The log chart is distorted as it includes essentially irrelevant data when bitcoins were worth a few cents each. While it's valid to include the data (it's factual) it's also irrelevant to bitcoin users today. So what that the price now is still 1000 times higher than it was a year ago? It doesn't change the fact that bitcoin's value is down almost 75% from its peak.
Does this one make you happier?  |
|
|
|
are you guys just drawing lines with paint, or are you actually fitting to some curve or something? nothing's properly labeled so I can't tell, but it seems like you're just making this shit up
Mostly just having fun with some math. I wouldn't place much confidence in the predictive power of this model. Too many significant hurdles yet to be overcome to say it's just a simple matter of spreading the word. |
|
|
|
Log chartist reporting. What's up?  srsly what's your problem, just thing of it this way: Blow up the chart to 2030 or so and draw a tanh() funtion over it. It only behaves linearly (or exponential on a linear chart) because we are looking at a small fraction of it. Are you modelling the diffusion of Bitcoin with the logistic differential equation? Is that why you used tanh? I'm sorry I have no idea what you are talking about  But you might be on to something here  Oh. If you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations. Notice the graph at the top of the page, and the "logistic function" link underneath. thanks, I've already looked it up, pretty interesting. But we have a problem: Scaling the function to the actual data would be quite a demanding task, and would require skillfull programming instead of naive curve drawing by hand  lol Plus, I think you'd want to use the linear scaling when fitting the logistic function. Would be a pretty bad fit, then  |
|
|
|
Log chartist reporting. What's up? srsly what's your problem, just thing of it this way: Blow up the chart to 2030 or so and draw a tanh() funtion over it. It only behaves linearly (or exponential on a linear chart) because we are looking at a small fraction of it. Are you modelling the diffusion of Bitcoin with the logistic differential equation? Is that why you used tanh? I'm sorry I have no idea what you are talking about But you might be on to something here Oh. If you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations. Notice the graph at the top of the page, and the "logistic function" link underneath. |
|
|
|
Log chartist reporting. What's up? srsly what's your problem, just thing of it this way: Blow up the chart to 2030 or so and draw a tanh() funtion over it. It only behaves linearly (or exponential on a linear chart) because we are looking at a small fraction of it. Are you modelling the diffusion of Bitcoin with the logistic differential equation? Is that why you used tanh? |
|
|
|
In my opinion, the best thing for Bitcoin at this point would be a couple of quiet years without much of the crazy adoption/growth/"ungrowth" that we've seen recently. In that time, the client could become rock solid and infrastructure (exchanges, etc.) could become well-established.
Yeah, I personally welcome the fear mongers here for this very reason. I think it's good to scare away the skittish speculators. It'll inspire much more confidence if prices rise due to proven utility, rather than hopeful expectations. Wild growth combined with infrastructure not ready to support it has been a pretty bad mix so far. |
|
|
|
|
Could you use this to make "smart" safe deposit boxes whose keys are transferred via the block chain, that know when they're opened, and support storage fees (that are paid to their storage provider to prevent the automatic transfer of ownership to them)?
One reason you'd want it to know if it's been opened is so that before remotely purchasing ownership of the box, a potential buyer can remotely query it to see if it's been opened since some trusted auditor last closed it.
For example, this could be used to create fully backed digital currencies without trusted issuers. Well, technically at least. Not sure of the legalities here.
Also thinking loan collateral could be secured this way with property that won't be used for the duration of the loan. The box would have to prevent entry to the owner until the loan is paid off, or if it is defaulted on it would transfer ownership to the lender.
|
|
|
|
The fact is if I don't sell now, I might regret later when the price finally stablize at $1 or less.
The fact is if I don't buy now at $30, I might regret later when the price reaches $1000 or more. PM me. I'm willing to sell for 1/3 of what you're willing to pay. lol you wish I was Just pointing out the similarity between fear and greed is all. |
|
|
|
The fact is if I don't sell now, I might regret later when the price finally stablize at $1 or less.
The fact is if I don't buy now at $30, I might regret later when the price reaches $1000 or more. |
|
|
|
Or just about the timescales involved
I beg to disagree, I feel that the less bitcoins circulate the more value they lose. If it's used like a currency, if it circulates, if people are trading with them then mechanically more people will use them, more people will accept them, they will necessarily gain value and remain stable. Waiting 20 years won't make them anymore valuable if everyone hoards them... Somehow I feel it's like a self balancing mechanism I think he's right about timescales being relevant. Here's some possible reasons: - It takes time to build confidence in the technical implementation; e.g. before people are going to start trusting this system with significant amounts of their value, they'll first want to see a good track record of it doing it safely for others.
- I expect the limited supply of bitcoins to act as a kind of friction to their diffusion into the economy; if they starts to diffuse too fast, then the necessary exchange rate rises will tend to cause speculative manias, and the inevitable crashes will stifle adoption until a solid price support is revealed over time.
- Exchange rate run-ups likely attenuate actual use since I imagine this would cause people to want to hoard their bitcoins.
- Quick run-ups also seem to cause "early adopter envy", which likely prevents many people who would otherwise begin using Bitcoin from doing so at that time, and for some time afterward. People don't appear to like seeing others get rich while "doing nothing", especially if they recognize their actions to be the cause of it.
- The legal uncertainty surrounding Bitcoin should cause people to refrain from trusting it with large amounts of their value. Clarity here will be reached at government speed, i.e. years.
- Technical development of core and supporting infrastructure happens slowly, on the order of years. And again, it takes time to build confidence in these new systems, and the improvements made to old ones.
- While the core foundation isn't yet mature, the developers (Gavin at least) are suggesting people refrain from actively promoting Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
That image is fuzzy?
Yes, it is. It's been through a lot. Just go to, for example, http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/, chose options as you please, and see it for yourself clearly. Wow it's down almost 50% in just 2 short months.... that's not good! Sure it is, it's shaken out the skittish "investors" who don't actually understand their investment. Note that it's still up something like 1000% in just 5 short months. This is why you have to use log scales, and longer time frames - so you don't lose the perspective that matters. |
|
|
|
Where, in all of the preceding circular, self referential economics discussion is human need addressed?
The whole reason people trade with each other is to meet their respective needs. Or human social relations?
Trade relations are social relations. Edit: I want to add that they can be, and often are, completely impersonal. Money is only necessary for societies that scale well beyond the point where trade becomes largely impersonal. Or environmental dependence and sustainability?
As resources become more scarce, their prices rise, incentivizing conservation and the discovery of alternatives. How does tracking money value sequences have anything to do with the human condition?
Some monies are better than others. |
|
|
|
In a sense, it's completely right. If you believe Bitcoins will catch on, value will certainly go up as more people enter the economy while the number of Bitcoins slowly reaches the hard cap.
Therefore, it IS in your best interests to hold onto the and sell them later.
All I have to do is believe? |
|
|
|
Yes I knew of the coin counting - but this branching out to feeless shopping on the net is entirely new and useful to regular peeps who don't want to get jacked on those prepaid visas - this will but a hurt into that market, and what bitcoin is supposed to be able to do. Some of their marketing is even similar to the bitcoin slogans.
Well, not entirely new. The machines here where I live have had atleast the Amazon option on them for over a year now. Maybe longer, thats just when I noticed it. And while a bitcoin option is certanly not without merit I wonder how much those companies pay coinstar for the service. Assuming they charge 5-10% USD for counting is it safe to assume the same from the merchants. What I am getting at is how would a bitcoin site cover such costs? I'd expect the fees wouldn't be as high for handling paper as it is for coins. Also, does the bitcoin ATM ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122.msg461848#msg461848) combined with bit-pay ( bit-pay.com) achieve this purpose? |
|
|
|
And what difference does it make if they keep physical notes? Is it that the Federal Reserve can just freeze their account in the event of funny business?
The idea that the Fed would consider freezing the accounts of China for any reason short of an overt act of war is laughable. Such a thing would literally destroy the US economy and the currency. Sure, I totally agree. I'm just trying to figure out what your thinking is here. |
|
|
|
Your not-so-fun facts need checking.
Seriously. Without even going into the accuracy of the source, or how the wikipedia article author came up with those numbers, the amount of foreign currency reserves that it claims for China is expressed in US dollar values. The Central Bank of China doesn't actually keep it's currency reserves in US Federal Reserve Notes. Much of those reserves are Euros, and many other currencies besides, not limited to Brazil, Argentina and Australia; China's most important non-domestic commodities source nations. Yeah, way ahead of you Got a correct estimate of USD held by China? And what difference does it make if they keep physical notes? Is it that the Federal Reserve can just freeze their account in the event of funny business? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is also not currency in the traditional sense, and doesn't require a $15-$20 price point for it to be brought to the mass market. No, Bitcoin would survive and prosper even if it never got above par value with the USD.
Excellent post. Heh, this is the only part of that post that I really disagreed with. I figure a currency is only as good as the number of people using it, and the BTC exchange rate is roughly proportional to this number, since the overall supply is fixed. (Ignoring for simplicity the predictable supply increase.) I fundamentally disagree with you. You may believe that early adopters have only the best intentions, but I have seen first hand that in fact, they do not.
The extent to which the early adopters are, on the aggregate, incompetent or have no interest in the health or success of Bitcoin is the extent that I think there is an early adopter problem. So I think we do agree. |
|
|
|
I mean the scammers and hype mongers, and no, I'm not suggesting sell sell sell. I really could care less about trying to move the market. That would make me just as bad as the hype mongers.
What I would like to see though, is for the people hoarding Bitcoin to get over themselves, and to sell/donate their bitcoins and get out of the way for the greater good. The professional opinions that I've heard all point out one glaring flaw in the current situation that causes massive fluctuations and market swings.
Do you know what that one glaring problem is? There are far too many early, mostly free coins that can be converted to dollars. Bitcoin absolutely needs to decentralize in ownership. If you purchase 2000 bitcoins, you should have some assurances that nobody already has the market cornered, ready to scalp you and every one else whenever the price point meets their luxury vacation needs.
Come out of the woodwork, old miners. Get an education in economics, and do your best to understand that your hoarding is part of the lack of trust and stability in the current system. You aren't going to be a millionaire with your 200,000 coins. It's just not going to happen.
Greed and ego. Ego and greed. It's sad and pathetic. All in all, the fraudsters and hoarders have given this experiment an incredibly bad name among real professionals.
So go ahead, hoard your cache of bitcoins until their value drops even more, and when it hits $3, and $2 and you start to sell off in a frenzy, worried that you'll no longer be able to buy that mercedes you've been eyeing, that will potentially be the beginning of the next wave of sustainable, trusted growth.
Until then, it's just not going to happen.
I agree with you that less concentrated ownership garners more confidence in the market, but I'm pretty doubtful that the early adopters will eventually crash the market with their bitcoins, as their interests seem to be pretty well aligned with the success of Bitcoin. And this is the only risk I can see that they pose to other bitcoiners. The problem of concentrated ownership seems to me to be one that will naturally work itself out gradually, as trading volume gets big enough that they can safely offload their bitcoins, and as they encounter the need to spend them, or as they die. Fun fact: I've heard estimates that Satoshi has around 1.2M BTC. By the end of next year, that puts him at 10% total ownership, about the same share of the total USD that the Japanese central bank owns.
Not so fun fact: The Chinese central bank owns nearly 30% of total USD.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_reserves#List_of_countries_by_foreign_exchange_reserves |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is also not currency in the traditional sense, and doesn't require a $15-$20 price point for it to be brought to the mass market. No, Bitcoin would survive and prosper even if it never got above par value with the USD.
Being brought to mass market will result in a higher price point. There's definitely a correlation between exchange rate and level of adoption. I'm not defending the pump and dump that went on - I've always called it such, and it's always worried the hell out of me - but you have to admit that it garnered a ton of publicity. And maybe it really is true that there's no such thing as bad publicity. At least after the dust settles. At the very least it'll sober the hell out of the market going forward. Please, PLEASE: Stay the fuck away from Bitcoin
Do you mean everyone, or just the scammers and hype-mongers? To all of you who are aware of the truth behind my words, please take action quickly.
Heh, was that a thinly-veiled suggestion to SELL SELL SELL? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
