r0ach's Cryptomarkets Watch & Scamcoin Observer

[TPTB_need_war]

There was a -40% price crash of Bitcoin about 3 months before the last halving, so that would correspond to roughly this May:

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg1460zczsg2012-04-23zeg2013-01-22ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply#Projected_Bitcoins_Short_Term

Also the price rise in 2013 followed not only the halving but also the first ASIC miners:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/40944/when-did-the-asic-mining-era-begin

So another possible theory is the ASIC miners had such lower costs, that more and more Bitcoin was being held and not sold to pay expenses. And thus leading to the 2013 bubbles.

Whereas, the opposite economics this halving, in that more miners will have their costs increase unless the price doubles, thus more Bitcoin proportionally being dumped on the market until those marginal miners exit and go mine an altcoin.

[rdnkjdi]

Perhaps you are right.  My perception though is that the majority of wealth distributed from PoW post ASIC went to either

A.)  People who built the ASICs
B.)  People who had a really great advantage with electricity (In Irkutsk it's $0.01 vs $0.20+ in Europe).  Or people who own their own mini hydro power etc.

Since bitcoin was no longer niche it took a lot more capital to be guaranteed a profit (vs litecoin where a $300 GPU was your ticket to entry).  My assumption has always been that the majority of these people who wanted to exploit their unique situation / skill were more interested in speculating and capitalizing on it rather than the asset underneath it.  Those who wanted to speculate on the asset were people like Risto.

Those who had the financial resources and wanted to speculate on the asset I imagine just purchased.

[r0ach]

Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...

The halving is not some insignificant event.  It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables.  There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase.  What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.

[altcoinUK]

Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...

The halving is not some insignificant event.  It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables.  There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase.  What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.

Actually that's true. I pointed out several times in the Armstrong thread how wrong TPTB_need_war is with his Bitcoin forecasts, and that's the source of the errors: he is trying to correlate BTC with the gold model of Armstrong.

[smooth]

Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".

Obvious he is at least semi-trolling you.

[Spoetnik]

Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...

The halving is not some insignificant event.  It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables.  There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase.  What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.

I agree 100% and the sustainable remark echos my sentiment entirely.
We have to wait & see of course LOL

[TPTB_need_war]

Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...

The halving is not some insignificant event.  It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables.  There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase.  What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.

Actually that's true. I pointed out several times in the Armstrong thread how wrong TPTB_need_war is with his Bitcoin forecasts, and that's the source of the errors: he is trying to correlate BTC with the gold model of Armstrong.

There is a very strong correlation.

Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".

Obvious he is at least semi-trolling you.

How is presenting an alternative theory of the 2013 Bitcoin bubble trolling?

That all of you think it is impossible reminds me of market theory that the majority is always wrong.

So let's stay tuned for the outcome...

[SwedishGirl]

Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".  For something to be priced in, it would imply there is some form of equilibrium at hand, meaning the price goes up, minining power doesn't increase with it, halving occurs, then mining power stays the same.  That isn't what happened at all though.  The price went up and more mining power joined the network, raising the price floor months ago and it has been shown to be pretty stable at the higher price.  Now when the halving occurs, the price is either required to increase a lot, or lots of miners will have to drop out.  There is no form of equilibrium at hand.  Tidal waves of cause and effect have to occur.

We also know that ASICs require lots of R&D investment and capital.  Since people have already invested millions of dollars in mining farms, there is no way in hell they are going to turn off their 16nm state of the art miners.  Current process node miners simply do not turn them off ever.  They always mine at a loss or buy coins off the wall to dollar cost average before doing that.  Even if you did think the Bitcoin price was unsustainable (it's not, market cap is still small), it's inevitable the price would spike higher before any unsustainable reality could set in.

The act of mining is also a decentralized exchange while Coinbase is a centralized exchange.  Supply is being cut in half on the DEX while demand remains the same because miners are simply not going to be turned off.  Centralized exchanges are forced to follow the price action.

Sometimes I wonder how does it feel to be as smart as you are. I am not joking by the way.

[Jacques21]

We will see who's smart and who's not when the halving happens. Iteresting times ahead.

[eternalgloom]

I could see certain altcoins take a beating because lots of people investing their altcoins into Bitcoin.
But things will even out over time and other coins will gain value once more.

[hotsurfing]

I think you want to say alts will get bigger and bitcoin will have the floor fall out.

[sadasa]

I think you want to say alts will get bigger and bitcoin will have the floor fall out.

the Altcoin still have some value. The Monero and Dash can offer anonymous transactions. Ethereum provide smart contracts.

[r0ach]

We will see who's smart and who's not when the halving happens. Iteresting times ahead.

I am ready.

[altcoinUK]

Anonymint, you are trying way too hard to get Bitcoin to fit some Armstrong gold forecast when the two have no correlation...

The halving is not some insignificant event.  It dwarfs any tiny change in interest rates or other variables.  There is also the fact that Bitcoin would be seen by some as a failure if the halving was unable to produce any increase in price, so vested interests (me being one of them) will engineer it to prevent that from happening, hence why you already see a $25 price increase.  What is sustainable is unknown, and will only be known a month or two afterwards, but the price will be raised to find out.

Actually that's true. I pointed out several times in the Armstrong thread how wrong TPTB_need_war is with his Bitcoin forecasts, and that's the source of the errors: he is trying to correlate BTC with the gold model of Armstrong.

There is a very strong correlation.

There is some correlation, but making the projection that BTC will follow the gold price and going down with the gold price is more of a wild guess than a rational argument. Especially it is a wild guess, because it is not clear at all whether the decline of gold and Armstrong's projection will be materialized or not. The decline of gold price is very much on the table - just like the opposite is. (I am talking about mid and long term).

I fully understand what you say terms of the sovereign debt crisis and the unsustainability of the system. I totally get what Armstrong says and I subscribe to 90% of his analysis. However, you and Armstrong always forget that the central banks, the Troika and the crooks of Wall street are infinitely creative in coming up with all kind of solutions to preserve the status quo.  Armstrong could never imagine the central banks will come up with quantitative easing. Here we go, they did and bought another 5-10 perhaps even 20 years and a few elections for the establishment.
Logic dictates and history indicates Armstrong is correct and the system most likely will collapse at some stage, but there are many variables exist which could screw up and in fact do screw up his projections from time to time.

[TPTB_need_war]

There is a very strong correlation.

There is some correlation, but making the projection that BTC will follow the gold price and going down with the gold price is more of a wild guess than a rational argument.

Please note, Armstrong latest blogs about the tangible assets indicate that crypto currencies could have the same role as property or blue-chip stocks, if and when the collapse will come.

Which is why CCs are correlated to the coming V crash slingshot of gold and stocks.

Especially it is a wild guess, because it is not clear at all whether the decline of gold and Armstrong's projection will be materialized or not. The decline of gold price is very much on the table - just like the opposite is. (I am talking about mid and long term).

Armstrong is much more sure than he is going to admit on his blogs. Do you own a copy of his gold report? The main open question is the timing. May/June, August or Q1 2017.

I'd guess it is in the realm of 80/20% odds that gold will decline to lower than $1050.

I fully understand what you say terms of the sovereign debt crisis and the unsustainability of the system. I totally get what Armstrong says and I subscribe to 90% of his analysis. However, you and Armstrong always forget that the central banks, the Troika and the crooks of Wall street are infinitely creative in coming up with all kind of solutions to preserve the status quo.  Armstrong could never imagine the central banks will come up with quantitative easing. Here we go, they did and bought another 5-10 perhaps even 20 years and a few elections for the establishment.
Logic dictates and history indicates Armstrong is correct and the system most likely will collapse at some stage, but there are many variables exist which could screw up and do screw up his projections from time to time.

Everything they've done correlated to his timing models, so they haven't extended anything that wasn't predicted.

You seem to not understand they are now trapped. Low interest rates causes a collapse due to bankrupt retirement plans. Higher interest rates collapses the governments due to increase in interest payments on the debt which will explode the fiscal budgets and cause governments to raise taxes egregiously.

It is all coming unravelled and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

If they print more money, they lower interest rates. There is no way to raise money other than print it or tax for it.

Checkmate.

[freshman777]

There is no way to raise money other than print it or tax for it.

Checkmate.

The bolded is the path of least resistance, always taken by governments. Gold fares very well in hyper inflationary environment, what paper promises are worth is irrelevant.

[TPTB_need_war]

There is no way to raise money other than print it or tax for it.

Checkmate.

The bolded is the path of least resistance, always taken by governments. Gold fares very well in hyper inflationary environment, what paper promises are worth is irrelevant.

That is a very oversimplistic understanding. And I don't have time to unravel your simpleton thoughts for you at this time.

I suggest reading Armstrong's blog from start to finish.

Maybe we could do this on video sometimes interactively so it would be more efficient to educate. I don't have time for writing it. Far too slow.

Edit: you are entirely wrong on hyperinflation. The history is that only revolutionary and totally broken regimes hyperinflate. The world is composed of very strong regimes and they will not lay down their power by hyperinflating. Armstrong covers this in great detail in his blogs. Required reading material for you.

[freshman777]

There is no way to raise money other than print it or tax for it.

Checkmate.

The bolded is the path of least resistance, always taken by governments. Gold fares very well in hyper inflationary environment, what paper promises are worth is irrelevant.

That is a very oversimplistic understanding. And I don't have time to unravel your simpleton thoughts for you at this time.

I suggest reading Armstrong's blog from start to finish.

Maybe we could do this on video sometimes interactively so it would be more efficient to educate. I don't have time for writing it. Far too slow.

I know all you could write on this subject and wrote a simplistic summary on purpose. There are many factors at play midway, in the end historically it always ends in hyper inflation and gold going through the roof. In fact, gold has been in a bull market for the past few years in many currencies, with USD joining the bull market in Q1 2016. I don't buy your people don't want physical going all digital in the future hypothesis. People are awakening to the fact that their digital currency is losing purchasing power, this is more so in the future. People will barter and trade in gold and other tangible items with no regard to rules imposed on them. What can be taxed will be taxed. Free market economy settled in tangible items (cryptocurrencies can be put in this category with a few caveats) cannot be taxed cost-effectively, governments will not bother with it and will print, it's what they do best. It's all we need to know really. Paper promises will be defaulted on, they are not relevant, they are not gold. Whoever thinks paper promises are gold will wise up in time after losing money. It's a cost of education. The same could be said about people losing money in the Mt.Gox fiasco. Germans call it Lehrgeld. If you don't hold it, you don't own it.

Edit: you are entirely wrong on hyperinflation. The history is that only revolutionary and totally broken regimes hyperinflate. The world is composed of very strong regimes and they will not lay down their power by hyperinflating. Armstrong covers this in great detail in his blogs. Required reading material for you.

Your saying collapsing governments and exploding fiscal budgets are not exactly a recipe for continually strong regimes. What makes you think some modern regimes you refer to today as strong are stronger than those hyper inflating in the past?

[Nxtblg]

The halving is not some insignificant event.

If you don't mind me butting in, Bitcoin is on a real roll as I write this. $453 on Polo's USDT market; Coindesk's index has pegged it at ~$450. So far, good call.

[TPTB_need_war]

in the end historically it always ends in hyper inflation and gold going through the roof.

Incorrect. It rarely ends that way. Only for entirely broken regimes. Sorry Armstrong has all the data. He invested $1 billion collecting it.

Edit: you are entirely wrong on hyperinflation. The history is that only revolutionary and totally broken regimes hyperinflate. The world is composed of very strong regimes and they will not lay down their power by hyperinflating. Armstrong covers this in great detail in his blogs. Required reading material for you.

Your saying collapsing governments and exploding fiscal budgets are not exactly a recipe for continually strong regimes. What makes you think some modern regimes you refer to today as strong are stronger than those hyper inflating in the past?

Read Armstrong and then you will know. You have a lot of reading ahead of you.

Edit: let me give you a quick, incomplete hint. Read Armstrong for the many details and points. The failed regimes were due to dictatorship and/or a bankrupt ideology (e.g. communism in the Weimar Republic).  When the population remains very productive and the debt is actually quite small (e.g. the debt is only $19 trillion in the USA but the productive capacity of the people is that much or more per year), then the society is not failed. We are going to see transition to a world reserve currency. This is not about total failure of government, except Europe is trying hard to achieve that again. China, Russia, USA, Canada, Australia, etc are no where near failed societies.