|
That amount of money trying to take up positions within a year time frame would absolutely cause another bubble.
|
|
|
|
Realistically if the price started plummeting towards 400, the wall would drastically shrink. To all the fudders, just watch this and get out of my life and shut up and watch this again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTPQKyAq-DM Sure, if the price began moving toward $400, the larger order could and would likely get pulled. Nevertheless, a large market order for more USD than the cumulative bid sum of the wall and above would wipe it out before its owner had a chance to remove it. |
|
|
|
|
My take on it is that now I have a better understanding about how countries with language barrier end up miscommunicating sometimes and go to war. I seriously had no idea it was so difficult for people in the West to understand what people in the East were writing and saying. Who knew!?
|
|
|
|
We just need to get rid of these Mt Gox model exchanges and switch to brokerages because exchanges are very risky. That will foster distributed exchanges to be developed because they are less susceptible to panic and volatility.
Yes, this. It's happening, and the transition is clearly affecting the market. Still a ways to go on that one, but with Gox finally out of the way this process is well underway. |
|
|
|
 Edit: Wait, no gifs anymore?...Just imagine the mind blown gif, then. |
|
|
|
I'm not convinced we are there yet. Myself and lots of other people have been around here for years and have been through this numerous times. I think this is my 6th, but I've lost track. I've developed a sense for the point of maximum pain and have profited pretty handsomely by being able to recognize it. Granted, the market could be mature enough that these sorts of things are becoming somewhat less painful, but it doesn't quite feel like we're there yet. In any event, I'm watching and waiting, because I'm going to try to be there (again) when many of you are feeling that pain. Sorry, and thanks.
As the overall volatility of the market is decreasing, I believe it will be less painful. I think that's right. Though the market is still pretty volatile, so I'm expecting the same kind of painful capitulation events that are felt pretty widely and personally. Obviously, I could be wrong, and might miss the mark on this one, but bitcoin has been pretty consistent and reasonably predictable in this regard. |
|
|
|
|
Sometimes when people ask me to tell them a joke I just say, "bitcoin", and we all have a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, there's no real science to it. It's just sort of a feeling I developed from reading as much commentary from participants as possible, and by assessing my own psychology. In fact, paying pretty close attention to the pain I feel as the market declines has been pretty insightful. I like to think of myself as a hodler, but when I've started seriously thinking, "maybe it's time I get out, because this is getting scary...", I've managed to take stock of that, clam down, and be remarkably close to picking and re-entering at the bottom. I've learned that emotional investing can be a real killer, and I've been most successful when I fight against what are very real and very powerful emotional responses to being a market participant.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not convinced we are there yet. Myself and lots of other people have been around here for years and have been through this numerous times. I think this is my 6th, but I've lost track. I've developed a sense for the point of maximum pain and have profited pretty handsomely by being able to recognize it. Granted, the market could be mature enough that these sorts of things are becoming somewhat less painful, but it doesn't quite feel like we're there yet. In any event, I'm watching and waiting, because I'm going to try to be there (again) when many of you are feeling that pain. Sorry, and thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
We've never been here before. igorr and matthecat are right. This is the end...cuz we've never been here before.
|
|
|
|
In fact, I can't and won't give you credit for being "right" unless we see 250. That's your call. So until then, why don't you go do something else or stop beating your chest for things most other people know too.
$250 wasn't my call! $200 Range is my call! Maybe not tomorrow, nor the day or week after that....But Bitcoin will grind painfully down over the course of time, interspersed with the odd 'spirit rekindling' counter trend rally of course. My sentiment couldn't be more apathetic right now, but when I put my mind or energies into anything, I generally find myself ahead of the trend. MatTheCat is calling $200 range Bitcoin! Before any further ATH can ever be seen, if indeed any ATHs are ever seen again. If this doesn't transpire, then everyone can quote this statement for truth to eternity whenever I rear my head on this forum. I used to say stuff like that a lot. |
|
|
|
It may be that under historic conditions, deflation does tend to be bad. Though, I wonder conditions have changed sufficiently to mitigate its historical "badness". Specifically, I wonder if being able to price goods in real-time helps mitigate deflation's badness. Is it possible to assess the extent to which the inability to price in real-time affected historical cases of depression from deflation? Just thinking out loud here.
Thanks for the question, Proudhon. For a myth to be adopted by a society, it must have at one point in time been useful. Between 1700 - 1900, England was on a hard-money standard and price levels over these two centuries were fairly stable (although sometimes volatile). The "deflation is bad" myth had not yet been adopted 1. Around the turn of the last century is when the "deflation is bad" myth truly took hold. Our productive abilities were increasing extremely fast--so much could be produced with so little human input. We had the factories in place to increase real output Q (from M V = P Q) and the will of the capitalists to push technology forward, but with a fixed-supply currency the only way Q could increase was if P decreased. Like you said, we didn't have the internet back then and efficiently communicating real-time prices was difficult. Q increased only modestly, but since productivity had improved, there was less work available an unemployment increased during the Great Depression. And thus was born the myth that "inflation is good." The Fed increased the money supply M (by devaluing the dollar vs gold), which allowed Q to reach its potential without the fast drop in P that would have been required due to mankind's rapid advances in productivity. The first thing the increased Q went to was WWII. We could produce so much stuff that we had to destroy it in order to keep the people employed! But this got the people working, validated the "inflation is good" myth, and gave birth to our modern consumer economy. Our consumer economy is a relic from the Great Depression that says that if we don't consume our resources fast enough then people will lose jobs and will be back in a depression. Our "deflation is bad" myth stems from our grandparents' inability to communicate real-time prices in 1933 efficiently enough to just let P fall to where it needed to be. 1But already early pioneers in anarchism like your namesake were working towards ways to provided fair access to capital for the people. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon "unsuccessfully tried to create a national bank, to be funded by what became an abortive attempt at an income tax on capitalists and shareholders...it would have given interest-free loans." I think Proudhon saw the unrealized potential in the people to increase real output Q if they only had equitable access to money. [Wikipedia]Wow, thank you, Peter. Very insightful response. |
|
|
|
Presently, we operate under a myth that mild inflation is a positive. We believe that the mild deflation that a fixed supply currency would entail (once adoption equilibrium had been achieved) would be a bad thing and lead to decreased wealth in the aggregate. I disagree: ******************* The quantity theory of money states that
M V = P Q, (1)
where M = money supply, V = money velocity, P = price level, Q = real output (goods, service, etc). I think the vast majority of economists agree with this equation, although their opinion may differ on how it should be used.
It is common to associate a growing economy with growing real output, Q (i.e., more goods being produced, more services being used, etc.). If you re-arrange Eq. (1) to solve for real output, Q, you get
Q = M V / P .
So real output, Q, can grow three different ways (or more properly, it has 3 degrees of freedom):
1. Money supply, M, can increase (what you said).
2. Money velocity, V, can increase (e.g., an increase in the rate that bitcoin-days are destroyed)
3. Price level, P, can decrease (the feared deflationary spiral).
What I wrote above can be understood as fact. Now let's talk mythology. (Myths can be useful as they align peoples' views, permitting communication from a common frame of reference. However, it is important to question from time-to-time whether our shared myths are still useful). Presently, we operate under a myth that "deflation is bad." This means that if we want to increase real output, Q, we must rule out Option #3: 1. Money supply, M, can increase. 2. Money velocity, V, can increase. 3. Price level, P, can decrease. NOT ALLOWED DUE TO OUR SHARED MYTHS According to our mythology, we must choose #1 or #2. So the Fed lowers interest rates to encourage spending (increase V) and buys assets to increase its balance sheet (increase M). I would argue that focusing on #1 and #2 tend to increase output, but the increase is mostly garbage output, not real and useful output. Manipulating #1 and #2 cause us to exploit our natural resources at a faster rate but provides less real and useful output than if the economy was left to its own devices, also leaving less resources available for our children. But this is a subject for another longer post….******************* Stable inflation didn't cause the financial problems that we see in US. The problem is not in the school of thought, but in lose management principles and corruption. Greenspan was the one who started promoting that everyone should just trust the private sector of finance, without any regulation or supervision. And he was the one who promoted the idea that the private sector of finance should have safety-nets for all the risks it took. These management principles created a careless environment, where certain privileged people could only win even if they lost. And all of course at the expense of everyone else. It's funny to read some of the posts here, who are anti-Fed and pro-ultra liberal at the same time. The ultra liberal principles allowed all the crooks to leech on everyone else, because there were no rules why they shouldn't do this. This is the same reason that has ruined any trust towards the bitcoin market system. Most of the community were sheep who thought that the free market will take care of everything, just so they could justify their passiveness. But the free market can't handle corruption, and if there isn't enough supervision and regulations then you can be sure that crooks will exploit the free market in their favor. Peter, It may be that under historic conditions, deflation does tend to be bad. Though, I wonder conditions have changed sufficiently to mitigate its historical "badness". Specifically, I wonder if being able to price goods in real-time helps mitigate deflation's badness. Is it possible to assess the extent to which the inability to price in real-time affected historical cases of depression from deflation? Just thinking out loud here. |
|
|
|
Another chance to sell peoples  There's so much good news. Sell! |
|
|
|
Today, I want to discuss about Ripple and bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a digital currency, but do you know about ripple? the most promising digital currency in the future. Ripple is not meant to replace the currency that we use everyday, it is more than that. Ripple is more efficient than Bitcoin, it only takes a few seconds to transfer your Ripple and complete the transaction, before you get bored when you are using Bitcoin. Ripple is more valuable in the future. In the near future Ripple will be the most popular digital currency around the world. it will play an import role in the economic world, since the price of it will be smooth rather than the Bitcoin. so, I prefer ripple more than bitcoin.
I like icecream. Does ripple do icecream? |
|
|
|
|
Guys, we need to leave Dorian alone so he can get back to CCing his MFing trains.
|
|
|
|
At this point, only God knows...oh wait... |
|
|
|
From journo:
"Nakamoto, when I asked him in elevator why he told Newsweek he used to be involved with #bitcoin: "No no no I was never involved.""
Shit, now I have to buy all the bitcoins I sold a few hours ago back. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
