I'm reading a great book called "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, which is all about our cognitive biases. An important theme is WYSIATI (what you see is all there is), and there's copious volumes of research that prove how susceptible our brains are to this bias. It's why last summer anyone who predicated $1200 a few months out was not taken seriously, and it's why people scoff at the idea that fiat money could lose its importance.
The FT author sees a classic picture of the first portion of a bubble chart and, due to WYSIATI, her brain pattern-matches that to the classic "bubble chart" we've all seen a million times: her intuitive response is BUBBLE and this precludes her from even considering the many rational arguments against this being "the end" (the arguments simply don't exist to her because she is blinded by only what she does see).
Rather than focussing on sentiment and on price, I think it's more useful to consider the infrastructure being built. The most important of which are the fiat<-->bitcoin gateways. There's now hundreds of bitcoin ATMS across the world with more rolling out each month, the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF could soon be approved, and Circle should eventually allow people to instantly signup and purchase bitcoin with a credit card. During the last growth spurt there was exactly 1 bitcoin ATM.
This infrastructure won't precipitate another wave of bitcoin adoption, but it would certainly facilitate one should sentiment make a 180 deg turn. And with the fiat gateways opened much wider than at any time in bitcoin's history, the next cycle could be epic.
I always feel somewhat "dirty" talking about this because bitcoin has much nobler goals, but Bitcoin's killer app right now is that it appeals to people's lust for wealth. Of course, the corollary to this is that it is also at the whim of people's fear of losing money (what we're seeing now). But remember, the people most able to vote against bitcoin are those who are already participating (<0.1% of the world's population), yet the amount of people who could be seduced by the thought of easy money is a much larger percentage (some might argue 100%).
In conclusion, if every guy and girl at the gym, the pub, or the backyard BBQ can signup in minutes and purchase bitcoin instantly with his credit card, many will. Once the infrastructure is in place, all that's required is ample media attention and a change in sentiment.
**Of course this doesn't mean we don't have a bumpy road ahead of us (or for that matter that we'll necessarily see another growth spurt). We might still have to shatter the dreams of a few more recent speculators, and quell the ambition of a few more early whales.
Its ironic that wysiati. Can also be applied to the bitcoiners view as well. Here you are trying to justify an obvious bear trend only a disingenuous troll would get that out of this post. you do seem to fit the profile... |
|
|
|
In conclusion, if every guy and girl at the gym, the pub, or the backyard BBQ can signup in minutes and purchase bitcoin instantly with his credit card, many will. Once the infrastructure is in place, all that's required is ample media attention and a change in sentiment.
The average newbie person probably finds it very hard to buy bitcoin right now. The average person would refuse to give passport, bank account, and bill scans to some exchange website. The fear of identity theft would be likely to put them off. |
|
|
|
@sgbett: If you chose 30.000 instead of 300.000 for the endgame, maybe then people wouldn't be so clueless here. The thread wouldn't be half as funny, though  but 30.000 makes much less sense than 300.000 |
|
|
|
As adoption grows, every bubble will be smaller and bitcoin become more and more stable.
32->2 = 16x
260 -> 50 = 5x
1150 -> 275 = 4x
(maybe next 4,000 -> 1,300 = 3x )
If there will be bubble to $1,000,000 and then drop to $300,000 then it takes decades. (as with gold now)
I don't know how anyone could think this, this seems so counterintuitive to me... It ignores EVERY technology adoption curve out there. As sgbett pointed out. It also ignores greed which is the biggest fuel for BTC's price rises. This would suggest that as adoption grows and more people are acquainted with Bitcoin's value proposition the pool of potential adopter shrinks. As far as I can understand it this is not how network effects behave. At least not until we have reached a halfway point in adoption where Bitcoin has become so widely spread there are fewer people not using/invested in it than there are Bitcoiners. It seems so blatently obvious to me that the potential for a massive bubble increases every time Bitcoin becomes exposed to a more important percentage of the population and turns the eyes of bigger and bigger fiat whales. Gold is a very bad comparison considering its physical nature and usability. The digital nature of Bitcoin and its infrastructure makes it enormously easier for a mainstream population to transition out of fiat. |
|
|
|
...
early adopters are shrewd. and this is why you're here. trying hard to establish your own stake by driving prices down to where you can pick up cheap coins.
... yada yada What you fail to see, because you are so focused on short term price, is that chart above illustrates how approx half the bitcoin are being held. That measn you have an insane amount of investment in the ecosystem, not just in terms of cash but time and effort and fledgling businesses and a whole bunch of other stuff that all the bears just hand wave away. It also means any plan to try and crash the market and buy all the coins is going to hit a wall. Which might be now, or it might be at $250 or $200 and it might be this week next week, next month or next year. Bitcoin has passed its tipping point though, each time we go through this cycle it gets more and more likely that ultimately post run up, there will be a trend reversal. What cypher said about 32->2 is very true. Maybe you were around to see it, even if your account wasn't, but to see a 94% drop in an asset class that was so niche that *nobody* had heard of it, and that was pretty much solely used for black market trading, had no legal precedent, was traded on exchanges run by dudes who knew a bit of php and was awash with scams? That puts this bear market into perspective. Its a wholly expected sell off, driven primarily by classic market emotions and further fuelled by the aftermath of the massive capex investment in mining gear meaning miners are selling *everything* to try and ROI. Those are facts. On top of that you have speculation about the motives of the various players in the market, rich smart powerful people, who know markets and know rubes and are operating free of the fetters of your typical market regulations. There is a *chance* that nothing nefarious is going on sure, but can you really say with confidence that nothing *is* going on? I can't categorically say that anything is happening but I do see (as illustrated) continued accumulation, bizarre market sell action where people are slamming big orders into the bid. Whipsaw action where a bunch of coins get dumped and then rebought. All this stuff smells fishy. You might see it differently though. Then we have you, and all those other 'registered x/x/2014' accounts ("oh, but I lurked for ages....!") that have suddenly appeared, with what seems to be the sole goal of encouraging people to sell, jumping into any and all threads that suggest people should hold/buy and trying to discredit them. I've never seen such single mindedness in here before even from the perma-bulls (ref Edward50). There's no humanity, you never deviate from the message, you don't seem to even entertain the possibility of other outcomes. Why are you so desperate for bitcoin to fail, why are you so desperate for everyone else to sell. Your justifications don't add up. Then finally when you encounter posts that start to reveal the bear case as being on shaky ground right about know you try and call into question the other guys sanity? Really? You know what you might be right, the price might continue to drop all the way to zero. What if it does? You win? Win what? What is your actual point? You know bitcointalk is nothing. Its an internet message forum where people interested in a subject can discuss it. Why are you even here? Your carefully crafted persona impresses no-one but yourself, you aren't famous or important or special. You are a like a child at school that thinks there is nothing beyond the classroom walls. Wake up. Step outside. The sun will blind you. Or just post cute horse pics. Thats funny, but the "I'm so special thing" is really boring. much needed post. thank you |
|
|
|
Are you implying the wall is from an early Bitcoin adopter trying to get more coins?  Any chance a US government attempt at trouncing Bitcoin value? Don't know. Your last sentence.....You are selling your Estonia castle? This was to be the center of the Bitcoin universe, can you please elaborate?
Having a smiley does not seem to work. Yes, I mentioned now the first time that even Bitcoin castle may be for sale, if Bitcoin becomes cheap enough. If I sell it for Bitcoins, it just changes ownership to stronger hands, and can still become the center of Bitcoin universe. Selling to an outsider would be a pity, but luckily that does not ever happen unless Bitcoin is thoroughly destroyed first, meaning that the castle also becomes useless for its intended purpose.  I imagine this is an indication you are interested in accumulating BTC again. |
|
|
|
Yes, lawyers for multimillion dollar clients often divulge confidential information to redditors. But thanks for posting nonetheless. Guess you didn't read it, it was confirmed by the moderator: Hi /u/notisis[1] [+1],
While I'd love this world to be a place where we can blindly believe what people say on the internet, sadly, we don't live in that world. Please submit me some shred of proof and I'll reapprove this post (and remove this comment).
EDIT: I reached out to Kathleen Moriaty via email to confirm /u/notisis[2] [+1] claim. Below is the email she sent to me in its entirety:
Dear Taylor,
I did speak with a Bitcoin investor about 15 minutes ago, although I was unaware that he intended to quote me or otherwise discuss our conversation. Your message is a useful reminder that I shouldn’t hazard any guesses. The SEC has warned me not to provide people with possible speculative information about the complicated process of launching a new securities product for public sale, so I have been saying either (1)“it could take quite a while, like a year” or (2)“there is really no way to tell, since the regulatory process is very complicated, especially with respect to a new asset like bitcoin.” From now on, I’ll just use statement (2), so if you want to quote me, just use that one. Thanks so much,
Kathleen Yes, sorry that isn't confirmation it is a reddit post. Oh dear. But like I added.. common sense? You think they will allow an ETF that follows shady exchanges? Really? If so please explain why on earth they would do that. Please explain why on earth would you know more about the SEC policies and likelyhood of COIN's acceptance than the top ETF lawyer on Wall Street? From the horses mouth : “If there weren’t any realistic uses, I wouldn’t be so happy about doing this” The concept of common sense eludes you. I know nothing about SEC policies like most here, but I do have a mind that can think and add two and two together. That is really all it takes. The ETF would have to follow numbers that are unregulated and in one instance anonymous(btc-e). I'm sure they will be just fine with that. Seems like the concept of common sense also eludes two millionaires, Kathleen Moriarty and law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. Indeed, in the face of such strong arguments I am not so sure as to why they judged it worthy of going forward with the ETF proposal You should propose your "common sense" legal counsil to them. I'm certain they could use it |
|
|
|
Yes, lawyers for multimillion dollar clients often divulge confidential information to redditors. But thanks for posting nonetheless. Guess you didn't read it, it was confirmed by the moderator: Hi /u/notisis[1] [+1],
While I'd love this world to be a place where we can blindly believe what people say on the internet, sadly, we don't live in that world. Please submit me some shred of proof and I'll reapprove this post (and remove this comment).
EDIT: I reached out to Kathleen Moriaty via email to confirm /u/notisis[2] [+1] claim. Below is the email she sent to me in its entirety:
Dear Taylor,
I did speak with a Bitcoin investor about 15 minutes ago, although I was unaware that he intended to quote me or otherwise discuss our conversation. Your message is a useful reminder that I shouldn’t hazard any guesses. The SEC has warned me not to provide people with possible speculative information about the complicated process of launching a new securities product for public sale, so I have been saying either (1)“it could take quite a while, like a year” or (2)“there is really no way to tell, since the regulatory process is very complicated, especially with respect to a new asset like bitcoin.” From now on, I’ll just use statement (2), so if you want to quote me, just use that one. Thanks so much,
Kathleen Yes, sorry that isn't confirmation it is a reddit post. "Dear Taylor" "Signed Kathleen"  SERIOUSLY? Normal way to start an email and end it.. I guess experience with this world is not the norm in bitcoin fantasyland. again, if you are so foolish as to believe a lawyer would disclose any information about an ongoing SEC ETF approval to a redditor then we can't help you and you'll have to come to your senses yourself. |
|
|
|
Yes, lawyers for multimillion dollar clients often divulge confidential information to redditors. But thanks for posting nonetheless. Guess you didn't read it, it was confirmed by the moderator: Hi /u/notisis[1] [+1],
While I'd love this world to be a place where we can blindly believe what people say on the internet, sadly, we don't live in that world. Please submit me some shred of proof and I'll reapprove this post (and remove this comment).
EDIT: I reached out to Kathleen Moriaty via email to confirm /u/notisis[2] [+1] claim. Below is the email she sent to me in its entirety:
Dear Taylor,
I did speak with a Bitcoin investor about 15 minutes ago, although I was unaware that he intended to quote me or otherwise discuss our conversation. Your message is a useful reminder that I shouldn’t hazard any guesses. The SEC has warned me not to provide people with possible speculative information about the complicated process of launching a new securities product for public sale, so I have been saying either (1)“it could take quite a while, like a year” or (2)“there is really no way to tell, since the regulatory process is very complicated, especially with respect to a new asset like bitcoin.” From now on, I’ll just use statement (2), so if you want to quote me, just use that one. Thanks so much,
Kathleen Yes, sorry that isn't confirmation it is a reddit post. Oh dear. But like I added.. common sense? You think they will allow an ETF that follows shady exchanges? Really? If so please explain why on earth they would do that. Please explain why on earth would you know more about the SEC policies and likelyhood of COIN's acceptance than the top ETF lawyer on Wall Street? From the horses mouth : “If there weren’t any realistic uses, I wouldn’t be so happy about doing this” |
|
|
|
Yes, lawyers for multimillion dollar clients often divulge confidential information to redditors. But thanks for posting nonetheless. Guess you didn't read it, it was confirmed by the moderator: Hi /u/notisis[1] [+1],
While I'd love this world to be a place where we can blindly believe what people say on the internet, sadly, we don't live in that world. Please submit me some shred of proof and I'll reapprove this post (and remove this comment).
EDIT: I reached out to Kathleen Moriaty via email to confirm /u/notisis[2] [+1] claim. Below is the email she sent to me in its entirety:
Dear Taylor,
I did speak with a Bitcoin investor about 15 minutes ago, although I was unaware that he intended to quote me or otherwise discuss our conversation. Your message is a useful reminder that I shouldn’t hazard any guesses. The SEC has warned me not to provide people with possible speculative information about the complicated process of launching a new securities product for public sale, so I have been saying either (1)“it could take quite a while, like a year” or (2)“there is really no way to tell, since the regulatory process is very complicated, especially with respect to a new asset like bitcoin.” From now on, I’ll just use statement (2), so if you want to quote me, just use that one. Thanks so much,
Kathleen Yes, sorry that isn't confirmation it is a reddit post. "Dear Taylor" "Signed Kathleen" SERIOUSLY? |
|
|
|
What does this have to do with what I said though ?
This means even with continuous exponential growth the miners are still far behind last year's ATH.
Actually they arent. Prices would have to be a lot closer to last ATH for mining to be profitable (at least for "normal" people buying devices). I'm sorry to say but it is no longer a "normal" people game. The reason I stated the estimate of 300$ is that even at today's price, industrial mining rigs can still churn out profits. That's all that matters. You argued that at 500,000$/coin the cost of mining would be "just" below. I demonstrated that it can and will be dramatically below. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
If bitcoin price is 10x higher than mining costs then a lot of new miners will emerge ... simply because they can make some profit.
Sure, but they ALWAYS lag behind. Consider that some suggest it currently costs about 300$ or so to mine a coin at today's hash rate. This means even with continuous exponential growth the miners are still far behind last year's ATH. Why go for a suggestion? Just plug the numbers into any damn mining calculator. E.g. a brand new Antminer S4 will break even after 5 months. Assuming you pay 5 c/kWh and the difficulty will NOT increase any further. Even assuming a mere 15% difficulty increase per month it will never break even (current 30 day average is 26%). Either you can get something like a 50% discount of retail prices or you can forget turning a profit from mining currently. What does this have to do with what I said though ? |
|
|
|
Why on earth does the mining have to use more power than a medium size country as the price rises?
Because the miners get paid with block rewards in bitcoin. As the price of bitcoin rises so does the block reward. And as long the mining gear produces more rewards than the power to run it costs, it will stay online. And at, say $500K per coin and 12.5BTC/block that would be like $900M rewards/day or ~$330B/year. A large amount of that would be going into paying the electricity bills. You make an excellent point and in the long run perhaps the mining system may prove flawed. But I must have missed where in the near term the cost of a bitcoin is anyway related its mining cost? I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If bitcoin price is 10x higher than mining costs then a lot of new miners will emerge ... simply because they can make some profit. Sure, but they ALWAYS lag behind. Consider that some suggest it currently costs about 300$ or so to mine a coin at today's hash rate. This means even with continuous exponential growth the miners are still far behind last year's ATH. |
|
|
|
The price of bitcoin merely has to be at least the cost of electriticy to produce it. There is nothing preventing it from being higher. Or much higher.
Nothing. Except rational behavior. If mining is is highly profitable more people (or farms) will do it and expand capacities. I mean, seriously, who wouldnt want to buy a "money printing" machine? Mining capacity (and power requirements) will allways follow price. I don't think this is true. The ability to set up miners and add hashing power to the network can easily lag behind the price in a bull market. |
|
|
|
Why on earth does the mining have to use more power than a medium size country as the price rises?
Because the miners get paid with block rewards in bitcoin. As the price of bitcoin rises so does the block reward. And as long the mining gear produces more rewards than the power to run it costs, it will stay online. And at, say $500K per coin and 12.5BTC/block that would be like $900M rewards/day or ~$330B/year. A large amount of that would be going into paying the electricity bills. Actually it could be that a only a very small fraction of that would be going into paying the electricity bill. Case in point : I don't have any numbers to back this up but the cost of mining a Bitcoin at the last ATH was certainly less than a 1/10th of the price. |
|
|
|
oh nvm I didn't get what you were saying right |
|
|
|
that's a joke. i've been railing on him about that. he does seem to have come around recently |
|
|
|
But bitcoin is only a de-centralized payment network...
And that's where your understanding falls short Bitcoin is potentially the best form of money this world has ever seen. Of course there is additional friction in Bitcoin's network effect because unlike the Internet one need to contribute value to participate in it. Those who have higher risk tolerance and can envision the reward will get in earlier. Laggards will get the crumbs. |
|
|
|
in the 1990s, the www did nothing for average people either.
I could list problems it solves and opportunities it creates, but it's boring doing that for the hundredth time. You would be correct in saying they do not all exist *yet*. But I'm betting with my wallet that they will within a few years.
The www was invented in what, 1993? 1994? Within a couple years, I was online with an Internet portal, and I was just a snot nosed kid who watched Nickelodeon all day. If I knew about it and was using it within such a short span of time, then obviously it had a significant impact on society. I could go online and find information about anything I wanted almost instantly via Yahoo or Alta Vista. Bitcoin doesn't solve any problems for average people. If you tell people that it's more secure, then it's a lie, because nobody is backing the funds, and they can be lost or stolen with no course of action for the consumer. You can tell them it saves them on international transaction fees, but it doesn't matter, since anyone who actually cares about such a thing has a credit card that waives them anyway. So what's left? Comparing bitcoin with the world wide web is a moot point. The only thing that gets people's attention is when you tell them that it raised in price 10,000x over the past couple years. Money. That's all that anyone cares about, and until bitcoin actually provides real utility to users -- which it probably never will -- it's a flash in the frying pan of history. In 5 years, nobody will even remember any of this bullshit. You error is believing the pool of money speculators in Bitcoin has been exhausted. In fact, I will venture to say that the next wave of adoption will be again fueled by nothing more than speculation. I'm sorry to say this but we are not yet at a stage where the utility proposition is primary. In fact, someone broke it down in such a perfect way on reddit today I will just copy/paste that here and let you address it. Sorry to be a jerk. .. .but I've got to be brutally honest here: most of you seem to have a walmart playpool's worth of depth when it comes to understanding what bitcoin is and what it's primary value proposition is.
Bitcoin is not yet money. For the love of disco, let me repeat: It is not yet a currency. It does not fulfill the three main requirements of a money to a high degree (medium of exchange; yes great. store of value; not so great. Unit of account; not at all . . . yet) And this unit of account aspect is key.
How retarded or misleading can one be; to suggest that a commodity, or a would-be-money, is somehow fundamentally flawed, because it does not yet enjoy a great deal of liquidity and widespread adoption, or because it's exchange price with the current money is volatile!? I mean: how else exactly do people imagine this phenomenon could possibly take place? . . .that one day, some magical company called Bitcoin Inc., should just pop on the scene and declare their unit in their digital blockchain ledger to be worth X amount, and it will just be so, because they declare it?
Only governments can do this, because governments have guns, and a slightly insane population of state-worshipers who believe that their proof-of-violence kind of money is somehow a good thing for society. Anyhow, regardless of how you feel about anarchy. . . it does not change the fact that valuation of a commodity is either forced and enforced. . . or it is emergent on a market. It takes time, to say the least. It cannot happen all at once, and it is going to be a messy, ugly, fits-and-starts, snafus, highly dis-equitable distributions initially, frauds, thefts, evolution of best practices and safeguards, etc. A process of getting a large segment of the population to not only wrap their heads around a new technology to some extent. . . but to build out infrastructure to make it easier to use, and to have a large enough network of people and businesses demanding and accepting bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Maybe one day you will realise that if you are right all the time you never learn anything.
I've been wrong in the past, and I've lost moneys on ill advised investments. But from loss comes growth, so I've certainly paid my dues. It's completely your right to post your predictions here, since this is the speculation forum, afterall. Good luck to you, and I hope you're right. I just don't think it's going to happen though, and that's because of the bitcoin fundamentals. I think people here are all too eager to extrapolate past performance into future performance, but the fundamentals tell a different story. Of course, that doesn't bode well for the holders, so of course they don't want to hear it. And what fundamentals would that be? Because everyone I know of keep growing exponentially. Hash rate, unique number of wallets created, network transactions, merchant adoption, ATMs. The only thing people like you have going for you is the price. It literally is the ONLY thing you trolls can hang on to. Yes, stock investors, for example, are totally trolls because all they care about is the price. You aren't serious, are you? Please tell me that you are spending somebody else's money so carelessly. Bitcoin is not the stock market. This troll argument is that Bitcoin's fundamentals don't cut it when in fact they are stronger than ever. If you believe the price on a few exchanges is representative of Bitcoin's infrastructure and fundamentals, then I'm afraid I can't help you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
