Is the implementation really going to be "zero" fees?  Doesn't any business model need some monetization to make it practical?

There is a lot of truth to what you are saying - however, weak hands are most-likely a psychological state of being rather than a financial state of being.. and whether you have invested beyond your ability to financially withstand downward price manipulations.

1st: you need NOT invest more than you can afford to lose - whether that be $20 per month or $20K per month.

2nd: even if you are NOT financially well off, you can benefit from BTC being a good investment vehicle and to increase your wealth, no matter the amount of fiat you can afford to place therein

3rd: even though I agree with your main point that the most wealthy have the highest potential to benefit from bitcoin's future exponential growth, there has already been considerable redistibution of wealth through bitcoin, and there will likely continue to be some additional redistribution of wealth through bitcoin, and if some less financially fortunate peeps jump on board, they will likely be able to share in some of that redistribution of wealth... .so long at they are NOT distracted by the current downward manipulation of BTC prices and the ongoing attempts at FUD spreading concerning BTC's future.

Cut your loose!!!!


And stop being Maroon!!!

 

That is the million dollar set of questions to estimate how many users there are and the extent to which existing users are expanding.. which many of us surmise will exponentially affect BTC prices, whether new adopters are hoarding or NOT. 

Surely, BTC prices will be even more exponentially affected if users are both hoarding and using bitcoins to carry out various transactions (through the transact and replace type practices).

I believe that the recent (March 2014) US IRS tax interpretation memo does create a fairly strong disincentive for people to carry out regular BTC transactions - which is a bit of a shame, and hopefully will be modified in the future or scofflaw mechanisms will evolve.

I thought it was bitcoin incentivizationalizing. 

Either they were abused as children or they are being paid to engage in this naysayer behavior....


IN other words....

SELL, SELL, SELL, WELL, WELL, WELL

I thought the term was quantitative easing

Fucking falllllllllllling.     He will NEVER learn.


The proper wall observer expression is "cut your loose"     








And I am getting ready to cut my loose, and buy a little more  - however, I am waiting for a lil bit lower BTC price point... ... NOT easy for me to monitor these  bad boy prices 24/7... especially since I am buying through Coinbase, and I cannot set up an order ahead of time... i just have to attempt to time at a sufficiently low price point..  and buy my BTC manually, which the price is getting close for my next buy point.

Difficult to have enough cash and/or BTC to be able to cover so many variabilities... I mean the various order books

Most of us, who have been paying attention, should all realize by now, that the USA government is one of the biggest bullies on the block when it comes to a lot of its behavior in connection with the seizures of property and money and the exploitation of individuals, companies and/or countries by the use of various seizure related tools.

Additionally, in the bitcoin space (and its fairly brief history) we have already witnessed similar kinds of USA govt seizures regarding bitcoin - especially regarding the  DPR coins (both customer coins and those coins alleged to be DPR's). 

Further, I am NOT sure yet whether there is enough evidence to exonerate the USA government in being involved in the downfall of GOX (and may potentially be involved in one way or another with some of the missing 650k BTC associated with that situation).

In other words, Bitcoin does NOT seem to completely circumvent the USA government from seizing bitcoin or bitcoin related assets, even though there may be greater obstacles in which the USA government has to overcome in order to find and/or to get control of BTC specific assets. 

I would NOT be surprised if the USA government were already extensively involved in various aspects of BTC mining - and actually I would be surprised if the USA government had NOT considered this angle of BTC and were NOT yet involved in BTC mining in various ways.

Would it NOT be a fairly rare scenario for someone to have gotten into BTC in November 2013 and maintained a $1100-ish average cost per BTC?  

I started in November 2013 with my first purchase of 1.24 BTC at $1200 per BTC; however currently my average cost per BTC is about $605 (including transaction costs).

I knew when I was getting into BTC that the price had gone up considerably in the months preceding my first purchase.  Accordingly, I only initially bought $1,500 worth of BTC which was only 5% of what I could have done, and I projected the remainder $28,500 over the next 6 months with rough dollar cost averaging.

Even though I had $30k at my disposal to get started, I would have been way too scared to plop down $30k at any $1000 + price point during that period, and maybe the smarter thing would have been to wait a month or two before getting started - but  few people really seemed to have any real clue about how high the upward momentum was going to go or last, so I wanted to get some skin in the game and to get started (even though the price seemed a bit inflated at the moment at $1200 per BTC).

(edited above to clarify and add a couple of details)

You are sounding like the latest troll - with your simplistic and inaccurate statements. 

You may need to go back and reread metcalf's law and then consider how it would apply to BTC....   You may even need to use some imagination about what greater networking effects would cause for BTC prices.




If Bitcoin's price were $50, then the market cap would be around $650million.    You would NOT be able to perform very large or very many transactions without creating considerable volatility.  Even with a $1000 price, BTC's market cap is around $14 billion, which is certainly more functional than  $50, but if anyone were to attempt any billion dollar transactions, the price would likely be too heavily affected.  BTC's price in the $10k plus arena brings more utility and $100k would bring even more utility with a $1.4 trillion market cap (about 1/5 of Gold's market cap).



What you are saying here makes NO sense because it lacks specifics, and appears to serve as pure mudslinging...

that was more or less the point that I was attempting to make about the $1200  issue.. that we should expect prices to go quite a bit beyond $1200; however, a question remains regarding how far, and at what point one should be tempted to sell?  $1800?  $2200? $3000?  $3900?   $5500?  $8101?   Each of us will determine the sell point at a different price point, and some will be more correct than others and some will be more emotionally driven than others.

I disagree.











f

u

k

 

I agree with you about the "not half-way" comment, but I believe that I was otherwise fairly accurate in my description..... because half way was a mere vague referent.. rather than an absolute technical term.. and maybe even describing that BTC prices nearly doubled after $660 (at least they went up approximately another 75% thereafter).


O.k... now, you seem to be misapplying this year's scenario, a little bit because "half way" in the rocket this year, is NOT going to be around $660 but instead somewhere around $2000 to $5000 - b/c likely the next all time high is likely to be quite northward of $3k...

The question still remains when to sell, exactly and if to sell and has the rocket come to a close?  and in what proportions of our BTC portfolios are we gonna sell and each of us will come to differing conclusions in this regard.... some of us will sell some BTC in the mid-$600s... or some other point that we determine to be the top, but it ends up being somewhere "half-way" or some other percentage of the way.

If that is what you want to believe that he meant, then that is your choice.    I do recognize that as a possible reading, and maybe that was his intent...

I sufficiently understand the circumstances around Rpietila's sale last year.... Prices had been hovering around $100 all summer, and then he sold 2K btc at $600-ish... half way to the top rather than at the top.

I think that it would be fair if he was suggesting that BTC prices could skyrocket at any moment but that he was exercise additional self-restraint to make sure that he does  NOT sell too early... I actually have NO real problem with big holders taking profits as the price raises and attempting to find the top.. those are signs of a healthy market and healthy investor behaviors... just that different people are going to conclude differently regarding their estimates of the top.

One of the ONLY reasons to sell 2k BTC at this time, for a large BTC holder, would be to attempt to manipulate BTC prices downward, which should NOT be something that some one like Rpietilla should be suggesting as a possibility..   In this case, his aspiration would likely be to buy in at a lower price and then to have 2400 BTC rather than 2000 BTC... good for him (if it works) , but NOT good for the many smaller time holders who do NOT have such manipulation abilities..

Some may suggest that 2000BTC is NOT enough to downwardly manipulate the market, and that could be correct - except to the extent that there may be some coordinating with other dumps or dumpers.

In other words:

     CALM THE FUCK DOWN!!!!!!!    



I am so beginning to love that expression for its opposite effect.   

Agree that o.k. for those who buy within this same range and for those who bought for cheaper.. but a little stressful for those who bought higher... .. but anyhow, I am also quite confident that prices will rise... but currently I am thinking that this could take several months... yet time will tell.