Will bitcoin drop to $40 dollars again soon?

[bedders77]

I guess we don't want it to rise too quickly too soon, better to have a gradual increase - exciting times!!

[Endgame]

Well with the verification cue at Mt.Gox sitting at over 5500 people, I think we are going to see strong buying pressure in the short to mid term. Getting in at $40 is probably wishful thinking at this point.

[AnonyMint]

I think the exchange rates will continue to be highly volatile. Along with that there may be some ebb and flow in folks interested in mining, especially as new hardware comes into production...

You mentioned a mining factor, so I don't know if this was reply to my claim that Bitcoin has a fatal flaw w.r.t. to new ASIC mining hardware, which can cause Bitcoin to stop functioning soon:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/799/can-i-download-the-whole-block-chain-from-somewhere/8661#8661

Apparently you do not understand my point. The point is that ASICs will be adopted, because you can earn more money on mining with them. So they will make all other hardware for mining obsolete. That is unarguable.

And my point is that this will then make it impossible to use the Bitcoin clients, because everytime you come back online after being offline for a significant time, then it can cause a delay of something on the order of 10 hours x 100 = 40 days before you can use the client.

This is a serious serious flaw in Bitcoin unless I have missed a technical detail.

If I am correct, then I am not sure what form of counter-measures the developers could make. It is a fundamental problem inherent in the choice of using processor-intensive computational power for the Proof-of-Work.

[Guardian of Forever]

The worlds economy is in big trouble, too much borrowing by Governments, and too many power hungry central banks. Currencies that are controlled by the central banks are failing, while free market bitcoins are gaining popularity. People see bitcoin as a safe haven from artificial manipulation, and easier to transport than gold. As long as bitcoin remains outside of the banksters control it will become more valuable. So unless there is a big failure in the bitcoin system bitcoin will continue to rise. But like any market currencies are susceptible to the very wealthy controlling the supply, and causing problems in its value. try to but when the price dips is my best advise.

[JBaum]

I think if it will go down to 40$ it won't come up again.

[Lethn]

I predict as the 'real' economies get worse and worse, more people will be driven to Bitcoin out of hatred and fear of the current system, even at this price I'd say Bitcoins are still cheap.

[EnergyVampire]

... this does not make Bitcoin vulnerable. ...

As Vladimir pointed out, this is business as usual. The network adjusts every 2048 blocks so even if difficulty increases 100X it doesn't matter.

[Foxpup]

The client computers using normal CPUs are already taking up to 10 hours to download and verify the changes to the block chain since they've been offline. When the difficulty level adjusts up 100 or more times due to the coming ASICs, then the client computers will take up to roughly 10 hours x 100 = 40 days delay before they can be used each time.

Wrong. You don't understand how proof-of-work works at all. The whole point of proof-of-work is that it is difficult to perform the work, but easy to verify that the work is correct. As difficulty increases, the number of hashing operations needed to solve a block increases. However, verifying the solution requires only a single hashing operation, no matter what the difficulty.

Now I don't know what percent of that 10 hours is download time bound (if you don't understand the computer science term bound then ask me), but according to the Q&A I linked to, it appears to be significantly CPU bound, thus my conjecture is valid.

The CPU usage was due to the use of an inefficient database system (used to index transactions, and having nothing to do with proof-of-work) in older versions of Bitcoin. The latest version of Bitcoin uses a much more efficient database system, which has solved the problem.

Btw, both of you have no idea who you are talking to. I'm a computer scientist with a math minor and have been programming algorithically intense million user software since 1986.

Nobody cares who you are. If an idea is sound it doesn't matter whether it came from a plumber or a theoretical physicist. If an idea is unsound, again it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you're right or not. And you aren't.

If I am correct, there is a threat that Bitcoin heads towards $0 pronto, once my technical flaw discovery gets into the news which could be minutes or hours from now.

And if you're incorrect (which you are), once your "discovery" gets into the news, the whole world will think you're a fool. We're just trying to save you the embarrassment.

[AnonyMint]

The client computers using normal CPUs are already taking up to 10 hours to download and verify the changes to the block chain since they've been offline. When the difficulty level adjusts up 100 or more times due to the coming ASICs, then the client computers will take up to roughly 10 hours x 100 = 40 days delay before they can be used each time.

Wrong. You don't understand how proof-of-work works at all. The whole point of proof-of-work is that it is difficult to perform the work, but easy to verify that the work is correct. As difficulty increases, the number of hashing operations needed to solve a block increases. However, verifying the solution requires only a single hashing operation, no matter what the difficulty.

Indeed you are correct. The key is there is only a single hashing operation on verification, no matter how many hashes are required to guess the number of 0s in the Proof-of-Work.

Btw, both of you have no idea who you are talking to. I'm a computer scientist with a math minor and have been programming algorithically intense million user software since 1986.

Nobody cares who you are. If an idea is sound it doesn't matter whether it came from a plumber or a theoretical physicist. If an idea is unsound, again it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you're right or not. And you aren't.

Agreed, but it is better to explain than to ignore. Because it is surely better that I made the effort to come here and verify before spouting off and causing a false panic.

If I am correct, there is a threat that Bitcoin heads towards $0 pronto, once my technical flaw discovery gets into the news which could be minutes or hours from now.

And if you're incorrect (which you are), once your "discovery" gets into the news, the whole world will think you're a fool. We're just trying to save you the embarrassment.

I think you need to re-read the claim I linked to. Let me quote it for you:

I must be wrong? How could the developers not have seen the coming disaster? I've googled and can't find any discussion on this issue.

Does that sound like the hubris of a fool? Or genuinely concerned and humble inquiry?

[Vladimir]

Speaking of hubris...

Do your really think that a system with half a billion $ bounty and eternal fame as a prize for a successful attack, that was attacked non stop by the best and brightest of this planet who have decades of IT and crypto and infosec experience and they could not succeed even though they have tried so very hard for so many years. And the culmination of all this drama...?  Here comes in AnonyMint, the paragon of humility, with all that compsci education of yours and all those complex algos you have programmed and in 5 minutes you have outdid them all and found a successful attack on Bitcoin.

[c1oud]

I think everything depends on ASIC miner's participation - if they burst in alot of coins to the market at once and try to sell them fast price will go down. But on the other hand, the increase in hashing power for past several weeks shows us that something is holding control over that. I mean there are not so many ASIC miners still available and it's been done in a sense of holding a market on it's initial level (but still price of btc went up drastically, mostly of speculative behavior). Maybe even it's been designed to be that way from scratch (not to make a lot of asics at first but produce them more then generation btc with their help will be somewhat simillar to using GPU at present time).

So in my opinion price might go down in a short term but in a long term eventually it will rise

[Foxpup]

I think you need to re-read the claim I linked to. Let me quote it for you:

I must be wrong? How could the developers not have seen the coming disaster? I've googled and can't find any discussion on this issue.

Does that sound like the hubris of a fool?

No, but this does:

Btw, both of you apparently have no clue who you are talking to. I'm a computer scientist with a math minor and have been programming algorithically intense million user software since 1986.

Were you trying to imply that you're smarter than your interlocutor and therefore you are right and he is wrong? If not, what did you mean by this? Because I can think of no other reason for making such a remark.

[AnonyMint]

Vladimir, Did I not say that "I must be wrong"? How it is hubris to think that I must be wrong?

Or are you saying I should never question anything and be a dumb slave?

For example, should I never question that gold could be a sound money when it never has been in the history of the world?

Also my confusion was never ignorance of the fact that a hashing function is asymmetrical, I know that very well. My mistake was not factoring in the detail that there is only ONE verification for any number of guesses by the miners. I know this too obviously, but in my haste I did not settle in down in mind. I am working on about 100 things simultaneously, so this can happen. It is by no means a reflection of my ability.

Indeed although I have been superficially aware of Bitcoin for years, I only 3 days ago dug into the technicals of it, and with 24 hours I had designed a replacement and wrote the foundation paper.

I still assert that Bitcoin is doomed because its value has never been stable and never will be:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8572/power-elite-thwarting-cryptocurrencies/8653#8653

I think you need to re-read the claim I linked to. Let me quote it for you:

I must be wrong? How could the developers not have seen the coming disaster? I've googled and can't find any discussion on this issue.

Does that sound like the hubris of a fool?

No, but this does:

Btw, both of you apparently have no clue who you are talking to. I'm a computer scientist with a math minor and have been programming algorithically intense million user software since 1986.

Were you trying to imply that you're smarter than your interlocutor and therefore you are right and he is wrong? If not, what did you mean by this? Because I can think of no other reason for making such a remark.

No I was trying to imply that at least Vladimir is disrespectful and rude and not interested in making explanations and clearing up matters amicably.

[Vladimir]

Guilty as charged. Attracting universal love of everyone around me is not my strongest skill nor I am trying too hard. (for universal love and adoration please find pirate, bruce and MNW)

But complaining that Vlad is baaad is like complaining that winter is cold.

[AnonyMint]

Guilty as charged. Attracting universal love of everyone around me is not my strongest skill nor I am trying too hard.

Okay accepted. Thanks for correcting me.

But complaining that Vlad is baaad is like complaining that winter is cold.

Ok I will develop a thick skin w.r.t. to you. I understand the merits of being terse.

[yefi]

I am correct, Bitcoin may soon experience a stampede in selling to get out before the following critical causes Bitcoin to stop functioning:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/799/can-i-download-the-whole-block-chain-from-somewhere/8661#8661

The developers need to know about this immediately, so they can prepare counter-measures. Again I must be incorrect? How could they have missed this?

[AnonyMint]

Yefi, note that was a typo "I am correct". That was supposed to be "If I am correct", which was obvious from the context and many other places I had written "If I am correct".

Asking a question is chicken little?

Btw, you can be sure that Bitcoin will in the future have another big drop in value. But no one knows when it will be or from what price. My point being that being aware that Bitcoin can drop in value is quite realistic and has nothing to do with chicken little.

Do you not remember when Bitcoin declined from $32 to $2? (and that was not the hacking incident)

[jimg613]

who me is what your talking about or what cause i actaully been following bitcoin back 2-3 years ago when it first started so i finally just started to persue  it

[Vod]

I am correct, Bitcoin may soon experience a stampede in selling to get out before the following critical causes Bitcoin to stop functioning:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/799/can-i-download-the-whole-block-chain-from-somewhere/8661#8661

The developers need to know about this immediately, so they can prepare counter-measures. Again I must be incorrect? How could they have missed this?

This has been a known issue from day one.  Fixing it isn't too high on the developers priority list.

[dimaz]

I hope not