For the marketcap to drop, people need to sell at lower prices. Which means they have a bag of fiat they can either save, spend or invest. So these people are not all-in, and have room to re-enter the BTC market once it takes off fast enough.
Miners selling to cover costs, for example, would not be left with a bag of fiat. They may instead be left with debt. |
|
|
|
+1001 It's way easier to invest in something cheap  WE WANT SINGLE DIGIT BITCOINS!!
Have you heard of mBTC? Cheap! |
|
|
|
|
Re: days destroyed, the convention for wallet software appears to be that change addresses are hidden from the user. Change doesn't count as spent coins, and shouldn't contribute to days destroyed.
|
|
|
|
I'll wait for below 100 threshold before considering placing the buy order  Really? The lowe price for bitcoin will be 300. lower than that... miners will turn off their miners. imho Why would miners shutting down keep the price from falling? |
|
|
|
|
You could replace the coins you sold and keep the difference in usd as profits, or keep the fiat on hand to buy lower if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
That's... entirely unsubstantiated speculation, to be diplomatic.
|
|
|
|
Let them dump. If Bitcoin is a viable idea, it will survive. Bitcoin's survival depends on its utility, and market price of a coin mostly doesn't affect that. If bitcoin is useful, anyone trying to suppress the price will lose their shirt if they're insistent. If not, they're doing everyone a service.
If this is true, it should not matter if the "market" price of Bitcoin is .10 cents or $1000. People maybe confusing a bitcoin for a lottery ticket Some price support exists based on non-speculative usage. BTC below this price is unsustainable for long unless usage contracts and unsustainable above it unless usage grows. We just don't have a better way of determining what this price should be than this market aproach, which invites speculation with its benefits and excesses. |
|
|
|
That there still are people here who say this is normal market behaviour and there is no manipulation and there is noone trying to take us down is beyond me.
They are not trying to take us down, they just know that when they dump, they'll be able to buy whatever they sold back at a cheaper price. It'll continue until that is no longer the case. Then it will probably be time to pump. I don't believe this anymore. I see people dumping tons of coins. I don't see them buying tons of coins back. Either way, they are destroying the market. On purpose ot not. It doesn't even matter. Same thing. They won't stop till it's dead. Let them dump. If Bitcoin is a viable idea, it will survive. Bitcoin's survival depends on its utility, and market price of a coin mostly doesn't affect that. If bitcoin is useful, anyone trying to suppress the price will lose their shirt if they're insistent. If not, they're doing everyone a service. |
|
|
|
|
I think 340ish was lower still?
|
|
|
|
|
The Octopus conference on cybercrime? Really? Do they convene in a secret submersible lair?
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know what the purpose of the first hammer was. Maybe it was made to crack open a nutshell. Maybe it was made to crack a skull. It doesn't matter, a hammer does a fine job driving nails into wood regardless.
|
|
|
|
this is a interesting article about gabi: http://www.futuresmag.com/2014/09/22/bitcoin-fund-launchesJean-Marie Mognetti, Director and partner at GAJL added: “In addition to digitalBTC, GAJL also established relationships, based on trust and transparency with a limited number of exchanges. These exchanges - Bitfinex (Hong Kong) - Coinsetter (New York, USA) - have been approved by GABI's compliance department following an extensive due diligence process to make sure they fall within the operational limits imposed by our local regulator.” what do you guys think? is it correct to assume they can/will buy directly on bitfinex? is there a corrolation to the bid walls on bitfinex? Presumably they're looking for the option to buy and sell on their partner exchanges. To me, that implies they feel they may need to handle more volume than whatever off-exchange trading options they have in place can offer. This isn't necessarily bullish though: The assumption here has been funds like GABI would buy from miners directly, but who would they sell to when they need to? It's possible they need avenues to offload coins through more than they need avenues for buying them. |
|
|
|
|
What the - I've just stumbled into the alts subforum to find myself completely baffled. When it's not bitter infighting it's pool operators trying to put up hard limits on hashrate. How does that even work? How can you possibly ensure a person can only have one account? Serious question BTW, if you're able to do that, you've just solved one of the harder issues relating to trust on the Internet!
|
|
|
|
F*ck Bfx.
I just lost 2k USD to their circuit breaker system. It took 5 minutes for my market buy, 10 minutes for my market sell.
You should know the rules (if not, do your due diligence). Don't be an idiot and try to trade with market orders on a platform with a known circuit breaker. The sell was a stop order, which converts to market order when triggered. Apparently stops are fairly worthless on Bfx. Isn't the whole point of their circuit breaker to stop cascading stops from getting out of hand? |
|
|
|
|
That's quite some selling, too. Looks like interesting times!
|
|
|
|
Let me guess: They invested in crypto and now they are trying to pump it I have read somewhere in this forum that the Bitstamp owners are the richest people in Slovenia. Is that true (or somewhat close to the truth)? That seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
But this is not a few months ago. A few months ago tons of people started buying because they expected the price to go up. Instead they got dumped on, day after day. They sold and left and won't make that mistake again. Neither will all the people who watched it happen from the sidelines. You see, that's the "problem". These people actually do learn from their mistakes.
Keep in mind that pretty much everyone who invested in Bitcoin this year lost money. Almost a full year. Exactly at the time everyone expected something great to happen. This damaged Bitcoin so much. So many here underestimate this. They think they just can keep crashing the market, pick up cheap coins and go back up again. You can't.
After 5 or 6 years now investors are gonna say fuck it. I'm not gonna put money in something and get dumped on day after day by greedy traders obsessed with cheap coins. The previous years was ok for that. Not anymore. This year was the year to get serious. But everyone who tried to invest lost their money because of traders and dumpers. What do you expect them to do? Invest again?
This is good news IMO. I hope people remember the lessons learned from getting burned in a speculative bubble for a long time. Bitcoin will continue to gain usage if it is going to, fewer incautious speculators will lose their savings, the world will be a slightly better place. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is exactly that, a currency that can only increase in value in the future. It's deflationary. We'll see.
So you've obviously put everything you can into buying Bitcoins. No? Why, if it can only increase in value? Could it be value deflation isn't assured, after all? So maybe it makes sense to spend BTC when you want to buy something? |
|
|
|
... The market price appears to be have been dictated much more by speculative demand than fundamentals for a long time now... For a currency unbacked by a state or a closed economy, talking about "fundamentals" is horseshit. So we don't get into an argument on semantics here: I was trying to make a simplification to the effect that there is some amount of Bitcoin usage apart from speculation. I think that's what people mostly refer to when talking about fundamentals - developments that affect non-speculative use. The point is, we don't know what the price of BTC would be in a philosophical la-la land where price is driven solely by non-speculative uses, so we can't argue that an increase in such uses must lead to a proportional increase in BTC price. |
|
|
|
. There is nothing nitpicking in what I said. The quoted line gives us two bottoms, $2 and $340. He asks you to do something patently insane: To extrapolate from $340 (the low which happened three months before his post was made, AKA "current low") and to assume that price is going to behave as it did during $2 -> $266 climb. You can chose to believe anything, that's how cold readings work  What is being discussed here, now - whether rpietila's call was for a bottom at 340, or whether his implied prediction for future prices makes sense? You appear to be conflating the two. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
