|
It is true that Mt.Gox internal accounting already has many versions circulating in public. It should be clear to all the ordinary accountholders what their account balance is, but the Mt.Gox insiders may have just added huge balances to themselves, in addition to possible thefts of BTC and privileged withdrawals.
Needless to say, having a claims process that requires independent proof from individual accountholders concerning their account activities, is unfeasible no matter how fair it was.
The Mt.Gox situation cries foul play to high heaven, and unfortunately there is no easy way out regarding how to distribute what remains. The first thing should be to recognize that this is a criminal case and leave the estate untouched until the criminals are prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
AUR
Even though I was interested in this before the great pump in March (and would have made up to 100x gains if I had bought), now it is in a "following" mode after crashing back. If I moved to Iceland, I would probably start using it. Not an unconditional "sell" though.
Auroracoin bag holder detected. The only new thing this coin brought to the table is a new method to have a giant premine for devs to sell while still making people think the coin has merit. That possibility was one reason why I did not buy. The other was that before the coins were available, I calculated that the fair price would be $20-$50 per 1 airdrop. When I had the chance, it was already $30. Who would have thought that it could peak at $3000 per airdrop at a billion USD marketcap?  Needless to say, during the downtrend it has not been interesting. Is it now public that the devs made money on the premine, or are you speculating? |
|
|
|
The reason that BTC is so cheap and progresses so slowly is that people are only exponentially "getting it". As long as this persists, however, it will grow exponentially, and unless you can't wait for 2 years to see the results, then ....
...you should ANYWAY buy all the bitcoins you can, because historically it has been the best investment in all timescales.
But short term there are timescales in which you'll lose money. This is where patience comes in. If you don't have patience for Bitcoin, good luck with any other investment ever. That's what I mean. Every holding is an investment. If you have any fiat in any bank, its value may also fluctuate. Only if you don't own absolutely anything, are you free of this. Holding cash for 2 years is impossible for 40% of people, there is a total loss no matter what  I renounced silver (which I did for profession) in 2013-2-6 and urged all my readers, customers and investors to buy BTC. They are now sitting on about 4000% gains. And that is not even 2 years.. |
|
|
|
You only need an extremely rough estimate of future value to make this a good investment as long as the estimate is several orders of magnitude above the current price.
The collective mind of the market obviously does not believe in that... lol @ perfect market theory. There are endless examples of why that theory is as flawed as can be. The market is retarded (every market is, shallow markets more than others) and there lies the opportunity to buy assets for less than they're worth. The reason that BTC is so cheap and progresses so slowly is that people are only exponentially "getting it". As long as this persists, however, it will grow exponentially, and unless you can't wait for 2 years to see the results, then .... ...you should ANYWAY buy all the bitcoins you can, because historically it has been the best investment in all timescales. |
|
|
|
I introduced a new thought that is not in the whitepaper and that is that the block creation reward, in addition to funding infrastructure and developers, could also subsidize transactions to the extent of negative transaction fees, should the abuse problem be addressed. Imaging paying Amazon or any other global Internet retailer a week's worth of block creation rewards, i.e. $13 million to get them to accept bitcoins as payment. I call this notion paying for order flow.
Who gets to make these decisions? This sounds more and more like a startup willing to corner marketshare than a monetary system... Shares are not money. OK. That idea is not going to gain wide acceptance in the Bitcoin community. A proof-of-stake altcoin startup might try paying for order flow. I suggest that Bitcoin full node owners have an annual convention to tweak the reward allocation policy executed in code by what I call the Reward Agent. I would not change the Satoshi block reward schedule, that cuts the reward in half in the summer of 2016 and again in 2020. But I desire that the reward be rationally spent on facilitating the adoption of Bitcoin via superior infrastructure. I think "full node owners" is a very flexible entity. Anyone can set up unlimited number of full nodes for voting purposes in the convention, and then scale down after he has voted. This way the outcome of the vote does not necessarily represent the interests of the economic majority of: a) "actual" full nodes b) miners c) bitcoin holders d) bitcoin users. I see that the current decision making needs improving, but on the other hand I am very satisfied with the results how we have progressed in this system also (mainly in the relentless rise of BTC price, I mean). This has been possible because the contract is unchangeable, and making it changeable might cause more damage due to the loss in trust, than the changes can make it better. If things are to be decided by any majority, I believe the only majority that is legitimate is the majority of coin holders, one vote per coin. Everything else represents a power void. |
|
|
|
The more you gee people up that they'll be overnight millionaires, the more distressed they are going to be when it either takes longer or doesn't happen at all.
And when it does happen, that is a real distress that must not be overlooked.  |
|
|
|
Thanks, I read it. Good work. But that is the non-malicious non-CIA explanation, and therefore likely incorrect I wanna hear about this malicious CIA explanation. Please tell us! CIA is tasked to acquire a great number of bitcoins without regard to method. They see that the by far the largest exchange is run by a single man show. They use their powers to extract the bitcoins from this single man. Once they have the coins (and the customer data and whatnot) this single man is given a friendly warning of not to talk anything about who the thief was. The prison sentence is likely a short one, and probably the single man has some coins tucked in a brainwallet anyway. It is only a shame that he can never reveal who actually stole the coins. |
|
|
|
$5 to $260 was actually more fun, in that it took longer but was more methodical with a five or ten dollar rise everyday and was much more unexpected. The problem now is everyone expects fireworks, all the time and for history to repeat itself, only bigger.
Its rather like a good Hollywood movie that embarks upon a run of sequels, each one is bigger and louder yet somehow leaves everyone unsatisfied.
The road from $0.001 to $1,000,000 has to pass through all the points in between. Just try to suffer the this year's rise without getting too bored. |
|
|
|
maybe $3 pek k Satoshi is better
You mean $3 per kBit$3 per k sat is obviously better |
|
|
|
7k coins to 640. This is not gonna be easy from here on.
Buyers want quantity. Maybe it's the lack of asks that has made it take so long for the buyers to start. Now there is some serious volume available  |
|
|
|
That chart looks like a correction, but I wouldn't call that a collapse...
It is a fractal, just like BTC. The recent top is same shape but larger than the 2008 top. |
|
|
|
you love censoring rpietila or was it someone else this time?
wth? I post I wrote in this thread 10 minutes ago got censored within 1 minute. That's pretty normal for this heavily censored and moderated forum, I was just curious if it was you or someone else this time. no, not me. Post a PM if it's so hot afaik this forum is very sloppily moderated. I did not know of censoring, that would be stupid because it just irritates people |
|
|
|
My personal hypothesis: By 3rd/4th quarter of this year we will see ETF's, options, leveraging, etc come into the market. Once this occurs major Wall Street firms will start trading. This will create volume at levels never seen before and drive the price far, far higher. They'll trade paper bitcoins that they can't back with real ones, and keep the exchange rate artificially low just like they do with gold. yes but after the price goes to at least $50,000 If BTC is to replace gold, the price in its suppressed form will be at $300k, all things equal. ...but the things are not equal. Taking delivery of gold is costly and storage is difficult. With BTC much easier. If anyone tries to set up completely fraudulent BTC depositories, there is the frontrunner, Mt.Gox, that has bitten the dust. |
|
|
|
you love censoring rpietila or was it someone else this time?
wth? |
|
|
|
Thanks, I read it. Good work. But that is the non-malicious non-CIA explanation, and therefore likely incorrect |
|
|
|
|
The bubble of 2011 was much larger - 2013/I & II were smaller (about 0.47).
The trendline is fitted such that it has to spend as much time above and below it. So either we are actually going higher next time a'la 2011, or the trend will be recalculated lower and lower in the subsequent iterations.
Or both.
|
|
|
|
Risto, have you read the willy report? you can find it here: http://willyreport.wordpress.com/What does it mean for the price of bitcoin and your investment strategy? I am surprised that many people are assuming that Willy's purpose was to pump the price. That is the least likely explanation in my opinion. I believe Willy was used to procure bitcoins so that MtGox could meet BTC withdrawal requests to hide the fact that a huge number of coins had been missing for years. Pushing the price up was an unfortunate side-effect from Mark's perspective, and a side-effect that eventually forced MtGox to recognize its insolvency. Willy bought goxcoins for goxbtc, which was manufactured from air. Unfortunately, buying goxcoins did not increase the bitcoin reserves at all so this explanation is perhaps not adequate. Unless you tried to say that it increased the number of suckers that, inspired by gox-bb arbitrage actually deposited BTC to the shithole and took a grave loss. |
|
|
|
Risto, have you read the willy report? you can find it here: http://willyreport.wordpress.com/What does it mean for the price of bitcoin and your investment strategy? Yes I read it. The main point is that when people send bitcoins or fiat to gox to trade with them, it results in: people gox bitcoins, fiat -> -> bitcoins, fiat. gox then issues goxcoins in the same quantity, also goxbux. When Willy/gox buys the goxcoins for uncovered fiat (acting as a CB), it raises the price of goxcoins, and also of bitcoins in other exchanges. But there is no effect on the real bitcoins or real fiat (which are stored in gox) until the customers withdraw. So during the runup, when gox was still by and large operational, they pumped up the price of BTC and ran into fiat debt, covered only by their customers' fiat deposits. Then they did not pay out the fiat to stay afloat. The higher price in gox induced people to try arbitrage, to deposit coins there, which Willy bought. At the apex of the bubble, gox had issued a lot of goxbux fraudulently and ran a ponzi with them. They were correspondingly long in goxbtc. What happened to the real bank balances of gox (in the tune of $100 million) and the real BTC hold (1MBTC?) is still unknown. Both were stolen in some point. This is where the theft occurred - what was played in gox' system goes under other crimes. Then in the end all the withdrawals were halted and Willy put on reverse, to dump all the goxcoins bought. I do not know if this made a small or huge loss. Also I don't know the purpose of it, because all(?) withdrawals were canceled, and there was no change happening in the actual liquidity position, except the very last deposits made by arbitrageurs of goxcoins in btc/gxc-exchanges. What the end result seems to me, is that gox pump did raise the bitcoin price. Also gox did act fraudulently for a very long time, and without proof to the contrary, also stole its customer reserves. Who is now holding the reserves, is an important question. Either the trading was so abysmal that they were lost as trading losses (perhaps to the insiders), or Mark holds them and is willing to risk prison because afterwards he will be so rich (yes, such people do exist that can live on after causing suicides of family fathers with their actions), or the 3-letter agencies hold them and Mark has for a short or longer time been a tool, either as a result of profession, bribery, or coercion. For now, it is a small stain in Bitcoin's reputation that another few % of them are in criminal hands. But the main effect on price has been seen long ago, including the price dips in February-April. All those who lost in gox, need to get back into the game (if they want to stay), and judging from the price action in the last months, they have not done it yet en masse. I am grateful to the author of the blog for explanation, but I don't think there is any relevance to where Bitcoin and USDBTC are going from now on. |
|
|
|
I wrote down the rules for the thread (found also in the OP):
Hi, I am rpietila. Welcome to my first thread on altcoins. I have been a Bitcoin owner since 2011 but never owned any alts, until I bought some MRO after it hit the exchange last week.
The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:
- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.
- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.
- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.
- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.
Until now, the discussion has been very nice. Unfortunately many altcoins threads are unadulterated garbage with a few diamond posts in every 20 pages. To preserve this one to be actually readable, I made the above rules. Don't post unless you have something new to say, and can match the previous posters in clarity. Even mentioning a shitcoin in this thread results in a ban. Special thanks to Cryddit:I've been trying to track the deaths of altcoins; Not so much to hasten them along as just putting up a memorial so they won't be forgotten.
...
This kind of posters we need! |
|
|
|
I think it might be a good idea to start selling small amounts as soon as we cross above the trend line.
If you have faith that this bubble will hit the same max with respect to the exponential trend as the last two bubbles did, then you can wait until Bitcoin is heavily overvalued to sell. But the idea that we are going to have a carbon copy of the last two bubbles strikes me as a little fishy. It's lax thinking.
I think that the worst time to sell is actually after just crossing the previous ATH. Historically rapid appreciation has always resulted. If you want to minimize the risk, just sell when it is the most overextended Otherwise you increase the risk that you are holding depreciating fiat and squander your bitcoins. My minimum sell price is $3. I can sell you CALL options with that or anything above as the strike price Thinking that the bubbles repeat the same pattern.. if SlipperySlope would post his chart of the relative valuation - at least last time they did. We could have a 2011 style bubble this summer.
This is bitcoin.
This is also possible. Therefore only sell 20-30% at your preferred sell point so that you can fire another if it goes up another 10x. Or use the SSS method to rule out human judgement. If you do, I suggest you set the first sell point in $2-$3 range. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
