How I feel with people desperately buying above the $55 resistance...

[RogerR]

Gib' auf, du hast keine Chance! Lass' es uns beenden! Es ist einfacher für dich, viel einfacher. Du wirst sehen, es ist gleich vorbei.


Reminds me of the old $13 resistance back in 2011. Those of us around long enough to still remember know how that went...

[RogerR]

[xorglub]

2011 was nowhere that intense though. 1 week after the top the price was still > $15. This is a slaughter.

[RogerR]

The dimensions are bigger for sure. Back then, all people knew was up-up-up.

This time it's different:

- They already know the market can easily crash, so maybe patience is wearing thinner.
- There is more money involved - meaning if the backers of a certain price-level step aside, it is practically impossible to stop the momentum.
- We are still in No Man's Land. $50+ is not cheap for something that is not backed by much other than the hopes of future wealth.

The remaining factors are still the same though. Illiquid markets, weak infrastructure, no stabilizing forces in place to prevent over-speculation/mass-panic; and what good does a store of value do you, if it doesn't pay you back the stored value when you need it the most?

I expect to see single digits again. You simply can't do shit with your Bitcoins yet other than hold and/or sell back to fiat - and sooner or later a lot of people will come to terms with that, at which point we will see a price-normalization.

Interestingly enough, even if mass-adaption was to take place - I believe the forces of cashing-out will outweight the forces of buying in. You would need a massive amount of automatic buyers that are willing to take all those coins streaming back into the markets from $-priced goods/services. Those merchants won't wanna hold, that is not their business.

So how much $ really is in the BTC system per available coin. I'm not talking about recently traded coin, but available coin. Since people are certainly also withdrawing fiat, I doubt the answer is more than $10.

Find someone/something willing to buy up ALL remaining coins for a certain price (without actually doing so), and you have your fair price. The rest is just circle-jerking.

[bitcon]

its not meant to be a get rich quick scheme.  its still better than holding fiat IMO.

[proudhon]

its not meant to be a get rich quick scheme.  its still better than holding fiat IMO.

How is that?  Even at its worst most people in Cyprus will not have lost as much purchasing power or stored value as people who bought above $100.  Fiat, in most countries, is a much, much safer place to store money than bitcoin.

[Coincrazy]

its not meant to be a get rich quick scheme.  its still better than holding fiat IMO.

How is that?  Even at its worst most people in Cyprus will not have lost as much purchasing power or stored value as people who bought above $100.  Fiat, in most countries, is a much, much safer place to store money than bitcoin.

@ proudhon

you seem to be the celebrity on bearish predictions ...

So what's your prediction for this week ... I am NOT asking day ..by day or minute by minute ...but for this week

high - ??

Low - ??



TIA

[massivebitman]

Well if it's supposed to be a currency there wouldn't be much point in speculating with it.

In reality, I think we're all just gamblers!

If anything the price is like a pyramid scheme... Early people get paid, late adopters get shafted

[ruski]

no stabilizing forces in place to prevent over-speculation/mass-panic

I believe Gox tried that, and got skewered for it. Just sayin'.

[proudhon]

its not meant to be a get rich quick scheme.  its still better than holding fiat IMO.

How is that?  Even at its worst most people in Cyprus will not have lost as much purchasing power or stored value as people who bought above $100.  Fiat, in most countries, is a much, much safer place to store money than bitcoin.

@ proudhon

you seem to be the celebrity on bearish predictions ...

So what's your prediction for this week ... I am NOT asking day ..by day or minute by minute ...but for this week

high - ??

Low - ??



TIA

Well, you guys are crashing so fast my bearishness just can't keep up.  I think that push to $50 was the low and we'll be heading back up from here.

[keewee]

its not meant to be a get rich quick scheme.  its still better than holding fiat IMO.

How is that?  Even at its worst most people in Cyprus will not have lost as much purchasing power or stored value as people who bought above $100.  Fiat, in most countries, is a much, much safer place to store money than bitcoin.

@ proudhon

you seem to be the celebrity on bearish predictions ...

So what's your prediction for this week ... I am NOT asking day ..by day or minute by minute ...but for this week

high - ??

Low - ??



TIA

We'll, you guys are crashing so fast my bearishness just can't keep up.  I think that push to $50 was the low and we'll be heading back up from here.

Hmmmmmmm contrarian indicator or not? 

[RogerR]

no stabilizing forces in place to prevent over-speculation/mass-panic

I believe Gox tried that, and got skewered for it. Just sayin'.

When? It would make sense for them to buy up small amounts here and there to maintain the image of high value for other investors to follow suit with their price expectation, but I doubt they have nearly enough money to catch a falling knife - that would be very stupid on their terms.

Then again, this is clearly an obvious problem with such high price-fluctuations: the power of early adopters to screw everyone over is simply too high.

I proposed this in a different thread before, but maybe we actually need a completely new Bitcoin system with the following attributes:

- no early adopters, the amount of coins in circulation is directly proportional to the amount of transactions/users
- early coin distribution could be similar in form to the original Bitcoin faucet (perhaps coupled with some randomness to prevent exploitation)
- some form of Bitcoin central bank, that pledges to buy up coins once under-valued, and sells them in times of higher-demand. This job could be divided into groups of many individuals (much like present day mining pools), with profits going into proof-of-transaction costs and in parts inflation increase of total monetary pool handled by the system + personal profit of participating/pledging individuals
- big money dumps are to be handled OTC, via auctions so not to destroy the Bitcoin ecosystem. What amounts a large dump is to be defined as percentage of the size of the ecosystem.

optional:

- no central exchanges
- ?

I believe this would make a lot more sense for a long-term successful crypto-currency system than the humbug we have now. Nobody knows how much coins are even still in circulation/destroyed/waiting to wipe out the next big wave.

Also, it doesn't have to happen tomorrow - a system like this would be a lot fairer to all market participants, regardless of their time of market entry. It could also run alongside the present day system, so people can choose whether or not they prefer gamble or stability.

[ruski]

No Roger, they shut down the exchange for the "cooloff." Have you forgotten already?

Also, don't be bitter you're not an early adopter. It's not going to change.

[proudhon]

no stabilizing forces in place to prevent over-speculation/mass-panic

I believe Gox tried that, and got skewered for it. Just sayin'.

When? It would make sense for them to buy up small amounts here and there to maintain the image of high value for other investors to follow suit with their price expectation, but I doubt they have nearly enough money to catch a falling knife - that would be very stupid on their terms.

Then again, this is clearly an obvious problem with such high price-fluctuations: the power of early adopters to screw everyone over is simply too high.

I proposed this in a different thread before, but maybe we actually need a completely new Bitcoin system with the following attributes:

- no early adopters, the amount of coins in circulation is directly proportional to the amount of transactions/users
- early coin distribution could be similar in form to the original Bitcoin faucet (perhaps coupled with some randomness to prevent exploitation)
- some form of Bitcoin central bank, that pledges to buy up coins once under-valued, and sells them in times of higher-demand. This job could be divided into groups of many individuals (much like present day mining pools), with profits going into proof-of-transaction costs and in parts inflation increase of total monetary pool handled by the system + personal profit of participating/pledging individuals
- big money dumps are to be handled OTC, via auctions so not to destroy the Bitcoin ecosystem. What amounts a large dump is to be defined as percentage of the size of the ecosystem.

optional:

- no central exchanges
- ?

I believe this would make a lot more sense for a long-term successful crypto-currency system than the humbug we have now. Nobody knows how much coins are even still in circulation/destroyed/waiting to wipe out the next big wave.

Also, it doesn't have to happen tomorrow - a system like this would be a lot fairer to all market participants, regardless of their time of market entry. It could also run alongside the present day system, so people can choose whether or not they prefer gamble or stability.

You could call it "Fedcoin".

[ruski]

You could call it "Fedcoin".

My god, I just actually read his proposal.

We already have a system like that, you goddamn retard. It's called the US Dollar. Welfare is the faucet, the amount of coins in circulation are regulated proportionally to the trade via a little thing called fractional reserve banking and Fed buybacks, who also take care of the coins being over/under valued. Big money "dumps" still exist such as the French tried in 1973 or that guy that shorted the pound for a few billion, but generally you have nowhere to dump anyway.

Congratulations! Your perfect system already exists! You already use it! And guess what? You're still broke.

NEXT

[fitty]

Well, you guys are crashing so fast my bearishness just can't keep up.  I think that push to $50 was the low and we'll be heading back up from here.

You sound like a bull. This is worse then I thought. 

[RogerR]

You could call it "Fedcoin".

My god, I just actually read his proposal.

We already have a system like that, you goddamn retard. It's called the US Dollar. Welfare is the faucet, the amount of coins in circulation are regulated proportionally to the trade via a little thing called fractional reserve banking and Fed buybacks, who also take care of the coins being over/under valued. Big money "dumps" still exist such as the French tried in 1973 or that guy that shorted the pound for a few billion, but generally you have nowhere to dump anyway.

Congratulations! Your perfect system already exists! You already use it! And guess what? You're still broke.

NEXT

I beg your pardon? My proposed system would not create new coins simply due to lack of economic activity (aka stimulus packages), but correlate to a certainly finite amount of users participating in the system. Furthermore, it could most certainly also be coupled with restrictions to prevent over-growth.

The point of such a system would be to prevent too many coins to fall into the hands of a few, while still accounting for inflation in its value (the bigger the $-pool, the higher the wealth/backed value of the coins within the system.

Would you be willing to specify why such a system doesn't work?

edit: Also, the faucet would not be meant as a welfare instrument at all - it simply be a tool to help promote initial distribution.

[ruski]

I beg your pardon? My proposed system would not create new coins simply due to lack of economic activity (aka stimulus packages), but correlate to a certainly finite amount of users participating in the system. Furthermore, it could most certainly also be coupled with restrictions to prevent over-growth.

The point of such a system would be to prevent too many coins to fall into the hands of a few, while still accounting for inflation in its value (the bigger the $-pool, the higher the wealth/backed value of the coins within the system.

Would you be willing to specify why such a system doesn't work?

No, actually, it's rather too simple to waste my time explaining it to you. Try to build your system, then you tell me why it doesn't work. You could call it Equalcoin.

[RogerR]

I beg your pardon? My proposed system would not create new coins simply due to lack of economic activity (aka stimulus packages), but correlate to a certainly finite amount of users participating in the system. Furthermore, it could most certainly also be coupled with restrictions to prevent over-growth.

The point of such a system would be to prevent too many coins to fall into the hands of a few, while still accounting for inflation in its value (the bigger the $-pool, the higher the wealth/backed value of the coins within the system.

Would you be willing to specify why such a system doesn't work?

No, actually, it's rather too simple to waste my time explaining it to you. Try to build your system, then you tell me why it doesn't work. You could call it Equalcoin.

I don't have the time right now to do it myself (hence me throwing it out here to maybe spark some collaboration), but perhaps eventually I will. Unlike your perception I am very much interested in the success of a cryptocurrency that can both be used as a tool for store-of-wealth as well as a means to facilitate monetary transactions - something that Bitcoin fails to achieve (and in my eyes due to aforementioned issues always will fail to achieve).

So yeah, nobody has to contribute to anything, but if you do feel like you should or could then I am still waiting for arguments as to why such a system would fail.

[zoolander]

Well, you guys are crashing so fast my bearishness just can't keep up.  I think that push to $50 was the low and we'll be heading back up from here.

You are calling a low of $50? *suspicious look*