June 2011
+1 @OP do your homework before asking stupid questions lol  Do YOUR homework Silver was well over $34/oz in June 2011:  |
|
|
|
oh when I "short" I mean I'm selling on the exchange with intention to buy back lower....
lol, you know thats not shorting right, thats just not being long So what is being zhoutonged? Apparently it's just not being Bill Gates. zhoutong made a the first trading platform which alowed users to short sell bitcoin (or go long) with leverage( meaning you could trade with up to 10times more money) the catch was if you went short and the price when up to much all your funds would go to zhoutong. now we call it getting zhoutonged First name: Zhou Last name: Tong Project: Bitcoinica (now in liquidation) Wow that is much bigger than i intended I think Zhou is the family name (last name), and Tong is the given name (first name) |
|
|
|
|
Are we going to have a weekend dump? Bulls are running out of cash and the bid wall is weakened after this round of rally
|
|
|
|
Mt Gox has always had the lions share of the BTC market volume (which is why it is almost always used as the metric when discussing price/volume).
Since I was talking about historical volume, its the only chart that is relevant to the discussion.
MtGox volume is 60% of the total volume (excluding OTC trade) so you need to divide its volume by 0.6 http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/ |
|
|
|
|
The $15 wall is torn down in one shot
|
|
|
|
|
21 000 000 troy oz = 653.17 metric tonness. In human history, 171,300 tonnes of gold has been mined. Even if 1BTC = 1oz of gold, the market cap of BTC is only 1/262 of gold
another question: how long before 1 BTC = 1 oz of silver? I think it's most likely within this year
|
|
|
|
Hey Evolve, you know how I used email back in 1989? I had to physically connect my telephone receiver to a device called a "modem", then dial up the number of a thing called a BBS. I then had to input a string of commands into my computer that would connect me to the BBS and start up a programme called a "client", through which I was able to "download" my emails. I would then disconnect from the BBS, write my replies, then start the whole process up again and tell my "client" to send the replies. I would do this, on average, once a day... normally in the evenings. And I thought it rocked! But at the time, most of my friends and family around the world thought it was too cumbersome.
Now they email from their iPhones and Blackberries... so again, the only failure here is a failure of the imagination.
Are you still using a dial up modem? No. You use a similar, but different technology. A similar cryptocurrency may eventually replace bitcoin, but BTC will almost certainly be gone before any pipe dreams of BTC reaching $1000 come true. No matter it is a dial up modem or optical fiber, all data is still transmitted with IPv4 standard of 1980s. Bitcoin is a communication protocol, it could be re-implemented in any new hardware and software in the future. |
|
|
|
|
A Nobel Prize in Economics is much better than money as incentive for Satoshi to reveal himself
|
|
|
|
|
In the past 1.5 year the exchange rate increased by about 280%/yr. By extrapolation we will have $100/coin at the end of 2014 and $1000/coin in 2017
|
|
|
|
if there were to be 21 Billion BTC, i think the historical charts would look a lot different, and we might be at something completely different from $0.014 today. But it seems more believable to see that a $0.014/BTC can reach a $10/BTC in the future than a $14/BTC becoming a $14000/BTC.
Again, it's just "hard" to believe that if you have a wallet of 10 BTC ($140 today), that can become (in the future) a $1,000,000 Yes but that's purely psychological. The long-term fair market-cap should be more or less the same |
|
|
|
We won't see big money get into bitcoin via direct purchasing of coins until late this year at the earliest.
We need ASIC's to hit and blend in well, the miners to increase in amount (how far spread the stability of the network is maintained)
Remember, this is CUSTOM hardware to make bitcoins. If the network withstands this drastic change; bitcoin is much more likely for a stable future.
It depends. First, your big money is someone's pocket change. Also, while risk is higher at this moment, the potential return is also higher. The very-early adopters bore an even higher risk and many has already become millionaires, and potentially billionaires in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Why similar idea is raised repeatedly and repeatedly. If at the very beginning Satoshi had decided the total supply as 21 billion BTC instead of 21M and started with 50k reward per block, the exchange rate today would be $0.014/BTC instead of $14/BTC. If he started with 21k BTC, the exchange rate today would be $14k/BTC. It's arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
You are not alone! I have something on the radar, too!
nice one! would a "market maker" help? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_makeri don't know what it would do, but just the name sounds nice. sending them coins or fiat, and they stimulate the trading in an orderly fashion instead of having everyone to wait. or is bitinstant already a market maker and i'm talking nonsense? A market maker is like a shock absorber in the market. They will put a bid wall in at 14.05 (say) and ask at 14.30. This means a big sell or a big buy would get absorbed by the maker, who then "rebalances" his account by doing repeated small market sell/buy orders at around 14.15-14.20. So market liquidity is increased... If the exchange rate is moving quickly, the market maker has to increase the spread or will get burnt |
|
|
|
Fees reduced down to 1 NMC / 1 LTC respectively.
I had raised the fees due to the considerable amount of extra efforts required to repeatedly maintain those NMC and LTC wallets. People are depositing tons of little amounts (often smaller than 0.0001 LTC or NMC). This leads to the problem that the wallet often needs manual follow up because the wallet is too defragmented and cannot generate the withdrawal.
In this case, I seriously suggest you to impose a deposit fee of 0.0001LTC/NMC A fee of $0.00006? So it takes 166 transactions to make a penny? That would be worth it... how, exactly? I agree with a deposit AND withdrawal fee (perhaps 0.5 both ways), but 0.0001 would just be pointless. Since Kumala is complaining about sub-0.0001LTC deposit, a deposit fee of 0.0001LTC should be enough to stop these spam activities without affecting "honest" users. |
|
|
|
Fees reduced down to 1 NMC / 1 LTC respectively.
I had raised the fees due to the considerable amount of extra efforts required to repeatedly maintain those NMC and LTC wallets. People are depositing tons of little amounts (often smaller than 0.0001 LTC or NMC). This leads to the problem that the wallet often needs manual follow up because the wallet is too defragmented and cannot generate the withdrawal.
In this case, I seriously suggest you to impose a deposit fee of 0.0001LTC/NMC |
|
|
|
An address is simply a set of bytes that meet a set of requirements (starting with 1, last 4 bytes are the last first 4 bytes of a double SH256 hash of the rest of the bytes). There is no requirement that someone know the private key for an address to be valid.
This address is exactly what it says it is: A Bitcoin Eater, Don't Send.
That is because, while it meets all the necessary requirements to receive bitcoins, nobody has the private key to it to be able to spend them. Once coins are sent there, they are stuck there forever.
FTFY |
|
|
|
the most hardcore bitcoin believers, which would be more likely to hoard than dump
I am not going to make a personal attack on you though your ignorance offends me. I'll just say this. The most hardcore bitcoin believers realize that they do not benefit if the coin is not moving. Like it or not, storage of wealth is an important function of BTC. People working hard in real life and invest part of their salary on BTC give it value. |
|
|
|
I have to agree with OP. I don't think an ASIC company failing will have considerable effect on the exchange rate.
As a (potential) miner: if you've spent that fiat back in late summer 2012 then it's already out of your hands. You had USD, now you don't. Your plan was to use the hardware to acquire bitcoins. Now you wont get that hardware. Why the hell would you sell bitcoins now when your plan was to acquire bitcoins.
If you had bitcoins in summer 2012, it's more likely you already sold back then to get fiat for the preorder. And now you're here in 2013 and you lost a bunch of fiat and you still don't have bitcoins. What do you do?
I actually assume those ASIC companies will deliver. If all of them are scams, it's nothing worse than the BTCST scam. Some people may panic sell but soon they will find that's irrational. |
|
|
|
Well $390K plus electrical costs but the larger issue becomes the 2nd round of Avalon, plus BFL first batch, plus any other competitors. You could see that $390K worst case scenario jumped to something more like $39M over the course of a year. Remember the first batch is the hard part. Once production gets ramped up the sky is the limit. Also it is a sort of sales race as each new miner reduces the value of future sales thus for all competitors the best option is to sell as many units and quickly as possible.
Still I think you may be right I think many miners will hold at least some portion of their coins but I also think you are significantly underestimating the worst case scenario.
Yes I did not count the BFL first batch. What is their total revenue? When all first batch ASIC are running, the difficulty will skyrocket and the price of subsequent batches have to reduce. $39M is obviously overestimated. With $14/ BTC and BTC3600/day, the ROI would be 773 days. However, 773 days is just an average: early ASIC adoptors may have ROI of 30 days, which means latecomers may have >2000 days. And electricity cost has not been considered so the actual ROI for latecomers could be >5000 days. No one will buy an ASIC like this. I think $3.9M is a more realistic total revenue of all first generation ASICs (including first and all sequent batches). The average ROI would be 77 days. This may extend the BTC3600/day dump to about 100 days assuming the price of BTC is not too low. However, please don't forget the R&D of first-batch ASIC is supported by free loans from pre-orders. The developers should keep a significant proportion of hashing power because the marginal cost is very low for producing extra units. They are less likely to join the panic selling because they are literally printing BTC for free. If the devs are keeping 50% of the hashing power, their customers will only be able to mint BTC1800/day, which is only 10% of average MtGox volume. Last but not the least, mine-and-dump activities always exist even before the arrival of ASIC, which means my "worst case assumption" is actually worse than the real worst case. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
