BTC willl not reach $10.000, because BTC mining is going up worldwide and therefore, price will not go so high.  this is no sense, because with the halving the mienrs will not dump so much, actually their dumping pressure is not that significant for the market what is really matter is the demand not the supplyGosh, the price is where supply meets demand. To say supply doesn't matter ignores literally half the price equation. the supply is always the same, because there basically the same people that are dumping and manipulate the market the demand on the other hand can grow to unbelievable level or remain the same, or diminish, demand is the key factor only with a bigger demand a better price cna be achieved, with a lower supply you will not have a better value than the current one Supply is not always the same. The supply changes just as quickly and easily as demand. Both are equally important to price. When the government was selling off the Silk Road coins, it wasn't lack of demand that was pushing price down, it was a glut of sudden supply. The whole point of Bitcoin is to limit supply, that's just as important to price as demand. |
|
|
|
Wikipedia lists shale production costs as ranging from $95 to $25. That range is so large as not to be very useful, and I can't find many sources supporting the low end of that range. It seems likely that U.S. producers are currently producing at a loss or, at best, on razor thin profit margins. The coming quarters will reveal a lot of useful information from public U.S. producers about their intentions about production as they report financial results in this face of continued oil price declines.
You should also take into account that many of them had hedged their future production when the prices were higher. In fact, they have been hedging all the way down to $40 and below... You may want to look at the amount of oil put options traded I don't know of a way to distinguish between what is activity from energy producers and what is activity from energy traders and speculators in the oil futures market, so just looking at the trading data doesn't help me much. The only hard data I know is the financial information filed with the SEC each quarter. Most other data points seem to rely on a lot of conjecture. |
|
|
|
|
That's a good point. I think anywhere there is considerable inflation, people will be more open to alternative stores of value like Bitcoin. On the other hand, Bitcoin is also extremely volatile compared to the Russian currency, so it's not as if holding Bitcoin is necessarily less risky. Bitcoin can (and frequently does) drop 12 percent in a week, sometimes even a day. That makes a 12% annual inflation rate look stable by comparison. High inflation may move some folks to experiment with Bitcoin, but the risk is high enough that I wouldn't expect mass adoption because of it unless the inflation rate was out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia lists shale production costs as ranging from $95 to $25. That range is so large as not to be very useful, and I can't find many sources supporting the low end of that range. It seems likely that U.S. producers are currently producing at a loss or, at best, on razor thin profit margins. The coming quarters will reveal a lot of useful information from public U.S. producers about their intentions about production as they report financial results in this face of continued oil price declines.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the better question is what would make you think it would? (That's an "no" from me).
Also, we have to accept that PR will even go bankrupt. Since so many PR bonds are held by institutional U.S. investors because of the advantageous tax status of them, a PR bankruptcy would create ripples across the U.S. financial system which may not be small. A default may be more likely than a bankruptcy, and a default would create political pressure for some type of bailout. I personally don't think a bankruptcy is likely.
But in any event, bankruptcy or not, I don't expect PR to move the Bitcoin needle at all.
|
|
|
|
BTC willl not reach $10.000, because BTC mining is going up worldwide and therefore, price will not go so high. this is no sense, because with the halving the mienrs will not dump so much, actually their dumping pressure is not that significant for the market what is really matter is the demand not the supplyGosh, the price is where supply meets demand. To say supply doesn't matter ignores literally half the price equation. |
|
|
|
|
Is gold dependent on fiat? I would say technically it is not; gold has value whether fiat does or not. But no one seems to know the value of gold unless it is quoted in USD or some other fiat currency. so while the value of gold isn't dependent on fiat, knowing the value of gold seems to be. I would liken Bitcoin to this, but with the caveat that Bitcoin currently is dependent on fiat for value because it is still so widely unaccepted as a payment method. Perhaps in the future, Bitcoin will move to closer parity with gold as it relates to the USD as I explained above, where the value is truly independent of fiat, but I would say we are not there now and not really close either.
|
|
|
|
Oil will most likely go up over the next year, especially after a significantly low price. Also, cleaner technology is still too expensive, so oil is the way to go for many countries that are developing. I imagine going long in oil futures is hot right now.
Especially right now the price is at... $37ish vs even October when it was around $50 I believe.
Not so fast. Low oil prices are here to stay in the immediate future. Global oil storage capacity is nearly topped out. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/dow-jones-drops-on-crude-concerns/ar-BBo472u?li=AA9ZWtY&ocid=ansmsnmoney11Crude oil lost 2.9% to close at $36.76 a barrel after American Petroleum Institute inventory data released Tuesday afternoon showed a stockpile build of 2.9 million barrels, far ahead of expectations. Today’s Energy Information Administration numbers showed a 2.6-million-barrel build vs. a drop of 5.9 million barrels last week.
Adding additional pressure were comments from Saudi Arabia’s energy minister that his country’s oil output strategy is “reliable” and won’t be changed.
Other wrinkles include rising U.S. oil production and the fact that global crude storage is quickly approaching capacity. Seasonally, stockpiles tend to drop at the end of the year and rise in the first few weeks of the New Year due to tax implications. A repeat in early 2016 could well push crude oil to fresh lows not seen since the early 2000s.
A tank topping in various areas of the energy market is looking increasingly likely heading into 2016. In a recent note to clients, Goldman Sachs said avoiding inventory top-out would require a slowdown of production, due to producer financial stress and the shutting of funding for producers with oil near $40. But that’s just not happening.
Their warning: Oil may need to fall to cash costs near $20 a barrel to force production cuts.
I previously thought oil reaching $20 was unfathomable, but the world is not using near the oil that is currently being produced, and producers are refusing to cut production. When the world tops out storage capacity, the price will fall dramatically. Only then will producers begin to change their tune about the rate of production.  |
|
|
|
Damn, i thought it would stop at 425, but it keeps dropping. If it drops below 405 i will also sell it, better be safe.
Why on earth would anyone sell and take a loss.... i just never get it. What ever happens to BTC against USD does not matter, you still own your Bitcoins, just wait they will go up again, if they dont its the end of bitcoin which i think is highly unlikely. Me personally.... Im buying These people aren't traders. These kind of people just invest to make a quick buck out of Bitcoin. At least, that's their plan. They get in panic once they see the price is falling down. They will sell to prevent a bigger loss. That's quite a dumb thing to do since you can easily hold your coins for a month and see the price go back up again. No loss, and you'll even end up having a profit. Don't risk buying back at higher levels. Just relax and hold. This view relies on the fallacy that what goes down has to come back up, or that high water marks will always be seen again. It just doesn't work that way. There is risk in continuing to hold bitcoin, and people need to recognize that. Bitcoin is not guaranteed to rise. Nothing is. |
|
|
|
I don't see how oil could prices could rise to near $200 in the really long term.
I'm not really knowledgeable on this subject, but it would seem pretty counter-intuitive to me that demand for oil will continue to rise in the next 100 years or so.
The US built its wealth largely on the back of cheap oil. All developing economies are counting on oil for the same thing. The cost efficiency of oil is very high, and that makes oil very attractive for developing economies. There are cleaner technologies out there for sure, but they are expensive to develop and implement, and even more so for developing economies. Oil is cheap and easy. It will continue to play a role globally for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money? Yes, this is a risk, but not a forfeiture of a right. There's a risk to hiding money in a mattress (theft, fire, etc.) and a risk to holding money in general (inflation), but risks are not forfeiture of rights. There's risk in everything you do with money, but I still distinguish between a risk of any action and the loss of a right to use your money. But if you're talking about risks of the banking system, I think I understand your point better. I just don't think it's accurate to describe that as a limitation of your rights. |
|
|
|
Saudis are not immune to laws of economics. They can only run a loss on oil production until they've exhausted their cash reserves and can't borrow money any more. They can sustain losses longer than a business can, and they're trying to flood the market to force out high cost producers in the US and Canada. But they will cut back long before they're exhausted their cash reserves. They're playing a game of chicken, but they're still rational, and they'll respond to accordingly when forced to.
You only see a small part of the bigger picture. Not that I see the whole of it, but evidently my view grasps a larger part of it. The Saudis are the US puppets, all their cash reserves are in the US dollars and held by the US funds. Everyone is free to decide for themselves how "sovereign" their funds actually are thereby, but the events now transpiring (e.g. lifting the 40 years old ban on oil exports) leave little-to-no illusion that the US is interested in bringing the price of oil as low as possible. Why they are doing this seems to be pretty evident too. So the Saudis will pump as long as Uncle Sam deems it beneficial... For himself, not the Saudi royal family, of course This is relevant to my point: http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/28/investing/saudi-arabia-budget-oil-opec/index.html?sr=fbmoney122815saudi-arabia-budget-oil-opec0553PMVODtopLink&linkId=19946097Saudi Arabia is being hurt by low oil prices, but in their calculation, they have determined they are better off long term by flooding out the higher cost producers now. They will respond rationally to the economics of the situation though. They can only skate on their cash reserves for so long. Eventually, they have to let the price of oil rise or start borrowing, and the capital markets will not be kind to a country that frittered away a huge reserve and is a desperate borrower, and the ratings agencies have already started to sound that warning bell, which is why I think Saudi Arabia is starting to curb energy subsidies and take other cost saving measures. |
|
|
|
My sig campaign has nothing to do with this, that's a poor argument when you don't have an argument. Those stocks you listed are all american companies and then you go and tell me the recession is happening in europe. If you look at the dow jones industrial average, we are near in all time high. Where is this recession you're talking about?
Every time someone quotes the DJIA as being representative of the economy, I die a little inside. While your point is correct (the economy is fairly healthy), citing the DJIA is a horrible data point. It's not representative of the American economy, and it is only still mentioned as a holdover from an era when it was. (It was invented at a time when financial reporting was very simplistic and superficial.) The S&P 500 is a much better metric to use, as it encompasses 500 of the most representative companies of the American economy, and it is also weighted by size of the company, where DJIA is only 30 companies that are not weighted by size and are not representative of what the economy produces as a whole. I can't stress enough what a terrible metric it is. |
|
|
|
I am stil thinking we will go under the 400 USD, therefore i placed my buy orders around the 380 USD.
Just 1 more little dump and i will be the proud owner of some new bitcoins.
nah man. i don't think the price will go under $400. we have seen the low that was just over $400, and we are now moving forward. it will require more than a little dump to get the price below $400, support at that level is very strong. We went down to $415, and now we're back up to $421, according to preev. I find it highly unlikely that it will dip below $400, we're probably just seeing an increase selloff from retailers due to more Christmas shoppers using Bitcoin. That's pretty speculative. Most retailers who accept bitcoin immediately convert to fiat through a payment processor since it's too risky to hold bitcoin for any period of time for a business. If the price move was related to Christmas transactions, I would have expected to see it move prior to Christmas, not after, since that's when the sell-side activity would have been. But on the whole, I suspect btc retail just isn't significant enough to move the needle anyway. |
|
|
|
If I could open a pharmacy that accepts only bitcoin and put it right next to a grocery store that only accepts bitcoin, I'd be well on my way to replacing fiat with bitcoin. I do not see this happening in my lifetime. But it is a nice thought. Bitcoin has so much potential to blur political boundaries.
If you ran a business with a physical storefront, you could of course accept bitcoin, but you'd be a fool to make it a bitcoin-only establishment. The point of business is to make money, and you'd be closing yourself off to many more people by refusing fiat than you would attract by accepting bitcoin. |
|
|
|
No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.
Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them... That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived. As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely... But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money. Unless you're talking about opportunity costs of using banks, as in putting your money in a bank means you can't put it in your mattress. Needing to go retrieve the money from the bank isn't the loss of a "right." |
|
|
|
The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.
Wtf, it seems that now I know about the US money laws more than you do... Each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or in two or more related transactions, must file Form 830 Posting the link once again I stand corrected. I amend my statement to say that the BSA applies to financial institutions, and CTRs are still strictly the purview of banks and not individuals. IRS Form 8300 still applies strictly to transactions in the course of a trade or business transaction and has the giant exemption that excludes personal checks. It's not quite the case you're making it to be. Individuals who receive $10,000+ in cash for selling any item outside the course of business, receive a gift, or receive the money via a personal check do not have to file IRS Form 8300. |
|
|
|
Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.
As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though... Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations. Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference... And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks) The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold. |
|
|
|
No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.
Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them... That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived. |
|
|
|
the source and picture look so real,i never think about fake trading volume,its horrible..how if there was many exchange do that,not just bitcoin,but other crypto,i think its a bad news for trader. and talking about fake volume,i ever trade a fake volume coins,and its make me loss. lets this is not happen in several exchange..
The picture is created by Bitstamp or others, don't let that fool you! It would be shitty if they're manufacturing volatility, but the Bitcoin market is still the "wild west", there's little anyone can do about it and I can imagine why these companies would want to fake activity if it goads people into making a trade. There's an easy way to get around it, use an objective third party source (not from China) to verify or be a primary source for transaction activity data. Well, if they are faking data, it's only so long until they run afoul of regulators. They may be unregulated, but they take US customers, and if they're running a dishonest or fraudulent enterprise, it won't be long before they're banned in the US. The honest companies are going to rise to the top, and it makes no sense to run scams, because you will make more money in the long run by running an honest business. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
