|
some typo in the URL... if you RTFA it indicates the possibility of 1 BTC going to 1 million of ALL international exchange used it exclusively.
"Billion" is never mentioned.
|
|
|
|
The other thing is while you are right that they had to get the coins sometime and somewhere, that demand theoretically drove the price up, if that demand is lost (by spending and not buying again) how can the net gain , without new investors, be positive?
"Demand" is a complex concept. In ordinary language we use the word to refer to many things. But the underlying system has well-defined characteristics. There is a finite resource: The integral of holdings over time. This 2d space is denominated in btc-seconds. Every square unit is always allocated in some way. If you require a rectangle of this plane, then you are adding demand. It doesn't matter whether the rectangle is vertically oriented (large amount, short time) or horizontally oriented (small amount, large time). What does matter is whether the demand (the regions of the plane which are desired to allocate) overlaps. Overlapping demands drive the price up until the demand regions no longer overlap. Any BTC in the air in bitpay constitute a very long shallow slice of this rectangular space. Here's a simple way to think about it. The existence of a bitpay outlet probably won't increase/decrease the fundamental consumption of the stuff being bought medium and long term. So people would (on average) sell the BTC on an exchange and buy the same products anyway. But every time they use BTC directly, the overall economic system directly gains the difference between the cost to use BTC and the cost to use paypal/credit card potentially with regional currency conversions (so around 2.5% to 5+%). And both the customers and merchants have indirect savings in time and efficiency by not having to battle credit card fraud. Consumer time savings when doing international transfers or WU is also huge. Ignoring all the hype, adoption etc, its this fundamental advantage that will drive Bitcoin adoption long term. AnonMint's silly argument wins the battle but loses the war. |
|
|
|
|
keep an eye on that 450 BTC swap demand on bitfinex. At .006% there's only one reason to fill it...
|
|
|
|
There is one thing I really don't understand - what the hell motivates Chinese people to still trade on Chinese exchanges?
Let's say you would hear news that [PUT YOUR COUNTRY HERE] told their banks to stop any Bitcoin-related activities. What would a normal, rational-thinking person do? It would get off the exchange as soon as possible, in my opinion. It would try to exchange BTC to fiat and move out as long as there is more clarity about the current situation.
But why are Chinese still trading on Chinese exchanges?! I really don't get it. Am I missing something? Maybe someone can help me out.
We can hypothesize that this effect is the result of some force or combination of forces in the Chinese economy/society. We can speculate why (housing bubble, no good investment opportunities, tremendous concentrations of wealth, large underground economy) for fun. But more importantly what does the existence of this force mean for Bitcoin in China? I think it actually means that Bitcoin will remain very much alive there... perhaps spreading via other, less centralized means. |
|
|
|
I don't think we are dumping today. This impulse up was too sharp in my opinion. I think we test the highs of last week before selling off again.
Honestly, what's going on with these Chinese exchanges is beyond me at this point. I assume the rise is based on short covering. But no rise can sustain for too long, not with NO money coming into the exchanges.
But for today we are probably going to see more up before we see more down.
Bitfinex shorts are actually pretty high right now at 9.5k BTC... so on average ppl are taking not covering. Longs are moderately high at 16.8M USD. |
|
|
|
I would draw the lines a bit more like this. It seems to me BTC is at a critical inflection point. A break below 400 would be bearish and a break above 550 would be bullish. The next few weeks should tell us which way this market wants to go.  Note that the last block halving happened approx (end Nov 2012) where you started your support line which is perhaps a reasonable justification for it as opposed to Tera's line (I call it the L0 -- it essentially projects the 2012 "quiet period" out as a measure of the baseline adoption, resulting in a ~$200 price today). |
|
|
|
So you want to name 100 satoshi as a unit? But I don't really understand what you want to say. You can buy whatever amount of bitcoins you want so how that should effect bitcoin?
Its like this: no matter how much engineers and other science types wish and believe it to be otherwise, there is a psychological "sweet spot" for stocks which ranges from around 20 to 100 bucks. Dropping below 10 implies that the company is in trouble. Above 100 and its "too expensive". Also, on the too expensive side, non-techies have a much harder time on the right side of the decimal point (i.e. 0.00345 BTC) then on the left+2 decimals (3.45 mBTC). This is WHY stock splits happen, since the nominal purchasing unit is 100 shares, its not like the stock has gotten "too expensive" for someone to buy. From the perspective of someone who's been arguing for this since 2012, we need to stop sweating the details and just DO it. You may prefer milli or micro, "bits", "finneys" or "uBTC" but I think ANY of that is better than staying at BTC. So please throw your vote behind ANY and ALL proposals to actually do it. Once wallets and online services start to do it, a common use name (and likely denomination, I mean milli vs. micro) will naturally emerge. |
|
|
|
It is interesting that even if 30,000 NEW adopters a DAY will emerge then it is only 11,000,000 per YEAR ... ( and only 110 millions per 10 YEARS ... what is less than 2% of population )
You are looking at it the wrong way, addoption is exponential not linear. Once bitcoin appears more and more in the news and starts to go mainstream the rate of adoption will accelarate greatly. As I am sure I dont need to remind you btc is still magic internet money that a few nerds are playing with. That's a very good point.. .so we could be conservative and predict something like this (a doubling of the number of new wallets every year): 2033 - 256 billion new wallets Yet, even a doubling of new users every year would be a tremendous amount of growth for bitcoin, if such were to happen. Dude, seriously, 256 billion new wallets in 2033? That'd be like 25-30 wallets for each person on Earth. To even use the words "conservative" and "diminish" in this context...well I'd love to see what your not so conservative numbers are. Your semi-autonomous personal information devices each hold some of your coins and use them for stuff like micro-payments to news sites, the purchase of music. Your fridge automatically reorders the foods you've eaten each month. |
|
|
|
|
yes happens to me periodically...
|
|
|
|
I'm saying so because I make explicit suggestions every few months. My last suggestion on this forum was to sell at around 800.
But I think you are asking "why do I think so?" You can feel the tide turning when you immerse yourself in the datastream. At the largest granularity, when negative news has no effect, positive news will begin to have a positive effect. China FUD is exhausted. Free nations will carry the torch from here, while the Chinese hide the cig in their mouth.
Lots of great stuff happening, too much to recite. Don't get me wrong, I think the rise may be slow. It may poke around here a bit; this suggestion is for medium to long term traders. But it may rebound and THEN be slow. I think the risk of being out during a pop is becoming greater than the profit for catching another small pullback. But we may need a small fiat emergency to light the next fuse. On the other hand nations seem to "schedule" these about once every 18 months so something is coming due...
It might be a little premature to say that China FUD is exhausted. For example, BTC China had only announced stopping of deposit for ONE bank. Until that happens for ALL banks, then China FUD is exhausted. Nonetheless, the market has largely factored in the China FUD. It is now a question of when the rebound is going to be. You're right, more accurately I meant the market is exhausted of Chinese central bank announcements. Those who fear this have probably already sold. |
|
|
|
just to draw a line in the sand... I think its time to go long. (do your own homework this is not investment advice I am not your advisor, etc)
Why do you say so? I'm saying so because I make explicit suggestions every few months. My last suggestion on this forum was to sell at around 800. But I think you are asking "why do I think so?" You can feel the tide turning when you immerse yourself in the datastream. At the largest granularity, when negative news has no effect, positive news will begin to have a positive effect. China FUD is exhausted. Free nations will carry the torch from here, while the Chinese hide the cig in their mouth. Lots of great stuff happening, too much to recite. Don't get me wrong, I think the rise may be slow. It may poke around here a bit; this suggestion is for medium to long term traders. But it may rebound and THEN be slow. I think the risk of being out during a pop is becoming greater than the profit for catching another small pullback. But we may need a small fiat emergency to light the next fuse. On the other hand nations seem to "schedule" these about once every 18 months so something is coming due... |
|
|
|
|
just to draw a line in the sand... I think its time to go long. (do your own homework this is not investment advice I am not your advisor, etc)
|
|
|
|
it's even sadder some of the replies she has been given; I'm sure she's annoyed enough without basically being told that she's stupid & not to come back until she has learned more about investing. Just my opinion but I don't think comments like that help anyone.
Agree 100% pinksheep. So much anger and negative bashing..... I think that the anger is unfortunate and unwarranted. But the issue is deep. You see, to some Bitcoin is a repudiation of the implicit right of the state to meddle in financial affairs. Like regulating who is an "accredited investor" -- which can be seen as giving the best opportunities to the rich. And regulating the free issuance and exchange of securities (GLBSE, MPOE, etc was/are all bitcoin-based unregulated stock markets) -- which can be seen as limiting individual entrepreneurship. When someone comes in and basically justifies this regulation ("I bought because someone told me to, now I'm selling for emotional reasons"), it invites regulation. In other words, it looks like this person's finances really do need protection from herself. The last thing we need is this person and 1000 similar on CNN. The state has its highly protective system; if you like it stick with it. We have ours. If all the fiat rules and regs are applied to Bitcoin, we are left with something quite similar to fiat with all its inefficiencies and overhead. Whatever you think about Cryptocurrencies or fiat there is a strong argument that a diversity of systems is better than the same system repeated. For example, if the USD fails, central banks all over the world fail. They are all the same system repeated, and interconnected... this is a very bad situation to be in. So people who like the "opt-out" nature of Bitcoin get protective and suggest that that person GTFO. |
|
|
|
Isn't it ironic that the libertarian bitcoiners, champions of laissez-faire capitalism, are betting all their life savings on the hope that the Satoshi Bitcoin will be one day the only cryptocurrency in the market, so that they can charge monopoly prices for it?  I see no irony there. I am not sure you understand the core values of libertairianism in light of this comment. Libertarians tend to defend what others call monopolies. Perhaps I don't. A monopoly is the opposite of free market by definition, so how can one be in favor of the latter without being against the former? If libertarians do not object to monopolies, why do they object to government, which has by defintion the monopoly in many fields (army, criminal punishment, money issuance, etc.)? I suppose libertarians might tolerate monopolies by competence not monopolies by fiat or force. Monopoly is a very tricky subject... |
|
|
|
OP: You are right. Feeling bad about yourself, shame in front of your friends is important to feelings of self-worth. But don't beat yourself up; plenty of experienced investors missed the bubble's top. Those of us who understand the protocol and believe in the economic change it implies can rely on that during the downtrends -- that is "I'm investing to support this great idea, not just to make $". If that is not you then learn to hedge your bets. For example you could buy back with a small amount that you REALLY CAN afford to lose, maybe 10% to 25%. But tell your friends you sold, never mention this little bit to them. Forget about these coins. If BTC goes to 0, oh well. If it goes through the roof, you'll be able to book a nice vacation or buy yourself something special, and tell your friends, "I guess I didn't sell ALL my coins... ", without going into any specifics. The alternative is the possibility you've sold near the bottom and how will you feel with no coins if BTC hits 5000 in 2015? Bitcoin has fundamental advantages over gold and fiat currency that make those kind of valuations possible if not necessarily probable. |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
The rpietila rule: Whenever you read the word "never" its guaranteed to happen within a few days if not hours. |
|
|
|
Cross-posting... Generative essence of why humans prefer slavery Let's reduce this Bundy ranch debate to its generative essence. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-korea-north-usa-idUSBREA3P02U20140426Obama reminds North Korea of U.S. 'military might'
"So like all nations on Earth, North Korea and its people have a choice. They can choose to continue down a lonely road of isolation, or they can choose to join the rest of the world and seek a future of greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect - a future that already exists for the citizens on the southern end of the Korean peninsula." Obama's rhetoric above cloaks the true meaning which is that world government is "greater opportunity, and greater security, and greater respect" than sovereign countries, counties, and individuals. The powers-that-be create a conflict (China supporting N. Korean and USA supporting S. Korea) in order to frighten individuals and cause them to think a world government is necessary for security. The powers-that-be are doing it again with China threatening the Philippines over the Spratly islands and the Philippines taking their claim to UN tribunal. What Obama's rhetoric doesn't reveal is that instead of a diversity of sovereign countries, counties, and individuals (which includes allowing individuals to express and live their own opinions of diverse issues such as race, work ethics, and marriage), the world government means all that freedom of expression and life will be subjected to the will of those powers-that-be who manage the world 'democracy' by promising the people everything, manipulating 75% of their emotions, and taking everything for themselves. This is how the power vacuum of 'democracy' has always worked and will always work. Upthread we have Communists who vehemently express their hatred of diversity of expression and life. They prefer a society that is top-down managed, so the powers-that-be can enforce all their control-freak pet peeves they want the community enslaved within. The subconscious (root) motivation of these upthread antagonists is they won't want to see anyone have something they don't, i.e. jealousy. They convince themselves they are fighting for the good of all, but the truth is they are subconsciously jealous that individuals could compete and excel without their control over them via their powers-that-be proxy. So I don't want to speak to these brain-dead antagonists who throughout history have destroyed themselves in repeating bouts of economic gridlock collapse and megadeath. I speak today to those who want to opt-out of their killing machine. Join me. I have the solution. I'm ceasing debate with the antagonists. Their fate is sealed. Ok, then show us your solution instead of fooling around with all these teasers. |
|
|
|
Look. The bet is for 30 days. Not 90. 90 is just a way for Rpietila to try to hegde his bet. The guy is deathly afraid of losing. In 90 days we could retest 270 and be back above 500.
In fact, if we are no longer in a bear market it matters not if its 30 days or 90 days or 4 years, as we will not see 435. However, if are bear, opposite to what Rpietila suggests, then 30 days gives me a chance to prove him wrong and win the bet.
90 days I will not do. There's no sport in a bet where there is 90%+ chance of a tie and 8% in losing.
30 days is fair.
No one is going to manipulate the market. I am assuming a certain amount of honor here.
Can Rpietila also agree to real risk and honor? We will find out. I expect him to make excuses and not join the bet.
As a spectator, I'd say that this bet has more meaning with a longer term and wider spread. Narrow and short is just making a joint statement about the size of your respective d*cks :-) -- essentially saying I am rich enough and bored enough to gamble this on a coin toss. If it means so little to you, why don't you invest it in something that could enhance BTC valuation? But longer and wider is making a statement about whether bitcoin is or isn't going to bubble up again... In other words, windjc if you are a bull-in-a-bear-suit what's the point of this bet? Just to prove you are a good at market timing (who cares) or just to get the adrenaline high you've been missing since Dec (chill, man)? Yes, it is for fun. Not for changing the world. Like most bets. We can give more to charity if you like, but lets not pretend its something its not. It's for fun and bragging rights I am a bull at heart. Just a bear in the head for now. Unlike Rpeitila who has been relegated to the sidelines like a nervous cheerleader. Awesome then have fun!!!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
