What I find hilarious of this current crash, is that it isn't the chinese selling. :

What we have now is the adjustment to the reality that the adoption curve is really log-logistic as I have shown, thus rpietila's claim from his linear adoption projection chart that the price should be $900+ is likely incorrect.

My best way to convince you this is so, is to note that there is no way the universe would remove all competition to make it so easy for lazy investors to become so insanely rich. To become very wealthy requires active knowledge in developing and managing. The universe doesn't hand great sustained wealth to people who make one lucky decision. Rather (even the greatest of all time such as Jesse Livermore) speculators always end up back at 0 eventually.

Bitcoin is not going to $0 and it is going higher eventually. But the rate of price appreciation will not be "to the moon" although another speculative frenzy might make you believe that one more time (to your great demise because next time it will really crash hard because adoption will have drastically slowed and there will be other vastly superior competitors taking over the ecosystem).

Btw, I have looked into the eye of the future of crypto-currency and I have seen that Bitcoin is going to be wiped out. I have seen some new designs in the past few days that blew my mind.

You are going to be hit with an onslaught of very serious altcoins and not just my designs.

Im still suprised. Seem to have chosen a quite good line. This one is on the 1m chart.

You are ignoring my point about marginal supply and demand sets price.

We can't use fundamental demand arguments during a speculative move.

The lower the price goes, the more panic selling among those who bought at higher nosebleed levels during the 2013 bubble.

At what price did the huge surge in new buyers come last year? Looking at a volume x price chart from 2013 should tell us where the bottom should be.




You ignore and did not address the point.

Bitcoin will continue to have value because it is an ignorance bubble among white male fanatics. It will also have value because it is the liquid backbone of exchange for an ecosystem that will solve the above problem with altcoins that are superior to Bitcoin. Bitcoin will also grow in value because it is the NWO coin and the governments are going to be promoting it and the institutional players will chime in with government compatible offchain services that eventually get the blessing from the government and exclusions to tax hurdles in order to increase mass adoption. At that point, Bitcoin will be effectively a fiat system. Any way, Bitcoin is already controlled by a few people.

Bottom line is Bitcoin will bottom and then the price will go up again. It is an investment but not a solution to what we wanted idealistically. But it is a necessary stepping stone.




Those bad guys wielded widespread power to pull off what they did and get the entire world to change into a police state against terrorism, yet you attribute relative impotence to them.

Have you not seen the billboards for example in London urging citizens to report anything they see, because of the threat of terrorism. Have you not traveled and seen that nearly all public venues (malls, airports, etc) have security guards that have hissy fits if they see even a hang bag laying unattended.

Or I guess that global coordination was just a random outcome.  

Because price is now low, people are making this supposed loss of fungibility a big issue, as if it was the end of everything. We have been dealing with this kind of legislation in the PM industry for decades and it is not a big deal. It is not the reason why PM's are not practical to be used as money.

Sure you have to pay taxes on gains, but the fact that you have gains should be the interesting thing here. Even if there was a blockchain-level registration of all your bitcoins, and requirement to keep track of the cost basis of every satoshi, you would not even notice given proper software. This ruling is the beginning of all good things bitcoin, except the loss of anonymity which wasn't there to begin with.

Besides I am sick with this US-centricism. There are 220 other legislations out there to choose from if you don't like the ruling. In my opinion it was very reasonable and I can only dream of 18% cgt rates here..

TL;DR: You are just panicking. Sell all your bitcoins to me.

There are two things to distinguish : bitcoin as a payment technology and bitcoin as a unit of value. These are two completely different things and most of the confusion in the media and in the mind of people is linked to the fact that we have named the platform/ecosystem and the "system units" with the exact same name.
The author of the bye bye bitcoin article assumes that bitcoin needs to be used as a unit of monetary value to have a commercial role, which is absolutely not the case.
Good and services can be denominated in FIAT currency, but bought through a web of services that are built on the bitcoin technology rather than through Visa Mastercard for exemple.
Where this leads us is that bitcoin will not be used that much as a direct payment unit by the masses. In such scenario, we would not see prices denominated in bitcoins and people paying from their personal bitcoin wallet due to the non-fongibility concerns created by authorities like the IRS.
However, we can still see the huge development in the use of the bitcoin technology in the context of exclusive FIAT denomination of goods and services and exclusive FIAT denomination of the funds of the consumer. This is what is completely missed by that Georgetown law professor who mixes the bitcoin technology with the unit of monetary exchange function.
What must be understood is that each bitcoin is nothing else than a piece of the bitcoin system. Wether individual consumers need bitcoin or not to make payments is not very relevant if they are going to use a service that does use bitcoin. Because in that case the bitcoin will need to be held by the companies who operate the services that are based on the technology. If large volumes are traded on services that are using this technology, the bitcoin value will have to reflect in FIAT value, the FIAT value of these trading volumes.

Bitcoin is growing up from a gadget that people are sending directly between themselves to being a payment system technology. Claims that the technology is not suitable are based on the current experience based on the current ecosystem in which there are almost no big companies offering user interfaces, offering insurances, hiding the complexities at technical, fiscal, legal and all other levels.

Imagine for exemple the application of the "pay for online content" use, where website and content providers can ask the payment of a fee for a direct access to their content wether it is a single article, a video or whatever. Today they have to do it as a recurring monthly fee because most people would not bother going through a purchase with credit card to pay a few cents and the transaction fees would not make it possible. But if people know of a company who is managing this, you just install a browser plugin, you have your credit card linked with your account with that company, and that company gives you access to all the content, automatically deducting your account of the few USD cents. What happened behind the doors ? There was a bitcoin based transaction at the moment you authorised your browser plugin to charge you a fee for that content : the company offering you that browser plugin will send bitcoin to the company having the deal with the content provider. But wether you are the content consumer or the content provider, you are not concerned about it. Only the company offering the service to you and the company offering content providers to be paid will be using the technology and will have used a portion of the 12 million BTC "system units" in existence to reflect the monetary value of the transaction.

So, no. BTC will not replace USD or EUR in the monetary denomination because it cannot be a monetary unit. It's volatility and non-fungibility in some countries make it impossible. It is rather a share of the usability of an ecosystem. Even if the analogy is far from complete, we can say that you don't need a Facebook share to use Facebook. Yet the facebook share value reflects the amount of users that are using the platform. If it was misunderstood that one had to actually buy Facebook shares to open a Facebook account and use the platform, it would be easy for experts to claim that this social website would not work. Not because the social website could not function, but because of their misunderstanding.

What we are seeing right now is the death of the dream of the new universal monetary unit that some imagined BTC would have become. At some higher level it will always be a unit of exchange, but not for the masses. At the same time, after a technological breakthrough, we are witnessing the birth of an ecosystem of services that would offer tremendous value to a big portion of the population. Today, it seems that this ecosystem is going to be built on 12 million "system units" or "shares" called bitcoins, which is what gives them a speculative and theoretical value far beyond today's value.

The value of Bitcoin must go down for all that it cannot and will not be. Similarly, it will go up for all that it can and will be.

This would be a serious blow, since roughly 60% of global Bitcoin trading occurs in China. Bitcoin prices fell by almost 10% today.

The IRS ruled that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are property, not currency... they are subject to capital gains taxation ... This means Bitcoins are not fungible, and that makes it unworkable as a currency. If I have to figure out which particular Bitcoin in my wallet I want to spend and what the tax treatment will be, Bitcoin just doesn’t work as a commercial medium of exchange. Bitcoin still works as a speculative medium, but Bitcoin’s claim has always been to being more than the latest iteration of the trading sardines–it aspired to be a commercial medium.