I don't claim to be an expert in any of these various economic theories, but there seems to be some sense in what BJA is saying - apart from his having to feel some kind of irresistible urge to dish out insults regarding the competency and/or intelligence of regular people.
I do believe that the status quo wealthy will put up quite a bit of a battle in any redistribution of wealth attempts in order that redistribution of wealth is only minimum..
In other words the status quo wealthy use any tools at their disposal by hook or by crook to ensure that redistribution of wealth does NOT leave them hanging high and dry. They may NOT be too successful with bitcoin b/c the train may leave some of them, but they are going to put up several obstacles along the way and secretly board at later stops.
I think it is quite possible bordering on probable that I am one of the incompetents I am referring to. It's not intended as an insult. It's just part of the theory. Part of my issue, though, in your framing in competence and/or intelligence is that it seems to assume too much about the wealthy being competent or smart. Just b/c someone has a lot of power and/or resources at his/her disposal and wants to engage in a large variety of strategies to maintain the status quo and to preserve that wealth and those resources does NOT mean that the person is smarter or more competent.. even though the one with the resources and wealth may win (in spite of not being smarter or more competent). |
|
|
|
if they sold 380,000 btc for 3m, that would be $12 each. - must be a portion, or Im missing out on some seriously 'cheap coins' Well it's unlikely that they will sell 380,000BTC for the full $173M they are worth. Someone will get cheap coins Bitcoins are fungible, so even if they don't get dumped on the market, other coins that would have otherwise gone to the purchasers of the seized coins will get dumped on the market. Mathematically it is irrelevant if the result is selling pressure or lack of buying pressure. There is a downward price effect on the market either way. +1 Same goes for 200,000 Gox BTCs to be liquidated. And US goverment has now more than 500,000 BTC ?!? 30+k from Silk Road, 130+ personal Ullbricht stash plus 385k from this new drug dealer? This. The amount of seized BTC that has to be auctioned and dumped on the market is so high... At least 400K (GOX+Silk+others), if not more, probably sold well under $250 for each coin, ready to be dumped on the market at any point. Truth is, even a relatively small 20K dump could totally crash BTC's value to $50/coin. I could literally wake up one day and see BTC's value drop 50%. This will kill BTC's long term value, seriously scary stuffbold emphasis mine I don't think that the redistribution of a paltry 400,000 coins will "kill" bitoin's long term value. just another bump in the road (edit - ok "paltry" was a bad choice of words, what I should have said is "the redistribution of coins from the people that want to sell to the people that want to buy will not "kill" bitcoin. In fact, it is a good thing.") I was not saying anything about future repercussions - just begin to absorb the fact. US goverment is in the possession of more than 5% world supply of bitcoins  Surprising. Scary. Not was bitcoin was suppossed to be ... Perhaps that is why fed were so surprisingly friendly toward BTC? At least until they will sell? The US Govt role in all of these bitcoin matters remains quite confusing, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I understand the various entities of the US Govt as bags of walking contradictions, and there is NO one US Govt.. b/c various entities talk out of two sides of their mouths and one entity does NOT know what another entity is doing and certainly the people do NOT know what the govt is doing b/c there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. Accordingly, I would NOT put it passed various entities of the US Govt to also be holding onto the approximately 600K missing Gox coins. Accordingly, the US govt is potentially holding 10% of the bitcoin supply. There may even be more nefarious activities going on... in order to supply bitcoins and/or miners. Govt entities can be very good at taking away property without due process.. especially if terrorism, porn, child molestation, murder, drug dealing and/or money laundering are used as rationals to justify govt intervention. |
|
|
|
if they sold 380,000 btc for 3m, that would be $12 each. - must be a portion, or Im missing out on some seriously 'cheap coins' Well it's unlikely that they will sell 380,000BTC for the full $173M they are worth. Someone will get cheap coins Bitcoins are fungible, so even if they don't get dumped on the market, other coins that would have otherwise gone to the purchasers of the seized coins will get dumped on the market. Mathematically it is irrelevant if the result is selling pressure or lack of buying pressure. There is a downward price effect on the market either way. +1 Same goes for 200,000 Gox BTCs to be liquidated. And US goverment has now more than 500,000 BTC ?!? 30+k from Silk Road, 130+ personal Ullbricht stash plus 385k from this new drug dealer? This. The amount of seized BTC that has to be auctioned and dumped on the market is so high... At least 400K (GOX+Silk+others), if not more, probably sold well under $250 for each coin, ready to be dumped on the market at any point. Truth is, even a relatively small 20K dump could totally crash BTC's value to $50/coin. I could literally wake up one day and see BTC's value drop 50%. This will kill BTC's long term value, seriously scary stuff In recent postings, you have become quite intense in your FUD spreading. Your above post is filled with many unfounded assumptions. Coins would have to be sold for much below market rate before there would be an incentive to dump. I do NOT see whey the GOVT would sell BTC below market rate unless there is some kind of collusion.. .for example selling to some big bank that wants to bring down the BTC market. |
|
|
|
OK cheaper coins coming in, but not that I have $22,000 per day to invest, but that is not a lot of cash globally needed to come in to the average exchange to keep demand higher than production.
I'm banking supply dries up when AM gen3 chips are implemented and push up that difficulty.
In my thinking pushing up mining difficulty does NOT necessarily affect the BTC supply, it only concentrates the BTC supply into a smaller number of hands. A smaller number of miners holding BTC may mean that they are more likely to liquidate their coins, as part of their business model,.... rather than HODL.... or in the end, whether they HODL or dump could be a wash.... in other words it is NOT clear that increasing difficulty increases directly affects whether BTC are dumped or HODL'd. Calm down. They never said they had 385k -- that's his total gross. That's ~$200 million in todays valuation. If they had found that many, this arrest would be front page news. He probably spent most of the coins or has them hidden away. Since no specific numbers of impounded assets were mentioned, its possible that all they have (and sold) is his portion of the SR coins. They can't sell those coins until they get a conviction, right? Its not their coins until the conviction. This guy pleading guilty freed up his SR coins... I think that your response was meant to be directed at another post. |
|
|
|
if they sold 380,000 btc for 3m, that would be $12 each. - must be a portion, or Im missing out on some seriously 'cheap coins' Well it's unlikely that they will sell 380,000BTC for the full $173M they are worth. Someone will get cheap coins I doubt that they are going to sell or liquidate those coins in large quantities, unless they are assured to get close to retail or above retail for them. |
|
|
|
It's based on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory Bitcoins need to flow from the people who use them less productively to the people who use them more productively. You can't have sustainable growth when incompetents control all the capital. Okay, now that's one of the most absurd misapplications of business cycle theory that I've ever seen. Is it? Who owns the most Bitcoins right now? Capitalists with experience in wealth creation outside of Bitcoin? No. It's largely people like me who bought them by maxing out credit cards. So how do capitalists acquire capital? Do they enrich reckless speculators or wait until the speculators are forced to partially or completely liquidate? I'm not saying I know that a sufficient number of coins hasn't already changed hands. That's possible, but what's certain is that selling pressure continues until all the people with the need to sell have sold. The people with the need to sell are people with negative cash flow outside of Bitcoin appreciation. Is your capital structured is such a way that time is your friend or your enemy? If you are positioned well, you shouldn't care if the market goes up down or sideways. Hopefully you have learned by your own words that it is NOT good to be overly leveraged in BTC b/c that could cause BTC to transfer from your hands to the hands of others at a loss to you. You frequently claim that you are NOT one of those people who get taken advantage of in the investment world.. but you als o assert that you are engaging in heavily leveraged behaviors.. which could come back to bite you in the butt if you are NOT careful.. ... accordingly, your butt will get burnt if you overly leverage in bitcoin and you are NOT able to manipulate prices. |
|
|
|
by the way, does anyone know the price that the Winklebros bought in at?
In this CNBC video, they confirm they they started accumulating in the single digits. In some other interview, I remember them saying "high single digits." Seems like the Wiklevos bros did NOT get GOXed.... at least, NOT directly. All of us bitcoin users or bitcoin user wann-a-bees were indirectly goxed to some extent. |
|
|
|
It's based on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory Bitcoins need to flow from the people who use them less productively to the people who use them more productively. You can't have sustainable growth when incompetents control all the capital. Okay, now that's one of the most absurd misapplications of business cycle theory that I've ever seen. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these various economic theories, but there seems to be some sense in what BJA is saying - apart from his having to feel some kind of irresistible urge to dish out insults regarding the competency and/or intelligence of regular people. I do believe that the status quo wealthy will put up quite a bit of a battle in any redistribution of wealth attempts in order that redistribution of wealth is only minimum.. In other words the status quo wealthy use any tools at their disposal by hook or by crook to ensure that redistribution of wealth does NOT leave them hanging high and dry. They may NOT be too successful with bitcoin b/c the train may leave some of them, but they are going to put up several obstacles along the way and secretly board at later stops. |
|
|
|
What is the point of merchant adoption? We are being told to hoard bitcoins and not spend it to create artificial shortage. Right now the news about bitcoin comes from used-bitcoin salesmen salesguysing and trying to draw in new fiat to sell their used bitcoins in the name of decentralization.
Sooner or later, more and more blogs and news outlets are going to start publishing the truth that Bitcoin is centralized and you need to buy bitcoins from used-bitcoin salesmen or bank of KnC or Bank of BFL.
I believe that the best practice for bitcoin spending, at this time, is to spend bitcoins whenever possible (to patronize such businesses that accept bitcoins with your bitcoins rather than fiat); however, you should also replace the number of bitc that you used oins either before or soon after your purchase, so that your bitcoin holdings is always increasing or at minimum you are maintaining the same quantity of bitcoins in your holdings. |
|
|
|
its already turned around its just not Obvious yet.
price is NOT high, and its not going lower.
Winklebros bought a long time ago, we were in the teens i think
That's what Rpietila said.  |
|
|
|
OK cheaper coins coming in, but not that I have $22,000 per day to invest, but that is not a lot of cash globally needed to come in to the average exchange to keep demand higher than production.
I'm banking supply dries up when AM gen3 chips are implemented and push up that difficulty.
In my thinking pushing up mining difficulty does NOT necessarily affect the BTC supply, it only concentrates the BTC supply into a smaller number of hands. A smaller number of miners holding BTC may mean that they are more likely to liquidate their coins, as part of their business model,.... rather than HODL.... or in the end, whether they HODL or dump could be a wash.... in other words it is NOT clear that increasing difficulty increases directly affects whether BTC are dumped or HODL'd. |
|
|
|
I may sound like a broken record as I keep saying I'll deposit money and don't mostly due to having satisfied my short range target btc holding with a 540 Avg buy in price. Goxxin and China bans didn't surprise me as I was fielding these questions from friends in November. I know not everyone has great foresight but...to get caught up in the political and monetary motivations of a Communist country that isn't really communist, kind've shocks me. I mean they are trying to ban the internet before it becomes the internet, as we know bitcoin is currently used mainly as a payment system / speculative play, but can become something so much more then this and it is silly to act like it can be stopped cause people fear financial risks that their populations speculators are taking in the early stages, especially when we have bigger criminals robbing us on the daily.
Also in some sense Bitcoin / a Blockchain embodies the idea of communism ( in the sense that we all help to sustain or maintain the blockchain p2p ). Makes me laugh that China probably is more afraid of bitcoin damaging the USD $'s global value in the coming years, and they got all that American Debt they need to offload first.
Personally, I sense that the Chinese BTC investors are just going with the flow to take advantage of the BTC hype, and the average Chinese BTC investor is probably NOT considerably affected by whether there is a "ban" or NOT. The Chinese BTC investors are just riding the BTC wave, and in the future will still be into bitcoin, so long as bitcoin continues to be a likely better store of value than the RMB, the dollar or even possibly gold... Just a means to speculate and store value and to be able to retrieve that value overseas, if necessary. So diversification of assets will likely continue to justify holding some wealth in BTC..... b/c BTC continues to have upside potential with increased world-wide BTC and other crypto currencies adoption. |
|
|
|
i feel an epic buy bitcoin inspirational speech coming...
My fellow Bitcoiners. I have a dream, that one day coins will not be judged on their color and taint, but be judged as one by the strength of the network hash. Together we can transform the global financial system. BUY! "All that it takes for fiat to triumph is for good men to stand idly by as it is used." My brothers I have SEEN the sending of a bitcoin from one person to another. Because I have been to the dark market. Like anybody I would like to buy a lambo. Lamborghinis have their place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I may not get to 10k with you, but as I said we aren't gonna let any wars turn us around, we aren't going to let any China ban hold us down! We've got some difficult days ahead, by my friends blockchain.info has allowed me to see the transactions! My eyes have witnessed the promised coins! That's a lovely speech.  |
|
|
|
Nonsense, there was a quadruple bottom and I saw it: WARNING!
LEGIT TA FOLLOWS: In other words: CCMF!!!!!1Erm this quadruple bottom will only result in a big red candle imo. ya but look at that TA! hard to disagree.. I can see the quadruple A, but where's the T? |
|
|
|
His talk about odds was ambiguous at best b/c he spoke out of two sides of his mouth by saying out of one side of his mouth that the price would never reach $435.. and then saying out of the other side of his mouth that he wants odds in his favor. These two statements are ambiguous and seem to be contradictory and it was up to him to clarify them.. and he failed/refused to clarify until afterwards.. and even afterwards it remains unclear what bet and what odds he would have taken in such hypothetical circumstances.
Yeah, I couldn't be bothered to calculate too hard on it but it seems to me that if you think something won't happen really strongly, you would be willing to accept odds against yourself (in favor of the person who expects the unlikely event to occur.) but he seemed to be wanting it the other way around. If you were to bet me the moon would rise purple tonight, I might give you 100:1 odds because I'd be fairly confident it wasn't going to happen. I might go higher even but there's not much point exposing myself to high risk for a small gain, regardless. I'm NOT hating on Rpietila - b/c I could care less whether he got his prediction correct or NOT and I am all for BTC to the moon and don't go below $435... etc.. etc.. , but it is a little irritating when he seems to purposefully leave the terms of the bet matters ambiguous, and then suggests that several of us are below him b/c we cannot understand his supposedly sophisticated logic. |
|
|
|
Based on my research, I don't believe we will see 435 ever again (Bitstamp). If someone is willing to bet (I naturally expect much better than 1:1 for me), PM please. Chart1 & Chart2. This is just the 2013-7-18 again. No looking back (when you least expect it). I had estimated that probability for 435 holding should be 10% in general public's eyes, but I thought it was 20%. So I would have taken 7:1 odds for me, and lost almost straight away.
This whole controversy boils down to -people assuming that all bets are done at 1:1 odds (most person to person bets are done this way, but not all) -the large gap between "better than 1:1" and "7:1" Making fun and/or insulting someone into taking a bet doesn't work. Trying to have the bet setup in a way that grossly favors your side and then insulting the other party for refusing to take the bet is the classic, but ineffective tactic. In general it is unlikely that you will be able to organize a bet online with someone you haven't met nor trust (the bet against Bitcoin Savings and Trust was a big exception - but it had value for both the better who was going to win, and Trendon who was hoping to prop-up his ponzi). It seems that a lot of people are missing the point, and that is Rpietila proposed to bet. Rpietila weasled out of making any bet by making the matter more complicated than it needed to be. If he truly wanted odds, then he should have clearly and unambiguously reiterated that point and made his proposed odds clear, but he did NOT. His talk about odds was ambiguous at best b/c he spoke out of two sides of his mouth by saying out of one side of his mouth that the price would never reach $435.. and then saying out of the other side of his mouth that he wants odds in his favor. These two statements are ambiguous and seem to be contradictory and it was up to him to clarify them.. and he failed/refused to clarify until afterwards.. and even afterwards it remains unclear what bet and what odds he would have taken in such hypothetical circumstances. |
|
|
|
Back OT please children
What's the topic, again? |
|
|
|
I think that you are going much too far, and probably, I should NOT even be entertaining your post - b/c I have already have attempted to have genuine communications with you, without luck. I even saw interaction between you and Rpietila, where he likely entertained you too much too - by giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning whether you were attempting to engage in a genuine or meaningful (non-troll conversation).
People do dumb things, sometimes, and Rpietila is far from dumb - even though he has contradicted himself (at least regarding the bet issue) and rationalized his communications concerning the bet issue... but that does NOT make him dumb.. and also, he has made a lot of valuable contributions to the forum through his various postings over the years (I have NOT read all of them, but several and they are genuinely helpful in framing various issues and providing experiential perspective).
I was actually the one that gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I actually PMed him a serious and honest message, like he asked. And as predicted, he didn't respond. So, now I'm quite certain that there is no constructive communication possible with him. The only use he has is for entertainment purposes. If you want to learn about his history, then learn about how he took an unprotected laptop to an sauna party, that got stolen together with the coins it held. In my book, it's either very stupid, or it's the work of an confidence man. I don't know if you actually believe that he isn't dumb, or are you just trying to ass-kiss yourself a room at the "castle". And I don't actually care, you aren't the only one here who actually believes that he is smart. I have spoken my mind, and I think that he really is dumb. You frequently seem to revert to inaccurate reframings of my posts and the posts of others, which tends to be irritating for me b/c I have NO ambition to repeat my posts and then maybe to say something differently from what I hS originally Posted. In this case, in my original post, I said that Rpietila does NOT seem dumb and has made a lot of valuable contributions to the forum, from what I could gather in my limited readings. I may change my mind, but currently, I am of the opinion that his posts are genuinely contributory in a variety of ways. Further, regarding whether I am ass kissing anyone, you may find the concept of respecting others difficult to understand. For me, I would prefer to be respectful to the ideas and contributions of others, unless it seems to me that the other person(s) is(are) engaging in purposeful disingenuous communications, then I begin to get a little irritated and may attempt to articulate such irritation(s). |
|
|
|
Did you have to apologize to Rpietila, previously?
Actually, certainly, I am NOT of the belief that Rpietila is a dumb guy who thinks he is smart... but sometimes, he does seem to let his ego get in the way of his interactions, and he seems to believe that his recently found wealth gives him license to be pompous and pretentious and manipulative.
I have no problem with any body making predictions, and I appreciate some of Rpietila's predictive constructs. However, frequently the certainties and absolutism of math is NOT going to work very well when dealing with politics and human behavior. I believe he recognizes this; however, seems to get caught up in his own predictive marketing-type delusion(s).. and then tries to get his way when interacting with people (and the bet discussion exemplifies this wanting to get his way then attempting to reframe history in such a way that rationalizes what had happened)... which in sum seems to be Rpietila's failure/refusal to interact reasonably.. as Windjc mentioned.
I think that rpietila is dumb, at least in the general sense. Most of the people here think that he is smart, because he likes to do meaningless lists and likes to add loads of insignificant numbers to his post. To the inexperienced people, it looks like he is doing serious financial analysis. If you know even a little about finance, then you can see that it's entertaining gibberish at best. Or if you'll look at the outcomes of his predictions, or just his business practices, then you can also see how dumb he actually is. Anyway, my point is, that you shouldn't feel bad for calling him dumb, because he is dumb. I personally also have doubts that he has a serious drug problem, because making predictions based on the certainty, that bitcoin will be adopted by the entire world, is a little beyond dumb. I think that you are going much too far, and probably, I should NOT even be entertaining your post - b/c I have already have attempted to have genuine communications with you, without luck. I even saw interaction between you and Rpietila, where he likely entertained you too much too - by giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning whether you were attempting to engage in a genuine or meaningful (non-troll conversation). People do dumb things, sometimes, and Rpietila is far from dumb - even though he has contradicted himself (at least regarding the bet issue) and rationalized his communications concerning the bet issue... but that does NOT make him dumb.. and also, he has made a lot of valuable contributions to the forum through his various postings over the years (I have NOT read all of them, but several and they are genuinely helpful in framing various issues and providing experiential perspective). |
|
|
|
Nobody compelled me to compose memoirs, so they are there for a purpose. Perhaps I will tell, perhaps not.  So you made a bold prediction - "won't go below 435!" Then you wanted 7 to 1 odds against it. LOL! Are you even listening to yourself? I'm not trying to be hard on you and yes, I admit I called you out, only to try to get you to take the bet quickly. You don't like to take reasonable bets, only unreasonable ones, so I thought I might gode you into a reasonable one. But you are making yourself look bad here, not me or anyone else. 7:1 odds are a bargain, very reasonable indeed to even the slightest bear. you should have taken the bet. He never offered him 7:1 odds, for one thing. He only mentioned that is what he would be willing to accept after the fact. If you're talking shit that it's NEVER going to break 435 again, putting your money where your mouth is would be taking pretty much any bet for any odds that came your way, assuming you weren't bullshitting, which he obviously was. Not taking an even money bet on something you perceive to be a lock is ridiculous, so his mouth said "never below 435" but his money said "eh, like 20% chance of not under 435." See the difference? This is a great way of expressing the situation. 7:1 odds are a bargain, very reasonable indeed to even the slightest bear. you should have taken the bet.
He never offered him 7:1 odds, for one thing. He only mentioned that is what he would be willing to accept after the fact. If you're talking shit that it's NEVER going to break 435 again, putting your money where your mouth is would be taking pretty much any bet for any odds that came your way, assuming you weren't bullshitting, which he obviously was. Not taking an even money bet on something you perceive to be a lock is ridiculous, so his mouth said "never below 435" but his money said "eh, like 20% chance of not under 435." See the difference? Which part of the Call to Bet was difficult to understand? Based on my research, I don't believe we will see 435 ever again (Bitstamp). If someone is willing to bet (I naturally expect much better than 1:1 for me), PM please. Chart1 & Chart2. This is just the 2013-7-18 again. No looking back (when you least expect it). Perhaps you fit in the description in my Lamentation... EPILOGUE
It is difficult to read the thread because of so many posts, especially if you are of the type that never checks the sources and relies on people. But then you will also get the objectively wrong idea of what is happening. Here I wanted to have a nice private bet with anyone who thinks that breaking 435 is imminent and is willing to give me great odds for defending it.
Have you noticed that not a single person with high standing has criticized me? It is the same trolls over and over, twisting simple and clear words, or teens with fingers hard-wired to bypass the brain. There you go with more of your ad hominem attacks and denials. I certainly am NO troll, and I think that your criticism is misplaced with me and with almost all of the others regarding this point. Likely, you need to take responsibility for your ambiguous words, your lack of clarity in bet terms and your failure to work with anyone to finalize a meaningful and reasonable bet... which probably shows that you just were NOT committed to your assertion... and you misspoke and internally contradicted yourself, then your pride got in the way so that you would NOT back out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
