per mBTC... and beyond.
Touche, salesman. Hey, I have to keep myself distracted here. The recent content in some of the other threads is making me queasy. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never rise again.
Quoted. Thats a STRONG prediction. I hope you aren't all out of the market. When people start predicting this kind of thing, the price tends to go nuts. Where did igorr go anyway? |
|
|
|
I predict we will never see sub-$600 again.
Never ... hmmmmm thats a very long time  Yes, very. |
|
|
|
|
I predict we will never see sub-$600 again.
|
|
|
|
He signed it this weekend. |
|
|
|
That shows us the demand from buyers is, at minimum, 63 x 3000 = 189,000 Bitcoins. Buyers have the fiat to buy that many coins ready to go, and based on the $200,000 deposit received from each, they have demonstrated the desire to use that fiat. Now subtract those who won the auction and you are left with around 159,000 coins worth of buyers demand still waiting to be purchased by those who already earmarked this money for Bitcoin purchases. We now have solid confirmation that large buyers with demonstrated desire to buy Bitcoin will have fiat capable of buying 159,000 coins freed up today. It is highly unlikely these large buyers will remove their bids from the market entirely. It is more likely their bids will be moved to an exchange. |
|
|
|
Timeline:
1) Large Buyers are slowly accumulating Bitcoin as exchange depth allows, trying not to run the price up on themselves while they try to fill their accounts to their planned levels of exposure.
2) They find out about the SR Seized Coin auction. Some may have found out before the public announcement.
3) They stop buying on exchanges and save their funds for later bids at the auction. This would correspond to a lack of buying, as some here have seen in their analysis for the past few weeks.
4) Someone wins the auction, but most bidders do not get all of their bids filled. The losers find out some time between end of auction 6/27 6PM EST and 6/30 5PM EST.
5) Losers begin slowly accumulating Bitcoin on exchanges again until reaching their planned level of exposure.
We are between #3 and #4. The next step will be bullish.
Yep, bullish. Back up the truck... |
|
|
|
Per OP's definition, buyers of an IPO are investors, but anyone buying after the IPO is not. Yet clearly without later buyers you would have no IPO buyers. OP has a very narrow view.
He didnt say that. Hes talking about dividend stocks. IPO stocks dont give dividends IPO stocks?? What? All stocks are first presented to the market as an IPO, or Initial Public Offering. That has nothing to do with dividends. Buyers of an IPO hope for price appreciation so they can see gains in their investment. The same can be said for buyers after the IPO. OP's definition is inconsistent with reality. |
|
|
|
|
Per OP's definition, buyers of an IPO are investors, but anyone buying after the IPO is not. Yet clearly without later buyers you would have no IPO buyers. OP has a very narrow view.
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about the bootstrapping. I'm talking about any coin that enters a purely PoS phase with nothing else required to confirm transactions. An infinite number of coins can enter such a phase, diluting any value stored in them to the point of worthlessness. All PoS coins (any coin that enters a pure PoS phase) will trend to $0 because of this, as more PoS coins come into existence.
PoW coins do not suffer from this problem as they all compete for limited mining resources. Thus PoW coins actually do provide a good store of value.
I'm not a fan of PoS but I disagree. It is like taking off the restrictions for fractions of bitcoins making them infinitely divisible and then saying that will make them worthless. You can have intricate rules for any coin on how much a block will reward providing infinite possibilities for altcoins. The value of coins is the trust in the system technology wise, its current utility and how it will develop in the future. The relative value of any particular PoS coin is directly proportional to the size of the network of the coin you are measuring, divided by the size of the networks of all PoS coins. Since the number of PoS coins is not limited, and the network size of each of them is not limited by competing for a scarce resource such as energy, the denominator will grow much more quickly than the numerator, leading value to $0 over the long term. The relative value of any particular PoW coin is directly proportional to the size of the network of the coin you are measuring, divided by the size of the networks of all PoW coins. Since the network size of each PoW coin is limited by competing for a scarce resource (miners and energy), the size of the networks of all PoW coins is limited. When a new PoW coin is created, it must take from the pool of miners/energy by reducing the size of another coin's network to increase its own. This means the relative value of any particular PoW coin is much more resistant to being drained as new PoW coins pop up. The new coins will have to fight for resources with the existing coins, which is generally very difficult to succeed at versus large coins such as Bitcoin. Thus, well established PoW coins will generally have a stable value regardless of the introduction of new PoW coins. |
|
|
|
I've been doing some analysis on the latest craze, Proof of Stake coins like NXT. On the surface they look like a good deal, with innovation and some great ideas. But they appear to suffer from one very fatal flaw. Proof of Work coins are backed by energy. Those providing the Proof (miners here) must choose one coin on which to spend their energy to provide it. Proof of Stake coins have no such protection.
You cannot double-spend your energy and use it to mine multiple Proof of Work coins (e.g. X Bitcoin and Y Litecoin mined with the same energy expenditure as mining just X Bitcoin or just Y Litecoin). New coins may pop up, but they must fight over the limited supply of miners/energy. This fight over a limited resource ensures you will not see an infinite number of Proof of Work coins pop up running in parallel. This backing by energy ensures we will not see inflation through endless chains of PoW coins.
Proof of Stake coins do not have this protection. Those providing the Proof of Stake, the holders of coins, can freely hold an unlimited number of different PoS currencies, rather than being forced to choose to mine only one with each unit of electricity. Each PoS coin causes no pressure on the others. Thus, an infinite number of PoS coins can flood the market. With no limited resource (miners/energy) being competed for by all the PoS coins, the value that investors look to store in such coins will be diluted more and more over time as new PoS coins are created. This makes PoS coins worthless as a store of value, regardless of the individual characteristics of any particular PoS coin.
In short, Satoshi was clearly thinking long-term with Bitcoin, or he got very, very lucky. Either way, we are all very much in his debt for getting it so right on the first go.
Satoshi was long term thinking but here it's more based on the circumstances. POS can't bootstrap itself, it's always based directly or indirectly on a POW bootstrapping I'm not talking about the bootstrapping. I'm talking about any coin that enters a purely PoS phase with nothing else required to confirm transactions. An infinite number of coins can enter such a phase, diluting any value stored in them to the point of worthlessness. All PoS coins (any coin that enters a pure PoS phase) will trend to $0 because of this, as more PoS coins come into existence. PoW coins do not suffer from this problem as they all compete for limited mining resources. Thus PoW coins actually do provide a good store of value. |
|
|
|
|
I've been doing some analysis on the latest craze, Proof of Stake coins like NXT. On the surface they look like a good deal, with innovation and some great ideas. But they appear to suffer from one very fatal flaw. Proof of Work coins are backed by energy. Those providing the Proof (miners here) must choose one coin on which to spend their energy to provide it. Proof of Stake coins have no such protection.
You cannot double-spend your energy and use it to mine multiple Proof of Work coins (e.g. X Bitcoin and Y Litecoin mined with the same energy expenditure as mining just X Bitcoin or just Y Litecoin). New coins may pop up, but they must fight over the limited supply of miners/energy. This fight over a limited resource ensures you will not see an infinite number of Proof of Work coins pop up running in parallel. This backing by energy ensures we will not see inflation through endless chains of PoW coins.
Proof of Stake coins do not have this protection. Those providing the Proof of Stake, the holders of coins, can freely hold an unlimited number of different PoS currencies, rather than being forced to choose to mine only one with each unit of electricity. Each PoS coin causes no pressure on the others. Thus, an infinite number of PoS coins can flood the market. With no limited resource (miners/energy) being competed for by all the PoS coins, the value that investors look to store in such coins will be diluted more and more over time as new PoS coins are created. This makes PoS coins worthless as a store of value, regardless of the individual characteristics of any particular PoS coin.
In short, Satoshi was clearly thinking long-term with Bitcoin, or he got very, very lucky. Either way, we are all very much in his debt for getting it so right on the first go.
|
|
|
|
C'mon people. Quoting Mervyn_Pumpkinhead is really destroying this thread. Cut that out.
A much better quoting policy  Seen a few articles lately from localised news sources about relatively small businesses being held to ransom with bitcoin and my tinfoil hat tells me its the start of a smear campaign. Probably just perfectly normal paranoia but just in case... This a real phenomenon that is going to need to be dealt with or addressed in some various ways... I certainly do NOT know the solution... except maybe there are some multi-sig solutions... but those seem to create problems as well... people robbed banks in the wild wild west b/c that is where the money was.... greed can be very powerful... and taking from someone else (or attempts at such) can be somewhat direct with bitcoin... I've not really spent a whole lot of time studying them but what make me suspicious is their timing wasn't far apart and they seemed fairly similar yet they where a long distance apart from each other. That suggests an organisation rather than individuals and they focus on the single aspect of bitcoin that puts it ahead of cash for criminals, no need for any physical exchange. I'd guess the best course of action for anyone receiving threats is to notify law enforcement (or load up on shells) and refuse to pay but if anything is paid then the transaction must be made public so it can be tracked. Things like this will likely only serve to promote coin tracking features which will in turn create black and white bitcoin economies (or increase the utility of more anonymous systems such as darkcoin). Really though, if someone is holding you... and saying, "your bitcoins or your life", which one would you prefer to keep? Solutions: reversibility? multisig? tracking? (that's not gonna happen is it?) Insurance. |
|
|
|
|
Bids increasing quite a bit in the 58x range.
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling we are going down. We still have another 4-5 months before ATH. The longer the better imo.  You got a source for that 4-5 months part? Or did you just make that up? Actually i think i know the answer already. Can you read the part where it says I have a feeling? Or you blind? Unless something like ETF gets approved, or some big news hits the media I think we will go sideways for a bit. Big players are waiting for regulation, Bitlicense guidelines will probably be released for comments early July, and like they said 60-90 days after is when they will start issuing the licenses, and will be a regulated environment. I think once all that gets finished, we will be looking at new ATH late 2014, early 2015. So close. Now click that little box next to the words "log scale", since Bitcoin has exponential growth over that time scale. |
|
|
|
Timeline:
1) Large Buyers are slowly accumulating Bitcoin as exchange depth allows, trying not to run the price up on themselves while they try to fill their accounts to their planned levels of exposure.
2) They find out about the SR Seized Coin auction. Some may have found out before the public announcement.
3) They stop buying on exchanges and save their funds for later bids at the auction. This would correspond to a lack of buying, as some here have seen in their analysis for the past few weeks.
4) Someone wins the auction, but most bidders do not get all of their bids filled. The losers find out some time between end of auction 6/27 6PM EST and 6/30 5PM EST.
5) Losers begin slowly accumulating Bitcoin on exchanges again until reaching their planned level of exposure.
We are between #3 and #4. The next step will be bullish.
Yep, bullish. |
|
|
|
OzPolitics forum? You couldn't even be bothered to make your own version for this place? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
