Hi. I just was in future. Bitcoin was dead, and the bitcoin chart looked like this.  Is this confirmed guys? The volume tells a different story.. |
|
|
|
Everyone and their mom is shorting bitcoin. Guess what will happen.
They will save Bitcoin's price from flash-crashing below 200$ during the next big dumping rape which seems to be probable according to historical data? You mean the chart points down on your preferred timescale?  |
|
|
|
"We're in a downwards trend. It doesn't matter that buying pressure exceeded 30k BTC of selling pressure at 300 and the price is going up. The market and the price are just too stupid to realize that we're not in a trend reversal!"  It really is funny. I've been insulted/made fun of for my bearishness since the bubble popped at the end of 2013. Being bearish used to be the contrarian position. Nowadays, being bullish is the contrarian play, just look how people will continuously attack you for stating relatively reasonable positions (that the conditions under which 275 has happened may not repeat again). Being leveraged short now when doubt about the bear market being over has emerged would make traders defensive. They know the tide is turning. Hopefully a few of the less savoury characters on here will be caught pants down |
|
|
|
|
But but but..I was told the price would fall forever because ..charts!
|
|
|
|
...
You are short, so?
So he's making money while you're losing it. How is it you don't understand the most trivial shit? You obviously think you exert an effect on the market by trolling these forums constantly. Hope it's worth it! |
|
|
|
Subject is grammatically incorrect, and for that reason alone it just stuck in my head.
In hindsight, interesting to read the advice.
Here we are, over 100 points lower. I think this thread was created at the lofty heights of $478'ish.
Now we're in the 340's.
You are short, so? |
|
|
|
Can someone ask kindly Jeff to stop stalking NXT and Mr Maxwell his sidechains coding and both have a look at this: http://t.co/eWNQq2h1Cx?? WTF ? ? ? ? I wonder how good the random number generation is with bitaddress.org. I cannot be alone in generating my cold storage addresses from that. Poor random number generation was always going to be the next attack vector to try and narrow down the bitcoin private key space. Only good can come from this. |
|
|
|
<crap>
The price will fall to zero because recently it has been falling. Amazing market insight. |
|
|
|
|
May get chance to buy with my trading tranche if we reach 300 again. Bit disappointing this bitcoin market. We may need a retest of the absolute lows again.
|
|
|
|
Right now the market is oversold, so there's not much room down left. I expect the market to test 420$, but it may take longer than a week.
If the bulls have too little ammo left to break 420$ and reach at least 470$, the real bear party will start.
We want a bull party! |
|
|
|
I predicted all of this. Read my latest posts.
Sub 250 coming by Monday. Mark my words.
Erm. |
|
|
|
As scarcity increases, so does the price.... Mtgox was an exchange... that has nothing to do with a protocol and its security. You should rethink a bit of what you just said here.
I agree scarcity drives price when demand exists. It is why I speculatively hold bitcoin right now. What will drive the demand for bitcoin if everyone moves to a bitcoin 2.0 chain? We arent talking about 2.0 chains (like ethereum) we are talking about sidechains. They exist on the bitcoin blockchain. By 'bitcoin 2.0 chain' I simply mean't a sidechain which was superior to bitcoin. This will be my last post tonight as I don't want to spam the thread. But my point was simply that if a bitcoin sidechain becomes popular, value may migrate from the bitcoin chain to side chain. If 'there can be only one' then a very significant number of coins on the bitcoin chain may become locked resulting in actual use of bitcoin being very limited, with global transactions occuring on the side chain instead. I cannot see in that situation that simple scarcity alone will maintain a high price, simply because demand is clearly for the side chain usurper, not for bitcoin anymore. Anyway, good night all. Thanks for the interesting thoughts guys. |
|
|
|
I'm sure 99% SCs will use 1:1 conversion rate and no new SCBTC will be generated ... you will still have your bitcoins, but few will be locked in "fast transfer" sidechain ... you will have some locked in "exchage" sidechain ... and some in your private business sidechains (not public sidechains)
You may be right. I was just thinking through various possibilities that side chains presents, such as whether they pose a risk to bitcoin, which I still think they may do. Once this is enabled any side chain can be implemented without permission, of any kind whatsoever. Is it a bit naive perhaps to think that only a chain composed of locked bitcoins can exist? Why don't we clone ethereum or counter party and simply run it centralised as a fast transfer side chain off bitcoin? We can give ourselves 50% of the ether initially and let the next 50% come from locked coins. A pre side mine if you like. As soon as a decent number of coins are locked into our chain we can just cash out. Or simply vary the number of SCBTC given per locked BTC so the first adopters get more of the pie. |
|
|
|
As scarcity increases, so does the price.... Mtgox was an exchange... that has nothing to do with a protocol and its security. You should rethink a bit of what you just said here.
I agree scarcity drives price when demand exists. It is why I speculatively hold bitcoin right now. What will drive the demand for bitcoin if everyone moves to a bitcoin 2.0 chain? |
|
|
|
That's right. To state it clearly, there will be an arbitrage opportunity. Buy BTC, transfer into SC, sell SCBTC, buy BTC. So the price of bitcoin will be lifted with the added value sidechains bring. In this sense inca, the child chain can never "destroy" Bitcoin even if it ends up carrying 99.9% of the transactions.
Markets and their capitalizations are a funny thing. They are illusory. We talk about bitcoin's current cap as being the price of a single coin multiplied by all the coins in existence. But the reality is far from that as the price is manipulated from, say, 1166 to 350 by a fraction of a few % of the coins in existence, or relatively modest amounts of fiat currency (millions to tens of millions of dollars only) on the way up. This concept of a 'two way peg' between bitcoin blockchain and side chain is really an exchange. The terms of how many SCBTC can be acquired/released by locking/unlocking actual BTC are flexible and could float, for example based upon fiat exchange value of SCBTC or BTC. If SCBTC use becomes prevalent then it is possible that as the value of BTC falls, SCBTC rises, until BTC is not a store of value. What you say (emboldened) is probably accurate. But what we care about is bitcoin maintaining value, as it's algorithmic scarcity was designed to do. That is the reason we hold it! |
|
|
|
What a depressing day. Bitcoin down 30 dollars and side chains emerge as a potential bitcoin killer. |
|
|
|
What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.
many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC. possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk. That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers. Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein. I'm in hurry now but if you have a few minutes to spare just skim through episode 77 and/or 99 of "let's talk bitcoin". Somewhere Adam Back describe an hypothetical scenario where a side chains is used to migrate between from one btc version to another. Thanks..will do. |
|
|
|
What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.
many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC. possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk. That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers. Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein. It does also seem totally counter intuitive to the incredible infrastructure, funding, merchant/user integration/adoption that has built up around bitcoin in recent years to then build entirely chains on top of bitcoin now. |
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt that side chains offer some exciting possibilities. But I am still not sure this is the right thing for bitcoin. Perhaps this if implemented into bitcoin core it will herald the end of the alt's in the future and a proliferation of side chains offering discrete services, all fully or partially backed by bitcoin.
I am not against the idea overall. But these new chains are really just alt coins initially backed to some degree by bitcoin. Perhaps that is the leverage the bitcoin 2.0 coins need to succeed in correcting some of the (perceived or real) deficiencies in bitcoin right now. Perhaps we need a static reliable bitcoin blockchain to act as a store of value, in essence like a digital gold reservoir which backs future alt digital currencies. However I suspect this is likely to be wishful thinking. I say alt currencies because these alt chains will not run on the bitcoin chain or protocol, but will simply be linked to it by this 'two way peg' system. If the last five years has shown anything, it is that 'there can be only one' is true really with bitcoin market cap being gigantic and all the rest of the alts being a tiny afterthought.
With each alt side chain presumably there will be an IPO type event where a portion of btc coins go into a black hole of being 'locked'. This will dwindle available supply of btc and instead of being sold off on exchange (ethereum) and depressing the price could actually support it. If lots of popular side chains exist the actual use of bitcoin could become reduced or even minimal. What will keep bitcoin from losing it's value? Nothing I suspect.
What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown. Will bitcoin value suddenly evaporate as all the coins sublime into the new chain in a mad rush? One can imagine some amazing pump and dump opportunities for clever side chain developers to acquire an awful lot of bitcoins through this 'two way peg' mechanism. (Early adopters again wahey!) Or to actually kill bitcoin with if a superior chain emerges.
What happens when a side chain is insecure and is 51%'d if decentralised or is simply hacked if centralised. It isn't hard to imagine a massive gox style disaster with hundreds of thousands of coins getting stolen or lost?
Interesting times.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
