It's like any nascent industry. You have the idealists first, then the whales/bankers/whatnot move in and fuck it up for everyone who started it.

You sure spend a lot of time talking about price for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it.

oh, and 4730btc to 105. I think people must be moving back their bids.

Dude... it has only been above 30 for three months now.  Unless you bought in the middle of a hype cycle you have at least tripled your money at these prices.  However, I'm guessing based on your posts that you in fact did buy during the hype cycle.  Don't worry... in 6 months to a year we'll have another one.  Zoom the fuck out and relax.

BTW, today I sent money BTC to one of my best friends who recently moved to a South American country. He cannot easily send money out of where he's currently living, nor receiving money from abroad, because he just opened a bank account and he has not been working in the country for at least 3 months, so international wires are "disabled". Funny regulation, right?. Well, we just said *fuck off* to that, only two hours ago. True story. But yeah, what a failure.

Saying that what is happening with Bitcoin now "is a failure" defines yourself.

Works for me.

I see important walls starting at $106 and below.

*wild subject change*

People have this all backwards.  Its not merchants that we need - it's earners.  We need to PAY people in BTC.  That's how you drive an economy.  Give people something valuable, and merchants will flock follow the money.  If those with millions of BTC would start paying hoards of programmers in BTC only, they will need spend that income, and that will drive the economy.  

If you want to make a river, pour water on the mountain top.

Dude, stop the Keynesian "deflationary currency leads to hoarding and hoarding is bad"-crap. People buy things, because they both want and need things. You cannot delay a purchase forever (post-mortem anyone?) so the fact that the underlying currency gains in value isn't going to stop economic traffic in the least *.

*Although in the beginning people might need to get used to this, but it will be temporary. People will need to get used that merely holding currency isn't voluntarily paying more taxes and that saving can actually be a good thing as opposed to the credit hungry society the west is these days. I don't have any debt, but I can assure you I'm a vast minority ....

Keynesians are like cockroaches

I prefer another of the excellent blockchain.info charts. Excluding distortions such as Satoshi Dice, this one clearly illustrates the long term growth of the underlying bitcoin economy. The drawn support line indicates a growth rate of 10x every 14 months which approximately agrees with the corresponding long term support line for bitcoin prices.

shits getting deep.

Some are holding coins in order to spend them later when it's easier and safer and they can buy the normal things they would buy in their everyday life without a second thought, and without having to change back to fiat... yes that doesn't account for the transactions now, but as merchants accept more and infrastructure develops, if the speculation does drive the price up, I am assuming people will want to spend their (now more valuable) coins... obviously this comment also doesn't have much to do with the transaction volume affecting the price on the exchanges now, but on that subject I will also put forward the idea that it may not have much impact on the exchanges, as day to day purchases of coins to spend coins would be inefficient, I will assume that many people already have large stashes of coins they might spend.... finally also bear in mind that some of the philosophy of bitcoin (for some people, and anecdotally a majority) is not to spend spend spend to drive a consumerist economy. As mentioned before, just because the economy is not full of high volume transactions, doesn't mean it's not living and breathing.

Stream of consciousness waffle here so take it or leave it

(1) You made a nonsensical, irrelevant statement about a toilet.
(2) You acknowledged that you said something stupid and someone else responded to it.
(3) You made a nonsensical, irrelevant statement about "greed" that cannot be empirically proven
(4) You made a generality regarding the "hopes" of "others on forum," and used that generality to support some sort of statement about your mood. This is called a "non-sequitur."


Ok, so you replied by saying absolutely nothing. Great job.  

Oh, and this:

I have no expertise at all in economy, but I do wonder what leads you to such a statement?

Patience is a virtue, those Askers have little.  Once the price starts declining again, we're going to see a lot more dumping...

350usd is my bet.

Yes, that is true in Paul Krugman's socialist keynesian wet dream.

In the real world we call it "using buzzwords (like 'hoarders') to demonize responsible saving."

Nobody ever has any legit data to back up their assumption that there is this huge number of people who hoard BTCs and never spend them. Although if you look at tx volume, you'd easily see that the ratio of spent coins to hoarded coins is much higher than with the USD OR precious metals. The second we say "Oh, but I do spend my coins" the 'anti-hoarder' crowd backs off - "Oh, well that's ok, you're a spender, you're benefiting the currency."
So what is the magical ratio of spend to saved coins you must reach before being considered a hoarder, and how can we empirically justify this ratio? No one has ever answered me this question, and I ask it every single time someone demonizes saving by implying that it "kills bitcoin."

People hoarded gold and silver and they were used as currencies for millenia. Thousands of years. Go read Fekete's papers on monetary theory you will shit your pants when you read what he has to say about hoarding  

8.50000?

And BTW, i spend them too. And I donate to BTC  causes too. It's just that my stash tends to increase instead of decreasing, is that bad in your opinion?