Warning: How many of you Bears have ever been a victim of a Short Squeeze?

[ElectricMucus]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

[1713412860]

1713412860

[1713412860]

1713412860

[1713412860]

1713412860

[cypherdoc]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

EM,

the problem with the hoarding theory is that everyone disagrees with when to jump off the train.  you, for instance, probably sold @ $2 after it bottomed @ $1.96 on the way back up.

and it certainly isn't stopping everyone from buying new pc's.

[ElectricMucus]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

EM,

the problem with the hoarding theory is that everyone disagrees with when to jump off the train.  you, for instance, probably sold @ $2 after it bottomed @ $1.96 on the way back up.

and it certainly isn't stopping everyone from buying new pc's.

Actually I had a bitcoinica long position @2.

The reason why everybody still buys PCs are because they provide value over the transistors their chips are made of. No matter how far down moores law, it's still a PC.
This is actually an interesting comparison. Bitcoin could have been fixing the money supply to the total amount of processing power dedicated to it, or better the logarithm of it, this would have resulted in a sound limit enforced by physical limitations rather than the arbitrary 4 year halving period.

As for me "giving up", lets see if Bitcoin hasn't been superseded with a superior design within a decade.

[tvbcof]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

Maybe Bitcoin (and gold) are not very 'money-like' after all.  At the present time at least.

In addition to the practical reasons for avoiding the label and thus tip-toeing around the legal hassles, avoiding labeling Bitcoin as 'money' probably would have been somewhat accurate as well.  I would have preferred some very vague term like 'tokens' or 'accounting units.'

I never understood the desperate need on behalf of so many in the community to 'prove' the 'Bitcoin is money'.  The volume of missive on this forum alone attempting to promote that fairly meaningless assertion is impressive.  It seems to me like the community has some sort of an inferiority complex about it.  Just as do many gold bugs about gold.  If one is confident in the strength of their solution, and I personally am about both Bitcoin (in some ways) and gold, then who gives a shit what uninformed people...especially those in the public sector...want to call it?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

Maybe Bitcoin (and gold) are not very 'money-like' after all.  At the present time at least.

What's your def. of money then?

[ElectricMucus]

I never understood the desperate need on behalf of so many in the community to 'prove' the 'Bitcoin is money'. 

If you put it this way I can agree with it.
I actually expect Bitcoin to retain a value based on being collectible for a very long time, just not some ridiculous number which would be required for it to be money.

[tvbcof]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

Maybe Bitcoin (and gold) are not very 'money-like' after all.  At the present time at least.

What's your def. of money then?

I guess I would consider something who's primary use is as a political statement, a long term store of value, a risk management vehicle, or generally used as a vehicle for speculation as less like 'money'.

Part of it has to do with what options exist.  I use fiat as 'money' (or 'currency') and it works fine for me in that role and at this time.  I personally use Bitcoin as all of the four items I enumerated above...which is why the occurred to me.

But my point is that 'who cares?'  Even if/when I do use it more purely as 'money' (or 'currency') I still will feel very little need to have the rest of society putting one label or another on the solution.  And if that label funnels the solution into a maze of legal hassles it's even less desirable to me that it happens.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

(Actually he is a bull in disguise. No sane person spends this much time on a forum dedicated to something they seem to despise so much.)

[cypherdoc]

proudhon finally gave up.  EM will too one day.

Oh EM gave up too, for a bit...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148608.msg1577290#msg1577290

(Actually he is a bull in disguise. No sane person spends this much time on a forum dedicated to something they seem to despise so much.)

lol!  that is one of those perpetual facts that the bears never want to acknowledge. 

Bitcoin has that hypnotic effect that just won't let go. 

it turns the sane to insane which is probably the real explanation.

[tvbcof]

proudhon finally gave up.  EM will too one day.

Oh EM gave up too, for a bit...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148608.msg1577290#msg1577290

(Actually he is a bull in disguise. No sane person spends this much time on a forum dedicated to something they seem to despise so much.)

lol!  that is one of those perpetual facts that the bears never want to acknowledge. 

Bitcoin has that hypnotic effect that just won't let go. 

it turns the sane to insane which is probably the real explanation.

For my part, I'm bullish and excited about the potential of Bitcoin and distributed crypto-currencies generally.  For this reason it is especially valuable to attempt to take a jaded view of things since it is easy to lose balance about things one is excited about.   In my case there are a lot of things about Bitcoin that I genuinely would prefer to see evolve differently, and I'm not prone to holding back on my opinions.  Especially on a forum on the Internet.

Not sure what proudhon's trip is.  Nagle I've always felt believes he is doing at least something toward manipulating the market (and is trying to capitalize on it of course.)  He's probably wrong.  I don't think that almost any of the random jerk-offs (including myself) who populate this forum have much influence on almost anything.

[User705]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

EM,

the problem with the hoarding theory is that everyone disagrees with when to jump off the train.  you, for instance, probably sold @ $2 after it bottomed @ $1.96 on the way back up.

and it certainly isn't stopping everyone from buying new pc's.

Actually I had a bitcoinica long position @2.

The reason why everybody still buys PCs are because they provide value over the transistors their chips are made of. No matter how far down moores law, it's still a PC.
This is actually an interesting comparison. Bitcoin could have been fixing the money supply to the total amount of processing power dedicated to it, or better the logarithm of it, this would have resulted in a sound limit enforced by physical limitations rather than the arbitrary 4 year halving period.

As for me "giving up", lets see if Bitcoin hasn't been superseded with a superior design within a decade.

that is likely but the core idea itself will remain.

[anu]

The problem with compounding interest and the problem with deflation are essentially the same. Both choke off money velocity. The only excuse I've heard is that "It's actually good people don't spend their money." This stands in contrast to every economic theory, even Austrian Economics. Only "Bitcoin Economists" have come to this strange conclusion.

EM,

the problem with the hoarding theory is that everyone disagrees with when to jump off the train.  you, for instance, probably sold @ $2 after it bottomed @ $1.96 on the way back up.

and it certainly isn't stopping everyone from buying new pc's.

Actually I had a bitcoinica long position @2.

The reason why everybody still buys PCs are because they provide value over the transistors their chips are made of. No matter how far down moores law, it's still a PC.
This is actually an interesting comparison. Bitcoin could have been fixing the money supply to the total amount of processing power dedicated to it, or better the logarithm of it, this would have resulted in a sound limit enforced by physical limitations rather than the arbitrary 4 year halving period.

As for me "giving up", lets see if Bitcoin hasn't been superseded with a superior design within a decade.

that is likely but the core idea itself will remain.

The world of software is littered with superior roadkill. What counts is integration and network effects.

[cypherdoc]

Lol!

Short Squeeze in progress on Bitstamp.

Fuckers.

[cypherdoc]

Lol!

Short Squeeze in progress on Bitstamp.

Fuckers.

yep, you can run but you can't hide.

[FNG]

"How many of you Bears have ever been a victim of a Short Squeeze?"

Over the next few weeks, many 

[smoothie]

Meahnwhile, BTCUSD moving up.. stone throw from 113.25$, once comfortably above it, the next stops are 130's and 160's.

choo chooooo

for what it worth:



The above pattern is so called "inverse head and shoulders" and it is a widely held belief that it is one of the most high probability bottoming and trend reversal patterns.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inverseheadandshoulders.asp

Investopedia explains 'Inverse Head And Shoulders'
As you can see from the chart above, a move above the resistance, also known as the neckline, is used as a signal of a sharp move higher. Many traders will watch for a large spike in volume to confirm the validity of the breakout. This pattern is the opposite of the popular head and shoulders pattern, but is used to predict shifts in a downtrend rather than an uptrend.

you must be a hidden subscriber.  i identified that for my subs back on 8/5.

great eyes see alike.

I immediately recognized the pattern 

This one made my day!

LOL!

CHOO CHOO! NEXT STOP ~$130 to $165 

Target still on track.

Image is still a super funny one. 

[cypherdoc]

necro time.

[cypherdoc]

here's a quick way to get your USD's out of Gox:

Buy Bitcoin!

[knightcoin]

sellers get to much pressure when the production >> demand

ps::
x ≫ y means x is much greater than y.
x ≪ y means x is much less than y.

[chessnut]

may I comment that questioning somebody weather or not they have been short squeezed is not sufficient warning to prevent such things.