rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[Biodom]

Right now low bitcoin price causes larger and larger bitcoin numbers to be dumped by miners to compensate for their costs. This is a vicious cycle that, in my opinion, will be broken only when higher cost producers are eliminated from mining OR there is a sudden increase in buying with the latter being unlikely.

Miners dumping all dumping a majority of their coin is a myth that I have repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Such "proof' or links to such is/are missing from your post.
Regardless, if miners DO NOT sell their coins, then this bear market is about to get even worse, because at some point they WILL (when price/cost ratio becomes even more skewed). Don't take me as a bitcoin bear, though. I bought bitcoin, I mine, I am not selling (somewhat irrationally). In my opinion the scenario I outlined is the one that is most likely to occur, but I have no crystal ball.

[1714476855]

1714476855

[1714476855]

1714476855

[1714476855]

1714476855

[AlexGR]

TLDR bitcoin is a global digital currency, regulation was created in tandem with development and adoption, bitcoin is not and never was meant to be a liberty promoting value exchange. There is no "satoshi". The central banks are already the largest holders of bitcoin. Bitcoin IS going to the moon because of this.

The powers that be, indeed wanted -for a long time now- a global, electronic currency that they can issue, monitor and control.

- Issue on demand, and NOT deflationary as you said, because deflation would only lead to an imploding global debt. It is impossible to repay global debt that expands due to interest with a steady or diminishing monetary supply: The money runs out and the economy collapses.

- Monitor all transactions as they happen, so that they can learn everything about our buying habits, or use the mass information for mapping out patterns which are useful to their broader control agenda.

- Control the currency, and by association, its users, through flip-switches like freezing your funds if you do not comply with a government request so that you cannot buy anything (and therefore directly threatening your ability to survive while living inside-the-grid).


Bitcoin is "trolling" their agenda in at least 2 of the 3 fronts:

1) It cannot be issued on demand - it has a finite capacity.

2) It can be monitored but not with 100% success as a centralized system.

3) The currency and its users can't be controlled with "flip-switches". When the centralized digital money system will lock people out from transacting because they were not obedient to the system, people will have BTC or BTC-equivalents - something that preempted their plans. In a cashless society it will be gold, silver, btc and the "official" digital currency of the world - with gold and silver being slightly less practical (or much less practical for remote payments like over the internet).

What they can do though, is to attack Bitcoin due to all the non-reversible scams & hacks, bad PR, price fluctuations etc etc, and say "look, we will give you a digital currency that is all that Bitcoin was and safer, more stable due to government backing" etc etc. We give you safety and stability and we take your freedom kind-of-deal. The masses would take it any day btw with some proper conditioning. The problem is not the masses, it's the states/countries. Why give monetary control to an outside source? It is financial suicide if a country can't issue their own national currency and instead have to borrow it from a central bank which is elsewhere. So they might entice the countries by saying "we'll erase a large part of your debt if you accept this new currency" and that will give the puppet-rulers installed in each country a disguise of "legitimacy" for betraying their countries and handing over monetary control to the over-state of the global central bank.

[brg444]

Right now low bitcoin price causes larger and larger bitcoin numbers to be dumped by miners to compensate for their costs. This is a vicious cycle that, in my opinion, will be broken only when higher cost producers are eliminated from mining OR there is a sudden increase in buying with the latter being unlikely.

Miners dumping all dumping a majority of their coin is a myth that I have repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Such "proof' or links to such is/are missing from your post.
Regardless, if miners DO NOT sell their coins, then this bear market is about to get even worse, because at some point they WILL (when price/cost ratio becomes even more skewed). Don't take me as a bitcoin bear, though. I bought bitcoin, I mine, I am not selling (somewhat irrationally). In my opinion the scenario I outlined is the one that is most likely to occur, but I have no crystal ball.

BitFury founder and CEO Valery Vavilov indicated that the new funding will allow the company to complete production of its 28nm ASIC chip without selling the reserve bitcoins it has mined from its three industrial-scale data centres.

Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.

“We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price,” Vavilov added.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-raises-20-million-asic-development-mining-output/

This is from the CEO of one of most important industrial scale mining operations.

For most of them, the "massive regular expenses" are paid for by massive VC investements. Don't forget that these entities also sell mining rigs at massive profit.

Money came easily to startup KnCMiner, which says it made $70 million in revenue in its first year of operations from selling bitcoin mining equipment.

This money is more than enough to cover for expenses. There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.

[rpietila]

Right now low bitcoin price causes larger and larger bitcoin numbers to be dumped by miners to compensate for their costs. This is a vicious cycle that, in my opinion, will be broken only when higher cost producers are eliminated from mining OR there is a sudden increase in buying with the latter being unlikely.

Miners dumping all dumping a majority of their coin is a myth that I have repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Economically, mining is a different business than holding. If a person wants to hold BTC, it is not relevant if the value to be held was created with mining BTC or anything else.

IF mining profitability is down, and consequently miners don't make profit, this could practically be bad for bitcoin IF it is so that miners tend to hold a high % in bitcoin (which is plausible).

[NotLambchop]

...
There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.
...

If miners sold every coin that they mined and did not believe in the future of Bitcoin, would you expect them to admit it?  That would be a bit like a fishmonger yelling "Fish, not-so-fresh fish!  Stinks to high heaven, I can't stand it, buy my fish!"

[brg444]

...
There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.
...

If miners sold every coin that they mined and did not believe in the future of Bitcoin, would you expect them to admit it?  That would be a bit like a fishmonger yelling "Fish, not-so-fresh fish!  Stinks to high heaven, I can't stand it, buy my fish!"

You tried that one in the other thread troll. Please go away you stink rotten fish.

Yes it is perfectly reasonable for them to admit they are selling in order to cover the cost of their operations. Some admitted they do so and there are absolutely miners out there who have no problem admitting they sell a large quantity of their coin so that kind of defeats your argument, doesn't it? Troll

[brg444]

Right now low bitcoin price causes larger and larger bitcoin numbers to be dumped by miners to compensate for their costs. This is a vicious cycle that, in my opinion, will be broken only when higher cost producers are eliminated from mining OR there is a sudden increase in buying with the latter being unlikely.

Miners dumping all dumping a majority of their coin is a myth that I have repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Economically, mining is a different business than holding. If a person wants to hold BTC, it is not relevant if the value to be held was created with mining BTC or anything else.

IF mining profitability is down, and consequently miners don't make profit, this could practically be bad for bitcoin IF it is so that miners tend to hold a high % in bitcoin (which is plausible).

I agree but my opinion is that the price situation would need to be catastrophic for large scale miners to resort to dumping their reserve.

As I have mentioned in another post related to this, most of them have other revenue stream atm that certainly generate enough money to cover their operational cost.

[NotLambchop]

...
There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.
...

If miners sold every coin that they mined and did not believe in the future of Bitcoin, would you expect them to admit it?  That would be a bit like a fishmonger yelling "Fish, not-so-fresh fish!  Stinks to high heaven, I can't stand it, buy my fish!"

You tried that one in the other thread troll. Please go away you stink rotten fish.

Yes it is perfectly reasonable for them to admit they are selling in order to cover the cost of their operations. Some admitted they do so and there are absolutely miners out there who have no problem admitting they sell a large quantity of their coin so that kind of defeats your argument, doesn't it? Troll

Faggot

[brg444]

...
There was a miner convention no later than last week that kind of drove this point home : miners are some of the most bullish actors in the BTC scene. It is misguided to assume that they are selling most of their coins.
...

If miners sold every coin that they mined and did not believe in the future of Bitcoin, would you expect them to admit it?  That would be a bit like a fishmonger yelling "Fish, not-so-fresh fish!  Stinks to high heaven, I can't stand it, buy my fish!"

You tried that one in the other thread troll. Please go away you stink rotten fish.

Yes it is perfectly reasonable for them to admit they are selling in order to cover the cost of their operations. Some admitted they do so and there are absolutely miners out there who have no problem admitting they sell a large quantity of their coin so that kind of defeats your argument, doesn't it? Troll

Faggot

isolated actors =! the majority, troll

[NotLambchop]

Nah, you just can't keep your bullshit straight.
Faggot

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Japanese propose a "better" bitcoin
http://www.coindesk.com/japanese-scholars-draft-proposal-better-bitcoin/

In my opinion, this is a non-starter, but there is something there I am interested in, which is what would happen if the price of bitcoin goes significantly below the cost of production for most miners.

In my opinion, at $200 per BTC we would probably lose a half or more of the network, and at $100, we would lose ~80%. 15% of the network are home miners, which would be the slowest to turn the equipment off. That said, i maintain that for the bull market to restart we need to at least halve the network size first as happened in late 2011. However, KnC just announced a new 20mw data center, which does not bode well for the immediate future. Only when some of these large scale miners go out of business, bull market will resume.

If Eligius (for example) decided to dump its reserves, that could cause a feedback loop of dumping that would put Bitcoin into a coma

[molecular]

What they can do though, is to attack Bitcoin due to all the non-reversible scams & hacks, bad PR, price fluctuations etc etc, and say "look, we will give you a digital currency that is all that Bitcoin was and safer, more stable due to government backing" etc etc. We give you safety and stability and we take your freedom kind-of-deal.

As long as we have a real choice...

The masses would take it any day btw with some proper conditioning. The problem is not the masses, it's the states/countries. Why give monetary control to an outside source? It is financial suicide if a country can't issue their own national currency and instead have to borrow it from a central bank which is elsewhere. So they might entice the countries by saying "we'll erase a large part of your debt if you accept this new currency" and that will give the puppet-rulers installed in each country a disguise of "legitimacy" for betraying their countries and handing over monetary control to the over-state of the global central bank.

sadly, this seems a likely scenario.

The idea of the nationstate is failing. The governments of the world are being corrupted by the men running the monetary system. It's a kind of fascism basically: the corporatocracy and governments collaborate to control the people. And yes, I agree, it's a possibility we'll end up with "one western central bank". Might be spawned from the IMF. They'll issue (or likely reuse the SDR) a new fiat and back it with some non-existant gold for good measure.

Good thing we have crypto to fight back.

[inca]

isolated actors =! the majority, troll

Please don't quote him.

[Alonzo Ewing]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

[billyjoeallen]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

[molecular]

You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I hope we're not expected to be proud of our parasites.

[sidhujag]

Japanese propose a "better" bitcoin
http://www.coindesk.com/japanese-scholars-draft-proposal-better-bitcoin/

In my opinion, this is a non-starter, but there is something there I am interested in, which is what would happen if the price of bitcoin goes significantly below the cost of production for most miners.

In my opinion, at $200 per BTC we would probably lose a half or more of the network, and at $100, we would lose ~80%. 15% of the network are home miners, which would be the slowest to turn the equipment off. That said, i maintain that for the bull market to restart we need to at least halve the network size first as happened in late 2011. However, KnC just announced a new 20mw data center, which does not bode well for the immediate future. Only when some of these large scale miners go out of business, bull market will resume.

If Eligius (for example) decided to dump its reserves, that could cause a feedback loop of dumping that would put Bitcoin into a coma

Inflation targetting via a peg? Wouldnt this be centralized? We are back to bitshares which already has bitusd etc... That proposal is nothing special

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

I'm going wrong... I don't think so.  If we are talking about taxes and if we are talking about pooling of resources, then community and government have a lot to do with one another.

The mere fact and gripe that people have concerns government entities and government officials being corrupt and influenced by money and even legally so, does NOT remove the fact that government is an arm of the will of the people and is meant to serve such.. the fact that it frequently does NOT does NOT mean that the correct course of action is to abolish it completely.

In fact, you are suggesting the burden is on me to make such arguments in support of government, and it is NOT on me. The burden remains on these various nut job cases who are asserting that we get rid of all government and that we get rid of all taxes and we convert to some kind of pie in the sky volunteerism.  These nut jobs do NOT realize that they are nut jobs in spite of putting forth pie in the sky visions, but NOT really outlining how exactly they intend society to transition from its current state to the government free version that they non-specifically describe.

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government). 

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

[Erdogan]

You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I hope we're not expected to be proud of our parasites.

They certainly think we should adore them.