The team are now saying that the big dump has been postponed.

Kinda surprised Kwukduck didn't return to this thread to update us...

At the beginning the price wasn't $1 - price didn't reach $1 until early 2011.

At that point I had 0.5 BTC I'd got from Gavin's faucet, and another 50 BTC I'd mined (with my CPU!). I'd almost forgotten about Bitcoin ("BitCoin"!) until I read the Slashdot article, because a few months earlier I'd looked into how much money I could sell my BTC for, and I gave up when I discovered I'd only make a few dollars, and then I'd still have to convert that into GBP.

And think back to the famous pizza purchase - 1 BTC was priced at much less than  1 USD then.

I'm sorry, I thought when you said...
...that you were  talking about bugs that a developer would be able to locate, recognise as an issue, and potentially fix. If you're actually talking about <ahem> industrial secrets I won't bother trawling through the source code on the word of an anonymous internet dude. Thanks, I guess, for saving me and others the time.

For anyone who supports Bitcoin and the open source development process it uses, you can log bugs on the issue tracker.

To save us wading through the source code in its entirety, could you link to the relevant bug reports?

Check Kwukduck's posting history. You'll see plenty of sky-is-falling thread starts, followed by replies asking for analysis justifying the prediction, and then nothing from Kwukduck - until the next sky-is-falling post. The only thing new with this post is that Kwukduck now has an analyst team to blame.

The only analysis here is that Kwukduck sold at $10 and hopes one day to buy back in.

I don't know, but he can claw back some money by firing his "analysis team"

Or, instead of linear increases, it could rise slightly less that 0.95% every day for 24 days. That seems less difficult (and is "easier" than what we saw in October: if you look at price increases for the 24 days up to and including 29 October - when price reached $300 - then the average price increase is over 1%).

Not saying that we will see an increase (personally I think we'll see a fairly flat trend until the New Year), just that it's not as unlikely as it might appear at first glance.

I can't really do anything other than refer you to my past two posts and reiterate that I've never said "few", "two" or indeed anything about weeks. The purpose was to challenge purported evidence from a scrypt.cc apologist, not to make a value judgement on Crazyivan's post. Hence I replied to Dumbasef, not Crazyivan. And that's why I quoted/paraphrased what the participants in the discussion had said, rather than say anything myself (beyond checking that Dumbasef remembered what they were initially replying to).

And to be honest, I don't think Crazyivan's initial comment is in any way unreasonable. Yours was the first post I'd seen here that suggested a fortnightly schedule for withdrawals working. Good to know, however.

Regardless, I think when someone responds with "who cares" to a post complaining that they haven't addressed the issue that they deserve to be called out on it.  Particularly here, particularly with scrypt.cc, where shills and apologists have tried and still do try to diminish the great work other posters do warning off prospective investors.

I don't recall mentioning 2 weeks at all. I was pointing out that Dumbasef didn't address Crazyivan's point, and when called out on it responded with a "who cares" post. Dumbasef could have said "I doubt we'll see withdrawals being processed for a few days - they seem to iccur every two weeks". That would have been useful, on-topic and not disingenuous. Instead they posted something which purported to counter a claim, but didn't. And they got called out on it by Crazyivan, and then by me when they attempted to hand-wave Crazyivan away.

Uh, you realise you replied to a poster who said that there had been no payments for weeks, right?

(Paraphrasing):

Crazyivan: there have been no payments for weeks.

Dambasef: yes there have, look!

Crazyivan: that shows no payments in the past few weeks.

Dumbasef: who cares!

I always wondered why CNH existed, but there wasn't a comparable code for Eurodollars etc. Thanks!

There almost certainly will be - the difference will reflect the cost of arbitrage. An arbitrageur would need accounts at Huobi (say) and a non-Chinese exchange (Bitstamp, say), and a way to get CNY exchanged for USD. It's that last part that's hard, and probably forms the largest part of the cost of this arbitrage.

Not the OP, but how's this (it's from OS X's Dictionary app):


Wiktionary offers a similar definition:


There are other definitions of course (apparently there's a game called "Speculation", for example) but this one seemed the most apt for Bitcoin and a sub-section of the "Economics" section of the forum.

+1 for meta, but also agreeing with the original point.

I think the problem is the word "Speculation". To me that means "speculating with BTC", i.e. it's a section of the forum for discussing trading. To a lot of people it seems to mean "any speculation about the price of BTC is on-topic". Regardless of who's correct, the latter spawns a greater number of low-value replies (1, 2 word posts, etc).

However, I also tend to agree with the poster who suggested that ignoring this section is the answer! It's maybe an OK tool for scanning and assessing sentiment, but speculators probably don't need to read 100 posts providing yes/no answers to the question "will BTC reach eleventy thousand this month?" to trade effectively.

I'm definitely a buyer/hodler too. But there are traders who'll tell you we're wrong, because we sacrifice the potential to make even more profit by buying dips/selling peaks.

It's similar here. This strategy makes no sense to us, because it requires the investor to sacrifice all that goodness we get from holding now. But for someone with less confidence in BTC, or who has other, potentially more lucrative investments they could park their funds in for a while - this strategy is worth consideration.

Edit: spelled "hodl" wrong. Is "hold" even a word?!

Not exactly. You're replacing the risk-of-investing-in-BTC-while-it-goes-sideways with the risk-of-investing-in-other-instrument. There's no getting away from risk, it's the price we pay for reward. The best we can do is manage risk and try and ensure our assessment of risk is consistent with what we believe reward will be. (And in this scenario, the investor believes that not-BTC will outperform BTC).

Because right now we're not in a confirmed uptrend (well, it depends on the timescale. But I don't see an uptrend that'll take us to the moon being confirmed yet). Price could go down, it could go sideways (with the opportunity-loss to match, i.e. funds tied up in BTC going sideways, when they could be invested in something more profitable). Or price could up, of course - in which case you're correct. But we have no way of accurately predicting risk, only ways to manage it. And this strategy is one such way.

Well yeah, obviously. But it's about risk vs. reward - you sacrifice some reward in the hope of reducing risk. Whether the reduced reward is worth it is a judgement call - how far beyond 1300 do you expect price to go? If you believe we're going to reach the current ATH and then fall back shortly after, the reward probably won't make the reduced risk worth it. My feeling is that if we pass the current ATH we're going to see prices go far, far further - and the lost rewards from 350-1300 will be fairly insignificant. I hope so, because I'm in and I'm hodling.

I dunno, it's not a strategy I'm going to follow, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable strategy - not much difference to buying when price rises above the upper Bollinger Band. It also frees up funds to invest in other things while we wait for a clear movement from BTC.

Two years ago was just after the ATH. To get prices comparable to today, we'd need to go back to early November 2013, and back to October for lower prices (early October for prices lower than they have been throughout 2015).

I think the lucky people are those who bought between January and October this year, when price was ranging between 200 and 300. I picked up a few bargains around 220, and I know other people did too.