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

[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.

This is not about the Bitcoin reaching 300K this year. 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).

The math is not wrong, but the assumptions are. Before that kind of adoption many things have to improve, and he is just forgetting about all that, blinded by his delusions of grandeur.

If my grandmother had wheels and an engine, she would be a motorcycle. But there's no way to implant wheels+engine on a grandma, unless you give her a wheelchair, which does not make her a living motorcycle but a poor disabled woman.

I don't know if you are getting the metaphor, I admit it was a long shot

[Coinseeker]

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.

Absolutely no chance.   

[10c]

That's what I agreed to as well, exponential growth. the numbers ad up real quick. and to use some proper TA. up until now that works for BTC. look at it 'since time began' in some charts floating around here.


I am disregarding may as this is just normal bubble burst with over correction in highs and lows.
also disregarding the markt lows as they are just that 'lows' the support are the lines I drew.
So what do think? on the right track or better of using the coin?

FT.. picture posting not for me  

[Rampion]

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.

Do you realize that those variables ( bid sum/ask sum & price; bid sum & ask sum) are displayed in those charts taking into account their own relative highest and lowest points in a given timeframe, and thus them intersecting on the chart is just arbitrary and meaningless, right?

You should pay attention to the values, but the fact they cross on the chart has no meaning at all.

EDIT: I will try to explain you visually the example. In the chart you posted, the bid sum and ask sum crossed for a moment at the beginning of June, and nowadays are very far away one from each other. Now look at the 15 days timeframe, they are crossing each other consistently for the last days. Thus, the fact they intersect or not depends on how they are charted, it will depend on their relative values on an arbitrary timeframe, and therefore is 100% meaningless.

[ChartBuddy]

[jubalix]

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.

I not sure the Bitcoin infrastructure has to support it in the sense you may mean. The blockchain can handle any particular price, all that would happen is buying bitcoins would be too expensive except for the ultra rich and big corps and govs, which would use bit coins to do things like store wealth, big currency swaps, big deals and balance the nightly's

I'm not saying BTC will go to 300K though.

[10c]

I not sure the Bitcoin infrastructure has to support it in the sense you may mean. The blockchain can handle any particular price, all that would happen is buying bitcoins would be too expensive except for the ultra rich and big corps and govs, which would use bit coins to do things like store wealth, big currency swaps, big deals and balance the nightly's

I'm not saying BTC will go to 300K though.

nah, Ramp is aiming at the limited amount of tx/s
also if wider adoption is taking place in a exponential tempo we have insufficient infra to sustain price.
the amount a BTC is worth can handle it easy as we transition to mBTC.
We have no choice other then to go mBTC, there is no need to own a BTC if prices are that high.
if you were to buy some icecream you pay with a $5 bill instead of a$1000 bill

[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. 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).

The math is not wrong, but the assumptions are. Before that kind of adoption many things have to improve, and he is just forgetting about all that, blinded by his delusions of grandeur.

If my grandmother had wheels and an engine, she would be a motorcycle. But there's no way to implant wheels+engine on a grandma, unless you give her a wheelchair, which does not make her a living motorcycle but a poor disabled woman.

I don't know if you are getting the metaphor, I admit it was a long shot

I'm not a zealot trying to convince you, I'm merely looking at his reasoning (I didn't say I joined that church either). I also think that tying Bitcoin to gold is of limited value (no pun intended ), but he's into gold so that's what he's working with.

I'd say the CAPEX and OPEX on mining equipment are a better view of the intrinsic value, but if no one wants to buy...

[N12]

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.

You are wrong, he clearly stated that there is no way we are not reaching 300k USD per BTC this year:

To not believe in $300k this year is a denial of the facts. Only a technical flaw in the algorithm or a superstealthfast adoption of a superior altcoin currently not existing, or an all-out wiping away of all mankind can keep USD/BTC from exploding this year. Already everyone who has any position in this world knows about Bitcoin. Just post any nugget of actual facts that can contradict my $300k this year or cease replying to me with nothing material, thank you.

It wasn't just a thought experiment to him, he really believed it. Why would you even take this madman seriously?

[Kupsi]

Do you realize that those variables ( bid sum/ask sum & price; bid sum & ask sum) are displayed in those charts taking into account their own relative highest and lowest points in a given timeframe, and thus them intersecting on the chart is just arbitrary and meaningless, right?

In the "Bid sum/Ask skum & Price" chart, both graphs are in USD/BTC and both graphs use the same scale. That's not arbitrary and meaningless.

[Rampion]

Do you realize that those variables ( bid sum/ask sum & price; bid sum & ask sum) are displayed in those charts taking into account their own relative highest and lowest points in a given timeframe, and thus them intersecting on the chart is just arbitrary and meaningless, right?

In the "Bid sum/Ask skum & Price" chart, both graphs are in USD/BTC and both graphs use the same scale. That's not arbitrary and meaningless.

Sure, I typed too fast and I incorrectly included the Bid sum/Ask sum & price chart. But the fact that the bid sum and ask sum crosses on a chart is 100% arbitrary and meaningless, do you agree?

[Kupsi]

Do you realize that those variables ( bid sum/ask sum & price; bid sum & ask sum) are displayed in those charts taking into account their own relative highest and lowest points in a given timeframe, and thus them intersecting on the chart is just arbitrary and meaningless, right?

In the "Bid sum/Ask skum & Price" chart, both graphs are in USD/BTC and both graphs use the same scale. That's not arbitrary and meaningless.

Sure, I typed too fast and I incorrectly included the Bid sum/Ask sum & price chart. But the fact that the bid sum and ask sum crosses on a chart is 100% arbitrary and meaningless, do you agree?

Yes 

[ChartBuddy]

[dexX7]

EDIT: I will try to explain you visually the example. In the chart you posted, the bid sum and ask sum crossed for a moment at the beginning of June, and nowadays are very far away one from each other. Now look at the 15 days timeframe, they are crossing each other consistently for the last days. Thus, the fact they intersect or not depends on how they are charted, it will depend on their relative values on an arbitrary timeframe, and therefore is 100% meaningless.

Thanks for the explanation, the bottom chart can be misleading.

What I wanted to point out was the combination of sums in relation to the current price. Right now there is about $ 14M buying power on the book vs. 13k BTC to sell. If you'd sell all 13k coins for those $ 14M, you end up with a price of ~107 $ per BTC which is above the current price.

My theory was something like "if the book-sum-price is lower than the current price, we are probably at the bottom" and "the higher the divergence between book-price and current price, the more likely a correction will follow". I'm pretty sure about the last one, but there is no guarantee that the book-price tends to be higher than the real price at all.

[N12]

We haven't had a major sell for over a week now. Should the low volume continue for a few more days, I'd be worried holding BTC.

You just know that someone out there wants to liquidate his sweet millions in dirty fiat money.

[10c]

Nice theory!

[10c]

We haven't had a major sell for over a week now. Should the low volume continue for a few more days, I'd be worried holding BTC.

You just know that someone out there wants to liquidate his sweet millions in dirty fiat money.

are you trying to scare us? you bear!

[N12]

If we get a few more dry days, yes, I would be scared.

[KS]

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.

You are wrong, he clearly stated that there is no way we are not reaching 300k USD per BTC this year:

To not believe in $300k this year is a denial of the facts. Only a technical flaw in the algorithm or a superstealthfast adoption of a superior altcoin currently not existing, or an all-out wiping away of all mankind can keep USD/BTC from exploding this year. Already everyone who has any position in this world knows about Bitcoin. Just post any nugget of actual facts that can contradict my $300k this year or cease replying to me with nothing material, thank you.

It wasn't just a thought experiment to him, he really believed it. Why would you even take this madman seriously?

lol, I missed that post (this thread is moving too fast ).

I agree that the "this year" is going to be difficult to achieve (understatement...), especially considering that Bitcoin would need to be used by everyone for that value to be reached (in his theory).

I'm not against the 300K as the _potential_ maximum value though, but I don't think we will ever see it. I'd be very happy if it were only 0.1% of that.

[10c]

is there such a thing as a bear with horns? or a bull with claws?
something equivalent to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=714-Ioa4XQw