|
So that peak is supposed to equate to new paradigm ?
Doesn't work for me. I think we're still in the early take off, before long the peak will be another little ripple, just like the 2011 one is now. Its quite hard to think bitcoins is anything other than a very promising fledgling technology at the minute.
|
|
|
|
Here's a chart of Japanese land prices during their boom and bust cycle. The US housing market seems to have followed a similar pattern. If Bitcoin follows a similar trajectory, where do you think we are on the curve?   |
|
|
|
|
Still in price discovery phase, bitcoins wil end up being worth gazillions of dollars so a long way up still to go
|
|
|
|
Follow my assumptions in the original post for a second, okay? Then my point is, the current richest person holds at most 0.1% of money supply (yes, only money supply, not overall wealth). In the brightest of all bitcoin futures, someone might hold more than 2% of money supply. So the point isn't that 2% is too much, but that this would constitute a 20-fold increase in relative wealth. That's at least worth thinking about, IMO.
Again, the current richest person (central banks) holds 100% of money supply, and they could increase or decrease the value of money at will Rothschilds reputedly own the central banks (no i don't have a source for that) |
|
|
|
|
I think, though could be wrong, the wealth of a billionaire is usually reported in terms of the current value of their assets IF they were to sell them all and convert to cash.
Usually their wealth would be held in things like companies they own or have a stake in, properties like mansions that they own, fine art like picasso paintings, gold bullion, only a miniscule proportion of wealth would be held in fiat currency by most billionaires.
They could hold bitcoins as a speculative investment. But at the moment bitcoins are inflationary not deflationary, although their value is increasing this is not due to deflation and won't be for a long time yet.
If fiat currency was to suffer a catestrophic loss of value through hyperinflation or something like that, most billionaires will be mostly unaffected or in fact see their net wealth increase as hard assets become much more sought after. The wealth of the world, which is buildings, companies, precious metals and stuff would not change.
If bitcoins was to replace central bank issued currency as the popular choice of money, billionaires could easily sell their assets in exchange for bitcoins whenever they need a medium of exchange. If bitcoins ever becomes solid enough it may proove to also be a worthy asset to hold as a store of value, but it probably isnt that yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Rothschilds own just about all the worlds central banks, control gold market from London, net worth is about 50% of world wealth. I think they are the ones to worry about
|
|
|
|
Have updated SlipperySlopes's long term chart here,  The most recent bit doesn't look like its read the script to me |
|
|
|
|
That lower trendline on slipperyslopes' chart has provided strong support several times, but even so there's nothing to say we have to fall to it in the timescales you're looking at.
Time will tell I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
or maybe it was never a bubble at all, maybe bitcoins are just slowly rising up to find their true value !
|
|
|
|
As Slipperyslope showed in his last post your new channel would only be valid if the adoption rate would increase above the historical, already exponential, adoption curve. Chances for this are extremely low. In fact chances are higher for the adoption rate to slow down as the low hanging fruit has been harvested already and more resistence of adoption to be expected. Even if the historical adoption curve remains constant, meaning a continuation of the exponential rate of adoption, price will stay within the channel Slipperyslope drew in his last post, and this price would still likely bottom out at $40-$50. If rate of adoption slowed it would likely bottom out lower. Not sure if price is so tightly correlated to adoption as that. There are other factors that govern price. If demand kicks off existing users will pay more, doesn't need new users. However if price rises enough, new users will start flooding in, in a positive feedback loop. My channel makes me wonder if the bubble might not fully deflate but instead re-ignite (into an even bigger bubble). Unlikely perhaps, but considering the way the world economy is right now maybe not too unlikely ( western economies burdened with debt, central banks printing money, bail-ins being legislated etc ). The last bubble popped because of crapy MtGox infrastructure, maybe there is latent potential for the price to skyrocket even more ? I'm not saying this will happen, all I'm saying is i joined some dots on the chart and spotted what looks like an upwards rising channel, which I'll be monitoring over the next weeks.. |
|
|
|
Bubble collapse finished now ?? I'm wondering if this is the start of a new up channel,  1 year log chart MtGox, bitcoins vs USD, from my blog. |
|
|
|
Trust yourself. It is a lottery to pick someone to trust. Decide wether you yourself think bitcoins will rise long term. If you can reach that conclusion then the buy and hold strategy is by far the safest, you'll need plenty of patience to hold long term though.
Buy and hold does require a lot of patience, resolve and character that many fail to execute. The profits you make with buy and hold are sometimes euphoric as you haven't sold a single coin, making you considerably richer, and tempting one to buy even more on highs. Inversely the losses are sometimes enormous too, as not a single coin was sold on the high, shrinking ones capital dramatically and tempting one to sell on lows 'to at least have something left if it fails' . Depending on your entry point a buy and hold may end up showing a serious loss for over a year too. I strongly suspect that on average those that choose for a buy and hold tend to make less returns than a buy and hold would have offered due to the enormous volatility of their capital and the resulting emotional rollercoaster. Hence why I think a fixed allocation strategy is a better solution for most. Instead of allocating all the reserved bitcoin capital immediately. Allocate only say 75% and keep 25% in cash. If price goes up and your bitcoins become more than 75% while your cash becomes less than 25%, sell some so that you remain with 25% cash. If price goes down, and your cash becomes bigger than 25% and bitcoin less than 75%, buy some btc so that it's balanced again. This way you are forced to sell on highs, and forced to buy on lows. Even if you don't always execute this strategy as greed and fear take you over, at least you won't do the inverse! Your end result will be that your ride up and down is less volatile, and your profits will likely be higher than a buy and hold. Interesting strategy, I like it. When I say buy and hold I'm thinking years not months though. You're entry point won't matter much if bitcoins are worth multiples higher than you paid years from now. Its more like the 'stacking' mentality that precious metals bugs have. Add more when you can, don't sell. |
|
|
|
|
Trust yourself. It is a lottery to pick someone to trust. Decide wether you yourself think bitcoins will rise long term. If you can reach that conclusion then the buy and hold strategy is by far the safest, you'll need plenty of patience to hold long term though.
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong - I also think the Federal Reserve has sort of painted itself into a corner with QE. But the way you talk about "the economy will fail again as soon as it's reduced" makes me wonder. In your opinion, what would actually make the economy healthy again, rather than just "propped up"?
What would 'fix' the economy? Having a lot less govt debt....getting a large volume of people back to work at productive jobs, buying houses they can afford, buying cars they can afford...living financially sustainable lives once again with low debt and high level of savings. A stock market that isn't overblown and on the verge of a meltdown. The real problem is that we have a huge population that is out of work and broke, and another tiny population that is barely hanging in there, and a third 0.01% population that is getting so rich off the backs of the previous two that it isn't funny. We also have a manufacturing sector with zero fiduciary responsibility to their employee's or local communities, enslaving the populations of even weaker economies in order to sell to anyone left that can afford it more cheap crap we don't need. CFO's that will destroy a local economy for the sake of 'their responsibility to the shareholders'...when they don't realize the people who's jobs they just eliminated were the shareholders. There is also a looming problem of a young and upcoming generation that is refusing to participate in the debt culture that was created by all the previous generations. They can't get anything but service based jobs, paid so low they can't buy anything so they are just saying fuckit....I'm not buying into your bullshit American debt based dream. I could fill a children's book with what I think is wrong with the economy and it wouldn't matter...there is nothing left to do but watch it burn to the ground and start over again. No one could fix this economy, it was doomed to fail when it began. Just as it did several times in the past few centuries. Totally agree. It can't be fixed, its a rigged system, doing what it was designed to do which is make the rich richer for as long as they can get away with it. Once collapses we have a chance to build a good economy using free markets and sound money like bitcoins and precious metals. |
|
|
|
|
If you make trades based on what other people think thats fine but you can't then blame them for it. Very few people could predict when that parabolic price rise would crash. Nobody would predict every move unless they happen to be god. Price crash happened at $266 but I would have not been surprised at all if it had instead kept going and hit $500 a week later.
When price hit $70 less than 2 months ago I wrongly predicted it would continue down to the bottom of the long term channel. Thats the breaks, technical analysis predicted it would, but that doesn't account for Ben Bernanke deciding to start blabbering about tapering the QE.
Long term predictions are much easier. In the long term, whether you bought at $266 or $50 both will be considered very cheap one day. Bitcoins can and most likely will rise a lot more. This is a consequence of keynsian economics, and an unbacked fiat monetary system.
|
|
|
|
dont fucking buy btc you idiots
but i´m too paranoid to buy ripples |
|
|
|
|
For me the cycle is more like,
its getting interesting,
its going through the roof
woo hoo might buy more,
its gonna be huge,
dam that was a big fall,
boo its still dropping,
losing interest can't be bothered anymore,
...
...
maybe i'll buy some this must be somewhere near the bottom
...
...
..
its getting interesting
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome thread! Kudos SlipperySlope, you've called this pretty well
|
|
|
|
Unless the Winklebros ETF can demonstrate it backs every share of its ETF with real bitcoins then I won't trust it because it will be a way to tamper with the number of bitcoins and hence tamper with the value of bitcoins. If real bitcoins I hold in my own wallet are devalued because the quantity of apparent bitcoins has been 'inflated' then it does hurt me, it artificially devalues my bitcoins.
It seems like it would be trivial for them to demonstrate they hold the bitcoins, just sign a simple statement using the various addresses which hold the bitcoins. Nobody is forcing you to invest in this or use it in any way, bitcoin is very open and many people can use it in many different ways and we can all get along happily. You can bitch and whine about bitcoins being devalued by inflation like this, but that is just the natural progression of the monetary system. Make your plans to deal with it and move on with your life. Its the way the financial system works that I have beef with. Bitcoins is supposed to be the alternative to that den of fraud and lies that is the fiat money and financial system. That is the attraction of bitcoins for me. If bitcoins just become another financial asset to be swapped, bundled up, represented by certificates etc then no I don't have to like it. It might be trivial for the Winkles to demonstrate the backing of their bitcoins but is it in their interest to? Might they prefer to obfuscate the truth? I'm happy for an honest ETF system to come along, lets hope they are honest in their intentions |
|
|
|
My first instincts on hearing about this ETF are that its a bad idea.
because the idea behind bitcoins is that you don't need derivatives to represent bitcoins, you just own the 'real' bitcoins. Why let someone else ever hold your bitcoins when you can do it your self. This is also why I don't like Ripple gateways and bitcoin transactions in the ripple network and why you don't need a bank.
If we want to attract more people into bitcoins we need easier ways to get actual bitcoins, not paper certificates.
People supporting the ETF seem to be mainly saying it will be great for bitcoins because it'll attract big money. Maybe bitcoins shouldn't be in too much hurry to attract big money. No need for impatience. I distrust ETFs because of things I've heard about GLD and SLV. In the small print of those ETFs it says something along the lines of 'we don't have to redeem any metal and can pay you in fiat'. I've heard people with shares in GLD own 100 times more paper than there is real metal. Net effect of these ETFs is that the money supposedly going to investing in gold is actually being diluted 100 times into paper.
If the WinkleBros can proove they have the bitcoins backing the ETF then it makes it better I guess, but I'm still a bit uneasy about the idea myself.
Not everything has to be done because it will be "better". This is a free country, bitcoins were designed in part to allow more freedom in money, if these people want to use bitcoins in this manner it will not hurt you so why not let them try to make a little money this way? Or are you just jealous you didn't think of it and/or have the resources to pull it off first? *edit Peter, no I'm not jealous of thinking of an idea I would have been against in the first place, its a bit ridiculous of you to suggest that. The freedom of bitcoins comes because the quantity can't be controlled by any person or organisation, leaving bitcoins free to find fair market value. Unless the Winklebros ETF can demonstrate it backs every share of its ETF with real bitcoins then I won't trust it because it will be a way to tamper with the number of bitcoins and hence tamper with the value of bitcoins. If real bitcoins I hold in my own wallet are devalued because the quantity of apparent bitcoins has been 'inflated' then it does hurt me, it devalues my bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
