What I am trying to say is that $2000 to $3000 is not realistic. That is way too low of a number. Call me crazy or just bring this thread back in December of 2014 and see who was right. I think I am. I am holding.  So have you put your entire life savings into BTC? Yes actually. Can't say we had that much to put in, but all we could afford to. Of course, I understand that it could all be worth nothing if something fatal happened, but the odds of that happening are decreasing as time goes on. I think the odds of it reaching $35,000 are even better than $0 at this point. BitChick has demonstrated unflinchingly over a long period of time that she has more bitcoin balls than the most of the bullish bitcoin bulls ... and all power to her. (I'm a quiet admirer ) |
|
|
|
|
not sure about end 2014 (kind of arbitrary date end of year anyway) ... currently we are stabilising around the $750ish level, picking the next stable level I think we should approach that by early-mid 2015 in the 7,500-13,000 range, possibly peaking as high as 25,000 by end-2014 before dropping back.
Edit: also upside surprises will come out of Europe and UK in 2014, Russia, Eastern Europe and South America, Singapore, South Africa and various island tax havens and gambling locales which have wealth stored in the order of trilions that need to be moved around privately regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin is freaking the establishment out ... they are running this way and that like headless chooks.
It's just great to see so many "experts" all getting off script and giving conflicting "messages" ... lol.
Edit: and it is fitting that the Richmond Fed should be giving the "it's free market, bitcoin is private currency, what these guys are doing is okay" ...
... in all essence the Federal Reserve Debt notes are also a private currency, it is just that the boyz from NY-Fed hood-winked the stupid congress into giving them (unconstitutional) quasi-monopoly powers and the force of taxation law to coerce people into using their paper.
|
|
|
|
For those who are saying "no newer and different cryptocoin could replace Bitcoin, cos Bitcoin was first!!!11"
I'm noticing that a lot of Rock & Roll artists sold a hell of a lot more records than Chuck Berry.
You have just argued that Chuck Berry is analogous to TCP/IP in that it was the first to market .... therefore TCP/IP should have been superseded by now by infinitely better protocols? wtf? Did you already read the prior posts about needing to have a technical understanding about networking protocols before making informed commentary? (I'm supposing not) You guys are just speculating and throwing around ridiculous analogies that have ZERO applicability in this field. Please stop making yourselves look like complete idiots, as much fun as it for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
But why would it have to be decentralized? Now we know you are just trolling. Oh okay, I was saying that for wide adoption a coin doesn't have to be decentralized. Obviously I'm wrong, so for a coin to have wide adoption it must be decentralized. Explains why the USD is so widely in use. [/sarcasm] You have much to learn, I just hope it does not come at the expense of your financial well-being ... on the other hand, hmmmm?, maybe?, nah, I wouldn't wish that on anybody. |
|
|
|
But why would it have to be decentralized? Now we know you are just trolling. |
|
|
|
Ok so I'm wrong because... I just am?
Good argument old chap.
No, you are wrong because you don't have a clue  That much is obvious, chap. |
|
|
|
When people were connecting computers together in the 1980's, they didn't have the goal of the internet as we know it now, much less websites such as Facebook or Twitter. It was clear that the value of two computers connected together was greater than two computers not connected, so it was done. Protocols were written which are still in use today. Today, there appears to be a value in a public ledger, otherwise it wouldn't be done. The early adopters of the internet failed to see Facebook.com and Twitter.com, but that doesn't mean they didn't see value at the time.
But this is exactly the point the OP was making. Essentially the internet we have today is not the internet of two computers connected together back in the 1980s. Remember a few years ago when they started calling it Web2.0? That was when sites came up where the users themselves were the content. Youtube and whatnot. Even though the fundamental technology hasn't changed all that much since the 80s, the nature of the internet itself changed significantly, to the point where it's really not the same thing anymore. All the OP is saying, and I've been saying the same thing, is that the tech itself is amazing, but Bitcoin itself will probably not be the currency of the future. Much like connecting two computers together in the 80s is awesome, but those two specific computers connected together aren't the internet of today per-se. Some other public ledger will likely come up, either an Alt-coin, or something backed by the 1% through a bank, that will do what Bitcoin itself is trying to do. Essentially Bitcoin is just a proof-of-concept. The examples of Litecoin and Peercoin aren't to say that those two specific ones will dethrone Bitcoin. Just that they manage to offer something similar, yet different enough, that it seems likely that something of the sort will come up in the future. People who are not that technically aware often make this mistake that the Internet now is somehow different than it was 'back then' ... it isn't, some of the the layers above, the facade that the users know is different, underneath it is still TCP/IP (or UDP) and packet technology. Bitcoin, the network is the TCP/IP for internet money. You are saying that someone will come along with something so different to bitcoin, the network protocol, and it will be banks and governments and it will make bitcoin obsolete? That's just simply ignorant of how network technology works and how it is developed. Frankly, it sounds like wishful thinking or stupidity masquerading as informed commentary. Can you be more specific? Cause otherwise it sounds like you're talking shit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong. Yeah, I am saying someone will come along with something so similar to Bitcoin, and it will be banks and governments, and it will make Bitcoin obsolete. I said in my example that "Even though the fundamental technology hasn't changed all that much since the 80s", which it seems you've missed, the internet of today isn't the internet of the yesteryears. The tech is very similar, or even the same, but the final product isn't. In the cryptocurrency world, things like Litecoin and Peercoin prove this point. It's easy enough to take the basic tech and build something extra on top of it. And the final product is Bitcoin-based, but it is not Bitcoin itself. Much like how the server that runs this forum is running the same technology as the first linked-up computers back in the day, but it is not those exact computers. The leap from an Altcoin to a government/bank-backed coin really doesn't take that much imagination. No, it is you who is talking shit. Learn something, just a little would be a start, about technical networking protocols. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
When people were connecting computers together in the 1980's, they didn't have the goal of the internet as we know it now, much less websites such as Facebook or Twitter. It was clear that the value of two computers connected together was greater than two computers not connected, so it was done. Protocols were written which are still in use today. Today, there appears to be a value in a public ledger, otherwise it wouldn't be done. The early adopters of the internet failed to see Facebook.com and Twitter.com, but that doesn't mean they didn't see value at the time.
But this is exactly the point the OP was making. Essentially the internet we have today is not the internet of two computers connected together back in the 1980s. Remember a few years ago when they started calling it Web2.0? That was when sites came up where the users themselves were the content. Youtube and whatnot. Even though the fundamental technology hasn't changed all that much since the 80s, the nature of the internet itself changed significantly, to the point where it's really not the same thing anymore. All the OP is saying, and I've been saying the same thing, is that the tech itself is amazing, but Bitcoin itself will probably not be the currency of the future. Much like connecting two computers together in the 80s is awesome, but those two specific computers connected together aren't the internet of today per-se. Some other public ledger will likely come up, either an Alt-coin, or something backed by the 1% through a bank, that will do what Bitcoin itself is trying to do. Essentially Bitcoin is just a proof-of-concept. The examples of Litecoin and Peercoin aren't to say that those two specific ones will dethrone Bitcoin. Just that they manage to offer something similar, yet different enough, that it seems likely that something of the sort will come up in the future. People who are not that technically aware often make this mistake that the Internet now is somehow different than it was 'back then' ... it isn't, some of the the layers above, the facade that the users know is different, underneath it is still TCP/IP (or UDP) and packet technology. Bitcoin, the network is the TCP/IP for internet money. You are saying that someone will come along with something so different to bitcoin, the network protocol, and it will be banks and governments and it will make bitcoin obsolete? That's just simply ignorant of how network technology works and how it is developed. Frankly, it sounds like wishful thinking or stupidity masquerading as informed commentary. |
|
|
|
When people were connecting computers together in the 1980's, they didn't have the goal of the internet as we know it now, much less websites such as Facebook or Twitter. It was clear that the value of two computers connected together was greater than two computers not connected, so it was done. Protocols were written which are still in use today. Today, there appears to be a value in a public ledger, otherwise it wouldn't be done. The early adopters of the internet failed to see Facebook.com and Twitter.com, but that doesn't mean they didn't see value at the time.
This ... I think most people have been undervaluing bitcoin since day one mostly because they are innumerate, particularly when using large numbers and dimensional analysis for calculations assessing relative significance. The amount of uses already out there for bitcoin, in black, gray and white markets is quite staggering considering the relatively small amount of total users (even a latent bitcoin holder is a user). Another property of the network effect is that the more users that use the network the more unit value it has to the users already connected .... 2 fax machines are better than 1, 3 is better than 2, 5 million is better than 1 million, etc, i.e. bitcoin becomes more valuable per user the more users that exist, the price will eventually reflect that when we go through the super-exponential valuation/growth phase (vertical) before approaching the saturation plateau. No doubt we will hear anguished screams of "bubble!" and "Crash to zero!" warnings the whole way up by those who are outside looking in. |
|
|
|
I foresee a collapse of BTC value when the first large financial institutions release cryptocurrencies of their own, which are actually backed by tangible assets like gold or by fiat currencies.
What do you mean by "backed"? Backing a virtual currency by a physical commodity implicitly means that the "backer" has the power to generate coins as he wishes. Cryptocurrencies don't need any tangible backing, as they're backed by mathematics. Sure, financial & political institution will try to ride Bitcoin's success, and create their own versions of "crypto" "currencies", but it won't be nor "crypto" nor "currencies". As soon as people understand the difference between trust and proof, they'll say goodbye to the fiat schemes. If institution X created a cryptographically secured proxy for gold, $, wheat futures or whatever, and its widely available and accepted, its a cryptocurrency. Thats the OP's premise, that the primary advantage of Bitcoin is the secure, trusted, transfer of funds. Now, many would not agree this is the only purpose and say there are alot of other reasons, but its a fair point it is one of the major advantages. Take that advantage and replicate it in to some thing that is trusted and easy to access/obtain/reimburse etc and you have something which will possibly have larger mainstream acceptance than Bitcoin. A large amount of the value is based on speculation that Bitcoin is destined to become common use and therefore highly valuable (due to limited supply) and you lose that speculative value if a common replacement is in use. Want to quantify such speculative prognostications? There are 12e10^6 in existence, at least 25% which are not in circulation, somewhere between 1-10 million users seems an OK approximation ... =>the average bitcoin holder has ~ $1000 in bitcoin ... ummm doesn't sound all that speculative to me, more like pocket change found down the back of the sofa, maybe the cookie jar cash kitty has gone into bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah, Bitcoin is finished, blah blah blah, Bitcoin is inevitably going to fail, blah blah blah...
Why do so many random people suddenly have an "epiphany" and post crap like this over and over and over and over and over again, it got tiresome 4 years ago.
... economic incentives are strong ... we get a fresh wave of them after every "bubble crash", i.e new 10-folding adoption spike. Sometimes the variations on the theme can be entertaining, depending on the personalities involved, the latest batch seem quite banal (might be the banksters, accountants and lawyers showing up?) |
|
|
|
|
OP ... wants to buy in cheaper?
|
|
|
|
“Disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of N.S.A. intelligence activities implicated by plaintiffs’ allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States,” wrote the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr. This is from the guy who lies under oath to congress ... .... it is such a wanton subversion of the justice system to aim to have cases dismeissed because they know they will be criminally liable if it ever gets to trial. All the while using the Justice Department to argue "state secrets" bullshit to keep it out of court. There are some govt. lawyers who's souls are going to be rotting in eternal hell for keeping criminal govt actions out of court for so many years now. I hope those lawyers in particular have thier children and children's children are surveilled to their death. |
|
|
|
|
Ummm, and the massive "unnecessary damage" wrought by the NSA can be ignored then?
I guess when you are part of the problem only counting one side of the ledger is ok ....
|
|
|
|
If anyone thinks the big banks and big governments are going to allow a decentralized currency commenced anonymously to overthrow the status quo or even allow the market to determine which system will prevail is delusional. I think the only reason why some central banks or governments have allowed Bitcoin unrestricted is because they are hoping the market will reject Bitcoin. That and also because to restrict the use of Bitcoin would be inconsistent with the free growth of technology and the market. This, I fear, will change once Bitcoin starts becoming a more dominant presence. No system of money or thought or religion or philosophy can expand without persecution. You might not have done a lot of reading on the technology of bitcoin. Do you have a particular method of persecution in mind? If you are suggesting there is some kind of attack they can perform on bitcoin you should post it in the "Development and Technical Discussion" section. All possible vectors of attack are considered and if necessary changes can be made, this is part of the anti-fragile property. The war of ideas you are alluding to has been shifting inexorably to the Internet and technology platforms in general, now they have to play undeniably on our turf for this one. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, this is interesting.
So can we get the actual files posted somewhere?
Edit: ooops just saw that been posted ...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
