20 calls a day from large asset managers looking to invest up to $100m.

[byronbb]

Financial Times is reporting:

"Exante predicted that public and media interest would take off when Bitcoins were trading at $100. Managing partner Gatis Eglitis claims they are now getting 20 calls a day from large asset managers looking to invest up to $100m."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4be7d8e-9c73-11e2-9a4b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2PRJpnZqI

Hope mtgox solves its ddos attacks first.

If this is true..................... MOTHER OF GOD.

[Wekkel]

Just sit tight and hold for the longest time.

[urwhatuknow]

what did you expect?

I kind of expected this, because I know that even skeptics will come to appreciate how brilliant Bitcoin is when they bother to learn in detail about it.

personally I'm starting to doubt bitcoin abit because it requires someone to pay for Energy forever and in increasing amounts to keep it alive

Is there another currency that doesn't?

yes, PP coin, proof of stake based instead of proof of work based

[DarkBet]

what did you expect?

I kind of expected this, because I know that even skeptics will come to appreciate how brilliant Bitcoin is when they bother to learn in detail about it.

personally I'm starting to doubt bitcoin abit because it requires someone to pay for Energy forever and in increasing amounts to keep it alive

Energy will become cheaper and cheaper though, so I dont think this is a problem

[solex]

what did you expect?

I kind of expected this, because I know that even skeptics will come to appreciate how brilliant Bitcoin is when they bother to learn in detail about it.

personally I'm starting to doubt bitcoin abit because it requires someone to pay for Energy forever and in increasing amounts to keep it alive

Energy will become cheaper and cheaper though, so I dont think this is a problem

Energy is becoming very cheap in terms of Bitcoin.
Interesting that both Oil and Bitcoin peaked at $147.
Now that's

[blogospheroid]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

[oakpacific]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

If the BTCs never get moved, then they are lost. If they do someday, then it's tax evasion and jail time for you, it's very easy for the authority to set your address on watch, and sends them an alert whenever an activity is detected.

[Gordonium]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

If the BTCs never get moved, then they are lost. If they do someday, then it's tax evasion and jail time for you, it's very easy for the authority to set your address on watch, and sends them an alert whenever an activity is detected.

You can always say that someone hacked your account.

[Rampion]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

That statement is also true for cash. How can you prove that your lost you bag full of dollar bills?

[cypherdoc]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

You're thinking too far ahead.

They have to prove you have them first.

[jimbobway]

If anyone here truly believes that a $100MM inflow into BTC is forthcoming, then you have clearly never been involved in the due diligence process that would precede that type of investment. The liquidity issue is a real problem as is the systematic risk. In theory there are probably several money managers that would consider BTC. But if one scratches the surface, most will quickly see that the logistics would be next to impossible. This market moves erratically at low volumes.....

Thinking that low volume affects bitcoin negatively is like thinking deflation affects bitcoin negatively.  Bitcoin price could be $100,000 but you can trade satoshis. 1 bitcoin is 1,000,000 satoshis?  It is not the volume of bitcoin traded that is important but the number of people and businesses using bitcoin and also the number of transactions made.

[blogospheroid]

Quote from: oakpacific on Today at 03:32:16 PM
Quote from: blogospheroid on Today at 03:08:02 PM
Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

Quote
The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it.  
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.




If the BTCs never get moved, then they are lost. If they do someday, then it's tax evasion and jail time for you, it's very easy for the authority to set your address on watch, and sends them an alert whenever an activity is detected.

You can always say that someone hacked your account.

EDIT : forgive the formatting, I meant to reply to agree with Gordonium's statement.

Precisely, I meant that only.

You cannot prove a loss.
You cannot claim insurance.

With stocks you can do one, with art or buildings, you can do the other. This will make many rich people vary of holding wealth in bitcoin.

[Rygon]

You cannot prove a loss.
You cannot claim insurance.

With stocks you can do one, with art or buildings, you can do the other. This will make many rich people vary of holding wealth in bitcoin.

First, rich people are willing to take some risk. That's not going to be 100%, but it would make sense for someone to put 1-5% in an asset that has a lot of upside potential, despite the potential to get hacked. One million is pocket change for someone with a billion dollars, and is makes a huge impact on the exchange rate.

Second, eventually companies should rise that provide insurance against loss, probably to cover BTC banks with multi-layered, multi-redundency security. But I don't think we've seen anyone who has the reputation outside of Bitcoin to be trusted with that, atm.

[oakpacific]

Quote from: oakpacific on Today at 03:32:16 PM
Quote from: blogospheroid on Today at 03:08:02 PM
Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

Quote
The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it.  
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.




If the BTCs never get moved, then they are lost. If they do someday, then it's tax evasion and jail time for you, it's very easy for the authority to set your address on watch, and sends them an alert whenever an activity is detected.

You can always say that someone hacked your account.

EDIT : forgive the formatting, I meant to reply to agree with Gordonium's statement.

Precisely, I meant that only.

You cannot prove a loss.
You cannot claim insurance.

With stocks you can do one, with art or buildings, you can do the other. This will make many rich people vary of holding wealth in bitcoin.

Insurance is actually quite simple, the insurance company will only provide insurance for a properly secured address, and demands you to make paper wallets backups and take other precautions beforehand, you can only receive your proceeds if all your precautions fail through force majeure or similar reasons(e.g., paper wallet and cold storage laptop both destroyed in a fire), rather than your own fault.

[axus]

It only needs just a bit more energy than that which would be able to attack it.

My comment has nothing to do with attacking it

I'm saying is that Energy must be input into the Bitcoin system at all times (and in ever-increasing as it grows because people can make a profit mining).

Because of this, someone must pay (Energy, or USD to pay for Energy) this somehow, just to keep Bitcoin blockchain viable

I'm just wondering who's gonna pay for it

Online USD banking doesn't have an Energy sink like Bitcoin does (neither does as any other form of centralized online currency based on whatever)

Good News!  The amount of hashing power (and therefore energy) can drop to 1% of what it is today, and Bitcoin will be fine.  The difficulty adjusts automatically, based on how much hashing power there is.  If the power decreases, difficulty goes down and Bitcoin keeps on trucking.

Bitcoin does not require massive amounts of energy, it's only the market that creates incentives for it.

[Manticore]

If anyone here truly believes that a $100MM inflow into BTC is forthcoming, then you have clearly never been involved in the due diligence process that would precede that type of investment. The liquidity issue is a real problem as is the systematic risk. In theory there are probably several money managers that would consider BTC. But if one scratches the surface, most will quickly see that the logistics would be next to impossible. This market moves erratically at low volumes.....

Thinking that low volume affects bitcoin negatively is like thinking deflation affects bitcoin negatively.  Bitcoin price could be $100,000 but you can trade satoshis. 1 bitcoin is 1,000,000 satoshis?  It is not the volume of bitcoin traded that is important but the number of people and businesses using bitcoin and also the number of transactions made.

But low relative volume and hoarding does create a massive barrier to large funds making BTC purchases, which is what were talking about. But, yeah....I do agree that businesses and people transacting with Bitcoin is much more useful than media hype driving speculation.

[Jaques]

Financial Times is reporting:

"Exante predicted that public and media interest would take off when Bitcoins were trading at $100. Managing partner Gatis Eglitis claims they are now getting 20 calls a day from large asset managers looking to invest up to $100m."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4be7d8e-9c73-11e2-9a4b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2PRJpnZqI

Hope mtgox solves its ddos attacks first.

Good grief.

20 x $5M (nice sounding average?) x 22 (working days in a month) = $2.2 BILLION looking to make its way into the BTC market per MONTH!

$2.2B x 12 = $26.4B

At $90 (ish), we're at a $1B market cap.

Prepare for 1 BTC = $2,376.00 within 12 months.  And this is just with current demand - as the price continues to rise, more and more asset managers with even larger balances will be calling and requesting to invest in BTC.  $2,376 is just the bottom end.  O.O

lol

you got the whole calculation wrong!
it is a couple of low profile, low intellect brokers who can't get the head around it so the keep phoning again and again for more help to understand the miracles of btc and mtgox ... 

[piramida]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

That statement is also true for cash. How can you prove that your lost you bag full of dollar bills?

In fact, much easier to prove stolen bitcoins than with cash. You can easily prove you own the address, all transactions are public, so you can claim with proof exactly the amount stolen. Not possible with most other financial instruments. Even if you lose control (private key) of one address, you can present history of  transactions with your other (controlled) addresses as ownership proof.

[blogospheroid]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

You're thinking too far ahead.

They have to prove you have them first.

If I'm a genuine business accepting bitcoins, paying my taxes and doing due diligence, then my addresses will be public knowledge. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Imagine an anarcho-capitalist scenario, insurance covers damages and competitive courts act as arbitrers. Even there, I will not be able to genuinely claim I have been hacked as no one can genuinely say that the hackers address is not something I'm controlling with a sock-puppet. In the case of other stores of value, I can.

[Rampion]

Guys,

I'm reposting my comment from another thread as it is relevant to this thread as well.

The pseudo-anonymous nature of bitcoin will prevent anyone from legally claiming that they lost it. 
So, even genuine losses like hacks cannot be offset as losses for tax purposes. What effect this will have on bitcoin as a store of wealth is something unknown.

That statement is also true for cash. How can you prove that your lost you bag full of dollar bills?

In fact, much easier to prove stolen bitcoins than with cash. You can easily prove you own the address, all transactions are public, so you can claim with proof exactly the amount stolen. Not possible with most other financial instruments. Even if you lose control (private key) of one address, you can present history of  transactions with your other (controlled) addresses as ownership proof.

Completely agree with you. The above comment about "not being able to legally claiming" you lost your btc is as silly as it gets. That's what happens with cash, and bitcoin is cash-like. And BTW: cash is "pseudo-anonymous" too, in case some did not realize this fact