Goldman Sachs predicts 1,2 bilions USD in bitcoin market . It is 50 000 USD for 1 BTC in future  1.2 billion would be about a third of the marketcap today... Maybe he is not native english and has mistaken billion with trillion. This would be the case in german for instance. interesting, so "trillion" is called "billion" in german. Confusing as heck for US folks. I see... billion is called milliard(e). Further, next one after is billiard (10^12), then trillion (10^18 instead of US 10^12). so european trillion =a million of american trillions Not all of Europe. Unless I am being a total retard 1000 billion in the UK is a trillion yeah, probably just continental I wonder if a bank in France tries to pay a "billion" to UK, someone might get unhappy, LOL |
|
|
|
Goldman Sachs predicts 1,2 bilions USD in bitcoin market . It is 50 000 USD for 1 BTC in future 1.2 billion would be about a third of the marketcap today... Maybe he is not native english and has mistaken billion with trillion. This would be the case in german for instance. interesting, so "trillion" is called "billion" in german. Confusing as heck for US folks. I see... billion is called milliard(e). Further, next one after is billiard (10^12), then trillion (10^18 instead of US 10^12). so european trillion =a million of american trillions |
|
|
|
1200 peak never happened it was all fabricated ad hoc
people keep beating up on this too much markets are supposed to be efficient...you cannot fake the market upwards for a long time if it "wants" to go down or will have to spend a lot of money trying. Was there a bubble in AMZN in 2000? 2001-2002 said that it was, and Henry Blodget with his $400 (now $100) target was driven out of Morgan Stanley as a result, but 2015 clearly says that it WASN'T a bubble afterall. Time has a habit of fixing old misconceptions. Check out this AMZN chart on max range:bubble-crash-steady rise. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AMZN+Interactive#symbol=AMZN;range=my |
|
|
|
bruh...
As others already said, total volume is not "how many coins were dumped". And definitely not "how many coins were dumped by the evil ugly manipulator™"
"The only reason for big orderly market sells" is because we are in a ... ehm... market. Why did we dump? Simply because price was being cornered and had to decide with a breakout or a breakdown. Market was weak and not conviced with a move up so it didn't break to the upside. A lot of people trading BTC saw that obvious breakdown and sold some BTCs, as it was rational to do.
Can we please stop seeing the bid side as HODLERS and the ask side as the "manipulators"? That's not how markets work.
Can we please throw away this myth that "bears don't have coins to dump anymore"?
People who buy or have bids can dump at any moment. People who sell or have asks can rebuy at any moment.
This is the nature of the market. Dumping doesn't mean manipulation, it means that at present there was no strength to the upside or that support needed to be tested, so breakdowns happen instead of breakouts.
I trade these markets as a business so let's not mince words. I know what volume is  The market is manipulated from both sides in the sense that when the biggest moneyed interests take position, the price moves and others follow. I don't think we disagree on that--it's how a market is made. Their moves, however, are often designed to separate amateurs from their money. That is a fact if you have any experience in markets outside of Bitcoin. It is not a conspiracy, it is a business. And if you think that doesn't happen in such an easy market to take control of, I've got news for you. This is apart from organic buying and selling from the public, which actually happens less often than you might think. Market tests are a very real thing--the difference is that before an upmove, they happen to the downside. Before a downmove, they happen to the upside... USUALLY. Afterwards the market will generally revert to its medium or longer-term trend. The reason is this: If the pervading forces of supply/demand have been pushed far enough out of alignment, usually happening at tops and bottoms, it is difficult to move the market against the natural direction no matter how much of the stock you sell or buy. At market tops, ease-of-movement is down. At bottoms, it is up. This why markets move in waves and cycles. I think some trading groups don't understand this, but they will when they lose money trying to trade against prevailing forces, or the "trade winds" as it were. Once enough traders feel this wind on a very long timeline, the bear market comes to a close, first gradually and then quickly and violently. Trading short at the potential bottom of a bear market is simply putting oneself at too much risk. Interests are collecting coins while sentiment is low in the same way antiques dealers buy junk from estate sales when nobody else wants it, refinish it and sell at a profit. It's the same way that real estate investors buy land when nobody else is interested--to profit from future sale of this land. Of course the buying parties are going to downplay its importance to their friends and the media and keep things as secretive as possible for more profit. The public (who generally don't think independently and wait for "experts" to tell them what to do) will parrot this negative sentiment and do the opposite of what they should be doing: buying with the professional interests. The last thing they want is for the public to know what they're doing and how much money they will make. It is the same business model in the markets: professional interests are selling to the public during euphoric market tops (distribution) the same stock they bought from the same panicky public at the bottom (accumulation). This happens over and over and over again, yet human fear makes it difficult to recognize and act on the opportunity when it's staring you in the face. The above is true in general, however professional interests mostly suck at investment, i am sorry to say. Statistics shows that avergage hedge fund manager return in 2014 was one percent according to Goldman Sachs Hedge fund Trend Monitor vs 13.7% for S&P500. 86% of active fund managers underperformed benchmarks in 2014 and 89% of them underperformed in the last 5 years. In other words, avoid investment in active funds-they suck in ~90% cases long term (even before their unjustified fees). I don't see how bitcoin traders can be any better, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Last thing before i turn back to my other endeavors.
I don't think that you should consider any compensation to anyone for either burger or shirt donations.
simple "thanks" is sufficient-and you already have done that on multiple occasions.
donations were just there to help with the project that most people cannot do themselves
keep calm and sidehack on!
|
|
|
|
|
Shirts and burgers are both a good idea.
However, I don't think that there should be any discounts based on "shirts", and no "shirt-based" cutting in front, but it is entirely up to sidehack & novak.
I am just voicing my opinion as it all went in an "interesting" direction.
BTW, total shirt donation=$60 (=$4X15 at most)
burger donation=~$$360
I initially thought that it was better to stick to one source since "burgers" were clearly in part for development, but now I see that voluntary buying a support shirt is great as well AS LONG as you don't expect any favors.
people who try to buy-in based on buying a shirt look a bit silly, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
I think btc will reach about $500 sustained price by 2020.
I think you're wrong by several orders of magnitude in one direction or the other. i.e. $50,000 or $5. I agree with the latter post, although not necessarily 50K, could be 10K-50K or $5 Reason#1: $500 is way too little for serious transactions as market cap of ALL bitcoins would be less than 10bil (19.5-19.6 mil BTC in 2020 X $500). Serious currencies are trading in trillions (total ~$5 trillion a day) At 50K bitcoin will be ~950 bil, still not enough to support major currencies trading, but getting there. Reason#2: i don't think that serious exchanges can survive on a single measly 10b asset price item. We have multiple exchanges being worked on. If it fails, then $5 is much more likely than $500 1. See: velocity of money.* 2.There's definitely some suspect logic in "many exchanges being built, thus price must rise to support them."
*If the 2.7 tps screw-up ever gets patched, that is... 1. i don't see a contradiction because total US stock market value is 22 tril, US bond market 37 tril. These are large sinks of value, some small % of which might be represented by bitcoin eventually, hence not all bitcoin will be available to exchanges. 2. if you build it they will come... Finally, I see a nonzero possibility of bitcoin failing. It's all or none scenario, and i don't see people investing significant % of their wealth in bitcoin, at least not yet. My comment was re price being relatively stable and behaving like a stock. The main point is that it won't. |
|
|
|
I think btc will reach about $500 sustained price by 2020.
I think you're wrong by several orders of magnitude in one direction or the other. i.e. $50,000 or $5. I agree with the latter post, although not necessarily 50K, could be 10K-50K or $5 Reason#1: $500 is way too little for serious transactions as market cap of ALL bitcoins would be less than 10bil (19.5-19.6 mil BTC in 2020 X $500). Serious currencies are trading in trillions (total ~$5 trillion a day) At 50K bitcoin will be ~950 bil, still not enough to support major currencies trading, but getting there. Reason#2: i don't think that serious exchanges can survive on a single measly 10b asset price item. We have multiple exchanges being worked on. If it fails, then $5 is much more likely than $500 |
|
|
|
|
1. Is there a way to buy ethers (ETH) and is there a wallet to hold them?
Sorry for a naive question.
2. Is there a solid (debugged) software to mine ETH on a Mac: i guess that it has both CPU and GPU.
what else is needed?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
http://www.coindesk.com/21-intel-bitcoin-mining-strategy/Projected for launch in Q1 2015 was a 21-produced USB charging hub, the introduction of which would be followed by the integration of chips into net-enabled devices before ending up in chipsets.
Though no dimensions were given for the product, illustrations produced by Mountain View-based Bould Design showcase a white, router-sized USB charger that would come complete with two USB charging portals.
I guess that they are running somewhat late. Once consumers and businesses are set up to receive bitcoin via everyday devices, the documents provide evidence 21 had built technology that intends to serve as the template for how such earnings could be used in microtransactions on the Internet.
In particular, 21 had been working on a process that would allow developers to block users from accessing websites unless funds are sent to a bitcoin address. Notably, the process used the 402 Payment Required error code originally intended for web-based micropayments at the outset of the World Wide Web.
|
|
|
|
Re 21 plans: it would be routers, PCs, etc. They are seriously hooked up with Intel While we were mocking around at 0.5-0.7w/GH, they were already for AGES (at least since 2014) on 0.22w/Gh See: http://www.coindesk.com/21-intel-bitcoin-mining-strategy/To put it succinctly: their strategy=famous/infamous AOL CDs |
|
|
|
|
too late-2/3 were already mined.
they would have to mostly buy it when needed
|
|
|
|
My two cents: These guesses are wrong. They're not spending $100 million dollars to turn your toaster into a money losing miner. It doesn't make sense.
Now, are they creating an "internet of things" capable toaster? That would make more sense. But that isn't a miner. That's a toaster that communicates with the bitcoin block chain.
What good could possibly come from a toaster "that communicates with the bitcoin block chain?" Why is something like that useful? None of this makes any sense. How many toasters does it take to compete with a 30PH/s mining farm? These ideas would have been cool a couple years ago, but they seem 100% pointless to me today. you just have to apply math to your suggestion. say, 0.1GH/w-very possible with 14-16nm tech not sure about toasters-they are used very infrequently space heater is typically 500w, so one space heater=5Th hence, just 6000 space heaters are your 30ph You don't think that someone can place 6000 space heaters in the whole world or even US alone or 10X that or even 100X times that? |
|
|
|
|
Interesting. However, I don't see how one satoshi can be a transaction with dust limit of 546 satoshis.
If each share will be represented by 546 satoshis, nasdaq will need 546x[2.1bil shares]=~1.1trillion satoshis daily=11 thou bitcoins daily (three times more than daily production).
If each transaction is represented by 546 satoshis, then 546X2.5 mil daily=~1.1 bil satoshis=100 bitcoins daily-more doable.
However, once these satoshis are associated with shares, they will not be able to be associated with newly traded shares, so a constant flow of satoshis will be directed toward shares and these will be removed from daily circulation (until those shares are traded), hence a pool of available satoshis will be constantly depleting.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will absolutely be around in 5 years, at this moment in time it's almost impossible to predict what the price will be.
There are so many possibilities.
We have the halving in summer 2016, Winklevoss twins will probably have their COIN ETF with NASDAQ approved, their Gemini exchange will be up & running, the NY Bitlicense will have been approved.
Plus there will be massive mainstream adoption by then.
If I had to have a guess at the price in 5 years I would conservatively say $2500 with room to be even more.
That's very conservative for you LFC. Did you miss a zero or two in your prediction Seriously though, $2,500 would be my low end guess. That would be the crashing price, the bitcoin is dead price after it rises to $10K+ I was just trying to be conservative mate  I certainly don't think bitcoin will be dead in 5 years, that's a ridiculous suggestion. I think if we go to 10,000 dollars I'll sell probably over half of my stash as that'll make me a very happy man. I'd always hodl a certain amount though. Imagine if you sold everything at 10k & 10 years later we hit 100k. This was discussed at length previously (sane and simple bitcoin savings plan, etc.) Basically, the plan is to sell 10% of your stake at each doubling (and start with no more than 20% of your assets in BTC). Not many can wait until x10 without selling some. I saw another awesome plan: accumulate bitcoin in 2015-2016 until next halving, then stop and proceed to sell 1/x on every birthday with x being a number of years remained in an average expected lifespan (x could be increased if you think that people in your family typically live longer than average). Say, you are 30 and average lifespan for a male in US is 81, hence x=50 in 2016 and every year from then on you will be spending 2% of your bitcoin stash. i think that it could be awesome-gifts, vacations, etc. Personally, the latter plan looks better to me than waiting on doubling which may or may not come. |
|
|
|
Why would one buy a BTC for $490, when the price on US-regulated exchanges is $244?
The answer to this question is simple. The only advantage in buying this fund over buying BTC straight is the ability to purchase in your tax shielded accounts. Therefore, the logical explanation is that people are paying a premium to get exposure to tax free BTC gains. If you believe the price is headed to $10,000, you would much rather purchase at $500 without tax liabilities than to purchase at $250 with tax liabilities. That is the only logical explanation for the premium we are seeing. Then we had to see these premiums on other funds too, like commodity or currency ETFs. E.g. I can put GLD easily into a tax shielded account, but not gold bullion. Nonetheless there is no premium on GLD. This is a moot point anyway as you can buy more than 2 bitcoins for one "GBTC" bitcoin and come ahead even in a taxed account as long as your taxes are less than 50%. In addition, most retirement accounts are tax-deferred, not untaxable (except Roth where you are taxed ufront). |
|
|
|
The electricity meter is a much better candidate than any of these.
theoretically, maybe, but electricity meter that is using 0.5-1kw? Where do those numbers come from ? How about 10 watts times 250 million households == 2500 megawatts of hashing power on a 14-16 nm device node, and as infrastructure gets built out in the developing world, many many times more than this. So, if KNC's chip design partner Alchip is getting .07w/ghs from 16nm 3dFinFet technology: http://ww3.sinaimg.cn/large/7c2c00e3jw1ervfedx421j20t412ttbd.jpgI'm sure Qualcom can do better, lets say .05w/ghs. So, ten watts would be 200ghs per meter and 250 million electricity meters would be get you, umm … 50 ehs (exa-hashes/second). That is approximately 150 times the total hashpower of the existing network. Think about what it would do to difficulty and the effect it would have on existing mining businesses like KNC and who gets power cheaper than the electrical utility companies ? 0.5-1kw is just a power range that I would have an interest in. 10w-frankly, i wouldn't care for myself. cable box-33-55w router 2-20W electrical space heater 600w refrigerator 57-160 w average for numbers see http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.htmlon the right side of the page Q: I wonder if 21 box can be positioned between a powerbox and appliances and once some major appliance kicks in (like dryer or A/c), the 21 box becomes active and draws the power as well. This way although more power will be used, it will be used at the same time as other appliances draw electricity. Alternatively, the box might get active only during the night when there is less consumption by A/C, oven, dryer and washing machine plus perhaps lower rates. |
|
|
|
From company information: Each BIT share represented ownership of 0.1 bitcoins initially. The trust will not generate any income and regularly sells/distributes bitcoins to pay for its ongoing expenses. Therefore, the amount of bitcoin represented by each share gradually declines over time. BTC/USD = $243 BIT/USD = $530 Nice markup! They say it's easier to move money once it's in the system. I'm curious if that's the case and people don't care the 110% premium or they are just un-informed investors? I can give you a use case - in retirement accounts most people can only buy official stocks. So if you expect BTC to go to $50,000, you don't care if you get it at $250 or $500, if your retirement account is such that profits are not taxed, you are still better off paying double in the long run. this is not so. $500 buys you 2.03BTC, and same $$ buy 10 GBTC= ~1BTC. You to have tax rates in excess of 50% in order to make buying GBTC justified mathematically. However, two prices seem to move to converge. When GBTC was $65 and bitcoin 234, it made more sense to sell GBTC and buy bitcoin. I think that GBTC and bitcoin prices will converge at some point. The question is whether bitcoin moves upwards rapidly towards GBTC (not that likely IMO) or whether they both converge which coincides with bitcoin breaking out of its downtrend. from my point of view, they will converge at $350-400 and then move pretty much together. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
