Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2019, 10:48:38 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What do you think about more?
Sex - 24 (36.9%)
Bitcoin - 41 (63.1%)
Total Voters: 65

Pages: « 1 ... 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 16298 16299 16300 16301 16302 16303 16304 16305 16306 16307 16308 16309 16310 16311 16312 16313 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 [16337] 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 16358 16359 16360 16361 16362 16363 16364 16365 16366 16367 16368 16369 16370 16371 16372 16373 16374 16375 16376 16377 16378 16379 16380 16381 16382 16383 16384 16385 16386 16387 ... 24802 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21329234 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (104 posts by 20 users deleted.)
roony
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Did you see the roonies on him???


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:09:15 PM

We are very close my friends  Wink



Read Full Article here: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/will-the-sec-approve-a-bitcoin-etf/
1566168518
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566168518

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566168518
Reply with quote  #2

1566168518
Report to moderator
1566168518
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566168518

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566168518
Reply with quote  #2

1566168518
Report to moderator
1566168518
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566168518

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566168518
Reply with quote  #2

1566168518
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1042
Merit: 1011



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:14:55 PM


From the article:


Quote
This is a sponsored story.


I have no idea what the SEC will do, but I would not bet the bank on approval if I were you.
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:15:52 PM

We are very close my friends  Wink



Read Full Article here: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/will-the-sec-approve-a-bitcoin-etf/

If the Winkle ETF gets turned down, I'll be buying. Aside from ETF's, it is only one string in the bitcoin bow. There are many global trends that bode well for bitcoin, with China's dwindling FX reserves / capital controls / devaluations being a biggie. A visit back to the 800's would be great.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1925


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:21:09 PM

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.


Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.


It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha Cheesy

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.
roony
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Did you see the roonies on him???


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:26:49 PM

If the Winkle ETF gets turned down, I'll be buying. Aside from ETF's, it is only one string in the bitcoin bow. There are many global trends that bode well for bitcoin, with China's dwindling FX reserves / capital controls / devaluations being a biggie. A visit back to the 800's would be great.

Yes, but we do believe that SEC's approval is just the beginning of the new era, with that new money will come, new buyers, the ones who never heard about bitcoin, the richest man, the poor man, everyone will get in, and price will climbe to a level you have never imagine.

Personally, I don't believe bitcoin gonna decline so much to 800 level, 950/980 maybe, but not 800 (forget it).
Cassius
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1029


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2017, 09:28:32 PM

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.


Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.


It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha Cheesy

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.
roony
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Did you see the roonies on him???


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:29:18 PM

$1100 tonight?

Tomorrow it will happen sure, tomorrow the majority of the people receive their salarys, and certantly new money will do that climb
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1925


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:36:52 PM

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.


Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.


It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha Cheesy

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.

Do what you like.. but it seems that we have had several exchanges where I attempt to get you to address substance, and you get all wrapped up in personal bullshit, or avoidance or diversion. 

So, either way.  You can ignore my posts if you like or attempt to engage, but it seems that it is becoming much more apparent that you may be having some difficulties grappling with actual substance - that is why you tend to either focus on personal attacks and/or labelling my various substantive points as "incoherent."

 I will continue to comment on your posts to the extent that I may consider any potential utility for such comments... and it is up to you whether to respond or not.   
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1028



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:42:53 PM

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.
Cassius
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1029


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2017, 09:46:43 PM

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.


Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.


It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha Cheesy

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.

Do what you like.. but it seems that we have had several exchanges where I attempt to get you to address substance, and you get all wrapped up in personal bullshit, or avoidance or diversion. 

So, either way.  You can ignore my posts if you like or attempt to engage, but it seems that it is becoming much more apparent that you may be having some difficulties grappling with actual substance - that is why you tend to either focus on personal attacks and/or labelling my various substantive points as "incoherent."

 I will continue to comment on your posts to the extent that I may consider any potential utility for such comments... and it is up to you whether to respond or not.   

I don't think you're intentionally trolling, though bct has not done your personality any favours for sure. So I'll try one more time. Forget mass adoption. Shorthand is useful when typing on a smartphone. Think greater adoption, a prerequisite of which is people actually knowing about bitcoin. New people, outside of the message boards which are a really very small part of the world.
The reality is that journos will only prick up their ears and publish a story at the Gox ath. Then more people will read about it and a proportion will be interested enough to look into it more. This is how lots of people come to bitcoin and new things in general.
It's such a simple progression. Exposure equals greater user base. I really don't see what's so difficult or controversial about that.
roony
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Did you see the roonies on him???


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 09:54:46 PM

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Well observerd, and I agree with you in all you said  Smiley
swogerino
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1025


KnowNoBorders.io


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 10:08:48 PM

$1100 tonight?
$1050 already.
So why not? Grin
Still 8 hours left on my side of the world until midnight starts a new day in bitcoin land. Cheesy
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1925


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 10:11:22 PM

[edited out]

I don't think you're intentionally trolling, though bct has not done your personality any favours for sure.

I don't know how you know this or why or how it is even relevant to anything?  My personality has changed because of bitcoin?  Sure it has, based on more than three years of investing, studying and posting... but so fucking what.

You wish people stay the same and don't learn anything?  Again, seems quite tangential to the extent that it could be relevant to anything.



So I'll try one more time. Forget mass adoption. Shorthand is useful when typing on a smartphone. Think greater adoption, a prerequisite of which is people actually knowing about bitcoin. New people, outside of the message boards which are a really very small part of the world.

Yes, it could be that we are talking about similar things and phrasing the matter in different ways.  My earlier point was that you seem to be giving way too much emphasis to the concept of mass adoption in your attempt to suggest that the ATH of GOX is actually relevant to BTC fundamentals or any kind of price movement dynamics or psychological barriers.  Several posters, including me, have asserted that the GOX ATH deserves little to no attention (sure that does not mean that you ignore it completely, but it seems to be a quite less important factor as compared with other factors.. and why put a less important factor in front of more important factors is somewhat beyond me  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes).  



The reality is that journos will only prick up their ears and publish a story at the Gox ath. Then more people will read about it and a proportion will be interested enough to look into it more. This is how lots of people come to bitcoin and new things in general.
It's such a simple progression. Exposure equals greater user base. I really don't see what's so difficult or controversial about that.

Again, what you are saying is not untrue.. it is just a matter of the amount of weight that you seem to be attributing to such...

Mass media attention is a factor; however, most of us should already realize that there is and has been and will continue to be a lot of misinformation out there about bitcoin, and certainly folks have to filter through these various conflicting information sources.

Part of my point, that I already made, is that bitcoin is going to move up and down and sideways based on a large number of factors, and mass media may be one of them.. yet it continues to be one that does not necessarily correlate well with anything (including price) as you seem to want to suggest.

Let's say for example, we get a lot of mass media attention while the price is going up and being pumped.. yeah.. that can temporarily push the price pump longer and further, but in the end, it is only one of many factors pushing the price.. and sometimes can even be a sign that price is about to go down.
Biodom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1267



View Profile
February 07, 2017, 10:15:27 PM

LOL, according to this notion eth all time high is $2000 and Zec's is $200000 because some "opportunists" traded a few tiny fractions of a unit at day one when there was like 0.03 zecs mined.
savetherainforest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 514


Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 10:48:58 PM

$1100 tonight?


Maybe on the China exchanges... Tongue  Tongue
raiblock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 452
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 11:24:32 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-price-soars-past-1060-as-political-worries-intensify-2017-02-07?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

 Roll Eyes
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064


Bitcoin is antisemitic


View Profile
February 07, 2017, 11:38:42 PM

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

very interesting.
Thx
TaurusBit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100


TaurusBit.com Administrator


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2017, 12:16:00 AM

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Nice analysis.  Cool
yefi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1161



View Profile
February 08, 2017, 01:10:28 AM
Last edit: February 08, 2017, 01:42:25 AM by yefi

$1050 already.
So why not? Grin
Still 8 hours left on my side of the world until midnight starts a new day in bitcoin land. Cheesy

We're certainly doing very nicely at the moment. It's tempting to think we might go exponential, which would wrong-foot everyone looking for triangles or handles.
cmacwiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 706
Merit: 270


BookiePro.Fun - The World's Betting Exchange


View Profile
February 08, 2017, 01:29:02 AM

Looks like we are about to go into price exploration mode, as long as we bust through 1160
Pages: « 1 ... 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 16298 16299 16300 16301 16302 16303 16304 16305 16306 16307 16308 16309 16310 16311 16312 16313 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 [16337] 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 16358 16359 16360 16361 16362 16363 16364 16365 16366 16367 16368 16369 16370 16371 16372 16373 16374 16375 16376 16377 16378 16379 16380 16381 16382 16383 16384 16385 16386 16387 ... 24802 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!