Bitcoin Shrinking - The Long View

[flug]

So I'll give up on the Synaptic's first point. Xephan, I appreciate your points, but I'm trying to pin Synaptic down here like I'd try to pin down someone on Fox News peddling tripe.

Next point.

Here's the fact of the matter:
...
+ The price run-up happened SOLELY on hype alone. There's not much analysis that needs to be done here. It was clearly a bubble that started with the Silk Road coverage, inflated with the mining craze, and ended with the Gox scandal. That's it folks. Bitcoin jumped the shark 3 weeks ago.

How can you predict the long term success of Bitcoin on the basis of a short term transient market move the first time it became widely known?

[1714124999]

1714124999

[Synaptic]

So I'll give up on the Synaptic's first point. Xephan, I appreciate your points, but I'm trying to pin Synaptic down here like I'd try to pin down someone on Fox News peddling tripe.

Next point.

Here's the fact of the matter:
...
+ The price run-up happened SOLELY on hype alone. There's not much analysis that needs to be done here. It was clearly a bubble that started with the Silk Road coverage, inflated with the mining craze, and ended with the Gox scandal. That's it folks. Bitcoin jumped the shark 3 weeks ago.

How can you predict the long term success of Bitcoin on the basis of a short term transient market move the first time it became widely known?

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

[flug]

Your OP starts with "The long term trend for bitcoin value is contraction, not expansion". You then precede to give evidence that has nothing to do with the long term.

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

You're asserting this, but with what evidence? The long term contraction/expansion of Bitcoin depends on the developments in the Bitcoin economy over the next couple of years, not press coverage and market moves over its first couple of months. What evidence for long term contraction is there?

[Synaptic]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

A number of people have mentioned how great BTC are for international currency transport and exchange and they're correct, though this use doesn't require any valuation higher than relative parity with the strongest currencies; In fact it still works perfectly fine at 10:1 or even 100:1, the only reason for it to be higher is greedy miners hoarding to artificially restrict supply.

It's just patently absurd to say that BTC has any value above the strong fiat currencies that have the GDP of ENTIRE FUCKING NATIONS behind their value, and bitcoin has absolutely jack shit. The only reason for it to hold parity is for conveniences sake anyway.

So why did I even suggest anything above parity in the first place, say, below $10?  Because bitcoin speculators are still idiots and the die hards will still inject paycheck after paycheck into the market hoping to extract some small profit.  So my wild variance between $0.01 and $10 is solely because I honestly have no idea how tenacious these idiots are, or exactly how many of them are stupid enough to continue to artificially inflate the value long term.

But one thing is certain and that is that the super-fantastic cryptoararchojerkoffism inherent to the design of bitcoins is a FAR fucking cry from the economic value of the GDP of motherfucking NATIONS that floats their fiat value to where it exists today, and that all the bitcoiners who believe otherwise are fucking fools. liberal vulgarity included for emphasis

[flug]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

[patvarilly]

But I really hope that an alternative to Bitcoin does emerge, one that isn't drowning in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist kool-aid and does not shoot itself in the foot with fringe, unworkable economics.

Right. But which of those is a *technical* issue with bitcoin? You're too conflating fringe political motives of some forum members with the technical direction (and usefulness) of the project. No alternative software has to be introduced to tone down the loonies, as there is no license agreement that says "you have to be libertarian to use this".

I've learned to simply ignore the meandering political ramblings (e.g., Atlas & co), and I agree that this by itself doesn't affect the project in any meaningful way (except, perhaps, scaring off more serious investors/contributors).  It's just annoying, and if the libertarians simply produced a product that I could use without having to have my ear chewed off with their world-domination blather, I'd be perfectly happy to use it.

The portion that to me is really a shame is how, on top of the technically beautiful system for solving double-spending and building consensus on a network that lacks trust, has been layered a cultlike devotion to deflationary/goldbug economics that I *can't* extricate myself from.  I and many others have certainly argued why elsewhere, but principally, deflation seems to me like it will choke trade and investment, and keep Bitcoin from growing into the truly useful backbone for worldwide transactions that it could in principle become.  At best, I see things stabilizing long-term to a low trade volume that's an unhappy equilibrium between hoarders and people who are no longer able/willing to hold their coins; on top of this might piggyback transactions like the international transfer I described that simply use BTCs as a 10-20 minute intermediary.  At worst, I see the project dying off because of this.  This is why the economics that's built into Bitcoin, and not just the technical issues, *do* affect the project.

For the record, what I think (and hope) will actually happen is that some other Bitcoin 2.0 with better economics comes online and outcompetes the current implementation.  Presumably, such a virtual currency would be technically similar to Bitcoin, so that the effort already invested into complementary projects, like your Bitcoin-qt client (which I really respect and hope succeeds) or the exchanges, can be leveraged easily and not be lost.  I think the technical underpinnings of Bitcoin, and their potential to change the world if implemented more sensibly, are simply too good to just die off without them being picked up by someone else.

It's not really your fault either. I really wish this forum was distanced from the project page somehow, and a simple "user/merchant/developer support" forum took its place. No political or economical speculation talk at all. Sometimes I feel fucked as a developer as I'm genuinely trying to help people and don't really want to be associated with the crap this forum has become.

+1

[Synaptic]

But I really hope that an alternative to Bitcoin does emerge, one that isn't drowning in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist kool-aid and does not shoot itself in the foot with fringe, unworkable economics.

Right. But which of those is a *technical* issue with bitcoin? You're too conflating fringe political motives of some forum members with the technical direction (and usefulness) of the project. No alternative software has to be introduced to tone down the loonies, as there is no license agreement that says "you have to be libertarian to use this".

I've learned to simply ignore the meandering political ramblings (e.g., Atlas & co), and I agree that this by itself doesn't affect the project in any meaningful way (except, perhaps, scaring off more serious investors/contributors).  It's just annoying, and if the libertarians simply produced a product that I could use without having to have my ear chewed off with their world-domination blather, I'd be perfectly happy to use it.

The portion that to me is really a shame is how, on top of the technically beautiful system for solving double-spending and building consensus on a network that lacks trust, has been layered a cultlike devotion to deflationary/goldbug economics that I *can't* extricate myself from.  I and many others have certainly argued why elsewhere, but principally, deflation seems to me like it will choke trade and investment, and keep Bitcoin from growing into the truly useful backbone for worldwide transactions that it could in principle become.  At best, I see things stabilizing long-term to a low trade volume that's an unhappy equilibrium between hoarders and people who are no longer able/willing to hold their coins; on top of this might piggyback transactions like the international transfer I described that simply use BTCs as a 10-20 minute intermediary.  At worst, I see the project dying off because of this.  This is why the economics that's built into Bitcoin, and not just the technical issues, *do* affect the project.

For the record, what I think (and hope) will actually happen is that some other Bitcoin 2.0 with better economics comes online and outcompetes the current implementation.  Presumably, such a virtual currency would be technically similar to Bitcoin, so that the effort already invested into complementary projects, like your Bitcoin-qt client (which I really respect and hope succeeds) or the exchanges, can be leveraged easily and not be lost.  I think the technical underpinnings of Bitcoin, and their potential to change the world if implemented more sensibly, are simply too good to just die off without them being picked up by someone else.

It's not really your fault either. I really wish this forum was distanced from the project page somehow, and a simple "user/merchant/developer support" forum took its place. No political or economical speculation talk at all. Sometimes I feel fucked as a developer as I'm genuinely trying to help people and don't really want to be associated with the crap this forum has become.

+1

Another great post. I was in the middle of writing a flamepost against flug when this came in, and when I read it I was soothed and deleted it.  You've obviously given some thought to your position and have good insight. It's both surprising to me and also unsurprising that so many here both completely misunderstand and vehemently defend the absolutely absurd economic underpinnings of Bitcoin.

Again, I think there is a great opportunity for a crypto-currency to arise and serve us well, but Bitcoin 1.0 is not it, and the sooner it dies it's deserved death the better.

And to get a bit meta here, there have been other great posts in this thread, both defending and criticizing Bitcoin that I'd like to respond to, but the good posts are lengthy and take me a great deal of time to respond to, ESPECIALLY when they cross quote large portions of text, and I simply haven't had the time to do that yet.

However, I'll spend less time responding to morons like flug who have very little to contribute through finger pointing and "debate by attrition" and more time trying to respond to those who have taken some time to put thought and effort to their replies.  

[Synaptic]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

I'll just say:

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Idiot...

[RogerR]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

A number of people have mentioned how great BTC are for international currency transport and exchange and they're correct, though this use doesn't require any valuation higher than relative parity with the strongest currencies; In fact it still works perfectly fine at 10:1 or even 100:1, the only reason for it to be higher is greedy miners hoarding to artificially restrict supply.

It's just patently absurd to say that BTC has any value above the strong fiat currencies that have the GDP of ENTIRE FUCKING NATIONS behind their value, and bitcoin has absolutely jack shit. The only reason for it to hold parity is for conveniences sake anyway.

So why did I even suggest anything above parity in the first place, say, below $10?  Because bitcoin speculators are still idiots and the die hards will still inject paycheck after paycheck into the market hoping to extract some small profit.  So my wild variance between $0.01 and $10 is solely because I honestly have no idea how tenacious these idiots are, or exactly how many of them are stupid enough to continue to artificially inflate the value long term.

But one thing is certain and that is that the super-fantastic cryptoararchojerkoffism inherent to the design of bitcoins is a FAR fucking cry from the economic value of the GDP of motherfucking NATIONS that floats their fiat value to where it exists today, and that all the bitcoiners who believe otherwise are fucking fools. liberal vulgarity included for emphasis

Okay Bob. May I call you Bob? I like to call you Bob.

Here's the deal. Bitcoin has no inherent value. It is a merchantilistic item of trade for whom people are willing to pay a price. The total of all those prices willing to be paid somewhat constitute the market value demand side. Then you have the market value supply side, which gets defined by the amount of bitcoins available for sale. This supply side may grow or shrink here or there a little bit, depending on what the miners and/or long-term investors had for breakfast. Do you have any idea of what would happen to the value of bitcoins if just one large investor decided it would be a riot to just purchase 20mio bitcoins for a dollar? Even if you never had more than twice the 200k bitcoin adaptors we have as of now, you'd have no more than 2.5 bitcoins available per person on average - and every time those guys like to make a 100$ transaction, they will either have to buy more bitcoins or drive up the price to $40, at which point the large investor could just attempt to slowly release 1mio of his coins (thus doubling the supply side, lowering the price to $20) just to receive his initial investment back, while still still sitting on 19mio more bitcoins!

Now look at the amount of ongoing daily transactions, the amount of people doing those transactions, and the amount of possible large investors. They exceed $100, 400k people and 1 by far!

So go ahead, keep pushing your agendas - but the only absurd idiot in this forum is you. All the more so for calling people names, while actually attempting to justify a realistic sub-parity dollar denominated bitcoin valuation on the grounds of openly rigged GDP data, which is dollar denominated by nature to begin with! God be with you if we ever saw a large USD crash. You could consider yourself lucky if you even were to receive a single bitcoin for your monthly dollar paycheck then.

Now please do yourself and all of us a huge favor - go educate someplace else.

[Synaptic]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

A number of people have mentioned how great BTC are for international currency transport and exchange and they're correct, though this use doesn't require any valuation higher than relative parity with the strongest currencies; In fact it still works perfectly fine at 10:1 or even 100:1, the only reason for it to be higher is greedy miners hoarding to artificially restrict supply.

It's just patently absurd to say that BTC has any value above the strong fiat currencies that have the GDP of ENTIRE FUCKING NATIONS behind their value, and bitcoin has absolutely jack shit. The only reason for it to hold parity is for conveniences sake anyway.

So why did I even suggest anything above parity in the first place, say, below $10?  Because bitcoin speculators are still idiots and the die hards will still inject paycheck after paycheck into the market hoping to extract some small profit.  So my wild variance between $0.01 and $10 is solely because I honestly have no idea how tenacious these idiots are, or exactly how many of them are stupid enough to continue to artificially inflate the value long term.

But one thing is certain and that is that the super-fantastic cryptoararchojerkoffism inherent to the design of bitcoins is a FAR fucking cry from the economic value of the GDP of motherfucking NATIONS that floats their fiat value to where it exists today, and that all the bitcoiners who believe otherwise are fucking fools. liberal vulgarity included for emphasis

Okay Bob. May I call you Bob? I like to call you Bob.

Here's the deal. Bitcoin has no inherent value. It is a merchantilistic item of trade for whom people are willing to pay a price. The total of all those prices willing to be paid somewhat constitute the market value demand side. Then you have the market value supply side, which gets defined by the amount of bitcoins available for sale. This supply side may grow or shrink here or there a little bit, depending on what the miners and/or long-term investors had for breakfast. Do you have any idea of what would happen to the value of bitcoins if just one large investor decided it would be a riot to just purchase 20mio bitcoins for a dollar? Even if you never had more than twice the 200k bitcoin adaptors we have as of now, you'd have no more than 2.5 bitcoins available per person on average - and every time those guys like to make a 100$ transaction, they will either have to buy more bitcoins or drive up the price to $40, at which point the large investor could just attempt to slowly release 1mio of his coins (thus doubling the supply side, lowering the price to $20) just to receive his initial investment back, while still still sitting on 19mio more bitcoins!

Now look at the amount of ongoing daily transactions, the amount of people doing those transactions, and the amount of possible large investors. They exceed $100, 400k people and 1 by far!

So go ahead, keep pushing your agendas - but the only absurd idiot in this forum is you. All the more so for calling people names, while actually attempting to justify a realistic sub-parity dollar denominated bitcoin valuation on the grounds of openly rigged GDP data, which is dollar denominated by nature to begin with! God be with you if we ever saw a large USD crash. You could consider yourself lucky if you even were to receive a single bitcoin for your monthly dollar paycheck then.

Now please do yourself and all of us a huge favor - go educate someplace else.

No, you can call me Synaptic.  Why the fuck would you call me Bob, Mr. Cunt? Do you mind if I call you Mr. Cunt?

I almost can't even begin to approach the HUGE fallacious logic in your post.  Your numbers don't even make any sense!  In fact, I can't be bothered and hopefully some other poster who cares to correct you will do so, because I'm happy to let the rest of the audience try to make sense of your stupidity themselves. I'm sure you'll attack me for that. HURR, SEE YOU CAN'T DO IT HURR.

One glaringly hilarious number you threw out is 400k people?

LOL... I'm not even going to ask how you can justify that number, because anyone who understands Bitcoin knows exactly where you assumed to pull that number from and will know how full of shit you are.

[flug]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

I'll just say:

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Idiot...

Yes, I did read the rest of the post. How did you arrive at those numbers?

[smoothie]

These are two statement from the same post...  

The long term trend for bitcoin value is contraction, not expansion.



This is not a thread about the speculation of bitcoin's future, these are the facts.

my question:  Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive?

edit:  after rereading my post..  I should have said:  Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Yes he seems to make a point but then contradict it later on in his own statement.

Not at all.

I offered ample evidence that can easily be verified by hard sources and simple logical reasoning to back up my thesis.

Therefore, no contradiction.  Facts follow formula, and I provided the requisite references.

Dude you nor anyone else can predict the future with 100%accuracy. Thus your claim although you cited sources is still S P E C U L A T I O N.

It's actually a well educated hypothesis; One that in all likely-hood will continue to bare out as I've laid forth. Look, even since I started posting BTC has lost 9.5% of it's 24hr value. There will of course be a bump, but then another gradual slow burn fall as has been happening ever since the Gox recovery.

The signs are there for anyone to see.  This market isn't really as volatile as the speculators would love it to be, at all.  At it's been predictable since the bubble began. It's really not a mystery to anyone that understands these basic truths.

It's called volatility. You are talking in such short terms. Come back and talk to us all when a year has gone by and you've let your hypothesis play out over the long term and not in such a short term period of 24hours.

[Synaptic]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

I'll just say:

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Idiot...

Yes, I did read the rest of the post. How did you arrive at those numbers?

...

[Synaptic]

These are two statement from the same post...  

The long term trend for bitcoin value is contraction, not expansion.



This is not a thread about the speculation of bitcoin's future, these are the facts.

my question:  Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive?

edit:  after rereading my post..  I should have said:  Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Yes he seems to make a point but then contradict it later on in his own statement.

Not at all.

I offered ample evidence that can easily be verified by hard sources and simple logical reasoning to back up my thesis.

Therefore, no contradiction.  Facts follow formula, and I provided the requisite references.

Dude you nor anyone else can predict the future with 100%accuracy. Thus your claim although you cited sources is still S P E C U L A T I O N.

It's actually a well educated hypothesis; One that in all likely-hood will continue to bare out as I've laid forth. Look, even since I started posting BTC has lost 9.5% of it's 24hr value. There will of course be a bump, but then another gradual slow burn fall as has been happening ever since the Gox recovery.

The signs are there for anyone to see.  This market isn't really as volatile as the speculators would love it to be, at all.  At it's been predictable since the bubble began. It's really not a mystery to anyone that understands these basic truths.

It's called volatility. You are talking in such short terms. Come back and talk to us all when a year has gone by and you've let your hypothesis play out over the long term and not in such a short term period of 24hours.

What's called volatility, volatility?  Or the opposite of volatility, predictability? Are you saying predictability is volatility?

Anyone who believes that this bubble was caused by magical "volatility" and not entirely predictable cause and effect is merely shortsighted, or mentally deficient. I remember quite clearly the MASSIVE amount of total MORONS during the height of the bubble that were outright LAUGHING at everyone saying it was a bubble, and all circle-jerking all over each other about how the growth was going to continue to be exponential and take it up to $100/BTC by September and other assorted bullshit.

RIGHT TO THE MOON!

Well...obviously those of us who saw it for exactly what it was/is aren't trying to sooth our deflated egos with this "volatility" mantra.

The fact is the Bitcoin market has NEVER been a volatile market. There have been extremely clear causal sources for the markets exceedingly predictable movements, going all the way back to April when the mining craze started to heat up.

[RogerR]

Okay Bob. May I call you Bob? I like to call you Bob.

Here's the deal. Bitcoin has no inherent value. It is a merchantilistic item of trade for whom people are willing to pay a price. The total of all those prices willing to be paid somewhat constitute the market value demand side. Then you have the market value supply side, which gets defined by the amount of bitcoins available for sale. This supply side may grow or shrink here or there a little bit, depending on what the miners and/or long-term investors had for breakfast. Do you have any idea of what would happen to the value of bitcoins if just one large investor decided it would be a riot to just purchase 20mio bitcoins for a dollar? Even if you never had more than twice the 200k bitcoin adaptors we have as of now, you'd have no more than 2.5 bitcoins available per person on average - and every time those guys like to make a 100$ transaction, they will either have to buy more bitcoins or drive up the price to $40, at which point the large investor could just attempt to slowly release 1mio of his coins (thus doubling the supply side, lowering the price to $20) just to receive his initial investment back, while still still sitting on 19mio more bitcoins!

Now look at the amount of ongoing daily transactions, the amount of people doing those transactions, and the amount of possible large investors. They exceed $100, 400k people and 1 by far!

So go ahead, keep pushing your agendas - but the only absurd idiot in this forum is you. All the more so for calling people names, while actually attempting to justify a realistic sub-parity dollar denominated bitcoin valuation on the grounds of openly rigged GDP data, which is dollar denominated by nature to begin with! God be with you if we ever saw a large USD crash. You could consider yourself lucky if you even were to receive a single bitcoin for your monthly dollar paycheck then.

Now please do yourself and all of us a huge favor - go educate someplace else.

No, you can call me Synaptic.  Why the fuck would you call me Bob, Mr. Cunt? Do you mind if I call you Mr. Cunt?

I almost can't even begin to approach the HUGE fallacious logic in your post.  Your numbers don't even make any sense!  In fact, I can't be bothered and hopefully some other poster who cares to correct you will do so, because I'm happy to let the rest of the audience try to make sense of your stupidity themselves. I'm sure you'll attack me for that. HURR, SEE YOU CAN'T DO IT HURR.

One glaringly hilarious number you threw out is 400k people?

LOL... I'm not even going to ask how you can justify that number, because anyone who understands Bitcoin knows exactly where you assumed to pull that number from and will know how full of shit you are.

Thank you Bob for making it so very easy to just as well ignore you since you obviously don't care to explain any of your absurd statements, nor care to elaborate on why people who choose to give you counter-arguments are incorrect. Also calling an official gold medal winner at an international mind sports olympiade stupid is... well, mildly ironic and kind of funny actually to say the least.

Btw, how does a dick in your mouth taste like? Seems like you've been giving the CIA or some other dollar-affin wannabe think tank blowjobs all along.

[flug]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

I'll just say:

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Idiot...

Yes, I did read the rest of the post. How did you arrive at those numbers?

...

OK, let's start with this. At USD/BTC=1, the total value of bitcoins would currently be $6m. What are the pressures limiting the total value of bitcoins at $6m? What's to stop the total value of bitcoins going to $600m? or $6bn?

[Synaptic]

Okay Bob. May I call you Bob? I like to call you Bob.

Here's the deal. Bitcoin has no inherent value. It is a merchantilistic item of trade for whom people are willing to pay a price. The total of all those prices willing to be paid somewhat constitute the market value demand side. Then you have the market value supply side, which gets defined by the amount of bitcoins available for sale. This supply side may grow or shrink here or there a little bit, depending on what the miners and/or long-term investors had for breakfast. Do you have any idea of what would happen to the value of bitcoins if just one large investor decided it would be a riot to just purchase 20mio bitcoins for a dollar? Even if you never had more than twice the 200k bitcoin adaptors we have as of now, you'd have no more than 2.5 bitcoins available per person on average - and every time those guys like to make a 100$ transaction, they will either have to buy more bitcoins or drive up the price to $40, at which point the large investor could just attempt to slowly release 1mio of his coins (thus doubling the supply side, lowering the price to $20) just to receive his initial investment back, while still still sitting on 19mio more bitcoins!

Now look at the amount of ongoing daily transactions, the amount of people doing those transactions, and the amount of possible large investors. They exceed $100, 400k people and 1 by far!

So go ahead, keep pushing your agendas - but the only absurd idiot in this forum is you. All the more so for calling people names, while actually attempting to justify a realistic sub-parity dollar denominated bitcoin valuation on the grounds of openly rigged GDP data, which is dollar denominated by nature to begin with! God be with you if we ever saw a large USD crash. You could consider yourself lucky if you even were to receive a single bitcoin for your monthly dollar paycheck then.

Now please do yourself and all of us a huge favor - go educate someplace else.

No, you can call me Synaptic.  Why the fuck would you call me Bob, Mr. Cunt? Do you mind if I call you Mr. Cunt?

I almost can't even begin to approach the HUGE fallacious logic in your post.  Your numbers don't even make any sense!  In fact, I can't be bothered and hopefully some other poster who cares to correct you will do so, because I'm happy to let the rest of the audience try to make sense of your stupidity themselves. I'm sure you'll attack me for that. HURR, SEE YOU CAN'T DO IT HURR.

One glaringly hilarious number you threw out is 400k people?

LOL... I'm not even going to ask how you can justify that number, because anyone who understands Bitcoin knows exactly where you assumed to pull that number from and will know how full of shit you are.

Thank you Bob for making it so very easy to just as well ignore you since you obviously don't care to explain any of your absurd statements, nor care to elaborate on why people who choose to give you counter-arguments are incorrect. Also calling an official gold medal winner at an international mind sports olympiade stupid is... well, mildly ironic and kind of funny actually to say the least.

Btw, how does a dick in your mouth taste like? Seems like you've been giving the CIA or some other dollar-affin wannabe think tank blowjobs all along.

HAHAHAHA,

Oh again, this place never seems to disappoint.


LOL.  "gold medal winner at an international mind sports olympiade"

Lovely. Just lovely.

[Synaptic]

I'm not predicting the long term success of bitcoin I'm telling you that the market value relative to other currencies will continue to shrink until it reaches it's highest sustainable point somewhere below $10 and above $0.01. You're just twisting my observations relative to your own worthless antithetical agenda.

Bitcoin can be "successful" by a number of measures, yet still have little to no value in real currencies.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

Any valuation above relative parity with USD/EUR/AUD/GBP etc. is extremely suspect as there are absolutely zero real reasons for it to be above parity.

Another Godlike assertion, but no evidence whatsoever.

To repeat. How did you arrive at those numbers?

And after you've answered this question, I'll repeat the other questions that you've carefully avoided. One at a time though.

I'll just say:

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Idiot...

Yes, I did read the rest of the post. How did you arrive at those numbers?

...

OK, let's start with this. At USD/BTC=1, the total value of bitcoins would currently be $6m. What are the pressures limiting the total value of bitcoins at $6m? What's to stop the total value of bitcoins going to $600m? or $6bn?

You look at it from a naively optimistic point of view, as that of a child imagining what a superhero might eat for breakfast.

The correct way to approach it is "At 1:1 USD/BTC, which places the total Bitcoin market cap at $6m of value, what market forces produce enough value to support that price?"

The answer as it's been for the past 3.5 months is hype. As the hype has faded and reality sets in and the price deflates as I'm explaining to you it will, even at $6m of value the answer is: Practically Nothing.

See, Bitcoins basically need the equivalent of a "GDP" to sustain it's value.  There is no "GDP" behind Bitcoins now, nor will any "GDP" be growing within 6 months, or a year, or likely ever, for all the reasons I've listed across many threads over the past 2 months.

But I'll turn it over to you and that other genius that started posting:

Given a 1:1 parity with the dollar, what in all of the Gods' Hells impart $6m of market value?

Don't spout off bullshit about people paying what they think it's worth: that's speculation, and speculation isn't value...

[flug]

No, Synaptic, let's stay with the same post and examine that, for the sake of clarity.

A number of people have mentioned how great BTC are for international currency transport and exchange and they're correct, though this use doesn't require any valuation higher than relative parity with the strongest currencies; In fact it still works perfectly fine at 10:1 or even 100:1, the only reason for it to be higher is greedy miners hoarding to artificially restrict supply.

What are you saying here exactly? That for international currency transfer and exchange we don't need a BTC value of more than $1? That's a total of $6m?

Explain.

[YoYa]

You look at it from a naively optimistic point of view, as that of a child imagining what a superhero might eat for breakfast.

The correct way to approach it is "At 1:1 USD/BTC, which places the total Bitcoin market cap at $6m of value, what market forces produce enough value to support that price?"

The answer as it's been for the past 3.5 months is hype. As the hype has faded and reality sets in and the price deflates as I'm explaining to you it will, even at $6m of value the answer is: Practically Nothing.

See, Bitcoins basically need the equivalent of a "GDP" to sustain it's value.  There is no "GDP" behind Bitcoins now, nor will any "GDP" be growing within 6 months, or a year, or likely ever, for all the reasons I've listed across many threads over the past 2 months.

But I'll turn it over to you and that other genius that started posting:

Given a 1:1 parity with the dollar, what in all of the God's Hells impart $6m of market value?

Don't spout off bullshit about people paying what they think it's worth: that's speculation, and speculation isn't value...

Slow down a bit......

GDP wise, there is no nation

But ignoring that, BTC has generated economic activity around it's existence. You mightn't place much value on it, but people creating the various sites for trade and exchange of varying goods and services is what gives bitcoin it's economy, and that's an important point of this whole exercise, people are essentially working and producing in exchange for BTC, essentially giving it value.

All currencies start out as nothing, it's the work of the people behind the nations currency that gives it value. You can argue that bitcoin is over valued, but certainly not of no value. I don't think it unreasonable that bitcoin has generated more then 6 million usd of economic activity by now.