Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JayJuanGee]

I pm'd Mark on irc, asking if he is working on re-opening the exchange and he said yes.

Did not expect that he would react to my questions

How does he plan on opening an empty exchange? I'm sure people thought he would try and open it if all the funds werent gone but at this point just how does he plan on running an exchange with no coins that has just been plastered over the news as the bankruptcy of bitcoin a long with all the stories of peoples lives ruined by this.

YEAH... this reopening of GOX is crazy-talk.

So I can't find any threads here about bitstamp's hiccup yesterday.

Not leaving anything in there until I do.

One hiccup does NOT an insolvent exchange make.

[barbs]

WWGD?

What would Gox Do?

[aminorex]

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.

Well said.  It certainly gets tedious refuting obvious well known fallacies.  Sadly there will always be another generation of idiots who buy the same drivel until they learn better.

[aminorex]

$666ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Hey, it's stability.  Jorge can invest now:  It stopped going up.

[adamstgBit]

walls up

arm fiat torpedoes, full spread!

FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

[michaelGedi]

WWGD?

...

 

[niothor]

WWGD?

What would Gox Do?

Isn't he holding his hands like he has some handcuffs on?

[tailor]

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

[aminorex]

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

This is the repetition technique of propaganda: Just keep repeating the same falsehood until those who stand up to refute it finally get worn out, and move on.  At that point most of those listening to you get only your message, so they are easily led to believe it.

[michaelGedi]

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

the way bitcoin seems to polarise opinion eventually these articles will be one of 2 things. Either these articles will be right or these articles will be wrong.

If they are right then there will be no need for an "original" critique.

[exponential]

AHHHHH

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin does NOT need to win the lottery or have some exorbitant pay off in order for it to be of considerable value.  Actually, even if bitcoin maintains its value flat, it is doing a heck of a lot better than the dollar b/c the dollar is inevitably programmed to shrink in value due to dilution (too much expansion of the supply).  

Sure, cash under the mattress is definitely a bad investment.  On the other hand, the stock of a good company usually has a positive net expected value, typically around 5% of the price plus inflation.

So, you go wrong in a couple of respects regarding your bitcoin/lottery discussion, the first, as referred to above, is the anticipation that some major payoff is needed in order for bitcoin to be successful.  

When I started paying attention to bitcoin, a few months ago, one of the two main "selling" points used to convince people to invest in it was the demand/supply argment, ostensibly proving that its price would rise to six figures or more when, at some not too distant future, everybody starte using bitcoins.  (A few days ago someone posted a photo of a projected slide showing such numbers for various scenarios, ending with "investment/pension funds keep their capital as bitcoin" and some astronomical number beside that.)  And in this thread, the "hodlers" apparently still believe in that math.

There were (there are) several things wrong with that argument, the main one being the implicit assumption that cryptocoin = bitcoin.  A year ago, the salesman could jump from "cryptocoins are so nice that everybody will want to use them" to "bitcoins will be used in X% of all e-payments" without people noticing the gap.  Back then, altcoins were only a theoretical possibility, which was dismissed by claims about the "Network Effect" and "First-Movers Advantage".

Well, since then altcoins became a reality, did not fail as predicted, and some of them seem to be strong competitors to bitcoin.  One thing that bitcoiners missed is that any "Satoshi" who creates an altcoin can make a lot of money by selling his pre-mined coins at the right moment, even if the coin flops later on. Clearly the Network Effect and First Mover Advantage weren't strong enough to counter that "Copycat Advantage".  Moreover, some altcoins do have some advantages over bitcoin, such as faster processing, democratic distribution of pre-mined coins, or a lethally cute puppy face.

Anyway, now bitcoin salesmen cannot do that jump any more. They must keep saying "cryptocoin" instead of "bitcoin" all the way to the final demand/supply formula. But since the supply of cryptocoins is infinite, not 21 million, the conclusion will be that "when cryptocoins are used to their full potential, the price of a cryptocoin will be at least zero." In other words, that demand/supply argument just went poof. 

The sad fact is that now there is no argument or statistical analysis that will justify any claim about the value of a bitcoin in that ultimate future.  It definitely may be zero, even if cryptocoins succeed beyond all dreams.

The other aspect that you go wrong is to expect that any investment in BTC has to be for a predetermined number of years.  Markets have inevitably shown that investors are capable of playing their investments by ear and to go with the flow with whatever the investors perceive to be best to provide them with an acceptable return.  

That is a very different "market", namely the speculative investors who aim to make money by buying and selling as the price changes.  Indeed, because of its high volatility, bitcoin may appeal to those speculators who believe that they are smarter than their peers.  However, short-range speculation is basically a zero-sum game. In practice, it is a negative-sum game, because of trading fees and time wasted. So, the expected value for a randomly chosen speculator is negative, like that of a lottery ticket.

And, anyway, that use is not what cryptocoins were invented for.  One thing that the world does not need is another financial instrument for speculators to play with.

Jorge :  

I appreciate that you responded to a few of the points that I had made in my earlier post.

It seems that you are truly a smart guy; however, your responses to my points are very inadequate and seem to exist in some kind of lala land universe.  

Your arguments are truly inadequate, and it seems that I need NOT supplement my earlier explanation in order to recognize that you go on several tangents rather than directly dealing with the reality of the situation regarding bitcoin being an evolving product that is the current cryptocurrency market leader.. bitcoin remains the market leader in spite of the multiple other cryptocurrencies.  

Surely, some day one or more of those alternative cryptocurrencies may give bitcoin a run for its money, but face the reality of the situation that bitcoin retains a much larger percentage of they crypto currency market share and the increasing investment into ALL cryptocurrencies shows an increasing public interest in the cryptocurrency concept which, ultimately, seems to benefit bitcoin.  

Now, on the other hand, some of the shenanigans and the seemingly ponzi schemes with some of the alternative cryptocurrencies, may snuff out some of bitcoin's energy... but we are going to have to see how those distractive dynamics play out before putting our nails in a bitcoin coffin, as you seem anxious to begin such bitcoin funeral preparations.

[tailor]

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

This is the repetition technique of propaganda: Just keep repeating the same falsehood until those who stand up to refute it finally get worn out, and move on.  At that point most of those listening to you get only your message, so they are easily led to believe it.

And the faithful will stay in their echo chambers shouting down or dismissing the unbelievers, while saying the rest of the world will eventually see the light.

Cryptocurrencies need to overcome limitations to become more widely accessible and useful. Those within the community may be better suited to see limitations if they can remove the blinders.

[aminorex]

your responses to my points are very inadequate and seem to exist in some kind of lala land universe.  

You noticed that too.  To be fair you can't expect full formal rigor in forum posts, but complete non sequiturs using Bernaysian rhetorical methods are a bit trying after a while.  Sadly they will always be persuasive to some demographic.

Now, on the other hand, some of the shenanigans and the seemingly ponzi schemes with some of the alternative cryptocurrencies, may snuff out some of bitcoin's energy... but we are going to have to see how those distractive dynamics play out...

More likely they will snuff out the alt energy.  What a cesspool.  Bitcoin is bad enough.  Unfortunately it will always be a target.  We can't really hope for all the scammers to fall in the scamcoin bucket, because the real money is in Bitcoin.  The scammers will only get more sophisticated, and gain more resources.

[delphic]

Now, on the other hand, some of the shenanigans and the seemingly ponzi schemes with some of the alternative cryptocurrencies, may snuff out some of bitcoin's energy... but we are going to have to see how those distractive dynamics play out before putting our nails in a bitcoin coffin, as you seem anxious to begin such bitcoin funeral preparations.

A funeral paid for with bitcoins. That would be great publicity.

[billyjoeallen]

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

Because we've read countless articles like that for 3 years.  These people obviously don't do research or they would understand that they are making very old arguments. What is cultish is to expect the same failed tactic to work this time. If you want to persuade us "cultists" of the error of our ways, then at least come up with a new argument.
If you're going to be a critic, at least be an original one.

That same argument could be used by any belief system dismissing an article pointing out the behaviour.

the way bitcoin seems to polarise opinion eventually these articles will be one of 2 things. Either these articles will be right or these articles will be wrong.

If they are right then there will be no need for an "original" critique.

They have already been logically proven to be wrong. To date they have had no predictive value. You can't make up for lack of substance with repetition and volume. I like a good scary story. Scare me. These weak ass objections would be boring if it weren't for the schadenfreude they provide.

[JayJuanGee]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/doomsday-cult-of-bitcoin.html

The above quoted article is such bullshit that it is hardly worth repeating.... Maybe I am guilty of the same but I just wanted to make clear my referent?   Surely, with any movement, there are going to be some people who are true believers, and they have NO basis in fact for their beliefs - however, to put bitcoin in that category and to suggest that a lot of bitcoin followers fall into cultish behavior attempts to poo poo and to minimize a large number of concrete and positive contributions of bitcoin.  

Your outright dismissal of the article is exactly the type of cultish behaviour the author is talking about - dismiss anything that doesn't fit the faith view.

What concrete contributions has bitcoin made? It certainly hasn't changed the world yet, and it's highly unlikely it will without some drastic change to the limited exchange problem. The killer app for BTC could be transferring money online, but that only works if it can be easily converted to local currency

You are going to defend the bullshit article... WOW... and then accuse me of engaging in cultish behavior b/c I call the article bullshit.  

I am NOT going to waste my time arguing point by point the bullshit nature of the article b/c it should be abundantly clear to you, if you were to know anything about bitcoin, that material changes are occurring within the bitcoin network, including billions of dollars of investment going into its infrastructure and its wider and wider network of acceptance and use.. which sooner or later (more likely sooner) is going to be reflected in increased prices and exponential growth of prices (absent some very material flaws or problems with bitcoin - which we have NOT yet discovered).  

This bitcoin thingy majiggy is NOT a product of a cult but more likely the early stages of an expanding phenomenon that YOU seem to be unwilling or unable to recognize with your suggestion that I am engaging in cultish denial.. b/c I continue to believe and to think the article is bullshit.... and a BIGASS waste of time to accept its framing of the issue as anything less than disingenuous.

[tailor]

They have already been logically proven to be wrong. To date they have had no predictive value. You can't make up for lack of substance with repetition and volume. I like a good scary story. Scare me. These weak ass objections would be boring if it weren't for the schadenfreude they provide.

What's been logically proven to be wrong in the article being discussed?

[billyjoeallen]

walls up

arm fiat torpedoes, full spread!

FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

I want to suck in a few more bears first.

Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

[Walsoraj]

Never stop hodling because doomsday is always just around the corner

Nancy Lieder claims that she is the sole human conduit of extraterrestrial travelers from Zeta Reticuli, a binary star system roughly 30 light years from here. And if this is true, they’ve obviously put a lot of time and effort into the relationship. She told me that she’d been groomed for this position since childhood, while in her teenage years she participated in the development of Zeta / Human hybrids. She is still in contact with her half-Zeta son, a friend of Al Gore (who has his own hybrid stepfamily). Lieder has written extensively about this, pointing out that custody battles between parents of human-alien hybrids are quite rare.

...

By doomsday, May 2003, Nancy had become a celebrity in the insular world of UFOs. It must have been something of a relief when it passed without any sign of Planet X. If ninety percent of the earth’s population were to die, where would she find new fans?

Nancy still stands by her claims. She's just fudged the timeline a bit. The real return of Planet X, Lieder says, is indeed imminent, but the Zetas have adopted a new policy: no more exact dates. Which, if you ask us, seems like the best idea they’ve had yet.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/19/3757380/the-end-planet-x-2012-zeta-talk

Nancy and the typical bitcoiner have a lot in common, including their relationship towards reality