I can't shake the feeling that we're getting nearer to the end of the consolidation/bear market, but on the other hand it looks to me like we might have a re-test of 600 ahead of us.  |
|
|
|
I will no longer consider you a delusional hypocrite.
I think that's rather harsh and ad hominem. The last few pages have been some of the most interesting and enlightening I've ever seen on this thread and I commend Jorge for being (sincerely) provocative...we need more "Po" and less linear, uniformed thinking. His posts are all rehashes of old complaints that have been debunked ad-nauseum. There are some genuine criticisms of Bitcoin to be made (though I have heard most of those already) and undoubtedly a few new ones yet to see the light of day. This "academic" is just posting like a noob. It borders on the trollish but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and put it down to arrogance. Some are, as you call it, already debunked rehashes, like the 'Ponzi' accusation, others are not, like "have we reached a market saturation point (for now)". Plus, you ignore one thing: it's good to have a genuine "bear" who doesn't resort to idiotic FUD posts and trolling. Say what you want, but jorge *argues* for this (bearish) position, even if you don't agree with his arguments in the end. |
|
|
|
I don't think his demeanor while posting here has been the same as on Twitter which makes me wonder if he thought he was concealing his disdain.
I have not concealed my views, but what would be the point of insisting on them in this forum? On twitter, my audience (only 2000, most of them "dead" probably) is only those people who choose to read my tweets; here it is not. I am not here to troll, pick fights, or humiliate anyone. I've said it before, I'll say it one more time in here: I disagree with large parts of your arguments, but I'm glad you post in here. The quality of your posts is still substantially higher than the average on here, so I'm interested in reading them. |
|
|
|
Well Bitcoin would alsowork if the price for 1 Bitcoin would only be 1-100$.
What´s the problem? I thought you all love the technic/philosophy and not the actual $ value of Bitcoin.
Technically bitcoin works however you value it but its utility increases as its value increases because that determines how much value you can transfer through it. Think of it as the "bandwidth". This is the correct answer. Plus, as liquidity increases, and perhaps adding to that some amount of exchange friction between markets (e.g. because of different legal approaches), we would also see volatility decrease gradually. Which, by the way, is already slowly happening. I know the press is all screaming about "the biggest crash yet in Bitcoinland", but looking at actually more objective measures, like Bollinger Band Width (which essentially tracks normalized standard deviations of averaged price), we can actually see that volatility already *is* trending down slowly. (I'll post it, if you request proof :D) |
|
|
|
Initiated SEPA withdrawal last Sunday for a not so big amount. Expected it to be on my bank account by now but instead I got a message from Support that they first need to have additional info for me, Additional KYC procedure.
Ok fine, i guess they want to to make sure they follow the (future) law. Although it is strange that I am not questioned when I deposit 5 digit amount of Euros, but I am questioned when I withdraw 4 digit amount. Anyway, I answered all the questions, attached copy of IDs and did everything else they asked.
Now I am still waiting for support to reply to that message and process my withdrawal.
Is BitStamp going the same route as mtGox? Are they not able to give me my money and just stalling time?
Anyone else confronted with this "additional KYC procedure".
Is there another way to contact them? I dont want to wait days, if not weeks for a reply from them.
Quick question, because I've heard from others in similar situations: You already had a 'verified' account (i.e. you already had submitted passport copy, and a utility bill) before, and now they asked for *additional* information? Is that the situation you're in? If so, can we maybe get some clarifying remarks on this matter from Bitstamp? Hazek, maybe? |
|
|
|
|
This is pathetic, NXT people. You are currently ranked 6th in market cap according to coinmarketcap.com, behind for example LTC and Peercoin, and even Dogecoin! Yet you are the only ones coming in here with force, spamming the thread with your demands to be listed on the mainpage.
It's not my thread or charting site, so obviously my voice is just one among many, and the final word is always that of user/bitcoinwisdom on these matters, but I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks:
You guys are starting to become annoying as hell. You got NXT charted on btcwisdom, that's what you wanted, now let it rest.
You know the saying, "Give them a finger, and they'll take the whole hand".
|
|
|
|
I do not want to bring more discord here. You all know my views and arguments, if you don't agree with them I do not know what to add.
But let me clarify a couple of misunderstandings:
* Investment in stocks is not a zero-sum game. A long-term stock investment is a loan to the company, who hopefully uses that money to create new real wealth (goods or services) that is worth more than the money invested in it. Part of that extra wealth is returned to the long-term investor as dividends, part is returned through the increase in stock price related to increase in the assets of the company (e.g. new factories built with money from profits that was not distributed as dividends). Thus investing in stocks can make people richer without making anyone poorer.
* Money that is invested into bitcoins is not being given to the "company" -- that is, the bitcoin network -- for it to build the infrastructure and paying the costs of doing its service (which is the "new wealth" that the bitcoin project is meant to create). Most of it goes into the pockets of other traders, some into the pockets of exchange operators. The "company" does not pay dividends to bitcoin investors, and these do not own a single chip from that "company". So, investing into bitcoins is not at all like investing in Google or Apple stock.
* By simply moving a fixed amount of money and bitcoins around, bitcoin trading cannot make everybody rich, not even in the average sense. That is something that a college education may help understand: in basic physics you learn that you cannot create mass, charge, or energy by smartly moving those things around.
That's funny, so we agree on point 1. But you draw a different conclusion then. True, the money we invest (be it for a year, or a day) isn't used by any company directly to create anything, but it provides liquidity. Which is, hm, kind of a prerequisite for any functional currency, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
|
Possible, but more likely imo that we'll stop just short of it, say: rally in june/July, hitting 4800 in September, then crash back to ~1000 or 2000, etc.
|
|
|
|
...
Even if bitcoin ultmately succeeds (which I wish it will, but doubt it) and bitcoins becomes extremely valuable (which I very much doubt they will), bitcoin trading is ultimately a zero-sum game. Any profit that one makes from it is someone else's loss. In order for @Goat (or someone else) to buy his Lamborghini, @windjc (or someone else) must lose his house.
...
I'll only pick out this one part, because it is so obviously naive (and wrong) that I can't help commenting on it. The day-to-day *trading* of a commodity is a zero sum game, granted. But the complete market mechanism isn't, unless you subscribe to some rather doubtful (probably Marx inspired) economical theories, where value creation in a market is essentially impossible without removing value from someone else. Let me do this more practical: Who "lost his house" against the early Microsoft, Google, or IBM investors? Your conceptual problem is as follow, I think: A Ponzi for your is a setup where early investors *can*, in principle, earn at the expense of later investors. That is however the setup for *any* trading situation. So the real point of a Ponzi is different: it is the above *plus* deceptive advertising *plus* an individual or a small group of individuals that set it up to profit in such a way. Neither applies to Bitcoin: Conspiracy theories aside, Satoshi is no sitting on some island slurping expensive cocktails. And, frankly, if you read the news, there's plenty warning about BTC out there, so the "misleading advertising" is also not a major part of the reason why people start investing in BTC. |
|
|
|
|
This thread really brings out the worst in some of you guys... "20 to 30 year old whores... Almost all worthless"..."If women wanted to be respected, why do their profile pictures always look like that..." The neckbeard is strong in that one!
ITT you guys desperately need some female contact other than your mom and the phone sex operator.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice find. Was completely unaware of who Lawsky is, and that he's about to do an AMA.
But:
Quoting a Dylan song, and then posting a cover? What's the matter, Mr Zimmerman's voice not pretty enough for for ya, huh?
|
|
|
|
Bleeding once a month and being physically weak.
No thanks.
Intellectually woman can be on a equal level.
Intelligence is only one of many factors to weigh.
Okay, so the physical side... I'm not sure exactly how bad the monthly bleeding is compared to male pattern baldness, the need to drag a sharp blade across your face every day before you even had a coffee, and dying on average 5 to 10 years earlier than women, but yeah... there's no point arguing about physical strength. We're stronger, on average. Wheeeee! (actually, being strong is kind of awesome. sorry ladies. but you got the better boobs :D) |
|
|
|
(1) The following statement is true:
Women ≠ Men
(2) The following statements are false:
Men > Women
Women > Men
(3) Anyone who refutes (1) and/or (2) is a fucking retard.
Can you name one invention of significant value created by a woman? I can name many useful inventions by men, simply looking around my house. Do you know any woman who has the physical strength to move her own furniture? I'll start. Let me know when you want me to stop co-discoverer of DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_FranklinFirst compiler (you fucking clown wouldn't be able to be on this forum, if it weren't for her) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_compiler_constructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_HopperEarly radioactivity research, also: 2 (TWO) motherfucking Nobel prizes, one in physics, one in chemistry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_CurieNoether's theorem. Don't even bother trying to understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_NoetherBut, hey, you asked "find me something in my house". Well then, the automated dishwasher maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishwasher#Historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_CochraneI know your response already: "But but but in PERCENTAGE women had much less impact/total Nobel prizes/etc". Well, yes, dear clown. Of course they did... Until <100 years ago, they weren't allowed to get university level degrees in most countries. We'll have this discussion again in 50 to 60 years, when a few more generations of women in the developed world had unconditional access to higher education. Not that it matters to you, of course: retard stays retard, no matter what dangles (or doesn't dangle) between your legs. |
|
|
|
- WOW! Thank you very much! Its a very good move! Wow! So NXT! Much wisdom! Oh, sorry. Wrong altcoin. |
|
|
|
You know, i consider myself a Feminist, ...
Women want to buy stuff that is A) expensive, B) fun, C) makes their girlfriends jealous and D) sparkles. ...
... But they like things to be easy and smooth and to sparkle. It MUST not be complicated, it must not be necessary to think about what you're doing and it must not feel nerdy or creepy, but super-awesome.
2/10 Decent idea for an attempt at trolling, but sloppy execution. Register a new account and try again, and be a bit more subtle, then it might work. |
|
|
|
2 parallel channels and a sort of speculative trend.First:  Don't get hung up about the 'red circle' wick. I know it's outside the channel, but you know, parallel channel lends it a bit of extra credibility yadda yadda. My point being: There's a chance we're going back into the orange channel, which is not quite as terrible as the red one, but slowly grinding downwards. In other words, before declaring this bear market as being over I need to see some more evidence. Then again:  It's a speculative one, I know. But don't dismiss completely out of hand, 3 pretty clear points of contact, and some decent volume going along with them. This could, perhaps, maybe, just saying, mark the bottom of our correction.
|
|
|
|
530 @bitstamp, February 10. |
|
|
|
Let's make it clear - nobody has no bloody idea where the heck it is heading right now, lol
Nothing that special , most of the times we are clueless about where the hell bitcoin is heading and why. Just enjoy the spooky ride  )) There is technical analysis creating bitcoin forecasts that work well How many millions are you worth? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask "how did your investment perform compared to buy & hold", to assess how well TA works in this market? |
|
|
|
ITT altcoin pushers are coming out in force But, sure, maybe he adds it, whatever. |
|
|
|
So why would Stamp and other exchanges rally too? There was no information released regarding them. Stamp already fixed its withdrawals days ago. And IF gox withdrawals are fixed all it means is there are more coins on the market getting dumped into Stamp.
There is no point in asking serious questions in this thread anymore. The rationale of most people here either believe it should go up 100% of the time or down there is never an in between. When you disagree with their view point they get angry at you. Please. Please go back and quote the last bullish post you made on this forum. I wonder if you can document even 1. On the contrary, find me a "bull" on here that hasn't been bearish at some point(s). You can't. Not sure if you're serious, but: are you implying that, on average, the *bears* in here are more stubbornly bearish than the *bulls* being stubbornly bullish? We must read different fora then  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
