Purse.io gets most of my BTC business. I consistently get 20 - 25% off all of my amazon purchases. You should really try it if you haven"t already. Never heard of them before, but: that's a very smart system. Thanks for the heads up. I'll read into it to find out if I consider them fully trustworthy. If that's the case, I think I'll use this regularly in the future. EDIT: hm. just realized, this probably only works with amazon.COM, so shipping limitations (e.g. to Europe) might apply. |
|
|
|
What is driving the market, right now. During the last downturn it was pretty clear that a mixture of fear and TA were spot on. However, TA doesn't seem to be so applicable outside of a rout. So, what the hell is really driving the price, here. Is there some bad news we don't know about because there seems to not only be good news coming out, but less than priced in good news.
What was "driving the market" between end of 2011 and end of 2012?  Mostly price stagnation, and when there's finally a decent rally (to $16), it gets dumped back to half of that. And keep in mind, at that point, the "ATH" was $32, by that time about 1.5 years in the past. So maybe that's what's going on now. Sure, the infrastructure is a lot better now, and investments have poured in by the millions, but that's the reason why we're trading in the mid 3 digits now, not lower 2 digits. The next price level will be reached when critical mass of new investment capital is reached, speculative or usage driven, doesn't matter. Plus, while I don't have the tools to test this hypothesis, I consider it completely possible that a price suppression regimen is in place, by large accumulating entities (i.e. buying off-exchange at roughly market price, selling a portion on-exchange to suppress market price, repeat). I know it's what I would do if I would plan to buy in to the tune of 100k coins now. |
|
|
|
Hello darkness 400s, my old friend / I've come to talk with you again.  |
|
|
|
Just a reminder this is wall observer not war observer ok.
This is ore a Bitcoiners hangout, OT is fine when the action is slow ? this is my interpretation at least? your interpretation is right. this is after all adam's thread, and at times, he's the most offtopic & hyperkinetic bunny of them all  |
|
|
|
Thing is , Russia today is not the Russia of yesteryear, they can now provide most of what they need, and have enough other allies that they can survive easily with our US or the EU and their sanctions.. so I am not sure how effective more severe sanctions will be...
They still have a fantastically bloated military (4.1% of their GDP, more than the US, which is already bloated). Their main source of export income is through natural resources. If the US and the EU come to terms on this and block all imports of natural resources, you can be sure it will be felt in Russia. It'll also be felt in the EU (higher energy prices, first of all), but I very much doubt it'll have the same impact as it would on Russia if military wages and pensions aren't paid on time anymore. Which, if it would come to that, would be supremely ironic, since that's at least a major factor how Putin consolidated his power - keeping the military happy. |
|
|
|
YOU seem to be giving wwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyy too much credit to bears.
Naaah... he's right. Bulls are all-in all the time anyway. It's the bears who are sitting on fiat. Maybe offer them free handjobs or something, and they'll buy back in :D |
|
|
|
Maybe the EU will impose more sanctions, that will teach Putin. Wait, they might send a strongly worded letter. The Russians will do what they want because Europe is a tiger with no teeth, no fangs. The US cares, but is too busy. Conspiracy theory: Russia funds and trains ISIS just to keep the US out of the conflict. Meh. Not the biggest friend of EU in its current form, but also don't think your description is entirely fair. What is anyone supposed to do, US or EU? Go to war? With a nuclear superpower, over a territory that is neither part of the EU, nor NATO? Seriously, what are the realistic options on how to handle this? Don't just say "send military support, under the radar". That doesn't really work in Russia (the "under the radar" part, I mean), so it sure won't work in the Union. Any military support will be out in the open. And I can see two scenarios: Russia is impressed, and backs down. Or the conflict escalates. Now, how high is the probability that it'll escalate? Let's say, up to nuclear escalation. Unlikely, maybe. But there was a reason for the way the US and the USSR avoided direct confrontations during the cold war... let's not pretend everything is completely different now, just because Russia is a democracy now, on paper at least. Realistically, sanctions and diplomatic pressure are the only option I see - although I'd prefer the US and EU would impose more severe sanctions than what we've seen so far. |
|
|
|
tl;dr Use Bitcoin for transactions/e-commerce as much as possible, but let's not demonize holders either.
That's not my message. I just would like the medium to large holders to spend regularly whatever small % and replenish. That would easily double the volume. Well, there's a chance that's not going to happen. If you were an early adopter, as in: you got your coins really cheap, spending a non-trivial percentage of your current USD worth held in BTC might not be easily replaceable, ergo: some/many of the long-term very bullish holders won't do it. |
|
|
|
There seems to be far more people screaming 'sell now or you'll loose everything' than bulls around, certainly on here anyway.
I don't even count people like fallling or dump3r, if that's who you have in mind. I have them on ignore, as they're barely literate. Among the literate, non-trolling posters, yes, I do believe the majority is too optimistic for the short term. Keep in mind, I replied to a post by schickeria who complained that in a market like this (consolidation at best, continued bear market at worst) posts like Klee's "Bears never gonna learn" start sounding delusional. I agree with that, even when I'm long-term extremely optimistic for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Partially true, partially wrong, OP.
I think it was user Rampion who phrased it something like "the long-term holders are the ones who provide the price foundation of BTC, and the shorter-term investors - and I would add: users - are those who once in a while primarily drive the 'growth spurts' to the next price level."
I think hoarders are using BTC as store of value (at best). But it's at their own risk. Cause it might also fail. What I am proposing is a win-win situation. Using BTC will only make it stronger and more spread. Ultimately, merchants will keep BTC instead of dumping it immediately. I don't disagree with you on that: we need adoption (both by buyers and sellers) to grow, otherwise, it's mainly speculation. But I added two points to that: a) holders are users as well, using btc as a store of wealth, and b) because of their reluctance to sell, their participation provides a price/market cap floor (which is useful as well). tl;dr Use Bitcoin for transactions/e-commerce as much as possible, but let's not demonize holders either. |
|
|
|
Both we know, that a bear is not something static. The bad and clever bear only had to sell his coins on ~1000 and bought back on ~400 to have 2,5x more coins (on only one swing).
Reading "bears never learn" after a long and hard bear/consolidation market makes me a bit afraid, that market participants are losing touch with reality.
No, I don't think we will fall to levels of oblivion and I hope we will build up a stable base between 400 - 600.
[...]
The mysterious thing is that a lot of your bears will be on board of your CCMF, if and when it comes. Quite likely they would be one reason (if not the reason) of your CCMF.
Very much to the point. Really appreciate your posts in general in this thread, btw. There was a discussion in here a while ago if it even makes sense to talk about "bulls" vs. "bears", or whether that's a gross simplification that should be avoided.. I suggested the following distinction: (a) that as a successful trader or investor, you should strive to fall into neither camp, i.e. stay as objective wrt the market as possible, and (b) that the only ones actually deserving the label "bull" (or "bear") are those who accuse others loudly of being a "bear" (or "bull", respectively). (don't complain. it only looks like a paradoxical definition.)It made sense to be a bear when the price was +900 USD and trolls screamed buy buy, but now when we are at the bottom, it doesn't make sense. Anyways, it is your choice. Assuming that we're at the (absolute) bottom is your choice, just as well. And, to be honest, I still hear a lot of screaming "buy now or you'll miss the train". In fact, more than before perhaps. Which was exactly schickeria's point by the way (if I understood him correctly). What you call "bears" are, often enough, more cautious traders/investors. They will eventually get back on board, if there's a clearer sign that we're back in rally territory. Them staying cautious now is kinda understandable then, no? Also, to be clear on this: I'm not advocating selling now if you're planning to only make a trade once or twice a year. Entry prices of mid, maybe high 400s are probably safe for the coming months, on average (as in: even if we dip back into that region, I doubt we'll get stuck there). But I also sneer at the idea that the next "bubble" is just a month away. The market is still absolutely shaken. We either consolidate for another few months at least, with a weak upwards trend at best, or, maybe preferably, we take another plunge down. (I say "preferably", because a really dramatic crash could bring out the fiat sitting on the sidelines, and get some volume back into the market.) |
|
|
|
|
Partially true, partially wrong, OP.
I think it was user Rampion who phrased it something like "the long-term holders are the ones who provide the price foundation of BTC, and the shorter-term investors - and I would add: users - are those who, once in a while, are the primary force behind another 'growth spurt' to the next price level."
|
|
|
|
Both we know, that a bear is not something static. The bad and clever bear only had to sell his coins on ~1000 and bought back on ~400 to have 2,5x more coins (on only one swing).
Reading "bears never learn" after a long and hard bear/consolidation market makes me a bit afraid, that market participants are losing touch with reality.
No, I don't think we will fall to levels of oblivion and I hope we will build up a stable base between 400 - 600.
[...]
The mysterious thing is that a lot of your bears will be on board of your CCMF, if and when it comes. Quite likely they would be one reason (if not the reason) of your CCMF.
Very much to the point. Really appreciate your posts in general in this thread, btw. There was a discussion in here a while ago if it even makes sense to talk about "bulls" vs. "bears", or whether that's a gross simplification that should be avoided.. I suggested the following distinction: (a) that as a successful trader or investor, you should strive to fall into neither camp, i.e. stay as objective wrt the market as possible, and (b) that the only ones actually deserving the label "bull" (or "bear") are those who accuse others loudly of being a "bear" (or "bull", respectively). (don't complain. it only looks like a paradoxical definition.) |
|
|
|
There should be a government regulation against trolling.
Politicians would never outlaw themselves. Interesting concept. I wonder which politicians are trolling this thread in their various capacities? Jorge = [ ... ] I am a government employee but a bit too old to start a political career now. My best plan for retirement is that Papalcy thing. Infallibility, lifetime post, and nearly guaranteed posthumous sainthood are not things to scoff at. ( Being an atheist should not be an insurmountable obstacle, I hope.) It's a requirement in fact. You know how it is with drug dealers - never get used to using your own goods. Same for religious organizations. |
|
|
|
|
Tip sent.
Posts from you and chodpaba got me interested in TA in the first place. The occasional tip is the least I can do.
|
|
|
|
There is just nothing to be said concerning the others.
Now here we have a prime example of the arrogance and irrational sense of entitlement [...] You seem to be mostly interested in trolling, or at least: your posting style is indistinguishable from a troll, as far as I can tell (after having read your posts in various XMR threads), but for once, you are right. Dismissing the entirety of the altcoin space as total garbage, with one exception of course, reeks of arrogance, and doesn't shine a welcoming light on Monero supporters either, in my opinion. There is an argument to be made that Monero takes a special place among altcoins (as evidenced, for example, by the large number of "old Bitcoin hands" becoming interested in it), but that argument can - and should - be made without taking a piss all over the competition. |
|
|
|
I did not complain that Jorge was 'not trying hard enough'  Jorge himself stated outright that certain preconceptions that he had - voting from home systems were a priori bad and wrong (although I am still not sure why he would see this only a a vote-from-home system) had caused him to dismiss this technology out-of-hand, without even examining it at all. One of the big problems with voting is anonymity. This is required for several important reasons. This means voting from home is not a realistic option (though you are not specifically pushing for that, it is often a wish of many of those who are pushing for e-voting). I think what would come close to a good system would be where one would enter a booth, cast a vote and that choice would be cryptographically signed, receiving a receipt that would allow one to verify one's vote later. This would require a recording of all votes, potentially on some blockchain type system but not necessarily. There would also need to be a system in place where one could not be "fobbed off" with a duplicate receipt. I think this is solvable cryptographically though. One other issue with e-voting is that it becomes fairly easy to subvert anonymity. If the machine timestamps a vote, it becomes more easy to track who voted how. Unfortunately an issue with the receipt is that that also subverts anonymity. If you can verify your vote, so can someone else.In the end, I think it's a problem without a solution, merely a "best attempt". Unfortunately, current implementations of e-voting are very far from that and tend to suggest a kindergartener's level of understanding of the problem at hand. Eh, pretty sure that's not correct. I remember reading about a proposal for a vote verification mechanism that doesn't require compromising anonymity. I'll see if I can dig up the article. Unless of course you work from the premise that the voting machine is compromised / the voter is watched. But in that case, all bets are off anyway, no? |
|
|
|
|
I'm paraphrasing something JorgeStolfi said a while ago in here:
For every post after the first one requesting adding a currency pair and/or exchange: +1 week before the pair/exchange is added.
I will improve that rule by adding:
For every newbie post after the first one requesting adding a currency pair and/or exchange: +4 weeks before the pair/exchange is added.
|
|
|
|
...
Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely... He brought up several interesting points which you might have missed. I'll try to put them in different wrappers, hopefully not losing the meaning in the process. 1. Assume a magical black box which, when the "press" button is pressed, prints out the *exact* result of an election. Also assume that it is the definitive Black Box--while the result is [by definition] invariably correct, no one knows how it works. It's a hypothetical, accept everything above as a given. What do you think the odds of such a thing becoming the accepted method of national elections? 2. People do not trust technology--they don't understand it. They do not understand most of modern technology, including simple stuff like ATMs, but they do not need to trust it--they trust the agencies behind it (banks, in case of ATMs). This may be absurd, but that's how it is. There is no similar agency backing the blockchain, and Joe Sixpack has a natural distrust of eggheads. 3. Recounts. There is little to suggest that a recount in conventional elections would produce results more accurate than the initial tallying. But it makes people feel better. Those tangible slips of paper, as ridiculous and flawed as they are, are used even when a purely digital apparatus recording choices directly from a keyboard to electronic storage (like a hugely-redundant RAID or something) would be cheaper, more convenient, and [provably] more reliable. Go figure, but that's how it is. Or, to summarize all the points: Let's not try to improve living conditions through rational insight, because the irrational fears of what is possibly a majority of the population would be offended by the improvements at first. (Not attacking you, NotLambchop. Just the message you relay :D) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
