I think many people are once again going to be surprised at how resilient Bitcoin is.
Let's check back in six months, shall we?
"Bitcoin will succeed! I don't know how, but it must!" This mentality is the reason why people tend to see bitcoin as an cult. Too much forced belief in dogmas. |
|
|
|
If it will be concluded as a fact, that mtgox customers lost their money, then there will be a shitstorm that BTC has never seen before.
To me, it's rather amusing how people try to downplay the entire situation.
There will be a shitstorm indeed. However, if investors who thought they held 750,000 BTC* in aggregate realize they now hold 0, this revealed scarcity may blow the price in the upwards direction as easily as negative sentiment may push the price down. *Assuming this is true, of course. At first there has to be an answer how did the funds from gox disappear. Were they stolen over years and sold at the market? Are the private keys lost? But I think that if mtgox will fall, then the scarcity will have very little weight compared to the trust issues that emerge towards the entire market system. Most people they don't care how rare bitcoin is, they just care that their money is safe. |
|
|
|
"what will happen with their customers funds?"
That's the big one isn't it? By all accounts what Mt.Gox is holding in cash and coins is not equal to zero. No doubt even as they were shutting down some people had money transfers en route. What I'm waiting to hear is how much of the money is actually lost and will there be a bail-out. If gox goes away without people losing their money, then this will have an positive effect. But if gox customers funds have dissipated, then we will hear from A LOT of very angry people. And a big part of this anger will be towards bitcoin, not mtgox. The link how bitcoin.org recommended mtgox as the main exchange will be discussed a lot and there will be lots of talks how bitcoin is actually a scam orchestrated by the exchange owners. This will inturn will activate every captain hindsight that will start yelling that they knew all along that bitcoin is a ponzi. In conculsion, bitcoin will lose all of it's positive halo and it will be very hard to sell bitcoin after this. |
|
|
|
Why are mtgox developments still this big subject here? I thought we were just going to let mtgox die already and recover without it.
I also see that some people have trouble burying their head in sand. It's weird, because usually everyone are doing it so well. I think that someone should post a detailed guide how to do it, so we could all just deny that mtgox ever existed and continue to chant choo choo without interruptions. I'm not saying we need to pretend like gox doesn't exist, but rather we need to acknowledge that we've moved on from gox. When I saw the price make a strong rebound from 400 during the gox crash and start recovering on its own, I was incredibly bullish. I thought "here we are, the worst has happened, and the whales are still buying. this the bottom, even with all the bad news about gox priced in and with gox completely gone. now we can move on into a new era of recovery and a new rally. bitstamp is now leading, using entirely strength from bitstamp". The price was doing perfectly fine on it's own. A slow, steady, and strong recovery would have been perfect. We don't need to add accessories like "gox might recover" and pump the price to ridiculous levels right away. All this does is add more drama and uncertaintly, and now the neverending story continues. It is a de-evolution. Now I am back in the same situation I was in for the previous 4 weeks when I was bearish instead of bullish. In all seriousness, the situation with gox is far from over. Questions like "why did mtgox shut it's door?" and "what will happen with their customers funds?" are still unanswered. And these are the important questions. Gox just stopping trading and taking down their website meant very little. People weren't patient enough to wait for clarity about this entire situation and jumped the gun here, so in my view this rise is fragile at best. True recovery will only come if the entire bitcoin market system integrity is no longer under threat. If it will be concluded as a fact, that mtgox customers lost their money, then there will be a shitstorm that BTC has never seen before. To me, it's rather amusing how people try to downplay the entire situation. |
|
|
|
Why are mtgox developments still this big subject here? I thought we were just going to let mtgox die already and recover without it.
I also see that some people have trouble burying their head in sand. It's weird, because usually everyone are doing it so well. I think that someone should post a detailed guide how to do it, so we could all just deny that mtgox ever existed and continue to chant choo choo without interruptions. |
|
|
|
Define irony: You are an attention whore.
|
|
|
|
The thing about Jorge is that he’s a provincial academic. In a country outside the G8, at that. Like most minor academics, especially in middle age, there is a tendency to bitterness which they are self-aware enough to hide. They are the losers and they know it.
At one point the potential must have seemed endless. Imagine being in California in the early 80s, studying Math or Computing at Stanford – what possibilities! The world ready throw billions at you and your contemporaries! Who wouldn’t start a company? Who wouldn’t invest in friends? Who wouldn’t risk just a little in their own future?
No, play it safe. Rise above the crass entrepreneurialism. Teach. Head back to a salary, with a pension. You could have done well, of course, if you’d wanted to, but the guiding, year after year, of smiling young faces was its own reward.
And now, another tech revolution unfolds in front of you. You have the understanding and the ability to invest time or money into the idea. But wait – actual involvement? Wet feet? Action? No, no, no. Not me. That would just emphasise all my other missed chances.
No, I’ll snipe from the safety of my tenure. I could have partaken, honestly, but I’m better than that. I’m aware of it, but above it, because, well, I’m an academic.
You have the talent, the time and resources. But you won’t even buy one coin to see what it’s about. You’re wasting your time and ours in a desperate bid to show some kind of superiority. You’ve taken enough advice and explanation with nothing of interest coming back. You’ve had your moment in this thread, presumably because it’s the busiest, but you should have the decency to set up your own and see if anyone will follow and care there.
Reading this text I imagined an rebellious teenager who is trying to insult his teacher, who in turn is actually trying to help him. All those personal insults towards Jorges alleged status and personal life. Just like from an hollywood teen move.. |
|
|
|
|
It would be funny if it would turn out that Mark Karpeles is in fact Satoshi and he did create bitcoin just as a simple scheme. 1) Create crypto 2) Create exhange 3) Start buying your own crypto and wait when someone sees that someone is buying and will also join in. Soon more will join.
But the scam just got too big and really out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Haha on another note, Its pretty funny that in one breath he says that bitcoin will be super valulable in the future, and then the next says that "hard-working" americans will holding a valueless currency in the next.... make up your mind.
I think that the man is trying to say that a small number of people, will get rich at the expense of others, if bitcoin spreads. I think that this isn't an wrong concern, because this is the logical outcome if bitcoin spreads. I wouldn't worry much though. Evolution will do it's thing and bitcoin will just become obsolete by a digital currency that offers better wealth distribution. Technological evolution has made it harder for people to leech on other people. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised that the senator actually invested in bitcoin and held his money at gox. There will be a lot of hate towards bitcoin from people who got scammed by gox. And they won't care that mtgox is not bitcoin. They will tell that they were invited to buy bitcoins with promises of great wealth. And they know that they did everything right, since they googled bitcoin, found the main trustworthy hub to be bitcoin.org, that directed them straight to gox. People here underestimate how much will bitcoin be blamed if people will lose their money. |
|
|
|
People speculate on the BTC/USD pair (or BTC/crypto) just like they speculate on EUR/USD for instance. They all do it to make more money, because that's what speculators do. Now Bitcoin is a very young currency and still in its volatile growth phase, so it makes sense that more people are holding on to their coins for a longer period of time compared to Euros or Dollars for instance. This is going to change eventually as merchant adoption and the userbase grows. It won't be as easy to move the price around as much when BTC is a trillion dollar market.
Ok, I'll try to explain with more clarity. Maybe there is a language barrier that confuses you. Currencies at forex = attractive for tradingBTC = Attractive for investmentFiat currencies are unattractive as investments because they are inflationary and there is a good logic behind it. People are not making money on forex by investing into a currency, but they are making money by trading currencies with one another and make profit by value fluctuation. People at forex are not investing, but they are trading. I tried to be as clear as possible. |
|
|
|
I assume more buyers and sellers create a more stable price. You should have been here last year when a few hundred coin dump could take the market lower significantly. We've come a ways since then.
I agree that increasing number of participants create some stability, but wealth will still be highly concentrated and most of the market movements are cause by a relatively few people. Because of that, the stability won't increase much. I don't remember that during last year couple of hundred coins made a much bigger splash. I can go with agreeing to disagree here, because with speculation there are no facts. There are only different point of views, and only thing that I want here is to express my point of view  |
|
|
|
Orly? Tell that to Forex traders who speculate in every single currency in the world.
Can't you understand that trading currencies with one another is different from A currency being a good investment? It would also be ok, if people are buying bitcoin to trade with other cryptos and to make money with trade. But people buying bitcoins are buying to hold and to wait for as long as possible to sell. It would be like someone on forex buys USD or CNY to hold and become rich by holding. Don't try to confuse two totally different things with one another please. |
|
|
|
2012 called, he wants his "bitcoin will never be a serious currency" argument back. Markets need buyers and sellers. Price discovery, liquidity, market makers, all that.
Well, what was true in 2012 is true now. Not much has changed in bitcoin structure that would make this argument obsolete. Yes, markets need buyers, sellers etc. It's hard to understand what you're trying to say with that. It certainly isn't a counter-argument to currency needing stability and bitcoin being unable to offer it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an investment that is surrounded by cult behavior, would be my answer to that question. |
|
|
|
Ofcourse the usercount is going to become more stable in future, at some point the market is going to become saturated and the amount of new users getting into bitcoin each day will start to decrease until we reach a stable base. The usercount can't increase linearly or exponentially forever, I'm sure you would have to agree with that as well. So the increase in usercount will slow down as well as the amount of new coins and thus we are going to reach a state of equilibrium eventually. It's just a matter of time.
I don't see it like that. The nature of bitcoin itself keeps any stability from forming when taking into account the price and the amount of users. The main thing (almost the only thing) that attracts people to bitcoin, are promises, that if they buy now, then they can sell later with a lot higher price. That creates this situation where stability is impossible because as soon as the situation becomes stable, then people won't get what they came for and they will start selling/leaving. Bitcoin has to be either on a rise or dropping, there is no stable middle ground. The fundamental flaw here is that a currency shouldn't be attractive as an speculative investment. It ruins the stability, and stability is the main quality of an good currency. A currency should be unattractive as an investment, so it will only be used to transfer wealth and not be considered as a source of wealth by itself. |
|
|
|
User count is going to stabilize at some point, and will become lower than the actual BTC inflation rate. I see no reason why that wouldn't lead to price stability (not in USD terms perhaps but that's because USD is actually not stable at all).
It's hard to believe that the usercount will stop and stay stable. In my idea, it will more probably either increase or decrease. But what remains the same is that the inflow of new coins will slow down and get more expensive. All of it combined will keep bitcoin far away from stability. Good news for day traders. Yeah, exactly! Most of the people are here because they are interested in buying low and selling high, so they can make a easy buck. People aren't here because bitcoin is a practical currency for everyday use. It's all good fun, but bitcoin can't become a serious financial tool because of that. But, I think that the idea of open sourced and transparent monetary system, that is supported by the internet, is very important and it is the future. Bitcoin is just financially too simplistic to do the job. Something more complex has to be made to create a practical currency, that follows the same open source rules of transparency. |
|
|
|
User count is going to stabilize at some point, and will become lower than the actual BTC inflation rate. I see no reason why that wouldn't lead to price stability (not in USD terms perhaps but that's because USD is actually not stable at all).
It's hard to believe that the usercount will stop and stay stable. In my idea, it will more probably either increase or decrease. But what remains the same is that the inflow of new coins will slow down and get more expensive. All of it combined will keep bitcoin far away from stability. |
|
|
|
It's the steep deflationary nature of bitcoin that turns most people off.
Steep howso? The supply of new coins will slow down and become more expensive, while the user count is increasing. That deflationary part is good to attract investors with promises "buy now, and you will be 10000x richer soon", but it does stop bitcoin from becoming a practical currency. What a quality currency needs is price stability, that is just not possible with bitcoin. Stable deflation rate, that would make a currency work, would be around 1% a year. Bitcoin is far from it. |
|
|
|
Step 1 is that all deposited bitcoins should be to per-account wallets with the public key known to the depositor.
Fiat? On your own there.
Edit: This does need some kind of cold-storage option though.
I think that the Step 1 you offered is a really good idea. Only option that I have came up with to keep things honest around fiat is a self-regulatory information based system. The exchanges have to pass quarterly audits to show that all the fiat is there and it isn't being used for anything else that it is meant to. These audits will be voluntary of course, but those exchanges who refuse cooperation will be flagged untrustworthy in the wider field of information around bitcoin. This will cause a problem of neutrality, but I think that this can be overcome with proper methods. I think that using information to promote some exchanges and warn people about other exchanges is the only realistic regulatory system that doesn't have to involve the state. And the good thing is that it also works globally, while state enforced regulations only work locally. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
