Yes, exactly. Though I don't think 30+ is reasonable right now, it looks like some people are either extremely bullish or didn't factor in failure probability.

A functioning medium of exchange needs strong forces to balance swings on either side, preferably of a size up to USD 10M. A price of 2 USD is kind of low for that, since we only have less than 8M coins so far and one should expect half of them inaccessible due to hoarding, and a new market like this one is not perfectly liquid yet.

I voted 5-10. I know that sounds very very bullish, but hey, it's the speculation board. This is just based on the possibility that some small market starts using Bitcoin, which is not all that unlikely and might justify double-digits, so multiplying probability with outcome, I end up somewhere in between.

lol I've been marked a bear.

lol

Sorry, I'm nowhere near the categories you describe. And I don't care in the slightest what happens in mining. It could be a pink squid selling coins for shrimp for all I care.

In this country, liberal means pro-market. What's your point, do you want to write exclusively for your country? If even that, I doubt everybody agrees on that kind of meaning.

When there's a collision in terminology, it's a good idea to take a step back for a moment and think about it. Usually, there is a clear answer how a word should be used. Identifying "liberal" with "demanding freebies" is just an English play on words that start with "free".

How can one do a political map if the entire "liberal versus socialist market" axis collapses to "liberal versus liberal market"? This is trying to identify an expression with its opposite. One could place liberals on the socialist side, away from the libertarians, but that does not look right either.

That depends on just how ridiculously low it goes.

If we keep current exp trend of 1/7 every 4 months, it takes us one year to 0.006 USD/BTC. Yes, enthusiast can hold up the price there, lol

Yes, where is that option?

I am up in both, from before/after my first buy-in in fiat/BTC respectively, and intend to keep it that way unless price rises well into the double-digits or fundamentals change. Still, I'm on the exchange pretty much daily.

And no, that is not the same as hedging against losses. If I win, I win; if I lose, it's gone. That's the way the game goes.

I don't really want to dive into this discussion, just state one thing.


For any reasonable, internationally used definition of "liberal", this makes no sense. It's like saying "those damn communists always wanting free trade", just the other way around. How can someone who marches onto a stock exchange to hinder trade there possibly be a liberal?

Liberals, by the very meaning of the word, endorse freedom. One cannot be a liberal and demand others to pay excessive amounts of tax money for some personal agenda, because that would go against the personal freedom of the taxpayers.

Sure, it's possible to name a party "liberal" and then just do arbitrary different politics, but if you refer to such people, name them by their party.

"Losing" is such a strong word in a probabilistic environment.

Anyone buying only ever loses if Bitcoin actually dies or he sells low. If it recovers in two years, the speculation still brings an extremely massive profit in very little time, no matter what happens in between.

Sorry, but that gives a wrong impression.

It is by no means always better to follow a big trend, although admittedly it makes losses less likely. Getting burnt often does not mean making losses on average if there's a decent upside, as is in the case of Bitcoin.

There's always the option to estimate the probabilities for Kelly's Criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion) yourself and admit a high risk to be burnt. In exchange, one has a chance to get the massive profit between 2 and 4-5 in the example above. On a Kelly bet with 20% of your funds, that range alone pays for a >50% probability of a complete loss of the investment!

Using trends to keep speculating less bumpy, go ahead. Telling people who do it the rough way that their method is worse? Questionable.

I like "Bitcoin". Two-syllable is always good, and the name is pretty much indestructible now.

And if you think a brand is dead when everybody knows it survived what is soon a full year of chaos, think again. The moment the current trend breaks, which is inevitable since it's exponential, quite a few people will be saying something like:

"What the hell, it survived? Countless hacks and scams, technical breakdowns and a full-fledged financial crash, and it's still there?"

The old name in half a year's time will bring up prices.

It doesn't seem very logical to assume the buyer right now intends to drive price down further. The volume is just too high, he'd be hitting the size of the market. Some people bought all that volume, and assuming the majority did that to dump them again while the crash is going on sounds insane. If a large player were to panic sell 400k BTC, just half of the current weekly volume so far, he'd neither get much money out of it nor much larger additional panic volume to profit from.

This thread also confuses all big movements to come from the same person. While it's true that the bids look like a large player is involved, it's absurd to assume that person to be responsible for every large move in the last months.

Current tactics of the large player on the buying side are fairly obvious: buy in the range 1.8-2.5, maximize BTC volume. I'm not even certain he really cares about price in this range, he just buys with power. So, if he is indeed the same person as the seller, which I'm not so certain about, he would be using exactly the tactic Edward50 described in the Ebay example: try to collect as many BTC as possible, killing the short sellers in an evil squeeze.

I have very similar thinking, so if I had a lot of money, I'd be doing pretty much what the large buyer does now. But I can only hold weakly against the panic, even with the bubble in June I'm not rich yet. Too bad, eh?

What do you mean, worry? It's 3am and I'm only up in case there are more cheap coins to get. Sure I hold BTC, but their fate surely isn't decided today. Or do I look like I sell BTC below 2.5? haha, that's a good one.

Unfortunately, that big player there jumped in already, and we're again not seeing any action below 2.

It's the minting cut. And I don't think it's meaningless, not if people dump coins the way they do now. Less coins, less room for inflation.

Game over, because it got real. That's what the post probably meant.

• Offer BTC for computing power
• Bitcoin price gets stabilised, miners have something else to do when prices are low.
• 
• PROFIT

Literally. Someone just has to do the setup.

/thread in third post. This answers the posed question completely.

Boom, Bubble, Burst, Bust. And here we are, show has gone as expected with all the phases pretty plain in the price history alone, and people STILL ask what happened?

It even seems that the undervaluation phase is being executed even though everyone expects it? Or maybe I'm just speculating wrong for a change.

Hi brother. We're doing similar things here. I also bought some in March, sold in July and now got more BTC than before and more USD than before, also 2/3 of it still as USD. Yea, did some other trades, but that one was the main deal. Only difference is that you were a little smarter in buying back lazily, I'm already above my original BTC amount, so if it drops further, or you buy now at the low, you've beaten me. Good job! *thumbs up*

Anyways, I'm with you betting against the trend-followers. To victory~ ... and if not, go down like a man, not like a crash-crybaby. Bitcooooin!

Oh, er, thread topic. Yea THE PRICE OF BITCOIN IS CRASHING SELL SELL SELL... oh wait, that was the topic in June?

Admittedly, Gox+Paxum are still in the race. The delayed transfer arrived, let's see how the next one goes. OKPAY is being outright strange at the moment, I can't figure out their interface, and probably there is some trickery with the exchange rates.

If the Paxum problem is indeed fixed now, I'm happy to use this way after all. I'll pop up here again if the issues return.

I clicked "Depends on price", but I wouldn't want a lot of them. the hologram seal really is the cool feature of these coins, making them valuable.

I'm really waiting for the new series of 1 BTC coins. I wanted to buy a lot of the old ones at 1.20+shipping, but the price was raised and I ended up waiting for the new series. Even if Bitcoin should rise by quite a bit again, they're valuable enough to be cool but cheap enough to give away every now and then (though not at 1.80 a piece, that's too much for me).

So if the choice is to either do a cheap one or focus on the new 1 BTC series, please focus on the new 1 BTC series! That's what people are waiting for. And that's what I would use to get people into Bitcoin, given that they are reasonably priced.

I fail to decipher what you are trying to say.

But the result of the vote may be due to a combination of A) low Bitcoin price and B) the vote being posted on a speculation forum.

This may sound stupid, but where is the Bitcoin depositing page? I can't find it in "add money".

Also, what's the deal with the separate ok-change website... kinda confusing.

Same thing. 200 USD just not there, my first test of an alternative to SEPA failing. *sigh* let's write an email.

Mtgox transactions are a bad running gag. This is my sixth occasion with issues, not counting multiple failed transfers on a single event of trouble. I couldn't count how many stuck transfers I had. The only thing without issues so far (aside from the hack) has been depositing Bitcoins.

I'm now opening an account on OKPAY and starting a "race".