...
Note however that I talked about "transaction costs", which for traditional payment systems are carried by the vendor/merchant. And from their side, it does stand as 3% + 30 cent (Paypal), 2% (Visa, but only if you're big enough) vs. 0 cost (if Bitcoin is used natively and the sender pays the tx fee).
... This is a bit of a tangent, but might be interesting. Was interesting to me when I first read it, wish I could give credit, but can't remember who pointed this out.[/sheepish disclaimer] Bitcoin transaction costs are currently sponsored by Bitcoin inflation, which [now] is quite a bit higher than 3%. Once all the coins are mined, and miners no longer profit through mining coin, I think it's reasonable to assume that tx fees would go up substantially (along with a bunch of other untidiness that I don't like to think about  ) |
|
|
|
^Sure, theoretically one could start with a sow's ear and turn it into a silk purse. One could also make stone soup.
Do I need to explain why couture purse makers aren't driving up the price of sow's ears, and why five-star restaurants don't buy stones by the truckfull?
*If you don't understand how purses are made, it's smarter not to lecture on purses. Same with soup. Same with Bitcoin.
still this has nothing to do with the topic... anyway...most people don't consider the confirmation time as a problem...maybe it's not for the fast buy yet...but we will get there one way or another...in every other case it's faster than fiat or bank transfer ...
-slow confirmations ... still MUCH faster than a bank transfer...also there is a lot of money in silicon valley to solve problems like this
... You bring it up--I correct you, that's all. Re. fiat confirm time: I don't do bank transfers to buy gas, a cup of coffee or a pack of smokes--there are fiat alternatives  I use cash and CC. Always assumed everyone was familiar with those IRL game mechanics. Stop trying to paint Bitcoin as the solution to everything. It isn't the answer to meatspace microtransactions. It also doesn't unclog toilets, or make your kids dance while it makes you money--but it doesn't have to. It also doesn't need pimping or hype. |
|
|
|
|
^Sure, theoretically one could start with a sow's ear and turn it into a silk purse. One could also make stone soup.
Do I need to explain why couture purse makers aren't driving up the price of sow's ears, and why five-star restaurants don't buy stones by the truckfull?
*If you don't understand how purses are made, it's smarter not to lecture on purses. Same with soup. Same with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Do you understand how Bitcoin works? Faster confirm times = different coin.
there will be workarounds...what are you thinking?... I'm thinking you don't understand why confirm times are what they are. Please explain and prove me wrong |
|
|
|
If the demand is growing faster than the supply, the price increases. That is one of the most fundamental concepts in economics, and the basic tenet of free market economy.
i already said in another thread that i think the price is kept down by traders to buy in cheaper or to win some time for COIN or whoever I see that you're not a Communist--you simply don't understand free market economy. What you are describing is almost a metaphysical impossibility. Unless everyone with money to spare is in cahoots, simply buying BTC at its artificially low price will result in higher prices. See supply and demand. If you are posting this simply because you are invested up to the gills and are worried, don't. This just reeks of desperation. I'm a Bitcoiner myself. I hold Bitcoin--not as much as I once did, but certainly enough not to wish its price to tank. I just think that shilling Bitcoin only harms it in the long run. The people who bought into the hype and bought @$1k are certainly not our friends. |
|
|
|
...
-slow confirmations ... still MUCH faster than a bank transfer...also there is a lot of money in silicon valley to solve problems like this
... Do you understand how Bitcoin works? Faster confirm times = different coin. |
|
|
|
...
the demand is growing
... If the demand is growing faster than the supply, the price increases. That is one of the most fundamental concepts in economics, and the basic tenet of free market economy. Not all economy, mind you. Not planned economies like Soviet Russia, for instance. Are you a Communist, Comrade?  |
|
|
|
...
What you should care as an investor is that the long term growth is sustainable, and if a solid proposition for growth exists, you should be happy that the company has the chance of reinvesting profits to fuel its growth.
That means, no dividends for shareholders.
In that case, I can make you the happiest investor alive: You're unlikely to ever see any dividends. No need to thank me. If you don't know the difference between stock price and value, you better stay away from investments.
Value: What bagholders would like you to believe the stock is worth. Price: What the last share actually sold for, usually a fraction of "value." @Bonam: Now that you know, stay away from investing in Bitcoin securities regardless (unless you're into humiliation/losing coin). Not a single offering on Havelock, for instance, is trading above its initial listing price. Not. A. One. ~Happy trading! |
|
|
|
Manipulate Stocks Like A Pro!By Clever Hash Shareholder  Fig. 1 |
|
|
|
...Palm Treo in 2001...  Remember PDAs?  |
|
|
|
...
1. Could either iOS or Android be supplanted by something better in the future? Sure, it's completely possible.
2. But would you want to bet against either of them in the first few years of their existence after seeing their explosive growth worldwide? NO. I wouldn't.
3. If BTC and LTC continue to dominate the crypto market for the next several years, will a likely third crypto option come out of nowhere and overtake either of those two in worldwide mindshare and thus marketcap? Not likely. Especially if a dominant portion of the financial world has consolidated on either of them for eCommerce payments transactions.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a Bitcoiner, I'm interested in Bitcoin and what it can do, just have a problem with "it can't fail because science!" Also, won't lie, for a while it was a great way of making money--even for me. Now the sandbox's full of new, smarter, tougher kids. I'm pretty much lost...  As far as smartphone analogy, I simply don't think we're anywhere near iOS/Android phase. Don't know enough about smartphones, but if crypto was microcomputers, Bitcoin would be CP/M on S-100 bus *Who would have thought the Gates character would come along, take it, and make billions |
|
|
|
...
The important idea that this model brings to the analysis of bitcoin price data is that exponential growth of bitcoin prices will end.
If we accept as axiomatic that world's total wealth can not continue to increase exponentially, it logically follows that the value of bitcoin can not continue to increase exponentially. 1 So yeah, that works for me. We're good. ...Considering, how small the relative number of bitcoin transactions is compared to the number of credit card transactions, I suppose that we are currently in the Innovators stage, or at the beginning of the Early Adopters stage.
That's where you lose me. What makes you think we're in the early adopters phase, and not the on-the-road-to-oblivion phase? And how does the number of CC transactions figure into this? By your reasoning, the Litecoiners are also in the early adopter stage. And the Dodgecoiners. And the [__]coiners. Can you fit s-curves to those, assuming (as you did with Bitcoin), that each one of those is on its way up, and not out? Can you compare the number of Dodgecoin transactions to CC transaction, and guestimate where Dodgecoiners are on their S-curve ascent to world domination? I agree (as I'm sure almost everyone does) that accepting your premise, "Bitcoin will become THE currency of the future," guarantees that BTC price will skyrocket. That's almost begging the question. The problem is with the premise itself. I don't know if Bitcoin is on its way to universal acceptance or to obscurity. If I knew one way or the other, I could hand out trading advice without giggling even a little.
1. Assuming by "price" you mean "value," since the $, by definition, must become totally worthless if Bitcoin becomes the only currency. |
|
|
|
...
Homeslice, I'd be down with him fitting it mathematically.
Not sure what you're saying? Depending on how much deviation is "good enough" for U, *everything* fits. I'm saying that the graph is neither descriptive nor prescriptive enough to be interesting. To be interesting, a theory needs to be: 1. Sufficiently descriptive to be convincing: "Look, Bob! A billion data points with zero sigma!" 2. Sufficiently predictive to act as a guide: "You know it Ted! Which means tomorrow's price is $1,000. I'm all in!" 3. Verifiable/falsifiable: "Shit... But Reptilia predicted the price would be $10,000 by now, and it's not. Which means his theory is ass." TL;DR: Yeah, an S-curve could be fitted to any mass adoption scenario at some point in time. The trick is knowing where on that curve you are, and if you're still on that curve (see JorgeStolfi's slide ruler example. There are fewer American households with slide rulers today than in the 50s.). |
|
|
|
...but it's not THAT far off.
That's the beauty of Scientifisism--"not THAT far off" is always a boolean 1. In the Scientifistic ruleset, this is derived from the Law of Almost Universal Noncontradiction: Almost~(A & ~A).Powerful stuff...  |
|
|
|
Ohai! yes you have proven you are right about some of the things some of the time lambchop, but not all of the things all of the time. When talking about AM, you need to factor in AM as a whole, and not just selectively discuss "AM's history on havelock" and expect to get away with implying that to mean AM's entire history.
No. I have made many mistakes, but when it comes to Bitcoin securities? None. Here, I have been right all of the time. Inb4 HUMILITY: Being right here is as laudable as remembering to breathe. Oh, and AM? Here:  How's it goin'? |
|
|
|
yes you have proven you are right about some of the things some of the time lambchop, but not all of the things all of the time. When talking about AM, you need to factor in AM as a whole, and not just selectively discuss "AM's history on havelock" and expect to get away with implying that to mean AM's entire history.
No. I have made many mistakes, but when it comes to Bitcoin securities? None. Here, I have been right all of the time. Inb4 HUMILITY: Being right here is as laudable as remembering to breathe. Oh, and AM? Here: How's it goin'? |
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi: Your logic is old-fashioned and totally obsolete. We developed an exciting new formal system, with unique grammar and inference ruleset, for today's fast-paced and competitive financial modeling. Behold the descriptive and prescriptive powers of Teh Scientifistic Method!  *While the pony~ and the annotations are mine, the chart isn't. It's meant to be taken seriously, not even kidding. Here. |
|
|
|
...
More assumptions. Come back when you actually know what a fact is.
Guys! Facts are definitely at a premium here. Just about the only irrefutable fact we have is the current market price: ฿0.1705 on heavy volume. Allow me to be the first to congratulate you for ignoring me, Mabsark. Again. Much to the same results. |
|
|
|
...
I bought a castle because I understood the content of the OP last year. Now, even though there is much more evidence that it is true, and this is a Bitcoin forum, and the text is freely available for all, still many people not only refuse to believe it, but actually ridicule me!
Please. You made money just like the rest of us who were lucky enough to buy low and sold during the bubble--nothing to do with your first post. Winning the lottery entitles neither one of us to lecture on economics. Also: humility. |
|
|
|
I understand your argument, as I maintain a logistical, e.g. S-curve model, of bitcoin price data presuming that the price is correlated with the population of adopting bitcoin speculators. I use $1 million for the arbitrary, guessed-at maximum price. Likewise I hand-fit the logistic function in November 2013, and will re-fit the function sometime next year given more data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2cSo, all of 2011 has well above predicted price, and since those intervalls havent been longer than a couple of months. Hmm, maybe reality doesnt have to bend and instead you need to revise the model? That's where the twin disruptive technologies of curve-fitting and kludge factors come in--integral to our scientifistic method! The wonderful thing about the scientifistic method is it's nowhere as uptight as that obsolete scientific method that Old People use. Groundbreaking scientifistic method gives us the tools to validate any theory, or, at least, give it a lovely sheen of credibility. Our revolutionary scientifistic theories need be neither descriptive (we can ignore the data that doesn't fit) nor prescriptive (ahm... I mean they's super prescriptive but in, like, well... you can't extrapolate from... Granularity.). Scientifistic theories are never wrong because they're unfalsifiable by design. In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
