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. When this bear market ends, you are all going to be nowhere to be seen |
|
|
|
I would think individuals approach mining operations for accumulation purposes all the time, so yes, in theory.
What percentage of their mined coins they sell, now that is the question. Miners don't exactly advertise with flashing neon signs. They also don't sell 100% (some are long term holders) and tend to be engineer-types. While they understand the protocol and its future implications very well, they are less comfortable with personal relationships and would be rightfully careful about who they enter into a business deal with. Their need to stay anonymous is understandable. If it were me, I would much rather sell to someone like Barry Silbert of Second Market than someone I've never heard of with plans to crank the market down for his own profit. And if I ever suspected that something like that might be happening (and making my entire investment worth less in the process) I would end the deal immediately. Come to think of it, miners and speculators have very opposite personality types.
Like I said, no market scheme can work forever once other players pick up on it. I think he may try for another few pushes downward but if "the player" can only coax the beast to move a few dollars down, there's not much point. Manipulation is a risky venture and only works if you are in absolute control. The moment that comes into question, you stop in order to protect profits.
I don't see how that can be true. Its is economically unfeasible for miners to survive on this "market scheme". Miners might be long term holders but they have had their own piece of the pie stashed away for awhile already. The coins being minted presently. By industrial, VC funded, warehouse-type miners are most certainly all sold to Bitcoin brokers. It is perfectly reasonable to assume confidential supply agreement are being drafted everyday between miners-brokers-private buyers. I'm sorry to say but it is pretty likely Barry Silbert is one of these brokers who will sell to any private party willing to pay his price. Please don't fool yourself into believing there is such a thing as an agreement between these market participants not to dump the price. |
|
|
|
I had been considering a theory which seems to match some of what was posted in the OP. Lets start with a few axioms (open to debate, sure, but for now just roll with it) - BTC still has massive growth potential - There exist players with deep pockets who recognize this growth potential - These traders intend to profit from the next run up in price, as we have seen in the previous bubble/crash cycles Okay, so how to achieve profit from this? 1) Set up agreements with large mining operations (or any other players with large amounts of BTC, looking to liquidate) - Agree to buy x amount of coins per week at spot market rate. This works out well for the miners as they won't be subject to slippage as they try to cash out 2) Take a percentage of these newly aquired coins and sell on the exchanges in order to drive the price down 3) Next week, your OTC purchased coins are cheaper due to the lower market price  4) Continue until you have accumulated a nice sizeable position 5) Now flip the switch and employ tactics to drive the price back up. Miners will stop selling and start holding in anticipation of higher prices, thus lowering supply therefore price continues to rise exponentially 6) Dump into the hype for tidy gains. Precipitate a mass sell-off, shake out weak hands 7) Repeat steps 1 - 6 Would this work? +1 All the parameters of this very thing happening. There is a shadow market, within Bitcoin right now that trades a HIGH volume of BTC off exchange. Market makers, miners, hedge funds, whales, however you want to call them. They are squeezing this BTC fruit for every drop of its juice. Consider : The INSANE hash rate we have been running at for the past few months. There are more hashing farms than ever being booted. It has become an absolute arms race for mining technology, development & deployment. Mining farms are generating top tier VC money and these millions are probably a fraction only of private investment. Some here are suggesting there is no demand for these coins. I am certain of this being absolutely false. In fact this chart is a very insightful to that regard  OTC transactions are at near all time high. Hopefully it ends soon. I believe it will. Miners will hit a wall. Another hype cycle will come again, I can feel it picking up right now after a very a slow summer. |
|
|
|
Speculators are the distraction. Bitcoin was supposed to be a petty-cash system for the Internet. That's happening.
The price of Bitcoin has leveled out, and the difficulty is now leveling out. Merchant adoption is up. Bitcoin is getting used for its intended purpose. It's starting to behave like a useful tool rather than a get-rich-quick scheme.
statements like this point to a fundamental misunderstanding of Bitcoin. it will never become "petty-cash" for the internet without the market cap increasing by several order of magnitudes. merchant adoption is up, by proxy. merchants are still only really accepting fiat into their books, only a few hold bitcoins. speculators are actually responsible for most of Bitcoin's adoption |
|
|
|
can't agree more, bitcoin is going down back to where it came from at $0.000001
stop fooling people to buy in this ponzi pyramid schemes
careful not quoting yourself to support your delusion let the turth tell     |
|
|
|
can't agree more, bitcoin is going down back to where it came from at $0.000001
stop fooling people to buy in this ponzi pyramid schemes
careful not quoting yourself to support your delusion |
|
|
|
"The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money". I think you can make an even stronger statement: "A distributed consensus ledger can only survive if it is successful as money." Note that Bitcoin did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem because that problem is unsolvable. Bitcoin made it so that any successful attack is uneconomical. That only works if bitcoins are valued as money. This means anything that tries to replace Bitcoin's functionality will either do so by being better money or else won't be a distributed consensus ledger. Most early Bitcoin adopters agree that Bitcoin's properties make it money and that "BTC as valuable money" is necessary for the blockchain to function. An issue for the next phase of adoption though is the next set of adopters do not agree with this largely due to different political views on what constitutes money. Most people I know believe money can only be defined by a government and only functions if it is "managed" by a central body with the power to "expand supply to grow with the economy". (Nevermind this is never actually implemented in practice.) And so refuse to trust in anything else. The argument that Bitcoin is money is not going to drive adoption, that only served to kick start adoption with politically aligned individuals. Instead Bitcoin's usefulness as money will have to be the next driver for adoption. Either people find it easier to use online, or merchants offer BTC discounts, or people use Bitcoin to engage in illegal forms of trade, or automated services (bots) find BTC useful to trade, etc. This is where Bitcoin as a superior technology over fiat (a hundred year old technology) becomes a dominate factor. I have to disagree for a couple of reasons. The pool of potential adopters that understand the value of a limited supply assets as money is far from saturated (see: gold market) This next set of adopters you are referring to certainly are in the dark as to what constitutes money but most of them are familiar with concepts of store of value that can appreciate with demand like gold and other precious metals. Now, for numerous reasons this mainstream audience, a whole generation really, has not had much interest investing into these assets considering the general bear market they have been in and the inconvenience of investing into them. Enter Bitcoin. For the first time in history, gold is available in digital form at the click of a button and can be purchased with a credit card (Circle). Political ideologies or usefulness is not required to drive the next adoption phase. All we need is greed. All we need is for Bitcoin to get close to ATH again and we are off to the races. |
|
|
|
Merchant adoption and getting people to USE the coin is fundamentally the pillar of BTC's success. If no one gives a fuck about actually buying things with it I don't see a bright future. The analogy with email is still correct but you are forgeting using email was free, with Bitcoin you have to put your fiat into it.
Again, that is not true. It has never been the case. Hoarding the coin is a very legitimate use of Bitcoin at this stage. Using it for "buying things" as you say is a marginal use and it should remain that way until we are able to completely remove counter-party risk. Only adoption on a massive scale can provide this opportunity. As long as BTC is tied to the USD it can not fulfill its full promises as a peer-to-peer frictionless payment system. |
|
|
|
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable? My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess: I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"? The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic. Moreover, as suggested above, this is another attempt at suggesting other applications of the distributed ledger are more useful than the money application which is patently false. |
|
|
|
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable? My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess: I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"? The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic. Because there would be no incentives for the miner to secure and maintain that ledger? Maybe I have your argument wrong but this is how I understand it |
|
|
|
A truly anonymous, non-traceable, non-taxable coin is a far superior store of value.
that's not the debate though |
|
|
|
Bottom line is : little to no one is buying Bitcoin to use as a currency. Bitcoin's store of value attributes is the reason we have gotten to where we are and it will remain, for awhile, the use case that will drive Bitcoin forward. Funny, the opposite seems to be happening. There are now more ways to do transactions in Bitcoin. More shopping cart systems, even PayPal, are accepting Bitcoin. It's finally being used for routine transactions. This seems to have little influence on the price, because the people using Bitcoin for transactions don't hold it for long. Merchants dump it to Coinbase in seconds, and Coinbase then dumps it on an exchange. As a store of value, Bitcoin sucks. Huge volatility and a declining price. That's not true. The amount of Bitcoin used for transactions, no matter the growth of merchant adoption, remains a minority use case. Don't get me wrong it is fantastic that more use cases are being developed but the case in point is your example of Paypal : Paypal is not accepting Bitcoin. Paypal Payment Hub accepts Bitcoin for payments of digital goods. A miniscule fraction of their business As far as your last comment, you are wrong again. I have explained why so in OP |
|
|
|
LOL! A lot of people have been saying that for a lot of years. Eventually, someone must be right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here's another couple of predictions: After spring comes summer. After fall comes winter. Impressive, right? your life must be pretty sad |
|
|
|
No offense OP... but I don't understand how you guys can still take TA/chart analysis seriously in the bitcoin world
Charts and function curves in this case are not an attempt to determine absolute highs and lows in order to trade the market. The fundamentals used in his projections are simply statistical functions. The S curve is a very legitimate projection of Bitcoin's adoption as a technology. |
|
|
|
|
Following this logic, what is the probability do you think that COIN's "IPO" is actually Bitcoin's IPO and that this will be the black swan opening the flood gates?
|
|
|
|
Mmmm... interesting science fiction read there OP, but why you want to put yourself under such embarrassment 14 months from now? Doing cool math and drawing graphs is different from reality, and your analysis lacks realism.
If in 28 months time the price is 76k. Do stop by and point out how wrong I was  The prediction I made represents the idea of market price being a function of adoption and market sentiment that can be modelled by a sigmoid function and a cyclical function. If at that time the underlying base price continues to rise in an exponential fashion, and we continue to have boom/bust underpinned by that then I'll probably not be very upset that I got both the timing and the price insanely wrong. 28 months from now we will be in the era when 1800 btc will be minted every day. -> $76k * 1800 = $136 M/day -> $50 B/year for next 3 years ... miners will try to spend $49,000,0000,000 USD/year on electricity to earn $1B USD profit. but miners don't sell in a bull market |
|
|
|
What is this circle thing? Is this an international bitcoin online banking account? I read through the blog and about sections and could not find anything to describe precisely what they do? It sounds like it is an online bitcoin wallet and an exchange with a 100% theft insurance.
You got the gist of it. Another thing is it also allows unparralled ease in purchasing bitcoins instantly by the use of a credit card |
|
|
|
Circle may be a game changer. You can sign-up on your phone from anywhere and purchase your first bitcoins with your credit card within minutes. The fact that they use mandatory 2FA (via SMS by default) also makes me feel better about recommending this service to acquaintances. Should COIN launch this winter, then the fiat <---> bitcoin gateway infrastructure will be ripe to support another wave of adoption.
I still maintain the impact of COIN is being grossly underestimated. The vast majority of "investment dollars" do not sit on bank accounts linked to coinbase or credit card limits linked to circle. Instead most funds sit in brokerage accounts. During the run where I made most of my purchases, my biggest obstacle was wiring funds from my Brokerage account to my Bank account, so then I could issue a coinbase purchase. Since I see bitcoin as a core asset to hold, this was completely backwards. COIN will link brokerage accounts to bitcoin, there is a huge amount of funds there.... there is also a huge difference in that you do not actually own bitcoins but COIN shares. sure some institutional investors might not care. but you are then only "invested" in the Bitcoin economy and not necessarily own an actual share it in. which is perfectly fine, but still.... (I have to say I might be wrong. Could you claim your share in COIN for its equivalent in BTC? I do not think so but maybe someone can confirm.) |
|
|
|
Yes, yes. We very much need Circle for mainstream, non-technically inclined people to use Bitcoin. Before Circle there were no such service. Stop thinking the universe revolves around you.
I don't think my self-importance has anything to do with it. I just brought myself as a hypothetical example. If paypal accepts bitcoin they can as well as sell bitcoins themselves. I still don't see what Circle has to offer that other could not. Think of it, if Circle could do it, exchanges could also do it. So I could go to BitStamp and just directly buy bitcoins from the order book without having to register a Bitstamp account. If every exchange implemented such simplicity for buying bitcoins then Circle would be pointless. Now the question is --- why don't other exchanges implement it? Every exchange could be an alternative to Circle. edit: btw your claim is wrong. There was a place btc-dealer.com which allowed instantly buying bitcoins with a credit card. Yes you are right. Everyone and their mother could offer that service if they had dozens of millions of venture capital behind them, a team of experienced entrepreneurs, compliance officers and expensive lawyers. But for now, Circle is the only one to offer that service on a global scale, all while insuring 100% of your holdings. |
|
|
|
I´m sure average Joe´s are killing themselves right now to buy Bitcoins...
Circle might be helpful in an uptrend, but right now....
you're right! scrap that project, TOO LATE CIRCLE ! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
