 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
See here : http://cointelegraph.com/news/115935/expect-bitcoin-price-to-reach-us1200-or-more-next-year-experts-say and tell me what do you think about what those "experts" said . Erik Voorhees, CEO Shapeshift :
“$1,800. Mining supply cut in half, continued growth and use of the platform, financial institutions realizing BitcoinCT r: 2 is the BlockChain, and more people discovering they can save 20% at Starbucks with FoldApp.” Bobby Lee, CEO BTCC:
“My estimate is around $2,000. The biggest driver behind price increases will be increased global awareness of Bitcoin. Today, the price of Bitcoin is $1 per capita. My price target for the next year is $5 per capita, which is around $2,000 per Bitcoin. For comparison, the price of Gold is at $1,000 per capita.”
Jeff Berwick, chief editor of The Dollar Vigilante:
“$1,799. Biggest drivers: bank, currency and economic collapse.”
Andreas Antonopoulos, Bitcoin expert, speaker, entrepreneur:
“I don't do price speculation. It's astrology for markets and I think it is irresponsible for media companies to do this.”
Vishal Gupta, CEO SearchTrade:“Next year post halving I expect 5x price rise, so we could see Bitcoin between $1,500 to $2,000 range by the end of 2016. Mining Rewards halving had 8x impact on price last time around in 2012.”
Lol, never fails, OP. Just like 50 Bitcoin Experts Reveal (Guess) What Bitcoin Will Be Trading At Within The Next 12 Months (published February 25, 2014)Enjoy  |
|
|
|
miners are like the honey-badger... they don't give a shit:
As long as the miners are happy, I'm happy. No matter how the price craters, 1 BTC will always be 1 BTC. |
|
|
|
Got ~23 bux already. Just $562,999,977 to go :\ |
|
|
|
Most American finex accounts still locked -- can't withdraw or trade, can't buy if can't trade  |
|
|
|
It might be slowly going down right now, but this is somewhat expected.
This is nothing like the post-halvening moon I was promised. This sucks |
|
|
|
homie.  I don't speak Jive; diminutive for homo? Will 568 hodl? |
|
|
|
Looks like a mini-trend-reversal, up to $571.84?
Maybe not... O well, moar cheap coinz for me. |
|
|
|
|
The price is falling again. Any reason for this?
|
|
|
|
|
^Dunno. You think that buy wall @530 on BTC-e is real?
|
|
|
|
new poll
the day grows nearer, BFX/BTC trading to go live SOONTM
what will (or would) you do with your BFX tokens?
Not seeing the "Buy an archipelago and build a franchise of privatized gulags" option. Where is it? |
|
|
|
bitcoin is the idea of freedom of association and transfer of value that once envisioned, cannot be overcome.
A boatload of value just got transferred to the nice gentlemen running Bitcoin's premiere, most secure exchange: Bitfinex. In return, the gentlemen are giving you some valuable tokens. Makes me feel good inside |
|
|
|
Price dropped further the economy day. 630 now.
is bitfinex hacked again? Or bitfinex intentionally shut itself down?
Yes and yes. |
|
|
|
Below is an analysis of the decision-making process: 1) If the small block of bitcoin can guarantee decentralization of bitcoin (though it is still uncertain whether decentralization can be achieved), bitcoin can survive despite of the government’s hostility or not. However, the small block will restrict further development of bitcoin. 2) A large block will expose bitcoin to risks of losing its decentralization. If the government is against bitcoin, bitcoin is doomed to die. 3) If bitcoin is expanded into a large block and the government is not against its existence, bitcoin will fare better and its development will be unlimited.  (Whether the big block will result in centralization is not discussed in this article. This article is written in the mind-set of opponents.) Because we cannot know whether the government is against bitcoin, the safest way is to maintain decentralization of bitcoin as much as possible no matter whether its development is the best. This is a typical prisoner’s dilemma. That's not Prisoner's dilemma, what you got there (from looking at the picture) is more like Pascal's wager. The decision matrix looks like this: God exists (G) God does not exist (¬G) Belief (B) +∞ (infinite gain) −1 (finite loss) Disbelief (¬B) −∞ (infinite loss) +1 (finite gain) Pascal's wager, like your proposition, is misleading. Your variable valuation is arbitrary: big blocks don't lead to centralization, assumption that non-mining nodes contribute to decentralization is unjustified (and unreasonable), as is your assumption that non-mining nodes would be the point of attack, etc., etc. Garbage in, garbage out. |
|
|
|
following though experiment: Which of the following scenes is the most decentralized?
1) A million people are operating their respective full-nodes at home and another one million are independent bitcoin users. (This is equal to the population of a small city.)
2) There are ten thousand independent full-nodes but just 100 million people using bitcoin. (This is equal to the population of a G20 country.)
*3) There are 10 full-nodes and all mankind is using bitcoin. The conclusion of the above experiment is clear. It is the least possible for the government to be hostile to bitcoin in the third scene, and the most likely in the first scene. The current development of bitcoin is most similar to the first scene. In reality, there are 5,409 nodes, or 994,591 fewer than in your example. These 5,409 nodes belong to roughly 3,000 people (my rough guesstimate, some people/businesses run multiple nodes, people with access to free/cheap VPS in the hundreds). So we're not talking cities, we're talking village/tiny town. The governments don't need to/won't attack nodes. Making Bitcoin use illegal and cutting off fiat (banks servicing exchanges) would be enough to marginalize Bitcoin and make it irrelevant. But if you're thinking in terms of technical attacks, pretty much any government can deploy nodes numbering by the millions, at a minute's notice. Blocking port 8333 by ISPs would be easier still. |
|
|
|
|
Op ain't wrong tho. People from third-world shitholes come here to scratch out some change by spamming the shit out of this place in broken English.
Nothing against them, I'd do it too if I was broke. I'd also turn on all my brokeass friends to this disruptive alternative to panhandling.
|
|
|
|
|
