Yes, you might say financial markets are a chess game where the players, dimensions of the board, and movement rules for pieces change after every move.  A strategy that worked last time to gain a piece is in no way guaranteed to work again.  The odds of it working again are inversely proportional to the intelligence and alertness of the players who were present last time, are present once again, and still have significant funds.

Your conclusion was that "the fundamental value is far lower than the speculative price".  You assert that the true value of Bitcoin is less than the current market price of $270.  But the argument you provided did not support that conclusion.  You instead provided arguments in support of there not being enough dollars to value Bitcoin at $100 million per coin ($1 per satoshi), which is completely irrelevant to your conclusion.

He means to tie up Bitcoins in a wait for confirmation.  Tie up all of a payment processor's Bitcoins in confirmations and they will need to increase reserves by buying more on the open market to handle more transactions.

If you are going to use the satoshi as the unit of account, and you did, then the price you assign is per satoshi, not per Bitcoin.  You are then trying to argue that all the QE in the world cannot make a satoshi worth $1.  Well, if that did happen, a Bitcoin would be worth $100 million.  So you are essentially setting up an argument against Bitcoin being currently worth $100 million per coin.  I agree it's not currently worth that much.  It's currently priced at about $268 per coin, not $100 million.  It's currently worth much more than that, though.

That's what you got from that post?  Lol.

Yes, it's bullshit.  It's just as much bullshit as fundamental analysis, astrology, and central banking.

Their plan appears to be shutting down accounts at the local Ukrainian exchange BTCTrade.com.ua.  This won't accomplish anything other than creating a Bitcoin-based economy in Ukraine and among those selling to people in Ukraine.

http://www.coindesk.com/ukraine-to-crackdown-on-separatist-bitcoin-accounts/


If this escalates, it will result in the separatists keeping their funds in BTC and using it directly, instead of converting to local currency at an exchange.  Bitcoin's anti-fragility means every time it is attacked it gets stronger.  Bitcoin is a Saiyan.

Looks like it was pulled before getting fully eaten.

So, anyway... back to wall observing...

Nice wall at 262.00 is real.  Some chunks being eaten now.

http://news.yahoo.com/swedish-central-bank-cuts-key-rate-further-below-164625984.html;_ylt=AwrBJSAprQlVM0wAUJDQtDMD

"Sweden's central bank took its key interest rate further into negative territory Wednesday in a surprise move aimed at supporting a return to inflation.

The Riksbank cut its repo rate by 0.15 percentage points to -0.25 percent and said it was buying government bonds worth 30 billion kronor ($3.4 billion, 3.2 billion euros) to prevent an appreciating krona from hindering an uptick in inflation."

So in 3 years then you think we might be at around $29,000 and see this?

"The rocket is secretly taking off again, price will go to $50,000 within 3 days!" 

"Prediction contest: When will bitcoin break $40,000, or will it never break $40,000?"

"Next stop: $17,000".

It causes pause, doesn't it?

I can give an example of what the OP is talking about.  Think of a colored coin or Counterparty asset that represents USD.  It is built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, and can transfer USD$1,000,000 as a 0.0001 BTC token.  The only problem, and this may be a big one, is in securing this transaction.  The Bitcoin network sees this as the sending of 0.0001 BTC, nothing more.  It's the colored coin or Counterparty layer on top of Bitcoin that interprets it as something more.  So any security features that rely on amount of Bitcoin being sent, such as how many confirmations to wait for, will be rendered unsafe.  Your seemingly small 0.0001 BTC transfer may have needed only 0 or 1 confirmations, but the fact that it actually represents USD$1,000,000 means it would be well worth the effort to perform a double spend with so few confirmations.

To summarize, you run the risk of having less security when you override the meaning of a BTC transaction.

Margin... Your liquidation price is in the double digits right now.  But how long until that's not true?  Interest will increase your liquidation price everyday.

There's no reason to have two coins here, when one will do great.  Bitcoin can be used as the fuel currency of Ethereum by pegging it to Bitcoin through a side-chain.  There is no reason to force those who want to use Ethereum's features into becoming investors in a new coin.  The core of Ethereum isn't about financial investment, it's about distributed apps.

The spin-off is effective as of the date of distribution.  At that time all the current Bitcoin outputs are assigned Aethereum outputs.  After this point in time, any new investors must purchase Aethereum, which will involve selling Bitcoin.

There's no reason we can't use Bitcoin, or a side-chain currency pegged to it, as Ethereum fuel directly.  Creation of a new coin for this only encourages eventual competition between the new coin and Bitcoin, something that cannot happen with a side-chain peg.

While this distribution method may seem more fair than those previously used in the alt-coin world, it still leaves you with an alt-coin after the distribution date, and all the implications of that.  After the date of distribution, the new coin would be in competition with Bitcoin for market share.  It's time someone researched turning Ethereum into a fully fledged Bitcoin side-chain.  There's no reason to use another coin, when Bitcoin itself will work great as fuel.  A separate coin will end up being siphoned by "developers" to fund their (lack of) activities.  A Bitcoin side-chain can prevent this from happening in any hidden way.