If I take it correctly, it is pretty easy: Either people are not willing to sell at this moment (hell, how can it be any more bullish than that?) or they just can't sell as of now and it still takes some time, then you can make exactly *zero* conclusions from the lack of trades occurring...
People trapped in the fund, at a loss, not willing to sell doesn't mean it is bullish. It only means they are bagholders. The more bagholders it has, the harder to go up. I'm not saying it because there are 0 trades right now, which is obvious they couldn't send their shares there. I'm just saying my opinion of what I think is more likely to happen. Is it not the case that some bought shares of BIT when price was around 100 and are not at a loss but a profit right now? Do we have an estimate of what percentage of holders that might be? |
|
|
|
Will you people eventually stop repeating this nonsense.
No, 3600 bitcoins do not get dumped on the market everyday.
No, not all miners have to sell their mining rewards in order to keep running.
So what? It's the intrinsic supply. You want be a smartass and whine about precision? Sure some won't sell but then again there are old coins that get sold. I'm referring to the order of magnitude of new coins that the network has to handle every day. Your whole post is complaining about pressure from miners selling. I'm here to tell you only a portion of them do and surely the current price is not a result of miners' selling pressure. Take it how you want it but I'm just saying you're barking at the wrong door. |
|
|
|
Something better be happening soon, I'm getting bored. That damn supply is killing the price I tell you hwhat. Every 10 minutes someone gets 25 bitcoins. 3600 bitcoins get dumped erry day. The demand is actually pretty good if you consider the fact that price is holding triple digits under all this selling pressure from miners. If miners were to stop selling, where would the price go?
Will you people eventually stop repeating this nonsense. No, 3600 bitcoins do not get dumped on the market everyday. No, not all miners have to sell their mining rewards in order to keep running. |
|
|
|
Mass adoption is certainly not required. Bitcoin has been into 4 digits without it and can easily return there with investment demand alone.
please re-read again my post #118, just above yours. 4 digits bubble was a speculation-driven Wally bubble. This is possible to repeat, but if there is no real adoption and the growth is again purely speculative, that would do much more harm to Bitcoin than the previous bubbles. Bitcoin will continue to see speculative growth in the foreseeable future. It is not necessary for this to happen and will most definitely occur before we see any significant "real adoption" from consumer use case. |
|
|
|
Buyers are placing bids and 40% above market and the trolls are actually trying to convince people that is bearish. It's probably about time for liftoff.
Imagine just ONE of them gets filled at 350$ |
|
|
|
Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
^ This "If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it." or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly: nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive" We can stay here all day talking about the definition of intrinsic value, but at the end of the day, what some people refer to when they say "intrinsic value" is that people use it for itself and not only for its functions as money (medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value). Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value". You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have. Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin. It's quite simple really. By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is). "Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that. still doesn't get it  just do us a favor and get your sorry concern troll ass out of here. |
|
|
|
1. GBTC holders are still unable to access their shares from their trading account thus the absence of any trade so far.
2. There are no buy orders because there are no sell orders. Supply creates demand.
1: Why? 12 months has already passed. 2: NO, There are 6 bids for total 750 shares (less than 75 bitcoins), i guess that's all demands it has 1. All that's left is for BIT shares (which trade at ticker symbol "GBTC") to be moved into shareholders' brokerage accounts, a process that should be finished by next week, and "then it's up to them if they will sell," Silbert said.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102549768It's a new security. The shares have simply not been credited to their owners trading account yet. 2. What part of supply creates demand did you not understand. Maybe people are just not interested in placing blind orders before shares are even put on the market. |
|
|
|
What if Winklevoss Twins' bitcoin ETF (NASDAQ) would be the same as GBTC (Barry Silbert's Bitcoin Investment Trust, OTCMKTS): 1: NO trades two weeks after official launch, unlikely for ETF, because Winklevoss Twins can't wait to sell their bags (1 million shares = 100k bitcoins), so there would be sell orders soon as ETF goes live! 2: The ETF will only got less than total 75 bitcoins buy orders like GBTC does (GBTC only has 750 shares bid list = 75 btc demand http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/quote).  If thing comes out like this, does it mean neither wall street nor average joe (who invest with their retirement account) is waiting to get in and in fact nobody care about bitcoin? 1. GBTC holders are still unable to access their shares from their trading account thus the absence of any trade so far. 2. There are no buy orders because there are no sell orders. Supply creates demand. |
|
|
|
good thing I cashed out at 0.004  guess you'll have to wait a bit more until BTC parity TrueCryptonaire |
|
|
|
It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.
The former without the latter is akin to putting a horse on roller skates. Centralized ledgers and protocols precede bitcoin, the blockchain is wholly unnecessary for such a system.
You tell that to the lunatics at @Eris (Preston Byrne) |
|
|
|
...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...
Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset. So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments." I like that suggestion. It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things. It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain where the 3rd party provides security and maintenance for their own blockchain. These blockchain chains would still have the same protocol, ability for direct transactions, machine to machine micro-payments, etc. They would however lack the distributed security mechanism of bitcoin and rely on trust with the 3rd party. People who say bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC seem to be OK with this scenario. Bitcoin's blockchain has both "the blockchain protocol" and "the blockchain distributed security mechanism" (which requires the token to have independent value). We call this "the blockchain" today, but it's really two separate concepts and I think that is what is commonly missed in the general public. If you separate them conceptually, and convince people that the blockchain's distributed security mechanism is valuable and desirable also, then it becomes easier to discuss why the token has to have value. If that person doesn't need a distributed security mechanism and instead trusts the FED, then for them it is just the protocol that has value. Other applications attempting to use a block chain data structure are merely creating an alternative type of db. One that is arguably less efficient unless centralized at which point it becomes questionable whether the use of a block chain is preferable. Bitcoin's data base is unique in that the information it transmits is scarce and a liquid market exists for it. |
|
|
|
Whoah, I get it. I get what's going on here. They're backdooring Bitcoin into the mainstream. Connect the dots: 1) No mention of Bitcoin on Align's website, except in the press section headlines, even though they use it. Only ever mention "the blockchain" and "blockchain technology." 2) Somehow this has escaped mention on /r/Bitcoin and elsewhere, even though it's gigantic news. They've deliberately not associated with "Bitcoin" overtly. It seems at first strange, because they could have had a bunch of easy customers from the Bitcoin community, as well as its support. Think: Overstock's Bitcoin acceptance launch where they got a bit of a sales boost. But it makes perfect sense when you realize they're gunning higher. The old paradigm is to offer service for the Bitcoin community; the new paradigm is to offer services that use Bitcoin and include no reference to it, because customers don't need to understand it, know how to secure it, or deal with it at all. 2) The recent trend of, "We don't know about this Bitcoin thing, but blockchain technology is the future" is turned on its head by Align's strategy. What was a sort of backhanded dismissal becomes a Trojan horse. Bitcoin quietly becomes the payment rails for better bank wires, stigma intact but irrelevant because no one knows they're using Bitcoin. 3) The general sense among some thinkers in the space that "when Bitcoin succeeds it'll be because people don't even know they're using it." The implications for investment are obvious, but users of Align's service are completely removed from that. Investing in Bitcoin, to them, would be like investing in Cisco because they like buying books on Amazon.com. But Cisco still did very well because it was needed for the backbone infrastructure and investors recognized that. Once again I agree with you on most points. This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption. They seem to have a great team and equally impressive backers. |
|
|
|
Speaking of Ripple. I present : the Ripple death blow, running on the only blockchain that matters. https://aligncommerce.com/A Pantera portfolio company... |
|
|
|
Well I can only hope that you are both right cause I can afford much more XMR than BTC |
|
|
|
do we really, as the smartest kids in the room, discuss about a cryptocurrency replacing bitcoin? no fuckin way this will happen in the near future - money and value is an institution when we say monero is worth 0.004 you may get a hint about what I am talking. the comparison to any utility spending technology is complete nonsense - you simply do not substitute value for a slightly better technology, imagine what level of stress it would be to change the way we exchange value every 2-3 years . the reason why monero is so special is because it can fill the biggest existing niche namely privacy - this alone given makes it better than every other coin despites bitcoin. +1 There's no way you can suggest Monero will replace Bitcoin in public and not get laughed out the room. No POW coin has any fighting chance against Bitcoin. As it stands right now anyway. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will die - no doubt.
However, it is a Goliath and it takes just a bit time. That being said, it most likely will not happen tomorrow and the coin will not die technologically, but the community will become simply poor and no new members are coming (why they should).
If I think very carefully, bitcoin has nothing to offer. It is very inconvenient. People get paid in dollars, why on earth they should convert those dollars to bitcoins?
The only real world use for bitcoin I could imagine is sending money from developed countries to undeveloped countries, perhaps bitcoin might save a few bucks compared to Westrn Union rates.
On the other hand, Monero offers a safe-haven for rich people since it is anonymous. Nobody can figure out your balance except Risto who knows that the largest Monero stack was worth only of 100 000 usd in the days of bottom prices.
if you think bitcoin will die, than i think monero will die to It might do this. Chances are Monero will die and it is good to remember when you are investing into XMR. However, Monero has better odds to succeed since you can add all the needed features of bitcoin into XMR. If you want to use Monero publically, it is possible, too. Bitcoin's last chance to get some additional air is the Wall street pump. Bitcoin needs tons of stupid money flooding into it in order to gain some value. Therefore, I think we should not focus too much on how many bitcoins Monero costs, but how many USD. Monero needs to stand alone and separate itself from bitcoin - otherwise it is just another altcoin. And I don't think Monero will be the ultimate crypto neither. this is nonsense. if you believe there will always be a better crypto then there is no use investing in them other than speculation and day trading. there is such a thing as network effect. and bitcoin's own dwarfs monero's by a couple order of magnitudes. protocols don't need to be perfect, they just need to be good enough and all signs point to Bitcoin being good enough. Monero is unique from most other alts in that it does present a use case that the market demands and that can not (yet?) be filled by Bitcoin but I believe it is too little too late for Monero to supplant Bitcoin on technological merits alone Yes, tech tends to go forward. When I was kid internet was introduced, and it was with modems that made the noise. And it was expensive, charge was 0.10 usd per minute.  Now we are having pretty fast internet connections as a human right almost. When new crypto is introduced, we simply buy us into it. Obviously the one who gets in first will get best price. The last pays the equilibrium price. Same as Monero. Yet the internet is still running on top of TCP/IP as it was when you were a kid. |
|
|
|
@Johnny Mnemonic: Valid points on the "get one crypto now". But BTC/Crypto useless?  Yep, pretty useless. Of course I have grand visions of the future just like the rest of us, but cryptocurrency hasn't reached the point where it offers anything of value to the average joe. But, as I stated in my last comment, that could change at any moment. Watching the price and beating out other coins is fun for sure  But we'll never get closer to real-world adoption until we start thinking outside of our circle. Even the great Bitcoin isn't really doing that. I'd consider myself a regular joe and Bitcoin has been considerably useful for international remittances and general currency exchange. I use it almost weekly and it provides a service that fiat/bank never could. Maybe your circle is too narrow and you need to expand it but in my world Bitcoin is very much useful. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
