Just to spell it out for folks, here's what people like BTCwhale do:

[1] - having bought up a whole stack at rock bottom prices, announce the pump

[2] - as the market slowly builds, they put in a "jump" order that jumps it a little bit more that would appear regular. Then they leave it alone for a while so as not to appear too conspicuous.

[3] - a few panic buyers (it only takes a couple) push it up

[4] - repeat cycle until a bit of a feeding frenzy develops

[5] - once the liquidity is up and the price is well pumped, they mass-dump all the coin they bought at stage [1], pushing the price well down for recent buyers but still high enough for BTCwhale scavengers to cream off everyone's bitcoin, which is all they wanted in the first place

Off course, only they will know when the "dump" is coming.

As BTCwhale correctly says, he did it with Spain coin, Blackcoin et al. Don't worry, I've made a bit of money of these pumps, but only because I know it's going nowhere fast after the dump and if you can't make your cash in half an hour then forget it.

The miserable thing about this tactic is that it has nothing to do with the long term fortunes of the coin and has more to do with the aggressive capture of  loose assets from innocent 'noobs' most of the time.

The less people fall for it the more money will stay in your own hands than that of market thieves.

I think NXT is the only one worth holding long term bar Bitcoin (and maybe Litecoin).

You're not buying a "coin" as such, your buying into a network of services. THey will be needed - whether Bitcoin, NXT, Mastercoin or any other 'crypto' prevails. At the moment you can get a huge chunk for very little money.

LoL. That's like saying that "not trading in gold" leads to fractional reserves and failure. Is that gold's problem ?

You haven't thought this through. I'm afraid the only alternative to trading in proxies for value is a barter economy.

Whatever the pros and cons of a crypto-economy, speed of transactions, consumer protection et al have nothing to do with a given medium's suitability to act as a store of value.

What about software licensing ?

Except that "every single Bitcoin that has ever been mined" is not up for sale.

Only a tiny proprtion of the money supply is ever offered on an exchange order book.

Even if he did find some way to buy them all up - there's a name for that in economics, it's called demand. Such phenomenal demand for Bitcoin would translate into demand for cryptocurrencies in general if supply dried up.

In short, "buying up all the money supply of a particular coin" is not an option for someone who sees it as a threat.

Jeez. You are one little defeatist whiner aren't you.

The arguments you come up with are unbelievably fickle. You're making it all up as you go along. I don't know what agenda you're pursuing but it's about as consistent as an unguided missile.


pontiacg5 was right - that point is hogwash. In fact all the nonsense about speed and convenience that you've been spamming on this thread is nonsense. No point in elaborating on it since you don't seem to have the first clue about how the banking clearing system, account transfers vs money transfers, POS and back office requirements or anything else of practical relevance to this discussion works.

Suffice to say that cryptocurrencies blockchain speed are of no significance to the performance of point of sale transactions - just as they aren't right now when doing trades on exchanges. All transactions are more or less instantaneous because accounts are used.

The point about regulation of pools is idle speculation and highly unrealistic. It's already an obsolete issue given that:

 - the technology is global and not under the juristiction of any one government
 - thr cryptocurrency technology has already surpassed the need to mine anyway
 - de-centralised mining would work just as well and generate the required supply, just at a lower self-adjusted difficulty level


All you're straw man arguments have been exhaustively dealt with by people that actually know something of what they're talking about.

In fact, now that I read my own comment, I think I'm going to ditch all my Vert as well. It's not heading anywhere but down.

I think I just did.

I was hoping that the potential network effect of the "Spain" connection would propel it to success. But that kind of crash in an alt is unrecoverable usually.

The reason is - as I said - that most people don't see alts as long term investments anymore. They did when there were about 3 of them, because an alternative to Bitcoin was still on the cards.

But of the hundreds of alts that have now been launched, not one single one has got anywhere near Bitcoin in terms of value - and that's despite all the nightmares BTC has had the last few months, both political and technical (with malleability etc).

So nobody's bothered about "network effect" anymore, They're just sharks looking for the next 'pump'. Aurora was the first "National" coin pump. Maza had a bit of a lifetime and then died and now Spaincoin has had it's moment.

This is a watershed moment for all alts. Expect them all to consolidate into BTC from now on. (And NXT + similar).

Maybe. But very, VERY short term hold. (Like 120 seconds).

Look at the graph. You can't overcome that kind of downward momentum with anything other than a very slow turnaround. And even then, it's tainted goods now. Everyone's seen the top and most have been burned.

A crash like that doesn't make it a very appealing investment.

Living in hope.

But 2 things have killed it:

[1] - the Aurora crash

[2] - the general background that's emerging that ALL alts (apart from second generation ones) are basically just routes to more Bitcoin for everybody.

Bitcoin is where it's at.

Some second gen's like NXT are worth holding long term simply because it takes them about a year to develop all the client software to take advantage of advanced blockchain features. But I think that basic alts (the Scrypt and SHA56 ones) are all short lifetimers. Even Vert is going down the pan now.

I'd still hold PPC, XPM and LTC, but that's about it.

ok.

Coin is dead.

I don't recall citing any "emotional factors".

The reasons I cited were to do with the fact that Spain is more familiar with "cryptos" than most countries. It was here that Bitcoin's famous April 2013 rally got started. Also, I cited the fact that I thought the press would be likely to give the event an airing.

"Emotional factors" is when you're sitting panicking over the price and don't know what to do.

The fact is, everybody's sitting hovering over their mouse button looking for a bottom on this coin. Once they think they've found it, there's plenty of demand and very little supply. Just look at the numbers changing hands right now. Even thigh the price is dropping, hardly enybody's selling.

Mazacoin was different - on the drop, huge volumes came out.

I was one of them, but not this time.

Maybe you just don't know how to read an orderbook.

The volume going out it nothing compared to the coming going in.

It's usually me that makes those remarks after a pump. But I'm not doing it this time

I actually live in Spain and I think this is going to be interesting. Spain is a crypto-freindly zone for a start. It is going to get some national press.

Secondly, the Devs have a very interesting release strategy for the airdrop. It's not like Aurora coin - it's more competitive and not all the population is going to get some.

Thirdly, if you watch the order books, there are a hell of a lot of buys that nervously being pulled and re-instated because they think the price is going to drop more. As soon as it looks like going up, there's a panic buy. So there is a lot of demand sitting there waiting for the right moment. (Also check the volume of sells - it's nothing. Far from a 'cashout').

I think the main event for this coin is yet to be seen.

Did you say something about a "brain stem" ?

"Unregulated fractional reserves" will happen with any money system, any culture, any technology, any market.

There's nothing to stop me advertising my car and sending 5 people a "promise" to deliver it in exchange for something of value to me. Thats an "unregulated fractional reserve".

The criticisms you cite are straw men. They are not the real problems with the blockchain. In fact, blockchain transactions are about 300 times faster than present day bank transfers. 10 minutes vs 1-3 days. Furthermore, bank transfers are no more reversible than blockchain transfers and you DO NOT want reversibility in the blockchain.

The point of sale issues (speed, refunds, discounts, store cards, insurance, payment protection, monetary media) are not the domain of a money system. They are the domain of particular payment processors. (If they want to operate a fractional reserve system like MT Gox, so be it - that's one of the hazards of payment processors but again - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin the same way as Gox didn't have anything to do with Bitcoin).

Bitcoin is not a fractional reserve money system - it is a full reserve, unlevered form of base money. It's exactly the opposite of what all the anti-NWO'rs (of which I suppose I am one) are paranoid about when they talk about "electronic money". It's just that most of them are clueless about the mechanics of money anyway and so just stick with "anything electronic" as their definition.

It's taking off again.

People are putting 3 and 4 BTC into it at 26. Just shows you there are as many waiting to get in as get out. Nerves are frayed. People are sitting hovering over their mouse buttons waiting to see where the bottom is. To me it looks like 20-25.

I've been hodling. I don't really think this is a Maza-coin situation. I was in Maza and got out on the last pump but I think this is a different kettle of fish. Spain is not Lakota tribe and the coin has yet to get it's airing amongst the actual Spanish public.

I even think Aurora still holds some surprises in store because the post-airdrop situatrion is an unknown.

Early day's I'd say.

Hodl.

Whether or not we "have a brain stem" you certainly don't understand much about how the mechanics of present money system, nor the difference between what banks do and what payment processors do.

The Bitcoin blockchain is no substitute for a payment processor services (i.e. the handle supermarket transactions for example). But then it was never intended to be. The services you cite above such as refundability, payments insurance, consumer protections etc are not provided by the bank clearing system per-se. They are all 2nd third and fourth tier services, largely serviced by 3rd parties.

Those services would be provided in a bitcoin economy just the same. The only difference would be that you'd "reacharge" your Visa account via the blockchain just as you do at any of the Cryptocurrency exchanges today.

I don't agree with your reasoning here.

By any measure, de-centralised currencies are a step away from "government control". Yes, government can issue a "cryptocurrency" but they can't control it other than by "hoping" then people will use theirs instead of another crypto.

Lets say they "declared" it legal tender and allowed people to pay their taxes in "govoCoin". So what ? It's not a substitute for true control such as the central banks now have over fiat. The mechanisms that governments use to control fiat are numerous:

[1] - they are sole issuers

[2] - accept taxes

[3] - (And this is the biggy). The ENTIRE worldwide counterparty network known as the banking system works as a government proxy by controlling every electronic transaction down to the last penny with known members of the public

You're falling into the same trap as many anti NWO-ers who can't see past the word "electronic" currency. It's not the fact that they are "electronic" that's the problem. It's the fact that they are centralised and corruptible. We live in an electronic age. Currency and store of value is going to be "electronic" whatever it's nature. As I said above, gold was the "Bitcoin" of the old physical market. But it has a slight problem with travelling through wires. We now have a worldwide electronic trading platform who's tentacles reach almost into every household. It's up to people to take control of it and not allow it to be cenetralised under a few corrupt authorities. Cryptocurrencies (if you truly understand the technology - as opposed to just taking panic attacks because the NSA 'invented it') are one way to do that.

Where he wrong is in his appraisal of the idea of "intrinsic value".

First of all, no successful monetary medium has so called "intrinsic value" (which is a misnomer anyway). If it did, it wouldn't work as a monetary medium because it would quickly go out of circulation. (Although gold does not circulate as such - stays in vaults - its use today is almost exclusively as a monetary medium).

A successful monetary medium requires certain rare properties, such as resistance to counterfeiting, limited supply, fungibility etc. Once something is found that has those properties, it has the potential to be adopted and used in a monetary role by society. If so, it derives its value from serving in that role. And this brings us to the key point:

******** Items derive their value from their role - not the other way around *******

Here's some examples:

[1] - a plastic token at a fairground costs around 10,000% more than a similar plastic token in a hardware shop. The price difference is accounted for by the *monetary role* that the fairground plastic is playing. Intrinsic value of plastic tokens has nothing to do with it

[2] - a 1 km stretch of road built in the middle of a forest with 2 dead ends would be very expensive to build but would have no resale value because it could not function in a *transportation role*. i.e.

a) - 1 km of road which functions in a transport role = Very high value
b) - identical 1 km of road which didn't function in a transport role = Almost no value

The "intrinsic value" of the road, once again, has got nothing to do with it. It's the *role* the road is playing that's important.

[3] - Consider the value of gold from the perspective of the "Plastic Tokan" example at the fairground above. It follows that if gold did not have a monetary role in society, its value would be much less. i.e. it DERIVES ITS VALUE FROM PLAYING A MONETARY ROLE, not the other way around. Gold was the physical bitcoin of the day. It had properties which allowed it to function in a monetary role and that's what made its value increase. If not in a monetary role, the only other role that gold could have had was a utility one, where it would have had a much lower value. (There are plenty of utility substitutes both in Jewellery making and industry).

So Warren Buffet is potentially correct when he says that bitcoin has "no intrinsic value", but it doesn't matter. If it has the right properties to allow it to function in a "monetary role" then it will acquire a monetary value instead which will be extremely high. (And note: This doesn't even mean it has to be accepted at retail stores and airlines - gold isn't. It just has to play a similar monetary/store of value that gold does, except on an electronic trading platform).

To have understood that, Warren Buffet would have to think more like a systems analyst than an investment analyst. He would also have had to understand certain key technical aspects of cryptocurrencies and how much of a technological achievement it is to have developed an uncounterfeitable token which is transmittable peer-to-peer without the need for a counterparty such as a bank.

He's unlikely to be interested in those subtleties which explains the limited nature of his insights about Bitcoin's investability.

You think Peercoin is a "crappy scam" coin ?

This is an extremely clueless remark in my opinion.

Whatever volume statistics say, Peercoin is one of the very few alts that actually has a degree of originality behind it that would put it head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to contemplating a future cryptocurrency economy.

NXT is also trading on low volume and low price, but it's about the only alt I wouldn't even contemplate ditching right now - I don't care how low it goes. It's already justified it's marketcap simply in network services - never mind the fact that their potential is only starting to be realised by client software under development.

I agree about BTC and LTC on the basis of adoption, but jeez, if any coin justifies inheriting Bitcoin's legacy, it's definitely Peercoin, not Litecoin.