BTC Crash!!!

[Ichthyo]

lets wait untill the dust has settled  

[1714620390]

1714620390

[1714620390]

1714620390

[twolifeinexile]

lets wait untill the dust has settled  

but when do you know wait is over, even it shoot above 32, isn't it still can go down again?

[dopamine]

its not even the weekend yet 

[Ichthyo]

lets wait untill the dust has settled  

but when do you know wait is over, even it shoot above 32, isn't it still can go down again?

the unfortunate thing is: we can constitute and confirm a "trend" only in hindsight, when it has manifested already.
Realistically speaking, everything over $20 is dangerous ground. Only if the rates have stayed for a prolonged time above $20, I'd put more confidence into staying there, given the fundamental situation for Bitcoin remains the same.

So for the time being, the best thing we can do is watch the drama and don't bet too much on a single horse

[twolifeinexile]

Please dwolla clear my money so i can buy NOW!!!!!!

dwolla need bank to work to clear your money and unfortunately, banks are closed during weekend.

[TooCasual]

Its just the big money guys selling BTC to cause excitement only to re-buy 1-4 btc cheaper.  No biggie.  At least they are makin' the big dough.
Hah.  Damn, I'm always a bit gun shy to sell and re-buy.

Oh well.  Still is a world currency and millions want it.  No big deal.

TC

Topic should be renamed BTC CASH!!!
Haha

[johnyj]

Low liquidity market always performs like this, this wave is over, we need to consolidate a long time before re-challenge the ATH

[Odalv]

If bitcoin went back to $15 it would be understandable based on long term trendline. A crash would be like the last time it went to 32 then $2.

I do not expect less than $25. :-)

[piramida]

I do not expect less than $25. :-)

But based on your graph (which I think is right) it still can go to 20 or so (three bottom arrows). I still think we're in a side channel for a while, but theoretically 20 is possible... 15, not so much.

[donjoe]

dwolla need bank to work to clear your money and unfortunately, banks are closed during weekend.

Which is, ofc, severely retarded, since all we're talking about are numbers and simple math, which the banks' computers could very well handle 24/7. I mean at the very least I'd expect to be able to transfer funds between my own accounts at the same bank even during the weekends, but nooo, it's still too scary a prospect for these technophobic schmucks.

[Herodes]

Which is, ofc, severely retarded, since all we're talking about are numbers and simple math, which the banks' computers could very well handle 24/7. I mean at the very least I'd expect to be able to transfer funds between my own accounts at the same bank even during the weekends, but nooo, it's still too scary a prospect for these technophobic schmucks.

And that's why bitcoin will win. It is incredible that transferring money between ones own accounts doesn go instantly. In some banks it works instantly between own accounts though.

[donjoe]

Well, at least that's why some form of digital coin will win. In the long term I do hope, though, that it will be a better thought out digital currency system than Bitcoin, which is just the first prototype to be tested on a relatively large scale, but not by far the best theoretical proposal out there.

[Herodes]

Well, at least that's why some form of digital coin will win. In the long term I do hope, though, that it will be a better thought out digital currency system than Bitcoin, which is just the first prototype to be tested on a relatively large scale, but not by far the best theoretical proposal out there.

Good input. What are the things that you think lack in bitcoin at this point in time ?

[donjoe]

Since currency only exists to represent symbolically and allow the exchange of real values, any successful currency system should be able to ensure that there is always exactly as much currency as is needed to represent the existing real values on the market, no more, no less (so no inflation and no deflation if possible). Bitcoin has no mechanism for this and is in fact worse than fiat currency in this respect - at least with fiat currency you have some central authority that intervenes now and then to adapt the money supply to the size of the "real economy", but with Bitcoin no such intervention is even possible. An obviously better system would be a system based on the notion of "self-issued credit", where every producer of goods and services is also the issuer of a specific type of coin with which said goods and services can be bought. Then on the whole there will always be a ratio of coin-to-product that stays very close to 1:1 and any inflation or deflation will only affect a specific producer who happened to make mistakes in calculating how much of their own specific type of coin to issue considering how much product they're offering. The only digital system I know so far that has this feature is Paul Grignon's "Digital Coin".

[Jaques]

I do not expect less than $25. :-)

But based on your graph (which I think is right) it still can go to 20 or so (three bottom arrows). I still think we're in a side channel for a while, but theoretically 20 is possible... 15, not so much.

yep ...

[Jaques]

Since currency only exists to represent symbolically and allow the exchange of real values, any successful currency system should be able to ensure that there is always exactly as much currency as is needed to represent the existing real values on the market, no more, no less (so no inflation and no deflation if possible). Bitcoin has no mechanism for this and is in fact worse than fiat currency in this respect - at least with fiat currency you have some central authority that intervenes now and then to adapt the money supply to the size of the "real economy", but with Bitcoin no such intervention is even possible. An obviously better system would be a system based on the notion of "self-issued credit", where every producer of goods and services is also the issuer of a specific type of coin with which said goods and services can be bought. Then on the whole there will always be a ratio of coin-to-product that stays very close to 1:1 and any inflation or deflation will only affect a specific producer who happened to make mistakes in calculating how much of their own specific type of coin to issue considering how much product they're offering. The only digital system I know so far that has this feature is Paul Grignon's "Digital Coin".

good argument!

[Tas]

Since currency only exists to represent symbolically and allow the exchange of real values, any successful currency system should be able to ensure that there is always exactly as much currency as is needed to represent the existing real values on the market, no more, no less (so no inflation and no deflation if possible). Bitcoin has no mechanism for this and is in fact worse than fiat currency in this respect - at least with fiat currency you have some central authority that intervenes now and then to adapt the money supply to the size of the "real economy", but with Bitcoin no such intervention is even possible. An obviously better system would be a system based on the notion of "self-issued credit", where every producer of goods and services is also the issuer of a specific type of coin with which said goods and services can be bought. Then on the whole there will always be a ratio of coin-to-product that stays very close to 1:1 and any inflation or deflation will only affect a specific producer who happened to make mistakes in calculating how much of their own specific type of coin to issue considering how much product they're offering. The only digital system I know so far that has this feature is Paul Grignon's "Digital Coin".

good argument!

+1 I like it too! Must research Paul Grignon's "Digital Coin".

[deeplink]

Since currency only exists to represent symbolically and allow the exchange of real values, any successful currency system should be able to ensure that there is always exactly as much currency as is needed to represent the existing real values on the market, no more, no less (so no inflation and no deflation if possible). Bitcoin has no mechanism for this and is in fact worse than fiat currency in this respect - at least with fiat currency you have some central authority that intervenes now and then to adapt the money supply to the size of the "real economy", but with Bitcoin no such intervention is even possible.

But in practice the fiat system is inflating the money supply as if there were no tomorrow while the economy (real value on the market) is decreasing. This is ultimately inevitable if a central authority is in charge of the money supply.

[Jutarul]

[donjoe]

But in practice the fiat system is inflating the money supply as if there were no tomorrow while the economy (real value on the market) is decreasing. This is ultimately inevitable if a central authority is in charge of the money supply.

It's not inevitable, it's just one of the possible policy options for reacting to an economic downturn if you want to get the economy growing again. What makes it necessary is not that there's a central authority, but that the money in use is based on ever-compounding debt - this means that there is always an imperative for the economy to keep growing or the monetary system collapses.