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

[KS]

nice pic....

Nice chart. Bear in mind that the price is in the same ballpark as the actual bitcoin usage. It would be powerful to see this chart divided by the "# of users" or some other usage metric. If the marketcap is $50k per user, it is much less interesting to invest than if market cap is $500 per user.

In the Nasdaq bubble, mobile operators saw bubble valuations of $20k per user, which of course could not hold.

Dollar now has $2000 per person in the world valuation, bubble or not.

And these are exactly the numbers we don't have and do need to conclude if a 100 dollar coin is cheap or expensive

If all the world uses bitcoin exactly as much as they use gold now, 1 bitcoin will be valued at $300,000.

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

[Rampion]

If all the world uses bitcoin exactly as much as they use gold now, 1 bitcoin will be valued at $300,000.

If ...
If ...
If ...


If I were rich, I would be rich.
Nice, but who cares?


Bitcoin will never ever be close to be used as much as gold is used now.
Come back in real life plz.

[KS]

If all the world uses bitcoin exactly as much as they use gold now, 1 bitcoin will be valued at $300,000.

If ...
If ...
If ...


If I were rich, I would be rich.
Nice, but who cares?


Bitcoin will never ever be close to be used as much as gold is used now.
Come back in real life plz.

lol

is there a hidden message?

[naphto]

I'm fine, thank you, just don't like dumb people

[Rampion]

I'm fine, thank you, just don't like dumb people

They were not for you

[naphto]

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day
I bet you were serious

[gandhibt]

If all the world uses bitcoin exactly as much as they use gold now, 1 bitcoin will be valued at $300,000.

If ...
If ...
If ...


If I were rich, I would be rich.
Nice, but who cares?


Bitcoin will never ever be close to be used as much as gold is used now.
Come back in real life plz.

You defend reason and then you say that bitcoin will never be used as much as gold? Why? It's possible that bitcoin will be the global currency of the world. There's always that possibility, just like there was when one bitcoin was worth <1 USD, it was LESS possible than it is now.

[4mherewego]

nice pic....

Nice chart. Bear in mind that the price is in the same ballpark as the actual bitcoin usage. It would be powerful to see this chart divided by the "# of users" or some other usage metric. If the marketcap is $50k per user, it is much less interesting to invest than if market cap is $500 per user.

In the Nasdaq bubble, mobile operators saw bubble valuations of $20k per user, which of course could not hold.

Dollar now has $2000 per person in the world valuation, bubble or not.

And these are exactly the numbers we don't have and do need to conclude if a 100 dollar coin is cheap or expensive

If all the world uses bitcoin exactly as much as they use gold now, 1 bitcoin will be valued at $300,000.

You mean that central banks would lock away bitcoins in big vaults and people would wear bitcoins around our necks? Then the number is closer to 900k right?

[naphto]

They were not for you

Did I say otherwise?

[ChartBuddy]

[10c]

mmm kind of a lowballer... about the pills...
No problem if you don't believe BTC will hit 300K.
I don't think we will hit that number any time soon (if at all)
however; don't underestimate exponential growth.
Just last year when BTC was at $2 adam called a 100 for this year and was made fun of
look where we are now. everybody accepts that reality.

I don't know about you guys; but he might not be as crazy as you might think.
from what I understand he's made some serious cash. unless you are all rich like that, you might wonder how he made it before coming to conclusions.

[KS]

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day
I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=174620.msg1886147#msg1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

[Rampion]

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day
I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=174620.msg1886147#msg1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

[10c]

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=174620.msg1886147#msg1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

I agree it won't take that much to add 1 or 2 digits.
I for one am very anxious to see what price will be when BTC mainstreams and economy accepts it.
exponential growth will heave taken place and price will have skyrocketed to proportions that would make our last bubble look like normal growth and no one seems to understand why it 'corrected'

[dexX7]

Two random visual cues:


The price movement doesn't fit well at all, but tendency and time periods does.




Each time the sum of bids and asks on the book was lower than the price, we could observe a local price minimum and trend reversal following.

[10c]

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

You're spot on with the infrastructure.
Block chain is the easy thing to fix.

[Rampion]

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

You're spot on with the infrastructure.
Block chain is the easy thing to fix.

True.

EDIT: anyhow, as the block size gets bigger, it will be more difficult to run full nodes on home computers. If the block size is not fixed and it adjust automatically, big miners could just push out small miners creating on purpouse very big blocks. This has been discussed ad nauseam, and there's no easy answer. Higher capacity of transactions per second will inevitably lead to a bigger centralization (only "servers" running full nodes), the point is to reach an equilibrium in which a lot of transactions per second can happen while the average Joe can still run a full node.

Anyhow, what you said is true: blockchain can be fixed quickly and easily to accomodate more transaction per seconds (the negative side of that is a different discussion). What's slower is the enhancement of the trading platforms and other infrastructure (services).

[10c]

Two random visual cues:


The price movement doesn't fit well at all, but tendency and time periods does.




Each time the sum of bids and asks on the book was lower than the price, we could observe a local price minimum and trend reversal following.

So your TA tells us we hit 120+ within 2 weeks?

[phoenix1]

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

It never gets old ...

[KS]

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day
I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=174620.msg1886147#msg1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

This is not about the Bitcoin reaching 300K this year, or the infrastructure capability etc. It's the simple evaluation of his reasoning to get to the 300K figure in 2013-valued US Dollars (so the 300K might become 310K in 2014 USD with inflation, etc). He's basically postulating that if everyone were to use Bitcoin, it's value would reach 300K. He gets to that number by estimating the average number of Bitcoins each person would have and equates that with the average gold weight that everyone uses (historical data 1913-2013). He uses the average wage for a skilled worker (in the "West") as the basis of his price verification.

Even if the number is totally wrong, his math looks alright and his reasoning has some merit. I do find it ironic that he turns Bitcoin on its head by making it the new gold though (the basis for the old monetary system).