 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
I remembered I saw somewhere before that monitoring the increase in the number of bitcoin wallets is not a good metric to measure the rate of bitcoin adoption. But I cannot remember why that is so. Does anyone know?
Well in general monitor addresses isn't that useful as the more people are educated about not reusing addresses and they start using change addresses it doesn't really tell you much. As far as wallets go, a single person can create 10 wallets on blockchain.info, the metric goes up but really there doesn't have to be any new interest for that metric to go up. I personally think number of transactions (excluding popular addresses such as satoshi dice or pool payouts) is a better metric https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=Speaking of number of transactions....have you noticed that each "bitcoin boom" (as I like to call them) starts when the number of transactions reaches the previous bubble's? I didn't know a single person can create 10 wallets. To be more precise, I suppose you mean account rather than person? I don't see the reason of having multiple wallets though. Multiple addresses I can understand but not multiple wallets. I can see the number of transactions is increasing. To the moon! I login to Blockchain.info just now and try to create multiple wallets. Can't do that. Really? I thought one could have endless wallets, and that's the reason why wallet increasing is not necessarily a true correlation to user increasing. Well, if one can have only one wallet or at most ten wallets at blockchain. Info, things are different. But is it really true? |
|
|
|
Tax system is necessary for human community, isn't it? I thought it was common knowledge.
Whether taxes are spent properly is a different issue, isn't it?
Those who survived without tax can not say other people do not need tax support. If they say so, they don't really need bitcoin as well, as they don't need community.
Humans are social, by nature. Bitcoin will have to go well with tax. But, it does not necessarily go well with fiat! Rape is necessary for human romantic relationships, isn't it? I though it was common knowledge. Whether the victims are chosen properly is a different issue, isn't is? Those who can obtain consensual sex without rape can not say that other people do not need to resort to rape. If they say so, they don't really need sex as well, as they don't need community. Humans are social, by nature, therefore rape is a necessary part of romantic relationships. Hahaaa, interesting comment. I think the extrapolation isn't proper but I'm confused and not in a position to argue. Any one comment on the extrapolation? |
|
|
|
|
Tax system is necessary for human community, isn't it? I thought it was common knowledge.
Whether taxes are spent properly is a different issue, isn't it?
Those who survived without tax can not say other people do not need tax support. If they say so, they don't really need bitcoin as well, as they don't need community.
Humans are social, by nature. Bitcoin will have to go well with tax. But, it does not necessarily go well with fiat!
|
|
|
|
Did anybody notice the China sell off?  My current theory is that China's private credit engine/shadow banking sector has stalled. So Chinese Btc speculators have been forced to liquidate. Any other views out there? Thanks. Exotic theory at best. FUD at the worse. I think a few things hit at the same time and there is a manipulator on the prowl who knew this would be an opportune time because Finex is in the process of reducing and balancing their margin slightly. The question is, how voracious this guy's appetite is. Why it happens so often that a few thing hit at the same time in a bearish market? Is it managed by a manipulator? Or anyone give me a philosophical explanation? I can give you a psychological one: It's all in your head. All kinds of things happen all the time, but the pattern recognition engine that is the mind mostly ignores it until it can link things together in a narrative. A lot of the time, that narrative is entirely fictional. It's strange that people quite often have the same fictional pattern in a bearish market. This clearly makes the market even more bearish! It's hard to understand its only fictional. |
|
|
|
Did anybody notice the China sell off? My current theory is that China's private credit engine/shadow banking sector has stalled. So Chinese Btc speculators have been forced to liquidate. Any other views out there? Thanks. Exotic theory at best. FUD at the worse. I think a few things hit at the same time and there is a manipulator on the prowl who knew this would be an opportune time because Finex is in the process of reducing and balancing their margin slightly. The question is, how voracious this guy's appetite is. Why it happens so often that a few thing hit at the same time in a bearish market? Is it managed by a manipulator? Or anyone give me a philosophical explanation? |
|
|
|
Did anybody notice the China sell off? My current theory is that China's private credit engine/shadow banking sector has stalled. So Chinese Btc speculators have been forced to liquidate. Any other views out there? Thanks. It's not persuasive. If shadow banking sector stalled, the Chinese security market wouldn't have had been so firm. The crypto bulb popped, no fresh money coming in. Is it simple as that? I've got to hodl with my average cost high in the sky. |
|
|
|
|
Is it saying, the more bitcoin is used, the more pressured price is?
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I'm uneasy about projections like "the use of bitcoin will increase 1000x, therefore the price will rise 1000x". I believe the first part, but I don't think the second part follows necessarily.
-----------
That's quite advisory. Increasing user was not the only element for price, velocity is as well. If user increases and circulation quickens, price will not necessarily increase! Anyone comment on this?
|
|
|
|
Bubble's flight has been delayed. Scheduled arrival: November
These are my thoughts exactly. If a new bubble/rally ever comes that is. Yes if. I wonder the same. Because if everyone is expecting another bubble, can one happen, at least so soon? Yes, it can. But the prediction has to be based on valid logic, applied to factual observations: the rise does not happen because of the actions of the current owners (1-2 million) but is an inevitable consequence of the next generation (5-20 million) buying in.Oh you who have so little faith (and logic  )Hodling but sad having no fiat to cover for Aug. How do we know the consequence is inevitable that the next generation is 5-200million buying in? |
|
|
|
|
Does it mean Coinbase itself is an exchange, and now they are using out their btc stock? Everyone is buying btc and no one selling?
if so, how do they know there will surely be some btc selling at Coinbase before next open on 01.40am Aug 22?
|
|
|
|
Whoa, Coinbase is sold out.. "Note! We've exceeded our normal buy limits for today. If you would still like to purchase you will receive the market price of bitcoin on Friday Aug 22, 2014 at 01:49AM EDT after your funds have arrived. read more
Due to higher than normal buy volumes, we are unable to provide exact price quotes right now.
Instead of pausing buys entirely, we decided to give people the option to purchase bitcoin at the market price in a few days. Once your USD funds arrive, we will exchange them to bitcoin at the market price at approximately Friday Aug 22, 2014 at 01:40AM EDT." That's bullish right ?!?!? Not exactly. Smells like manipulation to me. Coinbase can't even "provide exact price quotes right now"? LMFAO Isn't this very strange? I thought coinbase could always buy at exchanges to cover their btc stock. They can't? Why? How do they cover their btc stock? |
|
|
|
With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?
We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing. The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity. With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?
We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing. The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity. It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users, though news is flying daily for more adoption! Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion. If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users? Sometimes you have to conclude based on a combination of direct evidence and inferential evidence. Accordingly, Maybe you will begin to understand that there is increased adoption when you begin to see the price go up? You are asking for more direct evidence, and maybe that direct evidence is ambiguous. so therefore inferences need to be made from it.... Reasonable inferences, that is... You can argue that a reasonable inference is less adoption ... when that is NOT reasonable... But trolls and FUD spreaders like to engage in this kind of selective vision..... Increase liquidity opportunities, investments, conferences and various mainstream news pieces on bitcoin also help to establish that bitcoin adoption is going up and has been going up... If you blindly do NOT want to see various signs that adoption has been going up, then pointing out more direct evidence will NOT help your selective blindness.. imhbo.... Being a holder, I wish to have some encouraging information. However, the information needs to be convincing. Seriously, a hodler's combination of information is unavoidably with prejiduce and that is always my problem. Adoption/wallets are inductive for increasing users. But, I tend to believe it may double if price double overnight ( which is also inductive). |
|
|
|
With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?
We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing. The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity. With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?
We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing. The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity. It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users, though news is flying daily for more adoption! Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion. If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users? |
|
|
|
Buying a little bit to lower average.
Wondering why people expect btc to rise to usd10k? for what reason they believe in this?
Well, the exponential growth trend (though that is lagging heavily to the downside now)..... Metcalfe's law (although the accuracy of that theory is up for debate)..... the storage of value and value transfer capabilities of BTC...... From Wikipedia: Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2). With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further. This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid? |
|
|
|
|
Buying a little bit to lower average.
Wondering why people expect btc to rise to usd10k? for what reason they believe in this?
|
|
|
|
I actually hope that we stay flat like this for several more years, because each week my dad gives me $10 allowance and I like to put half of that toward bitcoin. In 4 more years, I can have 2 full bitcoin!
Hmm, that's a great model, isn't it? One can aford losing all, and can be always in a position buying when price falls. I failed to adapt that model. Pathetically, I bot too heavy during the peak. My remaining capital does not compensate if market falls further. What shall I do? I've got to hodl, and buy regularly to lower my average, with my affordable allowance. Any one give me some suggestions? |
|
|
|
|
Fresh money is needed but there hasn't been enough than fresh coin supply. How do I get that conclusion? Not really I am in a position to occlude anything but that is my agreement with one of the sayings.
How TA would tell where we probably go and for how long?
|
|
|
|
Why would Yuan collapse? It's as good as ever.
Huge banking sector bubble similar to japan in the late 80's The whole world is in bubble and no one knows when and if things will collapse. Many well-known people (banking, hedge funds) are saying China will collapse, USA will collapse, Japan will collapse, EU will collapse, stock market will collapse, etc., but so far they are 100% wrong for many years since financial crisis and people listening to them are losing money not participating in the markets! Some are even saying BTC has no future and is doomed to fail, but 100x gain in one year shows you how no one has a clue what's going on. I am just saying markets are irrational and things can go on like this for years and years. Huobi is currently $10 higher than that of stamp. Will China take lead for this rally again? If so, why China always takes lead? Irration does not explain this. There must be something else behind. |
|
|
|
I can't imagine how average Joes [in China] are still brave enough to flow in with pboc's gun on the back?
I don't think that average Joe clients are under any pressure or threat. At most they may have their bank accounts closed if they manage to use them to trade bitcoins. If there will be penalties, they should fall only on card processors, exchanges, brokers etc.. Hm, clearly the money flow is not cut out but it isn't sufficient for why China is taking lead again. Why China is taking the lead again, even though money flow in is more complicated than other areas? -Chinese are real bitcoin believers? -chinese are more greedy? -chinese whales are special? What else? Maybe because China has a population of like 1 billion. Even if a less percent of the Chinese use bitcoin, it is still a greater number than in the west. For the educated, I wonder whether Chinese population is really bigger? I tend to believe the main reason lies in RMB yuan. Chinese people has less confidence in their currency than other areas. Before Yuan collapses, China may inevitably take lead. |
|
|
|
I can't imagine how average Joes [in China] are still brave enough to flow in with pboc's gun on the back?
I don't think that average Joe clients are under any pressure or threat. At most they may have their bank accounts closed if they manage to use them to trade bitcoins. If there will be penalties, they should fall only on card processors, exchanges, brokers etc.. Hm, clearly the money flow is not cut out but it isn't sufficient for why China is taking lead again. Why China is taking the lead again, even though money flow in is more complicated than other areas? -Chinese are real bitcoin believers? -chinese are more greedy? -chinese whales are special? What else? |
|
|
|
|
