That's no bear mask, that's a full on troll-mask. Just completely giving up on the "researching" schtick I see.
Why a troll? I am very skeptical that Bitcoin will succeed, I already explained why I think so. You are no troll Stolfi, just a bear. PS: Your "bull-mask" prediction indicate a 20% chance of staying between 400$ and 500$ this year. Given bitcoin's volatility I think that is highly unlikely. I would take you up on a bet if I didn't already know the answer was no  . People feeding the trolls again I see.  I like to think some of the trolls here are just misguided and selfrighteous bears, who might listen to reason in the end. Sorry for probably being naive  . |
|
|
|
The facts here are simple. BTC price is dependant on USD and it can be seen by merchants not willing to accept BTC without BitPay converting them right to USD.
Now, go, run boy. Buy yourself a brain and try to debate that.
How does "being able to change BTC for X" --> "BTC is dependent on X" In your "logic" couldn't you say that the BTC price is dependent on JPY too? Of course merchants (and especially those with low margins) will want to have the smallest exchange risk possible and for now exchange BTC for the lower volatility currencies (ie traditional fiat). But more importantly, how do you think BTC gets its price? |
|
|
|
Dam it seems like everyone on here bought like sub 100. I feel like I am the only one who heard about it recently (1100 when I heard about it in late november). Am I too late to the game  I am sure people who bought at 1$ felt the same about the "early adopters" who bought below 0.10$... But yes, at one point people will be too late to the game (in order to make big speculative gains, and possibly even lose quite a bit of money in the "final bubble"). Where we are now is up to you to decide |
|
|
|
Honestly though, it would be more fair to look at monetary inflation (in which bitcoin is still quite inflationary at present, admittedly).
Why would that be more fair? What matters is what 1 unit of currency can buy. That is not determined by how many units could be printed, not even by how many exist, but by how many are in circulation, and the demand for them. Because price inflation is more prone to "quick" (I am talking months to years here) ups and downs (due to credit and business cycles), while the monetary base is a better predictor for purchasing power on a very long timescale imo. Then again, my reasoning assumes that the use case of the currency doesn't really change substantially, and because bitcoin is so young, how it will be used probably has a bigger impact on price evolution than it's monetary inflation in the first years to come. (but one can speculate about how it will be used, like Cypherdoc I think bitcoin is quite attractive as a store of value/reserve currency). snip exchange compliancy
Thanks for the info dude, much obliged ! |
|
|
|
Approximate annual inflation rates since Jan/2014: Euro Area (Euro) 1% USA (Dollar) 1.6 % China (Yuan) 2% Brazil (Real) 6.5% Argentina (Peso) 11% Venezuela (Bolívar) 54% Bitcoinland (Bitcoin) 350% How 'bout a 2 year average? That would give quite the different picture . Honestly though, it would be more fair to look at monetary inflation (in which bitcoin is still quite inflationary at present, admittedly). |
|
|
|
Sloppy would truly be an understatement if someone is actually paying you (highly?!) for financial analytics. It's more probable that you're plain out lying, because you can't be this thick even if you understand just the basic of finance.
If you would dig around the forums a bit, you should find that aminorex is one of the most knowledgeable posters around here. His way of stuffing tons of abstract concepts into one sentence might seem like pseudo-intellectual gibberish to some, but that's just because they don't see what the hell he means. I, too have my troubles with that sometimes (I think he's the only poster ever whose intelligence got acknowledged by AnonyMint, that's got to count for something lol  ) Well, then the account of this highly intelligent individual has been compromised by an moronic jackass who he can't even understand how USD is actually THE thing that gives value to BTC? You my friend are fucking clueless... |
|
|
|
Panic....because of panic....because idiots.
we should be so grateful for idiots. they part with money so easily. I don't trade or buy. Why should i be happy when the price goes down? How much longer will you be happy with "cheap coins"? Another 5 years? Do you want to post here 5 years from now cheering because the price dropped to 5 dollars? Cheap coins? Maybe sell a little portion, just enough to pay for anger management classes. Careful, you are about to be publically ignored with a "buh-bye" . I just don't know how your life will ever be the same  . |
|
|
|
420 being tested again on Stamp... when will it end?!
I don't think we are in a hurry back to 340$. |
|
|
|
Must confess I wish I bought and kept some coins from yesterday I own a time machine and I will take you back to one time frame. 24 hours it is.....Although, you could have gone back to feb 11 2009  Better yet, go back to 2008, try to get in touch with Satoshi (all the while being ready to start mining the shit out of bitcoin as soon it is released), only to realize after some unsuccesfull attempts.... YOU are Satoshi ! |
|
|
|
Woke up this morning and realized I hardly put any bids where I though it was most likely to go ($350-360). Sucks  . 1) It might have been the "real" bottom. (maybe not, but it's a valid candidate imho) --> I didnt buy enough 2) With the little I bought, I don't wanna risk selling part of the trading stash on this bounce. --> I miss out on "if it goes back down, at least I'll have more coins" |
|
|
|
Wait:
Just imagine that the owner of the stolen Gox coins would jump in right now and start his big dump.
It's a scenario, if you were to take into account that the Gox coins haven't been spent yet. Such a bazooka would sent us all the way back to the double digits.
Don't talk like that  lol Please do, that would be quite awesome. |
|
|
|
Don't worry wall street is moving in any day now. On Jun 1, btc will IPO on nasdaq and there will just be one giant candle to $5000 regardless of whatever the chart was.
Seriously what is up your a**? You predict downward and we go downward. This whole board is bearish. What is your problem? Where are you even reading such proclamations? This board a week ago . |
|
|
|
Is the 21 million BTC cap good for them?
Any miners that don't like it can mine blocks for a different chain. Nobody will follow them - I thought we covered this yesterday. No, you assumed that some "bad" miners would try do that in order to destroy bitcoin or whatever, and claimed that the "good" miners would not let them do that. I am asking about your "good" miners. is the 21 M BTC limit good for them? My guess is they want to mine something with value ... |
|
|
|
I know this is the wrongest place ever to mention this, but I wish the price would just plummet to the point where all the people who are in this for the money would disappear. Bitcoin is about so much more than it's dollar value. We are building something more important than the internet, and it's like people are obsessing over the price of domain names.
You are being very unrealistic if you are of the belief that getting rid of speculators is helpful to BTC... In the end, the speculators are likely to make or break BTC... Speculators are likely needed in order to drive incentives to build infrastructure and to get other people interested - expanding the user base. good point. I shouldn't hang around here, I need to become that guy that makes bitcoin practical for the unbanked masses. unbanked masses doesnt need financial tools. they need water & food. tsss And how are they going to loan money to build the infrastructure needed to get that? See microcredits. |
|
|
|
However, we are currently witnessing all the bears, even the pretty smart ones, going full retard. It kinda boggles my mind? Never seen anything like this before.
Care to give an example of what you mean? To me at least, the delusionally bullish posts ("that's it! trend reversal choo choo!") seem pretty balanced right now with the bear FUD ("Single digits, mark my words!"). But maybe i'm biased... I feel like the posts are pretty balanced atm too. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, Thank you for the feature requests, we always evaluate them although we don't add them all unfortunately. On another note, we are happy to present you the result of our first audit on our BTC reserves: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560457We would like to perform regularly more such audits, including for our LTC reserves (and why not USD reserves once professional forms jump onto this market). Have a good day Raphael Bitfinex team Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
Congrats Stick & Slush ! Trezor is one of the truly important projects in Bitcoin, and you must have been working your asses off. Keep up the good work ! |
|
|
|
The Martingale "system" has no sound rational basis to even be called a system in the first place, because it does not actually do anything statistically that in any way improves outcome of any arbitrary series of fixed bets.
All the Martingale system actually does is play psychological games with your perception of wins and losses, and appeals to a misguided sense that the individual bets are somehow not statistically-independent events.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure casinos love the Martingale, since it gets you betting more and more on losing bets. They do NOT like any system that may be employed by any gambler in which the gambler walks away with 1 satoshi more than he started with. Martingale doesn't change the expected return of a bet. It only results in a large probability of a small win, and a small probability of a big loss. The average expected return stays the same. Casino's won't mind as long as they can say stop when the betting amount gets too high. The starting unit can be any unit.. you can start at $100.... and each time you win you start again at $100.. so then you are accumulating $100 for each series.. yes, you may have a 7 time losing streak that results in bets of $6,400.. but that would be rare.. you are mostly going to stay in the $100 to $1600 territory... and pocket $100 each time... and yes, if you go there starting at $100, then you will likely need to bring a pretty big bankroll in the unlikely event of a losing streak of 10 that brings you to the $51,200 bet... that way it may be better to start with a $1 or a $2 or maybe at most a $10 bet...just in case you have a prolonged negative streak. None of that changes what I said. It doesn't matter that losing is rare, as long as (odds of loosing * amount lost)>(odds of winning * amount won), you are on average going to lose money. This is a situation in which you should listen to your mathematical brain, not the intuitive one, cause while the latter is very handy for handling complex situations, it takes shortcuts and is buggy. |
|
|
|
The Martingale "system" has no sound rational basis to even be called a system in the first place, because it does not actually do anything statistically that in any way improves outcome of any arbitrary series of fixed bets.
All the Martingale system actually does is play psychological games with your perception of wins and losses, and appeals to a misguided sense that the individual bets are somehow not statistically-independent events.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure casinos love the Martingale, since it gets you betting more and more on losing bets. They do NOT like any system that may be employed by any gambler in which the gambler walks away with 1 satoshi more than he started with. Martingale doesn't change the expected return of a bet. It only results in a large probability of a small win, and a small probability of a big loss. The average expected return stays the same. Casino's won't mind as long as they can say stop when the betting amount gets too high. |
|
|
|
 In terms of the type of pendent. Heres what it suggests. But, obviously there are other factors. Aha, but the correct prediction was already in there without you realizing it  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
