posts - so as they know they are FUD. We all do a pretty good job of that with Coinseeker. |
|
|
|
It should be mentioned, that Bitcoin "technically" can live without exchanges...
Technically.
Imagine economy, based on golden coins.
Imagine, that someone regulates gold coins exchange to the degree when it becomes of no use.
Will economy work on direct coins-to-goods exchange?
Well, actually, that is the idea in the end (or slowly along the way). Before we can get to a place where BTC is used independently of other currencies (exchanging in and out) we need wider acceptance. If the banks keep printing money like there is no tomorrow, they are just hastening our adoption. |
|
|
|
There will be proper demand of Bitcoin regardless of it being legal or illegal in the US, I can guarantee you that.
Yes, but if it's going to be illegal, or even semi-illegal in the US, it will be much less attractive as an investment. There's real, actual demand for BTC, namely drug trade and gambling. They represent less than ten percent of the total demand, everything else is speculative investment. I would call it a gamble more than an investment. There are so many things that can go south, and one of them is precisely the very real possibility of it being declared illegal by one or more Governments. I agree that after we reached $20 at the en of January there was an explosion of speculative activity around Bitcoin, and that's why the price skyrocketed so fast. But real demand besides of speculation will grow steadily and quicker than before, now that Bitcoin has been exposed to the whole world. Based on what, gut feeling? Certainly not facts. Bitcoin is slow and extremely complicated. You have to be above average technical to even consider using it and then, who's going to want to when you can't spend it anywhere except to do illegal stuff? So, you're doing something that's super complicated. That's slow and could never handle micro transactions. That in this scenario presented would be illegal, thus you risk jail time all to buy a digital "currency" that you can only use to buy illegal stuff. And somehow despite all this, you think it's just going to keep growing and achieve mass adoption? It is the speculation thread but I think it's a flawed piece of speculation you've laid out. More like a dream with zero basis in reality. And with that, I'll take my Hero Member badge. Welcome back the Coinseeker that we have been waiting on.  Bitcoin is super fast, isn't that the point? I think you meant the confirmations? Yeah, they need to work on speeding that up and there is a work a round using a "trusted" buyer system. Sounds like Ripple, but with a money that they don't need to give away to be accepted. ehehe Complicated - Well, considering it is pretty new, I'd say that is debatable. The VC money coming in will address this. Nothing shocking here. I remember the internet pre Netscape Navigator - THAT WAS COMPLICATED and look where it ended up. We are doing fine, but of course things need to be improved upon. You are criticizing a very new technology that is still getting the bugs worked out and all the while is worth over 1.5 or so Billion dollars. Not bad. Imagine if it wasn't "complicated" where we'd be at. Patience Grasshopper, patience... |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this is not closer to the singularity, but farther away from it than Ripple. Why would we go to offchain transactions with more moving parts when we have a far superior fully integrated platform? Ripple does more than just solve the "multiple currency" transaction problem - it provides a more efficient validation and confirmation ledger platform. Mining is unnecessary and inefficient in the long run. We will see higher and higher transaction fees as Bitcoin adoption increases if the block size does not increase. With so many systems and so many moving parts and bottlenecks, a Bitmessage/Open Transaction/Bitcoin build appears inferior from a Universal standpoint to an integrated Ripple platform.
Thanks for the info about Ripple. I am interested in learning more about it, just not here. Two points: 1 - You are making Ripple sound like a replacement for BTC when the designers say it is a compliment to it. Seems like BTC is doing well and with so many XRP's out there and the owners owning a ton, I don't see value in that. 2 - Could you answer this in a Ripple thread since this thread is about Bitmessage. This is really annoying from the Ripple guys, always jumping in BTC threads. If all the cryptocurrency guys did that, this place would be a big mess.Thx, IAS |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that!
If they designed Stuxnet to deal with Iran, imagine what they will do to stop competition to the banking system...
|
|
|
|
mp420 Current Bitcoin can't be sustainably much over $400.
Justification: the 1MB block size limit and the fact that the price has pretty much grown hand in hand with the number of transactions per block (in the long time trend). We have free transactions now (for old enough coins). Eventually a minimum transaction fee for ANY transaction will be several dollars, when the block space scarcity really starts to constrict usage. If BTC adoption grows at the current rate, in a couple of years this scenario is going to be real. This will mean, by the way, that the block subsidy will be insignificant far sooner than most people think. At 20,000 tx/block and $1 fee per tx, assuming $400/BTC and current reward level, fees will be two thirds of total miner revenue.
I do not expect doing away with the block size limit until we've seen its economic consequences. Many influential people have gotten stuck in early 2011 and the "everyone must be able to run a full node in their cell phone" mindset. This is really interesting. Where can we verify this information easily? Even if that trend is true, I would think supply and demand would set the price as a commodity. As BTC gets more use as a transaction/purchase means, then perhaps the point you mention would be more true? Thanks for the post, IAS note - Mods - When I tried quoting the above text with the quote button in the original post it said to log out and back in again. I just clicked reply and manually inserted the quote that way. Weird??? |
|
|
|
Afbitcoins - You linked a 55 page doc  , (dated Oct 2012). I don't have time right now to read the doc (thanks for linking it, hard to believe I see no mention of that doc anywhere that I've seen.) I see 3 mentions of the word threat, 2 of which say anything, as follows: p.33 It is important to stress that this chapter is not intended to be a fully-fledged analysis; rather it
is a first attempt at providing a basis for discussion on this issue. Largely, this is a result of the
uncertainty surrounding virtual currency schemes and the lack of reliable information and data.
From the analysis of the existing information it is already possible to draw an initial conclusion:
it is very complicated to obtain a clear overview ofthe situation regarding virtual currency schemes
at this stage. Almost all of the information that can be found is on the internet, written in blogs
or on web pages where personal bias cannot be excluded (see, for instance, the references listed
in the Annex). With the exception of a few articles from respectable media sources or economics
journals, it is almost impossible to find any comprehensive papers on this issue, since no
international organisations have published statements. A similar problem exists with regard to the
quantitative information and statistics that would be needed in order to assess the speed at which
these virtual currency schemes are growing and the point at which they could become a real threat.
The quantitative information that is available is not extensive and is usually provided by the
respective scheme owner.. p. 37 Finally, it isimportant to safeguard a currency’srole as a unit of account, associety reaps benefits
froma well-defined and stablemonetary unitforits economic transactions, irrespective ofthe issuer
or the format in which money is issued. Virtual currency schemes could lead to the emergence
of multiple units of account in the real economy. Virtual currency scheme owners could then be
tempted to issue excessive amountsin order to profit from the placement of these funds. A change
in views about the creditworthiness of these issuers (and the associated virtual exchange rate
variability) would threaten to undermine the role of money in providing a single unit of account as
a common financial denominator for the whole economy Interesting and great news (This is what BTC is about...) edit - Got to love the name of the pdf - "Virtual Currency Schemes" |
|
|
|
First, really nice job on the breakdown.
Interesting that BTC has nothing to really compare itself to. We are comparing it to payment forms using specific currencies. Where as BTC is it's own currency, which leads me to my point:
BTC as it's own currency throughout the world is going to impact potentially all currencies as it becomes both a store of value AND easily convertible. It is in another class of
currencies - a decentralized and Stateless entity that is DEFLATIONARY. Wow, imagine that. Something that doesn't get inflated out of value. Go down that rabbit hole with some deep thinking and you will come up with some interesting possibilities (to put it mildly). This alone has got to make banks watch their backs regarding the current 0% interest experiment.
I really think the convertibility is going to catch the world by surprise. Imagine people in 3rd world countries, countries with currency problems, etc. who can
just easily keep track of BTC's value in their own land. The dollar is currently the worlds currency, but has some limitations (e.g. - See Argentina banning it's use) and so BTC can easily be
used around any walls on an Android phone (until Apple takes it's bank out of it's...). It will take a bit more time and some more infrastructure but that really looks like it is on the way.
It's about sharing
The convertibility issue (Crypto/Fiat interface) is the unresolved issue that I see. What kind of functional market mechanism do you anticipate people using convert their Crypto to Fiat to make use of their funds "in-country?" Perhaps I am ignorant but I think it is quite simple. Until stability is reached in BTC, they are going to have to have something in the way of an app on their android cell that converts their currency into BTC. I just see the solution being smart phone based for customers and store keepers alike (though the latter can of course use something larger if possible - but maybe a phone is enough? After all, we are talking 3rd world and countries with currency issues.) Just scanning QR codes as a means of exchange. Going from BTC back to their own currency, I guess that would have to be online, except for those people who wish to have some cash (for whatever reason) and then they can act as exchangers. I really see the local markets finding their own way, but it is in a sense already there. Due to the deflationary aspect it seems that most people would benefit from having BTC and not local currencies, at least once some stability is reached. Is this what you meant? The mechanism is just some smart phones and apps. Not really. You are proposing a technology for a transfer but you are not answering the basic questions about how the Fiat side of an exchange plays out. In your example (third world hyper inflationary economies): A. Commercial Issues1. Who will "buy" the local currency for Bitcoin knowing that it is rapidly depreciating? 2. Won't everyone want Bitcoin except for their immediate day to day needs -- for which they can use their paychecks or business cash flow? 3. How will they get bitcoin if no one wants to trade for the local currency at scale? 4. In essence, isn't this going to be a one-sided market? B. Regulatory Issues: 1. Wouldn't you expect the Government of said country to place immediate restrictions on the use of bitcoins as they don't control it -- the same way they do on USD transactions? 2. Won't that choke off the flow of funds as well? 3. At the grass roots level, can't they can basically arrest merchants for having the "app" on their machines, randomly check phones, etc... this is third world after all? 4. Do you view the Mt. Gox/Dwolla shutdown as a paperwork oversight or a shot across the bow? 5. Isn't the need to obtain money transmitter approvals state by state enough to stop bitcoin exchangers temporarily while more permanent regulations are promulgated? These are just off the top of my head, and I am certain that I am missing many more important economic issues surrounding the Crypto/Fiat interface. But it's a start. In the absence of significant market share, I still don't understand how Crypto really gets off the ground for Mom and Pop and those wanting to do regulated business. A: 1 - There is no need to use local currency if they don't want. If it is depreciating then of course they won't use it nor want to. Look at what is happening in Argentina. Big Premiums is my guess but we also need some Robin Hood like help and I'm sure that will be there. 2 - Yes they will and they will buy a fraction if need be. More valuable than their own currency. The idea is to exchange into BTC, any way possible. If in person, rates will be much higher of course. 3 - They will get BTC in a few ways, as mentioned in 2, they will pay a HIGH premium. 2nd - they will have to have access to an online means. Black Market... 4 - This is going to be a BTC sided market. The original idea of BTC. Hopefully not Black. B: 1 - Yes they would, but when a currency is collapsing their power is going to be next to nil, not to mention they may not want to show their face due to many people who have lost their money, not to mention faith. 2 - Depends how bad things are. No one said this would be easy. 3 - Again, depends on how bad it gets. But if a stable currency helps the people AND country, why would they go to such extremes to stop it? They just want their taxes, bigger problem. 4 - Both but mostly they caught them making a mistake. I think they get fined and that is all. Looks like a genuine mistake. If they get jail time or things get more complicated, then it was more... 5 - Well, I see that happening. Isn't that what places like bitinstant do? I think they have permission in 30 States right now. Depending on how far this goes, things may not be smooth. BUT, the reason this is even possible and here right now is because the Bankers F'd up. And as their money continues to collapse, BTC seems like a solution and not another problem. They are going to have to deal with this is my guess. Again, may not be easy, but it seems rights have never been given, they have always been fought for. I'm just going to respond generally here: A: What you call big premiums, I call an implied devaluation plus a premium to avoid further devaluation. So, local nationals are between a rock and a hard place on that one. They're likely to be better off buying hard assets than another currency for savings -- prices will adjust. For short term needs, the historical tendency is to spend it as you get it. I don't see anyone selling bitcoins to local nationals except to buy assets -- and surprise surprise there are laws regarding foreign ownership. B: I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Surprisingly, devaluations seem to be met stoically for the most part by the populace -- look at Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Ukraine, Russia, etc...for example. It's not like they don't/didn't see it coming. And it's not like they abandoned their own currencies afterwards -- dollarization isn't all that popular. In that regard, the US has been devaluing its currency for generations (most recently with the "Nixon Shock") and we don't see any revolutions springing up. I really don't see the US government giving up control of its currency -- consider the nationalization of gold for example to show how far the US government will go -- absent a systemic collapse. And I think that just about every nation-state will work with the US to avoid that as the likelihood of a global collapse has got to be 100% in that eventuality. To be honest, I'd like to be a conspiracy theorist and believe that Bitcoin is the product of the US government and is meant as a mechanism for seizing control back from the banks. Sadly, I find that implausible. On the brighter side, I hadn't realized that BitInstant was that far along. It will be interesting to watch them evolve and see what the US government's next move will be. A: I wouldn't focus on the "premiums" part, that is the last resort. Systems will be formed and by the very nature of what we are talking about here, they will be of higher value than what the government is offering with their fiat currencies. If governments in some parts of the world push BTC underground, than that is at the governments expense and that decision affects the people of course, so it is a tricky situation. It will be interesting to see what happens with laws and such, again, it is of no small matter that governments force people into devalued currencies. I say the governments create their own demise here. B: I don't necessarily disagree with your assumptions or thoughts of where this will go. I think it is too complicated and involves things outside of economics (like human behavior in new areas, perhaps with not a lot of precedence to go on, considering the world currently.) I do think systems will adjust themselves and governments will mostly be helpless to regulate them if things get bad. I'd say we are hanging on on faith right now. The US is making sure other currencies devalue themselves (by printing more) and that thus far has saved the US Dollar. But the Chinese currency has moved from 8:1 to 6:1 recently and is gaining on the dollar the whole time. So, you have to consider countries like China, Russia and maybe even parts of Europe, supporting the BTC and putting pressure on the USD in ways we can't imagine (almost). Look at American regulators going after Dwolla and now LR. It does look like they are going after funding mechanisms, but that seems to be increasing the price of BTC. Will the USD depreciate downwards against BTC, while other currencies appreciate only reasonably? Can you say "US policies are backfiring"?  (The bitcoinchannel.com guy has a great piece on that now). Interesting Conspiracy theory (they sure are fun) but I agree with you. They can only wish to get control of it, and even then, it is deflationary - BIG Problem... |
|
|
|
Well sure, but then previous transfers shouldn't be affected by the USA's holiday.
I think people are with families on the holidays, at least most people. (Maybe not the geeks...) |
|
|
|
First, really nice job on the breakdown.
Interesting that BTC has nothing to really compare itself to. We are comparing it to payment forms using specific currencies. Where as BTC is it's own currency, which leads me to my point:
BTC as it's own currency throughout the world is going to impact potentially all currencies as it becomes both a store of value AND easily convertible. It is in another class of
currencies - a decentralized and Stateless entity that is DEFLATIONARY. Wow, imagine that. Something that doesn't get inflated out of value. Go down that rabbit hole with some deep thinking and you will come up with some interesting possibilities (to put it mildly). This alone has got to make banks watch their backs regarding the current 0% interest experiment.
I really think the convertibility is going to catch the world by surprise. Imagine people in 3rd world countries, countries with currency problems, etc. who can
just easily keep track of BTC's value in their own land. The dollar is currently the worlds currency, but has some limitations (e.g. - See Argentina banning it's use) and so BTC can easily be
used around any walls on an Android phone (until Apple takes it's bank out of it's...). It will take a bit more time and some more infrastructure but that really looks like it is on the way.
It's about sharing
The convertibility issue (Crypto/Fiat interface) is the unresolved issue that I see. What kind of functional market mechanism do you anticipate people using convert their Crypto to Fiat to make use of their funds "in-country?" Perhaps I am ignorant but I think it is quite simple. Until stability is reached in BTC, they are going to have to have something in the way of an app on their android cell that converts their currency into BTC. I just see the solution being smart phone based for customers and store keepers alike (though the latter can of course use something larger if possible - but maybe a phone is enough? After all, we are talking 3rd world and countries with currency issues.) Just scanning QR codes as a means of exchange. Going from BTC back to their own currency, I guess that would have to be online, except for those people who wish to have some cash (for whatever reason) and then they can act as exchangers. I really see the local markets finding their own way, but it is in a sense already there. Due to the deflationary aspect it seems that most people would benefit from having BTC and not local currencies, at least once some stability is reached. Is this what you meant? The mechanism is just some smart phones and apps. Not really. You are proposing a technology for a transfer but you are not answering the basic questions about how the Fiat side of an exchange plays out. In your example (third world hyper inflationary economies): A. Commercial Issues1. Who will "buy" the local currency for Bitcoin knowing that it is rapidly depreciating? 2. Won't everyone want Bitcoin except for their immediate day to day needs -- for which they can use their paychecks or business cash flow? 3. How will they get bitcoin if no one wants to trade for the local currency at scale? 4. In essence, isn't this going to be a one-sided market? B. Regulatory Issues: 1. Wouldn't you expect the Government of said country to place immediate restrictions on the use of bitcoins as they don't control it -- the same way they do on USD transactions? 2. Won't that choke off the flow of funds as well? 3. At the grass roots level, can't they can basically arrest merchants for having the "app" on their machines, randomly check phones, etc... this is third world after all? 4. Do you view the Mt. Gox/Dwolla shutdown as a paperwork oversight or a shot across the bow? 5. Isn't the need to obtain money transmitter approvals state by state enough to stop bitcoin exchangers temporarily while more permanent regulations are promulgated? These are just off the top of my head, and I am certain that I am missing many more important economic issues surrounding the Crypto/Fiat interface. But it's a start. In the absence of significant market share, I still don't understand how Crypto really gets off the ground for Mom and Pop and those wanting to do regulated business. A: 1 - There is no need to use local currency if they don't want. If it is depreciating then of course they won't use it nor want to. Look at what is happening in Argentina. Big Premiums is my guess but we also need some Robin Hood like help and I'm sure that will be there. 2 - Yes they will and they will buy a fraction if need be. More valuable than their own currency. The idea is to exchange into BTC, any way possible. If in person, rates will be much higher of course. 3 - They will get BTC in a few ways, as mentioned in 2, they will pay a HIGH premium. 2nd - they will have to have access to an online means. Black Market... 4 - This is going to be a BTC sided market. The original idea of BTC. Hopefully not Black. B: 1 - Yes they would, but when a currency is collapsing their power is going to be next to nil, not to mention they may not want to show their face due to many people who have lost their money, not to mention faith. 2 - Depends how bad things are. No one said this would be easy. 3 - Again, depends on how bad it gets. But if a stable currency helps the people AND country, why would they go to such extremes to stop it? They just want their taxes, bigger problem. 4 - Both but mostly they caught them making a mistake. I think they get fined and that is all. Looks like a genuine mistake. If they get jail time or things get more complicated, then it was more... 5 - Well, I see that happening. Isn't that what places like bitinstant do? I think they have permission in 30 States right now. Depending on how far this goes, things may not be smooth. BUT, the reason this is even possible and here right now is because the Bankers F'd up. And as their money continues to collapse, BTC seems like a solution and not another problem. They are going to have to deal with this is my guess. Again, may not be easy, but it seems rights have never been given, they have always been fought for. |
|
|
|
First, really nice job on the breakdown.
Interesting that BTC has nothing to really compare itself to. We are comparing it to payment forms using specific currencies. Where as BTC is it's own currency, which leads me to my point:
BTC as it's own currency throughout the world is going to impact potentially all currencies as it becomes both a store of value AND easily convertible. It is in another class of
currencies - a decentralized and Stateless entity that is DEFLATIONARY. Wow, imagine that. Something that doesn't get inflated out of value. Go down that rabbit hole with some deep thinking and you will come up with some interesting possibilities (to put it mildly). This alone has got to make banks watch their backs regarding the current 0% interest experiment.
I really think the convertibility is going to catch the world by surprise. Imagine people in 3rd world countries, countries with currency problems, etc. who can
just easily keep track of BTC's value in their own land. The dollar is currently the worlds currency, but has some limitations (e.g. - See Argentina banning it's use) and so BTC can easily be
used around any walls on an Android phone (until Apple takes it's bank out of it's...). It will take a bit more time and some more infrastructure but that really looks like it is on the way.
It's about sharing
The convertibility issue (Crypto/Fiat interface) is the unresolved issue that I see. What kind of functional market mechanism do you anticipate people using convert their Crypto to Fiat to make use of their funds "in-country?" Perhaps I am ignorant but I think it is quite simple. Until stability is reached in BTC, they are going to have to have something in the way of an app on their android cell that converts their currency into BTC. I just see the solution being smart phone based for customers and store keepers alike (though the latter can of course use something larger if possible - but maybe a phone is enough? After all, we are talking 3rd world and countries with currency issues.) Just scanning QR codes as a means of exchange. Going from BTC back to their own currency, I guess that would have to be online, except for those people who wish to have some cash (for whatever reason) and then they can act as exchangers. I really see the local markets finding their own way, but it is in a sense already there. Due to the deflationary aspect it seems that most people would benefit from having BTC and not local currencies, at least once some stability is reached. Is this what you meant? The mechanism is just some smart phones and apps. |
|
|
|
Starting to look bad from here...  Since when cheap coins look bad? And here in Germany bitcoin.de's price is down .10 from yesterdays! That is what happens with low volume (1400 today so far) and low float (3800 right now). I can only hope for cheap coins... |
|
|
|
|
First, really nice job on the breakdown.
Interesting that BTC has nothing to really compare itself to. We are comparing it to payment forms using specific currencies. Where as BTC is it's own currency, which leads me to my point:
BTC as it's own currency throughout the world is going to impact potentially all currencies as it becomes both a store of value AND easily convertible. It is in another class of
currencies - a decentralized and Stateless entity that is DEFLATIONARY. Wow, imagine that. Something that doesn't get inflated out of value. Go down that rabbit hole with some deep thinking and you will come up with some interesting possibilities (to put it mildly). This alone has got to make banks watch their backs regarding the current 0% interest experiment.
I really think the convertibility is going to catch the world by surprise. Imagine people in 3rd world countries, countries with currency problems, etc. who can
just easily keep track of BTC's value in their own land. The dollar is currently the worlds currency, but has some limitations (e.g. - See Argentina banning it's use) and so BTC can easily be
used around any walls on an Android phone (until Apple takes it's bank out of it's...). It will take a bit more time and some more infrastructure but that really looks like it is on the way.
It's about sharing
|
|
|
|
Maybe you can answer a simple question, what are you trending? I mean, what is BTC? Currency, Commodity, Stock, disruptive technology, protocol, etc.
TA is great, we all use it, but to overly depend on it with something that we can't easily define, is cheapening what it is that is BTC. What if some really big news comes out? e.g., Pay Pal becomes funding mechanism for BTC. What do you think will happen to the "price" of BTC?
TA has been said to basically describe human behavior (e.g. support lines). Now, since there are so many variables with BTC (see that short list above), again, it is dangerous to try to pigeon hole what BTC is.
Be very very careful over emphasizing TA and yet know when to use it.
From the perspective of the chart it is quite simple, the trend is the price of a bitcoin in US dollars as traded on MT Gox exchange. Bitcoin is not currency or commodity, it is money, like gold and silver. Unlike currencies it will also function as a store of value. I'm not going to defend TA yet again, if you don't like it, then perhaps you shouldn't bother with the speculation forum. I said "TA is great, we all use it, ..." so I'm not smacking it down and I USE IT. I think my point was clear. We don't know what BTC is, not even the government will define it for us. But you know. Maybe you should not be so touchy about a question, not even a criticism... I was just bringing up the Black Swan nature of BTC and not asking you to defend TA, just merely open up a bit regarding the possibilities. I don't really follow why you want the govt to define bitcoins ! The less the govt has to do with it the better. But like I said, for my purposes I mainly focus on the monetary aspects of it which for speculating on price is all I feel the need to consider. Sorry if my reply seemed touchy not your fault. Thx as I wasn't trying to give you a hard time. Regarding the government defining BTC: If they define what we are, then we can start laying the groundwork and developing a plan (expansion, legal, tax, etc.) for going forward. I do see your point though and I agree the less government the better. But the danger is that they leave things gray and pick and attack as they choose. Now, maybe this doesn't hold up in a court of law (but who knows since corruption runs deep) but it could slow us down due to raising the fear level. That said, it is beautiful how even with the uncertainty of the DHS thing, the price quickly rebounded. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show... (Really, no matter what happens - though I think we are mostly ok - this is one hell of a ride. It is not everyday (or decade or century) that something like this comes along and challenges the established "norms"/corruption ) I predict various govts of the world will attempt to block bitcoins in a selection of inept ways. Everything the govt tries to do usually has the opposite effect and in this case will probably just make bitcoins stronger and more resilient. Part of their strategy might be through defining various dubious legal definitions which won't make a difference. I'm more worried about what bankers will attempt. In my view various internet debt based schemes will be pushed onto us and they will keep trying and trying different variations until they succeed. Ripples being the best example at this time. They will try and undermine or control bitcoins via deceipt and manipulation replacing bitcoins with IOU's for bitcoins and putting hidden quantities of bitcoins locked into gateways. I held the same belief, regarding governments attacking BTC, but I'm recently changed my stance. I don't think governments can react any where quick enough to stop BTC. It has been around for 4 years and just now does the DHS make a very very minor move, which doesn't even look like it was against BTC. Just simply Gox missed something. Banks - I don't think BTC is the threat we think it is to banks, not anytime soon. Banks make their money from fraction reserver lending, and BTC, in its current carnation is not at all a threat to that. Maybe that develops, but it is no where near touching the banks pockets. Rather, I see banks using it to improve the speed of international transactions and such. BTC is a threat to credit card companies and companies like Western Union (the latter of which is doing a good job failing on its own and the former seems to be getting on consumers nerves with their near monopolistic control on interest rates.) But even the credit card companies make their money on loans, so again, I don't see BTC effecting them anytime soon, in that regard. Now, as BTC evolves I do see things growing from it which naturally takes out unfair monetary business practices. We are so early in the game. What happens when BTC shows that a deflationary currency is the way to go? That is a threat to the banks! But, by the time it shows it's head, the writing is on the wall. Really, BTC is a gift from the Universe/Nature, of which we are a part. We were just the corrective mechanism allowed to plant it. |
|
|
|
 Looks like we're above the trend. Although maybe it is steeper now because of mining reward halfing? Maybe you can answer a simple question, what are you trending? I mean, what is BTC? Currency, Commodity, Stock, disruptive technology, protocol, etc. TA is great, we all use it, but to overly depend on it with something that we can't easily define, is cheapening what it is that is BTC. What if some really big news comes out? e.g., Pay Pal becomes funding mechanism for BTC. What do you think will happen to the "price" of BTC? TA has been said to basically describe human behavior (e.g. support lines). Now, since there are so many variables with BTC (see that short list above), again, it is dangerous to try to pigeon hole what BTC is. Be very very careful over emphasizing TA and yet know when to use it. From the perspective of the chart it is quite simple, the trend is the price of a bitcoin in US dollars as traded on MT Gox exchange. Bitcoin is not currency or commodity, it is money, like gold and silver. Unlike currencies it will also function as a store of value. I'm not going to defend TA yet again, if you don't like it, then perhaps you shouldn't bother with the speculation forum. I said "TA is great, we all use it, ..." so I'm not smacking it down and I USE IT. I think my point was clear. We don't know what BTC is, not even the government will define it for us. But you know. Maybe you should not be so touchy about a question, not even a criticism... I was just bringing up the Black Swan nature of BTC and not asking you to defend TA, just merely open up a bit regarding the possibilities. I don't really follow why you want the govt to define bitcoins ! The less the govt has to do with it the better. But like I said, for my purposes I mainly focus on the monetary aspects of it which for speculating on price is all I feel the need to consider. Sorry if my reply seemed touchy not your fault. Thx as I wasn't trying to give you a hard time. Regarding the government defining BTC: If they define what we are, then we can start laying the groundwork and developing a plan (expansion, legal, tax, etc.) for going forward. I do see your point though and I agree the less government the better. But the danger is that they leave things gray and pick and attack as they choose. Now, maybe this doesn't hold up in a court of law (but who knows since corruption runs deep) but it could slow us down due to raising the fear level. That said, it is beautiful how even with the uncertainty of the DHS thing, the price quickly rebounded. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show... (Really, no matter what happens - though I think we are mostly ok - this is one hell of a ride. It is not everyday (or decade or century) that something like this comes along and challenges the established "norms"/corruption ) |
|
|
|
OMG no this is bad news for alternate e-currencies in general, I would say.
I was implementing the LR API for my future BTC business, now I think I wasted my time... Is OKPAY next? Is this why BTC exchanges have problem with OKPAY now (thinking BTC-e)?
No, this is definitely not good news, even if BTC is unaffected, they are going to put the pressure on exchanges and money intermediaries now.
I see the Liberty Reserve closer as a good omen for BTC. It brings us that much closer to a decentralized exchange. Remember, it took taking Napster down in order for Bit-torrent to surface. As these central points of failure are removed, decentralized (like) replacements will have to come. (Unless of course we take the regulatory route, but I just don't see us doing that 100%. It is better for us to apply pressure on the regulators and for them to meet us half way than us meeting their demands.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
