I love it when you call yourself entrepreneur..... lol thats a new tittle for a failed engineer.
Do you really think i care if you're a dog or a rat?
your comments show that you care so much....  |
|
|
|
you know bulls are still insisting since $630, I think they will start selling at 200 and dont fucking tell me it is not possible because we just saw 309... we will be there soon enough dont worry On BTC-E, yes. Did you watch Bitstamp? It didnt give an actual fuck. We are talking about BTC-E here. ofcourse he can only trade on BTC-E.... he talked like hes been trading tons of bitcoin while the fact is hes just a poor Slovakian. I recall this fcker started from altcoins trading while bitcoin price soared. He even posted dumbest shit about "predicting" bitcoin price. Altcoins plan didnt go well, so did the bitcoin plan... wooohoo all for a couple of bitcoins. I know. He is probably still full retard into LTC. Must suck. I am full green bills  you sink alone my friend.... so much butthurts, I am Loving it |
|
|
|
you know bulls are still insisting since $630, I think they will start selling at 200 and dont fucking tell me it is not possible because we just saw 309... we will be there soon enough dont worry On BTC-E, yes. Did you watch Bitstamp? It didnt give an actual fuck. We are talking about BTC-E here. ofcourse he can only trade on BTC-E.... he talked like hes been trading tons of bitcoin while the fact is hes just a poor Slovakian. I recall this fcker started from altcoins trading while bitcoin price soared. He even posted dumbest shit about "predicting" bitcoin price. Altcoins plan didnt go well, so did the bitcoin plan... wooohoo all for a couple of bitcoins. Slovenian entrepreneur  you know that Slovakia and Slovenia are not the same right? ah who am I kidding you are too retarded to know that shit even if it is written on my profile... |
|
|
|
Are there any news that wasn't released to public and only those whales with insiders know everything?
yes, the bubble is bursting. |
|
|
|
you know bulls are still insisting since $630, I think they will start selling at 200 and dont fucking tell me it is not possible because we just saw 309... we will be there soon enough dont worry On BTC-E, yes. Did you watch Bitstamp? It didnt give an actual fuck. We are talking about BTC-E here. don't worry, I think we will be there soon, just about time... people who caught that price on Btc-e are already sending the BTC to stamp, it is called arbitrage |
|
|
|
And thats the point of manipulation. The data of leverage is leaked and whales are making money off it.
For a MOD, you're a dumb fck to post like a little kid.
you know that it is not his fault that you are losing money here... |
|
|
|
you know bulls are still insisting since $630, I think they will start selling at 200 and dont fucking tell me it is not possible because we just saw 309... we will be there soon enough dont worry |
|
|
|
|
you are fucked, I knew it; I knew I had to cash out everything a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
holy shit, I was going to take a nap then I saw this, I am not tired anymore... 
|
|
|
|
anyone want to buy a BMW 325ci M Sport? 2003 model, about 60,000 miles, full BMW service history. its a second car I use for weekends when its nice out. does about 3k - 4k miles a year.  its like this, but DRK blue with beige interior. 10k DRK. I've seen your type before, you are just being ridiculous now, I know that you are panicking, so an advice would be: even hold and be patient if you are confident about your investment (which seems you aren't) or cut the shit off and close your position to not lose even more... BTW I don't mind you selling your stuff for any coin, but open a separate thread for that on the proper section of the forum. |
|
|
|
I wonder if my prediction of 460-450$ will hold
$450 is massive support. It has to have a major bounce there, even if it trends lower after that. I think that 450 is not going to hold for a long time, hell I think even 400 is not going to hold if we continue this way, I am full fiat and waiting by the side for 2 weeks now, I think we are still far away from the bottom, I am not going to buy in the 400s range for sure. |
|
|
|
Just fired up BTC wisdom..
I have no position so purely based on a quick look, this is being manipulated..... But jesus christ how harsh do they want to be, suspect this will spring back...
Re Anon, the point is there is a huge market demand for it, whether or not it is accepted by govts it beside the point, all the systems are effectively creating webs that the govt cannot control....
As long as you can convert back to BTC there is no problem... How many anon coins do we need though? Personally I always saw DRK as the Alpha and XC as the new kid on the block, and thats pretty much how I still see it... Nothing other than these 2 coins for me is worth getting interested in...
manipulated? conspiracy theories I would say there is a big chance that we will see sub 0.001 |
|
|
|
|
I would threw a couple of BTC at DRK @ 0.001 and few thousands dollars at LTC @ $1-3, BTC buy back @ $200-300
|
|
|
|
ltc bottoming out as we speak
not yet if you ask me.... just not yet. |
|
|
|
Fixed the link so that even the lazy people can click on it. maybe you are right considering the long term scenario, but Alts make a kick ass trades if used properly.... |
|
|
|
Anyway, let me invert. What evidence do you have believe a niche utility or at least a non-complete takeover of Bitcoin is so completely infeasible you estimate the chance of it happening to be zero? If you're not going to read my posts well enough to correctly characterize what I've already said, nor to examine the references I already provided, then I'm going to assume that anything else I say will be just as much of a waste of my time as what I already said so I'll cut my losses with this post. Okay, but if you are unable to summarize the core of your reasoning in one or two sentences I'm going to assume that either your opinion is flawed or your understanding of that opinion. He is trying to tell you that you didnt understand what he said, look "Bitcoin either expands until it becomes the money, or else it goes to zero(1)." read the above twice or even 3 times, and comeback to laugh at your self, you did the same thing with me before |
|
|
|
what does that mean P= (M * V)/T assuming that the velocity will be much lower and transactions much higher then the price will:
a) stay somehow stable if transactions and adoption are almost equal.
b) rise slowly, with no bubbles whatsoever if the adoption is slightly more than the transactions.
c) can even drop a bit if adoption slow down and current holders start using it as a currency
which confirm the theory above "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", dont you think ? First of all, you're doing it wrong. P is not the exchange rate of the currency - it's the price of good and services. With M approximately constant, and with V approximately constant, increasing T means that the cost of good and services priced in Bitcoin will fall, a.k.a the purchasing power of a bitcoin has increased. ah so with P he meant a price of a good... mmmmm let me try to read in wikipedia the whole definition. |
|
|
|
I still dont get how the price will rise if V is low, P= (M * V)/T means the greater V is the greater the price is, isn't it ? the case when the price will be high: if Transactions are low and both or one M or V rise greater than T.
Velocity of money is defined as: V = T / M (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money) For simplicity, we assume no. of coins in circulation to be constant, so we equate price with M. We can rewrite the above as: M = T / V, so it becomes clear that M ("price") decreases as V increases. Or maybe I misunderstood the question? the OP said M * V= T * PM is the money supply which is 13 million and right now inflating with the rate of 10%. V is the velocity or the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period T represent the number of transaction in the network. P represent the price of a Bitcoin. everything else just Math: P= (M * V)/T so in order that Price raise the Velocity has to grow faster than the number of transactions, this means adoption has to grow really fast and number of transactions must stay lower than the rate of velocity in order for the price to raise.... this is what I thought ? |
|
|
|
I couldn't explain it better than a member of the Slovenian Bitcoin Association, so I am quoting his post. The conclusion is that price will stay unstable due to increasing adoption? I'm not so sure. At least it need not rise proportionally to adoption... One quite simple way to look at this is Fisher's formula for velocity of money: M * V = P * T.
M is money supply (fixed in case of bitcoin), T is num of transactions (rising in orders of magnitude). So to keep the equation balanced, the price (P) can rise but so can V (velocity of money, "frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period"). Velocity has so far in history been rather stable, but given the usefulness of bitcoin for transactions (not very disputed even among critics), I wouldn't dare say V for bitcoin is going to be stable or at the same approximate level as for regular fiat money.
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. Not a completely bad point, but in order to compensate for growing adoption, V would need to keep on rising. Exponentially, to compensate for exponentially rising adoption/usage. Not likely. Probably impossible in fact, considering the technical limitations and tradeoffs of the network. In a thread a while ago, I made a (relatively simplistic) argument that, if Bitcoin is used as a method for Internet payments (and only for that) on the order of yearly Paypal volume today - a comparably modest goal, I'm sure you'll agree - and making a few extremely conservative estimates for the necessary parameters involved (including V), we arrive at a valuation of around $2000 per unit. The single biggest not-so-conservative assumption I am making is that those transactions are actually taking place on chain, not off chain, which could be an (unfortunate, because trust requiring) development. ( Link to my post, the calculation is under Addendum #2) Back to the topic: I set V_year = 10, which is a conservative value considering that actual velocity of Bitcoin is probably a lot lower currently. M1's V_year seems to be able to reach into the range of 10 ( WP link), but usually is lower, so if the Bitcoin network would be stable anywhere 10 it'd be a) pretty efficient, and b) the argument you mention, that increased adoption and usage doesn't lead to proportionally higher valuation, doesn't hold. the only way to know how this theory will work in reality is to sit-back and watch how things will develop, although it would be really hard to get "real" numbers, but estimates could do as well. Agreed. But to highlight the main point of my argument (like you did in yours ) - we don't know yet exactly what V_year for the network will be, in the long run. If it's very low, theoretically per unit price would go up - only, it wouldn't because it would mean the network is too inefficient (at least a payment method). If it's very high, that'd depress unit price, but it'd be an incentive to use, because it would be efficient. The only thing that is unlikely enough to call it impossible is that V could somehow "outgrow" even moderate adoption - considering that right now, we are actually seeing the opposite problem, that is: the unsolved question how to make Bitcoin scale to size as a global transaction network (block size limit being the main point here, to my knowledge). I still dont get how the price will rise if V is low, P= (M * V)/T means the greater V is the greater the price is, isn't it ? the case when the price will be high: if Transactions are low and both or one M or V rise greater than T. |
|
|
|
I couldn't explain it better than a member of the Slovenian Bitcoin Association, so I am quoting his post. The conclusion is that price will stay unstable due to increasing adoption? I'm not so sure. At least it need not rise proportionally to adoption... One quite simple way to look at this is Fisher's formula for velocity of money: M * V = P * T.
M is money supply (fixed in case of bitcoin), T is num of transactions (rising in orders of magnitude). So to keep the equation balanced, the price (P) can rise but so can V (velocity of money, "frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period"). Velocity has so far in history been rather stable, but given the usefulness of bitcoin for transactions (not very disputed even among critics), I wouldn't dare say V for bitcoin is going to be stable or at the same approximate level as for regular fiat money.
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. V will be lower in a Bitcoin world than in a fiat world. Right now inflation artificially increases V by encouraging currency holders to spend today rather than lose purchasing power tomorrow. what does that mean P= (M * V)/T assuming that the velocity will be much lower and transactions much higher then the price will: a) stay somehow stable if transactions and adoption are almost equal. b) rise slowly, with no bubbles whatsoever if the adoption is slightly more than the transactions. c) can even drop a bit if adoption slow down and current holders start using it as a currency which confirm the theory above "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", dont you think ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
