rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[rpietila]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a supernode?

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

Wasn't it BTC1000 before? BTC100 is only $52k of buying power atm.

Pretty soon it will only take BTC1. There goes the neighborhood ....

The first class would be BTC1000 or more currently. The guys who don't need to care about anything else

Here the context was about participating the conference. And I would say it is a +EV experience for a 100 coin holder because he gets to know the advance info on what happens when his stash is worth a million. Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

[rpietila]

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

yo rpietila what's your plan with that bigass ask of yours at 530?

If it's mine, it will be pulled. I'm not selling below $3 

[wachtwoord]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a supernode?

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

Wasn't it BTC1000 before? BTC100 is only $52k of buying power atm.

Pretty soon it will only take BTC1. There goes the neighborhood ....

The first class would be BTC1000 or more currently. The guys who don't need to care about anything else

Here the context was about participating the conference. And I would say it is a +EV experience for a 100 coin holder because he gets to know the advance info on what happens when his stash is worth a million. Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

2 on 100 is 2%. That's a lot. Maybe it's different because I'm from the time of paying $1 for a stock purchase instead of the few percent a lot of people seemed to accept from their brokers in the eighties.

Even at BTC1000 I would consider BTC2 a serious expense (0.2%)

[rpietila]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a supernode?

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

Wasn't it BTC1000 before? BTC100 is only $52k of buying power atm.

Pretty soon it will only take BTC1. There goes the neighborhood ....

The first class would be BTC1000 or more currently. The guys who don't need to care about anything else

Here the context was about participating the conference. And I would say it is a +EV experience for a 100 coin holder because he gets to know the advance info on what happens when his stash is worth a million. Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

2 on 100 is 2%. That's a lot. Maybe it's different because I'm from the time of paying $1 for a stock purchase instead of the few percent a lot of people seemed to accept from their brokers in the eighties.

Even at BTC1000 I would consider BTC2 a serious expense (0.2%)

As you know by reading my thread in ToF, I advocate that people deep in bitcoins spend a percent of their holdings annually for keeping up with what happens in Bitcoin, projects, donations, etc. In the 1000% per year appreciation framework, I am anyway proposing a 30% divestment per year (10% at each doubling). Giving 5% back to the community is in the limits of possibility, right? Often picking a good meetup is really enlarging.

Then there is the other side: if you don't follow what's happening, even the loss of your bitcoins is a possibility. I know many people who lost a lot in Mt.Gox case where 7% of all bitcoins were stolen. Investing 5% is also reasonable in this context, if it enables you to be on the better side of the 7%. (I lost there also, but less than 7% of my holdings, so I was lucky - or prepared).

The main thing of course is that I'd like to have you there cause I think you are one of the most valued contributors here!

[SlipperySlope]

According to my research, the average sum a person would invest in bitcoins is $1000. Therefore, 4 million new users are needed in addition to the 1 million current ones to reach $7000.

That seems like a lot to ask for the next 7 months. I think chances are some bigger investment funds are going to have a big impact though.

That is only 25.8% monthly growth in userbase. Which happens to coincide with the long-term slope of the price appreciation curve.

With this adoption growth, without the logistic slowing, we would be at 2 billion people in March, 2017.

Metcalf's Law, as charted by Perter_R, would suggest that the user base need only grow at a third of the rate of price growth. His model is that the network value, i.e. the market cap, is proportional to the square of the number of network nodes, e.g. number of investors, number of transactions, or number of Bitcoin addresses. Price growth averaging 10x annually is accordingly supported by 3.2x annual growth of new users, which works out to 13-14% average monthly growth in users.

http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/ as most know has many adoption indicators being tracked.

[jmw74]

Most of the people are net debtors in fiat terms. Whether fiat's value increases or decreases vs. their income, is more important to them than how they invest their free money that they can afford to lose. In the optimistic case, all debts are effectively cancelled. In the pessimistic case, all debtors are foreclosed (as the effects of the CB policy to pop the bubble by raising interest rates and causing unemployment), and bitcoin people get to buy their assets for cheap, but this may cause indignation. AnonyMint thinks that crypto holders will be declared enemies of state at this point and eliminated.

The state is going to have a hard time doing that.  Unless this all happens very soon, it will be impossible to identify holders of crypto by then.  As technology advances it only gets easier to integrate zero knowledge proofs without overloading the network.

But even if they can identify and kill the holders of crypto, that doesn't guarantee capture (or loss) of the private keys by any means.  Any reasonable billionaire would prepare for this eventuality and pass on his keys.  So the state has only one option left then, to blacklist coins, destroying the fungibility of this currency they're trying to sell everyone on?  Not going to happen.  If you are trying to convince people NOT to use a currency, threatening them with death by accepting the "wrong" coins is a great way to do it.

[MahaRamana]

Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

BTC2 is cheap and it sounds very promising. Malla looks like a place to see/feel. All my wishes of success for this brilliant event and bitcoin-center project.
I would have come but the sight of animal flesh in a human's plate causes me great pain, not to mention his mouth. Therefore my social whereabouts are strictly limited.

[RAJSALLIN]

Looking at the total number of transactions (excluding popular addresses) I think one can question this break out. Thoughts?

[wachtwoord]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a supernode?

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

Wasn't it BTC1000 before? BTC100 is only $52k of buying power atm.

Pretty soon it will only take BTC1. There goes the neighborhood ....

The first class would be BTC1000 or more currently. The guys who don't need to care about anything else

Here the context was about participating the conference. And I would say it is a +EV experience for a 100 coin holder because he gets to know the advance info on what happens when his stash is worth a million. Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

2 on 100 is 2%. That's a lot. Maybe it's different because I'm from the time of paying $1 for a stock purchase instead of the few percent a lot of people seemed to accept from their brokers in the eighties.

Even at BTC1000 I would consider BTC2 a serious expense (0.2%)

As you know by reading my thread in ToF, I advocate that people deep in bitcoins spend a percent of their holdings annually for keeping up with what happens in Bitcoin, projects, donations, etc. In the 1000% per year appreciation framework, I am anyway proposing a 30% divestment per year (10% at each doubling). Giving 5% back to the community is in the limits of possibility, right? Often picking a good meetup is really enlarging.

Then there is the other side: if you don't follow what's happening, even the loss of your bitcoins is a possibility. I know many people who lost a lot in Mt.Gox case where 7% of all bitcoins were stolen. Investing 5% is also reasonable in this context, if it enables you to be on the better side of the 7%. (I lost there also, but less than 7% of my holdings, so I was lucky - or prepared).

The main thing of course is that I'd like to have you there cause I think you are one of the most valued contributors here!

Yes I know what you're advocating. The goal of my question was mostly to give you the opportunity to explain yourself here as well and to answer the question more directly.

On the other hand the compliment wasn't lost on me, thank you (although my "contributions" have mostly been limited to my participation in discussions). I still believe many many others to be far better candidates than me (people actually creating things such as yourself for instance).

Oh, and at times I can be a frugal bastard

[zimmah]

My suspicion is before we get anywhere near 2 billion people using bitcoins that there will be factors at play that will dwarf the impact on price arising out of adoption and its use in day-to-day transactions.  

My fear is as the realisation dawns on the bigger players that Bitcoin is 'the one' that it will be pumped by banks and central banks who can magic large sums of fiat into existence with which to buy bitcoin (and who may even dump gold temporarily), creating the ultimate bitcoin megabubble so that billions of latecomer ordinary people and businesses buying their first bitcoins will be shafted as the great bitcoin dump starts, into pms, into land, artwork etc. into a 'better' crypto - assets that had been neglected for the period bitcoin was so attractive, even back into fiat (they could use this point to launch more 'stable' 'new crypto-dollar or new crypto-pound etc.) until bitcoin finds a stable long-term pricepoint well below (even orders of magnitude below) the hyped price the masses bought at.  Problem is of course nobody beforehand can know what this price will be.  We would still be in a much better world than today because with bitcoin established fiats (old or new) will not be that attractive but if central banks are deliberately hyperinflating forcing people into crypto on their pump stage people could end up with 1000th of what they had before.

Btw, I'm only just exploring this idea so please point out if there's an obvious reason this is not how the future looks!

Unfortunately this scenario is almost a certainty if Bitcoin achieves mass adoption, such is the nature of financial bubbles. I don't see any effective way of preventing it. Caveat emptor.

it's in my opinion a very likely possibility and although it's completely evil to do that, anyone who invested before the banks (that means we all), would also get enormous wealth in the process, provided you use hold on your bitcoins for long enough and than use a fraction of your enormous wealth to buy hard assets, such as houses, land, stock, maybe even complete companies, and whatever you like. Maybe some precious metal as well although they may lose much of their value if bitcoin becomes gold 2.0

So even though this scenario will bring many people into poverty i'd still be happy if it happens. By now pretty much everyone in the world has at least heard of bitcoin and has probably heard some 'conspiricy theorists' about how corrupt banks are and how corrupt the financial system is. If they still want to hold on to their fiat, it's their own problem, let them keep their trash while it lasts.

Also, even though many people will at first become poorer for it (all the wealth for the first-movers has to come from somewhere) eventually the wealth will become more evenly distributed because unlike the current system there's no one who can just magically pop currency into existence. So once you spent a bitcoin, you spent it, and someone else has it. You'll have to earn more bitcoin before you can spend it again.

[SlipperySlope]

Looking at the total number of transactions (excluding popular addresses) I think one can question this break out. Thoughts?

I watch this chart daily. Three days ago I believe that the collected data was corrupted  34,888 is too low. Earlier that day values were higher.

From March, the recovery in transaction volume seems to lag. Others have suggested that this is due to an increasing portion of transactions occurring through payment processors such as BitPay and coinbase, which may be performing off-chain settlement if both parties have off-chain accounts at the payment processor.

[220Fast]

We need just one guy .smart guy with money like waren bufet .... this guy would lead addoption to insane level ... Btc is like candy .its attractivity is .....OMfg MOOOOooon....

[wachtwoord]

We need just one guy .smart guy with money like waren bufet .... this guy would lead addoption to insane level ... Btc is like candy .its attractivity is .....OMfg MOOOOooon....

Easy does it. Bitcoin adoption is quite fragile. The steadier rise the better (as long as you are satisfied with your current holdings denoted in BTC).

[SlipperySlope]

We need just one guy .smart guy with money like waren bufet .... this guy would lead addoption to insane level ... Btc is like candy .its attractivity is .....OMfg MOOOOooon....

Buffet will not buy bitcoin until he is convinced that the brand is a sort of monopoly and immune to a superior technology. That is still a question, so long as the foundation's chief scientist calls Bitcoin an experiment.

Buffet's companies will be mid to late adopters. I believe that they will use bitcoin to replace bank payments when it is obviously better to do so.

We are early adopters, paying perhaps one-thousandth the price now that Buffet or his successor will pay in a few more years.

[Biodom]

My suspicion is before we get anywhere near 2 billion people using bitcoins that there will be factors at play that will dwarf the impact on price arising out of adoption and its use in day-to-day transactions.  

My fear is as the realisation dawns on the bigger players that Bitcoin is 'the one' that it will be pumped by banks and central banks who can magic large sums of fiat into existence with which to buy bitcoin (and who may even dump gold temporarily), creating the ultimate bitcoin megabubble so that billions of latecomer ordinary people and businesses buying their first bitcoins will be shafted as the great bitcoin dump starts, into pms, into land, artwork etc. into a 'better' crypto - assets that had been neglected for the period bitcoin was so attractive, even back into fiat (they could use this point to launch more 'stable' 'new crypto-dollar or new crypto-pound etc.) until bitcoin finds a stable long-term pricepoint well below (even orders of magnitude below) the hyped price the masses bought at.  Problem is of course nobody beforehand can know what this price will be.  We would still be in a much better world than today because with bitcoin established fiats (old or new) will not be that attractive but if central banks are deliberately hyperinflating forcing people into crypto on their pump stage people could end up with 1000th of what they had before.

Btw, I'm only just exploring this idea so please point out if there's an obvious reason this is not how the future looks!

Unfortunately this scenario is almost a certainty if Bitcoin achieves mass adoption, such is the nature of financial bubbles. I don't see any effective way of preventing it. Caveat emptor.

By now pretty much everyone in the world has at least heard of bitcoin and has probably heard some 'conspiricy theorists' about how corrupt banks are and how corrupt the financial system is. If they still want to hold on to their fiat, it's their own problem, let them keep their trash while it lasts.

It is not that simple. I cannot invest the majority of my assets in bitcoin even if I wanted to (I don't). Reason- 50% in various retirement accounts and 20% in real estate. I am sure the majority of folks cannot invest in BTC in their retirement account(s). When winkelvoss or secondmarket ETFs will start trading, would you consider them fiat or bitcoin? I would say that it will be rather fiatty, but could be beneficial in nature.

Regarding investing bitcoin in anything right now-I think that it is premature for most (i would probably thought otherwise if I invested into thousands of bitcoins at single digits). Why? Because the rate of return on bitcoin appreciation is so far has been vastly superior in comparison with any business return, which suggests that you should invest fiat right now in businesses that produce bitcoin, not vice versa.

Also, even though many people will at first become poorer for it (all the wealth for the first-movers has to come from somewhere) eventually the wealth will become more evenly distributed because unlike the current system there's no one who can just magically pop currency into existence. So once you spent a bitcoin, you spent it, and someone else has it. You'll have to earn more bitcoin before you can spend it again.

Perhaps BTC was in essence designed to suck in and eventually distribute all that fiat excess that was printed in 2008-2014 and teach people being prudent with their money later on.

[Biodom]

We need just one guy .smart guy with money like waren bufet .... this guy would lead addoption to insane level ... Btc is like candy .its attractivity is .....OMfg MOOOOooon....

Buffet will not buy bitcoin until he is convinced that the brand is a sort of monopoly and immune to a superior technology. That is still a question, so long as the foundation's chief scientist calls Bitcoin an experiment.

Buffet's companies will be mid to late adopters. I believe that they will use bitcoin to replace bank payments when it is obviously better to do so.

We are early adopters, paying perhaps one-thousandth the price now that Buffet or his successor will pay in a few more years.

He waited on MSFT until it was too late, but it was a monopoly for a decade or so, he just doesn't get tech. Sugar water, banks/credit cards, insurance or railroads-this is where he excels.

[220Fast]

It was just example . One smart guy with shitload of money who would buy 2000Btc per day and in few years .....

[wachtwoord]

It was just example . One smart guy with shitload of money who would buy 2000Btc per day and in few years .....

What would compell such an individual to take risk while already possessing more wealth than he's going to need in the rest of his life?

[220Fast]

Risk ?

[Biodom]

It was just example . One smart guy with shitload of money who would buy 2000Btc per day and in few years .....

I actually see the OP point. Some people are getting so much in essentially uninterruptible money flow (like Treasury coupons or Sp100 dividends) that they could easily commit to buying 1000BTC a day for a decade (at the current prices, LOL). What is 180 mil if you are getting billions/year?

However, my calculations suggest that because of a limited supply, if all millionaires decided to invest just 1% of their funds (on average) in BTC, BTC would have to rise to ~40K to accommodate them (using straight calculation without adjusting for a rise of more than $1 per $1 invested). If there is a coefficient of 3-4, then $120-160K/BTC.