This is the WSJ writer Harriet Agnew's twitter page https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnewLots of activity in financial reporting. Would be real egg-on-face to have the wrong Avalon completely. Edit: two earlier crypto pieces: Harriet Agnew @HarrietAgnew 5 Jul @annairrera @tylerwinklevoss @winklevoss The crypto community is pumping up the next new thing: Litecoins http://bit.ly/16beDAD Harriet Agnew @HarrietAgnew 5 Jul Q&A with #Bitcoin backer @tylerwinklevoss: http://bit.ly/1bbQaAI @winklevoss Expand |
|
|
|
I don't know, but it would be a crazy coincidence that it would be both Avalon and 200 million again.
Plus, of all companies why Avalon?
they were the first ASIC producers to come to market, so proven track record also, Phoenix probably negotiated the best deal with them Also, their identities are known and they aren't massive failures like BFL.  Maybe Joe Lewis is an avid reader of Phinnaeus Gage's posts! |
|
|
|
Yep, probably time to forget mining and just buy bitcoin.
While it's still affordable  $106, $107 just now... |
|
|
|
|
Why would it cost anything like $200m to take the Avalon design to the latest, narrowest chip tech?
Surely a few million would be enough. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
The only connection I see there is the $200 million figure.
I just don't see why $200m is needed to beef up the Avalon operation. Since Avalon did their first ASIC on a shoestring (couple of million?) why would it take $200m to go the latest chip technology. Surely something like $5m would be enough. HashFast and CoinTerra are not going to spend anything more than a few million either. |
|
|
|
This idea that chip companies are just going to mass produce mining chips, take on all the risk associated with chip failure and rising difficulty and then just sell their chips to other people to make a guaranteed profit is not going to happen. It's a fantasy.
People are not going to assume all the risk and then give away most of the profits.
No surprise that many of the ASICminer customers will struggle to earn back the price they paid for their hardware. AM does the maths with projected difficulty, and takes the lions share of any conceivable returns of what they sell. |
|
|
|
Seems plausible, let's go with the 500k amount of bitcoin users/owners.
The next question would be, is $1 billion market cap too high, or too low?
$1 billion divided by 500k users is $2000 per user/owner. Meaning each user/owner values bitcoin for $2000 on average.
If we compare this with the fiat market, that has $30 trillion market cap if I remember correctly for 6 billion people. That's $5000 per person.
Or looking at the USA, base money supply (balance fed) of 3 trillion, amount of people 316 million. That's $10,000 per person.
Or looking at Eurozone, base money supply (balance ECB) of 2.4 trillion, amount of people 332 million. That's €7000 per person, or $10,000 per person too.
From this I would conclude that if indeed there are only 500k bitcoin users/owners than the current valuation of $1 billion, or $2000 per person, is certainly not excessive, in fact it's undervalued compared to fiat. Or maybe not considering bitcoin is still used much less than fiat, even by the bitcoin users/owners. But it does not look overvalued.
Again everything depends on this estimate how many users/owners bitcoin has.
I think this just indicates that the current $1b valuation is in keeping with its user-base. The difference is that the US$ or euro are not going to double their users anytime soon, if ever. Whereas Bitcoin has massive potential upside in user-base terms. It could increase its users 10x which would increase its valuation similarly. Intriguing coinicidence that the number of addresses used on the blockchain, 11.4m, is close to the number of coins created at 11.5m. |
|
|
|
|
Mining is not gambling. It is a business investment with a theoretically positive ROI. Would you say that Shell is into gambling because it has to gamble that when it spends $100m to drill a deep-sea well that it will find oil? Sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it is "lucky".
I suspect that the HMRC will look at the number of transactions from mining over time and determine any profits as retained income. However, for those just sitting on a bitcoin stash which doubles in value, that would be a 1-time fx gain and not be regarded as income. Capital gains tax may apply though.
|
|
|
|
today a 2k+ wall appeared at 105 so buying pressure has increased, someone then moved 2k from 103 to join it at 105, hence the drop from 4k+ to 2k+ at 103, i'm guessing the new wall is just the person who pulled most of their buy wall when the price was dropping couple of days ago.
Perhaps some whale buyers are afraid of missing the train. The 4 hour gox chart looks like a pennant breakout is happening, like this example...  |
|
|
|
I have over 20 addresses with BTC in them, counting my 'change' addresses. I.e, this thread is the exact opposite of 'rational speculation' Okay, so let's spitball this. I have used somewhere around 20 addresses since March. In the name of irrational guesstimation, let's say each current user has used 20 addresses. So using RationalSpeculator's 60k figure, that gives us 3000 users. Seems low. Any other ideas out there? That chart is per day. Not cumulative. The total number of addresses is in the millions- but I don't see an aggregate number. Looks vaguely like 40m, so that would be 2 million users. Seems a bit high, but realistic. Thanks for correcting. Where did you find the 40 million? Visually it looks to average 40,000 per day over the last 3 years or 1,000 days. Just a rough estimate until someone can pull the numbers out. |
|
|
|
|
Wow. What an impressive team! It is going to be interesting seeing what happens when Cointerra is shipping...
|
|
|
|
I have over 20 addresses with BTC in them, counting my 'change' addresses. I.e, this thread is the exact opposite of 'rational speculation' Okay, so let's spitball this. I have used somewhere around 20 addresses since March. In the name of irrational guesstimation, let's say each current user has used 20 addresses. So using RationalSpeculator's 60k figure, that gives us 3000 users. Seems low. Any other ideas out there? That chart is per day. Not cumulative. The total number of addresses is in the millions- but I don't see an aggregate number. Looks vaguely like 40m, so that would be 2 million users. Seems a bit high, but realistic. |
|
|
|
that guy on reddit is just a troll trying to raise the price in his favour
we have to ask ourselves the question, what would paypal gain right now by accepting bitcoin as a form of payment?
Hey! That's my avatar! HAHAHA. Had me completely fooled. Very sneaky that. |
|
|
|
|
I am encouraged. The insider's comments seem to have substance. The description of a long-running internal struggle within the PP management as to how to address the threat Bitcoin poses to their business is exactly what would be expected. They are aware that a lot of companies have been blown away by technology change. Look at Kodak being too late in adopting digital camera tech. It makes sense for them to try and offer a Bitcoin service even though it is not a perfect fit and overlaps part of PP's core function.
Edit: as mentioned above the reddit OP has been deleted there, so FWIW this is the text:
"I could get fired for this. I've taken the requisite steps to protect my identity. I am an insider that IS in the know. PayPal has been working on this for months.. and the bombshell news is going to be coming before the end of this month. Leaks/rumors will undoubtedly dribble prior.
I know for a FACT, that PayPal is going to be adding "bitcoin" to it's range of services. And the announcement/press release is to come sometime this month. Everyone at the offices of PayPal and all connected working on the project have been under strict orders to not speak about this publicly.. therefore I am taking the chance. I've worked for PP for close to 4 years now. This is NOT just 'water-cooler gossip'.
This is real, this is going to happen.
submitted by TheInsiderMan "
It will be obvious soon whether this was troll nonsense, or... not..
|
|
|
|
QE and OMT are money printing schemes. Printing USD and EUR and buying troubled assets (government bonds and mortgage backed securities) which enriches the banks. The banks buy stocks with the money (which is why the DOW is booming). The money doesn't enter the real economy so in theory this should not lead to high inflation. *IN THEORY*  What is breaking down from 2007, caused the credit crisis, and continues today, is a slow-motion collapse of Fractional Reserve Banking. The multi-decade expansion of this leveraging system has substituted as most of the "real" GDP growth in Western countries since manufacturing itself started collapsing in the 1970s and 1980s, being replaced by the FIRE economy and entitlement benefits. FRB is responsible for 95% of the money supply but has hit systemic limits in debt-servicing by consumers, households, companies and now governments. Money printing (QE infinity, OMT and similar monetization of debt) is just enough to maintain the status quo. Printed money does enter the real economy, hence real inflation is fairly high (check out WTI lately). The stock market has none as sideline money is a myth: for every dollar in there is a dollar out, so it is merely a measure of corporate asset valuation, sentiment, and inflation expectations. |
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, soothing music to my bullish ears, don't stop..
|
|
|
|
Say we have a function characterized by:
"Beginning with a monthly growth rate of 20%, this value continuously decreases s.t. it is halved every 12 months"
(which would be a sigmoid function of some sort, I guess)
Simple linear regression performed on data plotted on a log chart, i.e. what solex did, is not able to model such a function. to my knowledge at least, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not saying that this is the most likely candidate for the btc price function, but it's an example of what is outside the realm of linear regression.
This is correct. A simple linear trendline on a log chart will plot constant acceleration, but not account for a second-order rate of change in that acceleration. If there is a slowing in the Bitcoin price (fx rate) acceleration then the data should evidence a curve or banana-shape over a longer timescale. What is very interesting is that in the last three years the curvature in the data is quite small. It is not obvious, to my eye anyway. This was probably different in the past. If we divide Bitcoin into the nascent (pre-Mt Gox) phase Jan 2009 to May 2010, and the growth phase of May 2010 onward, then the price acceleration from the first sale above zero, then to $0.50, was different. Trace Mayer, on runtogold, has the growth rate in 2009 at 4,867%. I have no idea where is the data is for that number, but it is way above anything seen since. Having proper exchanges has stabilized the rate of price acceleration. The current acceleration definitely has a rate of change inherent, but it is not significant yet, although in a few years it will be apparent. |
|
|
|
“The system’s security is fragile, however, and the economic model behind bitcoin is, well, crazy stupid.”
How can this man even makes claims to be a computer scientist? I've never once lost money using Bitcoin, either due to the "fragile security" or the "crazy stupid economic model". The precise opposite, in fact: the security features have convincingly kept my money safe, and the economic model has made my money more valuable. He's an expert shill, or an expert idiot. This puzzles me too. Sound bites like "crazy stupid" and "fragile security" are simply infantile and ignorant. I have spent many years in IT, but not using c++ such that I can trawl through the Bitcoin code and understand it all, let alone pick holes in it. However, I have read around the edges, the wikis, github, dev blogs, code snippets, pull requests and dev comments. This, plus the fact that the software has run in the field, under duress, for 4.5 years means that I have a high degree of confidence about Bitcoin's integrity and potential extreme longevity. |
|
|
|
This is my datas updated :
2013/05/04 745e -> received on 2013/05/07 (3 days)
2013/05/05 1000e -> received on 2013/06/03 (29 days)
2013/05/06 1000e -> received on 2013/07/23 (78 days)
2013/05/07 1200e -> received on 2013/08/01 (85 days)
2013/05/15 2000e -> Waiting ...
For sure it's really too slow, but it's look like that they will finally pay all my withdrawal :-) I hope !
So much for them aggregating withdrawals! How stretched are they if they can't even combine a couple?? |
|
|
|
Yes. I was watching it at the time. The sellers dried up and 700 appeared as a high bid which was only lightly touched and put a floor under the market as it started up. And that point where the market appeared to make a major directional change was a crossover noted by Goomboo: |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
