Self-directed IRAs from the providers mentioned can basically invest in anything so there is no news there. You can setup an LLC and use your IRA to invest in illiquid investments like real estate. This is why it's called a 'self-directed' IRA.

Being picked up by wealth management platforms would be big news, though. I can see this happening -- I just wonder if it will be a thing for retail investors or more for private clients.

I'm a huge lucif / masterluc fan as I think he provides some of the only real insight on this entire Speculation forum.

And I also agree, like many, that the clouds in the overal economic markets are ominous. A lot of markets could top out and what would happen to Bitcoin if the bottom dropped out in the overall markets? It's difficult to call tops when governments are creating massive artificial asset bubbles. I think the markets hold out longer than people think....

Regarding Bitcoin, I am no longer the pessimist I once was. I've always loved the technology and have held coins but didn't like last April's rise. My previous posts centered upon Bitcoin bubbles and rigged exchanges....Well, IMO it's clear to see I was correct about the rigged exchanges. I am no longer sure Bitcoin is a bubble or I believe it is something that will continue inflating because there will always be reasons for it to inflate and I don't see how it can truly ever deflate barring some major event or government action, etc.

I haven't posted in awhile but have been reading the thread. I also warned about an impending implosion back at 266 but not as eloquently and specifically, to the minute, as lucif. This time -- I don't see a crash -- it may trade sideways and go down a little -- but I do not see a crash. I don't see it approaching new highs over the next couple of weeks, but I also see too many potential reasons for holders to continue keeping it up.

Exactly. Front running. Mismatched bids/asks. Etc. Again, not saying they do it.....but it is certainly possible.

Not always.....and almost never (that I've seen, at least) on the upside during periods of high volume.

How is this insane? Do you have any idea the types of shenanigans that were employed on the NYSE in the 1920s in a market that had a much larger relative size? Recently, a brokerage in India trading on the United Stock Exchange was suspected of creating massive fake volume using algo trading that accounted for 80% of the entire exchange volume. Wash sales & matched orders happen on the OTC:BB all the time (and have been prosecuted by the SEC frequently and recently).

It would not be very difficult to lag out then create phony volume that simulates a bounce (in slow motion) and helps stop the panic because everyone has time to see the bounce (more pronounced in slow motion). This is complete conjecture with no basis (except for the bizarre trading patterns & lags)......but it isn't that far fetched. And I'm not going so far as to outright accuse Gox; it could be trading bots that jam up their system then support the price briefly in an attempt to stem panic.

I've been posting about this for awhile.

The story always gets twisted into 'the lag caused the drop' when the drop always happens well before the lag. Today, we dropped from $145 to $123 without any signs of manipulation and then the lag started at $123, moved slowly to $120, lagged longer, then shot up to $145 during the lag in less than a minute before settling back down again. Where else does one find this kind of pricing action???

We always go lower, the lag appears, we don't go much lower after it starts (except on April 11th), and we bounce as the lag is ending. If this is an attempt at dropping the price, they are dong a very poor job and spending a ton of money 'simulating' a sell-off with large coin dumps. If it's an attempt at protecting the price, they have a winning average and are spending nothing by lagging out (Gox, bots, DDoS, whomever?) to support the price.

I guess most people here don't watch this very closely because it's fairly blatant. Gox reportedly began lagging on the upside in the days after the crash. I did not see this although people have reported it. I did not see upside lag in the weeks before the crash.

April 11th was an exception, IMO, because selling overpowered any attempt at stemming the sell-off. We were going down that day regardless.

Nobody here wants to believe this and you will likely be crucified for mentioning it (they'll call you a shill, troll, etc). These exchanges are not regulated. With such low liquidity, phony volume could move this thing like a piñata. This is essentially the pink sheets.

How are my statements different? According to Mt Gox, they lagged out because of success during a large round of sign-ups, because of DDoS, because of panic selling, etc. They've given those three excuses, so is that even debatable?? I see the same lag no matter what the excuse, so it leads me to question their excuses.

And when the price drops substantially, the vast majority of the time we do lag. I'm not even sure what you're debating and what I've said that isn't factual.

Take today, for instance. We trend lower to $123 then lag out. We slowly make it to 120, lag out even more, then bounce to 145 in less than a minute. Is that the work of some nefarious manipulator trying to destroy the price? If so, they failed miserably. There was absolutely no sign of manipulation while we were trending lower. The bizarre pricing action didn't start happening until after the lag and happened to the upside.



I haven't seen them lag out on the upside as I said I have not been watching it closely for the past week or so. I'll take your word for it. I certainly did not see lagging on the upside during March and the first half of April, which is the period we were discussing, at least while I was watching it. Yes, I did read that it lagged after the big crash and, as I said, I saw trading bots pushing it lower, I believe, the day after the lag....that made me feel a little better (to see it on both sides) because I had not seen that in the weeks before the crash. I believe I posted something to that effect.

I do not associate the dips with lags in the same way that you obviously do.....the dips happen before the lags, just like today. How hard is that to understand? If we trend sharply lower without a sign of manipulation (as happened weekly leading up the real crash, and today) and then we DDoS, or lag out, and the price does not move substantially lower after the lag (or bounces), why would I associate the lag with a trend lower as cause and effect?

If something is creating that lag to move the price down, then it is having the opposite effect almost every time. If someone is creating it protect the price, then its generally working. Because you don't think it's coincidental, you obviously think someone has a motive. So I guess in your mind they are failing miserably. I see it from the other side of the coin. I think they (whomever they be) are successful most of the time.....selling was simply too strong on April 11th.

I can tell you are emotionally invested in this. I'm simply stating what I'm seeing. My goal is not to upset you or anyone else, and I'm certainly not trying to provoke personal attacks. I fully respect your viewpoint. We simply disagree.

Yes, everyone selectively ignores this. We did not start lagging until $123ish......as soon as we lagged we bounced ridiculously ($25 under a minute). The natural sell-off that occurred down to 120 (lagged at 123) was somehow manipulation......but the utterly bizarre price movements that began after the lag were not manipulation??

Well, I never said there weren't DDoS attacks and I never said they have a crash proof trigger (impossible). I don't buy into the notion that the sell-offs were created by DDoS attacks but do not dispute that they ever occurred. The DDoS attacks became the perfect excuse to blame any sell-off, whether or not each outage was a DDoS related event. And they did 'cool-off' trading on the downside. It is my belief that lags prevented sell-offs up until April 11th when selling was too great.

These lags could've been orchestrated by anyone, sure. Or, they could've been coincidental and inherent to poor trading engine design. Either way, they occurred conveniently at support levels along with trading bots that were supporting the bid. Because I believe the lag/trading bot combo actually prevented sell-offs (or attempted, on April 11th), I believe that, if it was orchestrated by something, it was meant to keep the price up.

I am glad they are gone so everyone can stop blaming them for sell-offs, which will naturally occur. We would've crashed on April 11th regardless of any lag because we had moved to far too fast. The sell-off in large blocks was well under way before the lag.

I take it they've improved their system, which is good, so the lags may have been coincidental (although the bot support wasn't). I haven't noticed lags on the way up because I have not been watching it very closely, but I'm glad to hear that they are now occurring on the upside. I also noticed bots pushing the price down after April 11th, but I hadn't seen much of that prior.

There has been manipulation in this market on both sides, IMO.

I probably suck at being a shill because I'm not a shill.

Fundamentals = adoption rate among merchants & consumers, for one, which are currently limited mainly to speculators (due to volatility).

Increase in size is not the magic bullet. Commodities account for about 10%+ of global GDP yet most markets are quite volatile. Commodity (which is probably what Bitcoin will one day be categorized) prices tend to be more volatile than many other prices in the economy because short term supply and demand are relatively price inelastic.

Bitcoin is more like gold/silver, obviously. Like Bitcoin currently, Gold derives its value primarily from hoarding (sentiment) and has mostly elastic demand (except in India, perhaps) and inelastic supply (like Bitcoin). Silver is more volatile because, aside from lower liquidity, its value oscillates from being derived as a store of value (hoarded; elastic demand) to that of its industrial use (or transactional use, in case of Bitcoin; inelastic demand). The oscillation between these two demands may be more pronounced for Bitcoin in the future, causing similar volatility. This effect is debatable, though, as most of the transactional demand produces an off-setting transaction through BitPay.

Hoarding, while needed to get to these price levels, makes it much less likely that it'll be stable at $1K per because the higher it goes, the more is hoarded, and the cycle continues until it doesn't, then restarts, etc. At $1K we will likely attract investors that are also 10 to 100 times larger, so I think it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the price level where volatility vanishes (and with mBTC, expect vol to continue due to psychology?). The kind of size needed to make Bitcoin less volatile is probably very large......like forex markets large......if it is to be a global transactional and speculative asset.

I have skin in the game on many different levels as well and am focused on adoption. The question is 'can Bitcoin get to forex markets size' before usability (foreign exchange risk) becomes a major issue and before speculators lose the belief that Bitcoin can become a stable currency?

Wow, the worst kind.

I would love to learn more about you. What do you do for a living?

And I'm curious; what makes me a troll in your mind?

Yes, size has potential to help (to what extent, who knows and what size will be required?). The price increase has come from hyper-speculation and hoarding. If it came solely from adoption, we would be at much lower levels and likely much more stable. I can't really knock the media, though, as it has provided profound support.

I understand the spirit of what you're saying; we're on the same side.

But foreign currency risk is very real and, although it doesn't matter as much now, it will matter very much in the future. It will become the biggest issue because the sole reason to invest is for 'Bitcoin the currency'. Without the future hope of a stable currency, there is no 'Bitcoin the speculative investment'. It is THE issue.

Point taken regarding unicorn. I want this to go to $1000 when fundamentals support it, not because the director of Citigroup issues a press release regarding his ownership of 10 bitcoins. At any rate, I've been somewhat hyper-critical. This will be interesting to watch.

Fair assessment. I dislike Paypal. And I hate merchant accounts.

The problem isn't on the merchant side, it's on the customer side. The price will not go up forever and very few merchants can assume that risk.

And yes, but I didn't cherry-pick. I was writing the message while the price went from $166 to $153....then it went to $146.

I may sound negative but I am not bashing Bitcoin. I am involved in Bitcoin. I am very interested in Bitcoin and alt-coins.

I like playing the devil's advocate because everyone else (except for a select few) tends to cheerlead delusionally.

Yes. Yes. These are THE questions. The answers will lead to success/failure, but it will certainly be interesting in the meantime.

I wonder how tech savvy that demographic is, overall (those w/o bank accounts for Paypal but with prepaid debit cards).

One problem, the only traders allowed on Coinlab, Tradehill, etc, are accredited investors (net worth $1M or $200K per year). Perhaps this will change in the future to make it more easily accessible to different demographics. I really like where you're going with this.....interesting.

Consumer price index measures changes in the price level of a market basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households (inflation). The USD doesn't fluctuate much relative to the market basket of goods. The relative prices of goods fluctuates, which sometimes mimics inflation.

I'm simply pointing out a reason why people should not be cheering for Bitcoin to go to $1000 anytime soon, then bust, the go up again, etc etc.

It seems that anyone who doesn't cheer and pump Bitcoin to go straight to the moon is labeled a heretic. Everyone should be cheering for Bitcoin to remain fairly stable for awhile. This 'buy now while it's cheap because its going to $1000 in 3 months mentality' is nonsense. The more everyone speculates & hoards, the more damage will be done later. Strange that nobody realizes instability is an issue......it is a make or break issue.

So IMO that makes me more in favor of Bitcoin than most of the cheerleaders.

To which answers are you referring? Let's see....a panel of Nobel Laureates was asked a similar question and gave similar answers regarding foreign exchange risk. Wait, but they're not members of the Bitcoin foundation so they're incredibly stupid....

I don't see much of an argument here unless being condescending is your mechanism for arguing? The dollar doesn't fluctuate very much relative to CPI, which is one reason people continue to use it.

Slow fluctuations make a currency much more usable (and define the usability of a currency, hence why Zimbabwe's currency wasn't so useful or why Argentines prefer the USD). If the price of corn is $1.28 now and will be $1.28 two hours later (or even two weeks later), that's certainly helpful. All currency may be nonsense, but the one constant to any 'good' currency is usability vis-à-vis stability. Bitcoin is not quite there yet.

If the price of a computer accessory is 1 BTC now and 1.5 BTC (or 0.5 BTC) one hour later, not nearly as helpful. The latter promotes hoarding, which further drives up the price and makes it even less usable.

Commodity markets are massive and they fluctuate wildly as well, so market size doesn't necessarily have very much to do with it. Bigger markets like the dollar fluctuate less because the Fed uses monetary policy (ineptly, sure) to at least attempt to control inflation/deflation. I'm no fan of the Fed so no need to offer your explanation against their methods. Bitcoin is deflationary by nature and will probably continue to fluctuate wildly because it derives its value entirely from the free-market a la the network-effect.

You are obviously a sound money advocate and not a stable money advocate. Give me one good reason I would want to risk a 13.5% fee (as would've been lost today using BTC to make a purchase from $166 to $146 including spread & BitPay fee) when I can use the USD for a 2.7% fee or make a free Paypal transfer? I am an advocate of calling Bitcoin what it is, an interesting investment that one invests in with the hope that at some future date it will become stable enough to be used as a currency.....and every libertarians dream. If it never becomes stable as a currency most will question its existence as a purely speculative investment.

Currently, foreign exchange risk is a major issue whether you want to admit it or not. I do agree that at some point it will be less volatile, but commodity markets are still quite volatile given their enormous size, lengthy existence and relatively predictable demand/supply characteristics.

I'm a libertarian so I'm sold on the concept.

But, I am also not delusional enough to discount a real problem.....foreign exchange risk is real and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Early adopters with more substantial BTC holdings are less aware of this issue than newcomers.

Bitcoin will remain a speculative investment that enables investors to make purchases with their investment, purchases that are hedged for the merchant by BitPay but where the purchaser assumes full currency risk....until it becomes less volatile.

I think one potential problem is that early (or earlier) adopters with a low cost basis are much less concerned with the foreign exchange risk when making transactions than newcomers (the people who will push this higher).

Why would I do this if I purchased BTC at $166 a couple of hours ago and made a purchase at $146 a few minutes ago for 13.5% in total fees (12% more BTC or USD, however you want to look at it, 0.5% spread to be generous, and 1% to BitPay).


No, it's nothing like e-commerce. We're talking about massive and constant currency fluctuations that Nobel Laureates are saying is the biggest threat to the currency (but perhaps you have a better grasp of economics than they do?). E-commerce had adoption issues but there was nothing inherent to e-commerce that imperiled its usefulness (nor was anyone calling into question its usefulness). Slow adoption and security were issues but it quickly caught on and never looked back.

It's not a chicken and egg problem. All things equal, if the current companies that have adopted BitPay had never issued press releases, we would not have bubbled to this extent and those businesses would still easily be able to transact business. Over-exuberance is not required to make Bitcoin useful. It does need to appreciate, but not at this rate and not due to press releases of little substance. The higher this goes, the more hoarding will become an issue.

The more volatile it is, the more limited its use will be because only investors will be willing to purchase it and subsequently use it for transactions. It would be nice if we had a much broader potential transactional market than Bitcoin speculators.

I'm not trolling, regardless what any of you think. I am actually offended at the people that want nothing more than to keep this pumped into the stratosphere because it will only slow adoption by consumers, which is more important than merchants because merchants are really just accepting USD through BitPay. It's the consumers that have to assume the massive foreign currency exchange risk, not merchants.

I am a libertarian who loves the concept, is tech savvy (not a programmer but very familiar with Linux, etc), and is primarily involved in the finance industry. I only say this because people may be getting the wrong idea as I am usually making negative postings. I am invested in Bitcoin in various ways and want to see it succeed. Irrational exuberance will not aid this success.