Is it possible for us to get the price back up

[Houseonfire]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

I think you're well meaning, but why would we want the price to be 15-30? There's no fundamentals to support that price. I (and others) would like to see $1 - $1.50 and slow growth from there, which includes real commerce and not just speculation.

-Jonathan

[GoWest]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

Does a shovel's color determine how well it works as a tool?  Nope.  Neither does the price of a Bitcoin.

[alexanderanon]

yeah man go buy a couple thou and ill be right there to sell

[Houseonfire]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

I think you're well meaning, but why would we want the price to be 15-30? There's no fundamentals to support that price. I (and others) would like to see $1 - $1.50 and slow growth from there, which includes real commerce and not just speculation.

-Jonathan

I just liked it higher from a financial standpoint on my end. But why is that though? Why have it lower?

[Cluster2k]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

Legally or illegally, it's a tall order.  The only way you're going to get the price up in a hurry is by having access to at least a million dollars and buying up all the bids.

There have been various ideas floated before, such as asking sellers to retract their asks and 'force' bids upwards.  It never works.  If only one person doesn't cooperate and acts against the herd in their own interests then the entire manipulation fails.

The other question is, why does the value of a bitcoin have to go up?  It's just as useful at $3 as it is at $30.  If people are buying them up to speculate on the value rising in the future through sitting on their behinds and doing nothing, are they any better than the Wall Street 1%?

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

I think you're well meaning, but why would we want the price to be 15-30? There's no fundamentals to support that price. I (and others) would like to see $1 - $1.50 and slow growth from there, which includes real commerce and not just speculation.

-Jonathan

I just liked it higher from a financial standpoint on my end. But why is that though? Why have it lower?

What's the difference between 10 bitcoins for $2.50 and 1 bitcoin for $25 when it comes to trading / speculating? You like it higher from a financial standpoint because you purchased bitcoin at $15, or because you're emotionally driven by a higher, more volatile price?

So instead of 1000 bitcoins at $15, now you hold/trade/speculate with 6000 bitcoins at $2.5 ...

-Jon

[Revalin]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

Sure, buy Bitcoins.  But why do you want it that high?

If it's to be able to sell Bitcoins, you're going to have a hard time convincing people that they should buy against market sentiment (IE, they lose money) so you can make a profit.

If it's because you think that Bitcoin will be perceived better if the people who bought high make their money back, feel free to bid it up, but understand that you're going to be losing money the whole time you do it.  It's a nice enough cause, but IMO a foolish one - I think the market is healthiest when supported by fundamentals, which I believe is currently well under a buck.

I just liked it higher from a financial standpoint on my end. But why is that though? Why have it lower?

1) I do not want to reward the foolish speculators who have run the price up without any regard to economic reality.

2) I believe Bitcoin will be more stable when supported by fundamentals rather than price manipulation.

3) We collectively pay miners 7200 BTC per day to secure the network.  At $3, that's over $20,000 per day.  At $30, that's $200,000 per day.  That money has to come from somewhere - and if you're the one manipulating the market to keep it that high, you're the one who ends up paying for it.  Unless you have a really good reason why the price needs to be that high, that's wasted money.  (A price boom creates a mining boom, which creates a hashrate boom until mining profits reach about current levels; once it settles out most of that $200,000/day gets spent on electricity.)  The current level of economic activity does not justify that level of blockchain security.

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

3) We collectively pay miners 7200 BTC per day to secure the network.  At $3, that's over $20,000 per day.  At $30, that's $200,000 per day.  That money has to come from somewhere - and if you're the one manipulating the market to keep it that high, you're the one who ends up paying for it.  Unless you have a really good reason why the price needs to be that high, that's wasted money.  (A price boom creates a mining boom, which creates a hashrate boom until mining profits reach about current levels; once it settles out most of that $200,000/day gets spent on electricity.)  The current level of economic activity does not justify that level of blockchain security.

^ THIS

$15 makes NO sense. The current hashing power is overkill, and a waste of electricity. Mining right now is a zero sum game. It's ridiculous to think that bitcoin has to be valued above $10 to have value.

[S3052]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

People just need to buy about 80,000 BTC to get the price to 4 $. I would then consider this a technical breakout and then BTCUSD would likely rise much further. Ideally, also 5 $ is cleared soon thereafter.

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

I think you're well meaning, but why would we want the price to be 15-30? There's no fundamentals to support that price. I (and others) would like to see $1 - $1.50 and slow growth from there, which includes real commerce and not just speculation.

-Jonathan

I just liked it higher from a financial standpoint on my end. But why is that though? Why have it lower?

What's the difference between 10 bitcoins for $2.50 and 1 bitcoin for $25 when it comes to trading / speculating? You like it higher from a financial standpoint because you purchased bitcoin at $15, or because you're emotionally driven by a higher, more volatile price?

So instead of 1000 bitcoins at $15, now you hold/trade/speculate with 6000 bitcoins at $2.5 ...

-Jon

In fact, the period of highest volatility was when price was between $.067 and $.30

A higher price would mean generally lower volatility. Market depth will have to be many multiples what it is today to achieve a modicum of stability, this is not going to happen as long as Bitcoin is below $50.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. While you may be correct, a value of $50 will require 50 - 100x the current use by merchants. I guess we're  a ways away from stability, then.

-Jonathan

[Revalin]

Higher prices don't create stability.  Market depth does.  $100k of market depth at $100 isn't any more stable than $100k of market depth at $1.

Bitcoin's instability in the early days of trading was due to price discovery in a brand new market with very shallow depths.  In the grand scheme, these are still the very early days, and we're still doing initial discovery.

It's just my opinion and hope that the market will eventually discover fundamentals. 

[Revalin]

If you get more buyers the price goes up; if you get more sellers, the price goes down; if you get more buyers AND sellers, the market depth goes up regardless of the price.

I'm not sure how any of that relates to the known number of coins.  We know exactly how many shares there are of GOOG.  So what?

[Revalin]

Commodities and stocks correlate to each other when they have broad use and relevancy to each other.  Gold, oil and USD have some well known correlations because people are trading huge volumes of each to a practical end.

Bitcoin would correlate to oil if people started buying oil in BTC.  That (and a hundred other similar things happening; you can't have one alone) would also correlate to a great deal of stability in BTC because that would be an enormous growth of the BTC economy.

That doesn't mean the price correlation CAUSES BTC to stabilize.  You're mixing up cause and effect.

[Jalum]

Is it possible for us to work together to get the price back up to about 15-30?
Legally that is.

So how much have you lost?

[trogdorjw73]

I'm wondering if it's possible for us to get the price down below $2.00 instead. Whoever dropped all those coins yesterday got us close, but it looks like we're climbing back up -- albeit slowly. Everyone is a little sketchy right now, and all it would take is a couple thousand BTC to drop us over $0.20. Looking at the live view, there's more pressure right now for the price to continue to drop, and I'd guess that we'll see a real test of the $2.04 low from last month some time in the next week. The real question is what will happen after we test the low value: do we go back to $3 again, or do we stick at $2 this time? I think I'll put my but-back-in price at under $2 this time, just to be safe. :-)

[S3052]

be careful not to get cut by the falling bitcoin knife

[wobber]

Holy bit, we're going into the Dark Ages. What the hell will happen to bitcoin? Will it go underground?

[Technomage]

Holy bit, we're going into the Dark Ages. What the hell will happen to bitcoin? Will it go underground?

Gladly, no. Bitcoin is still just as epic as it ever was. Those who understand that are not going anywhere regardless of where the price goes. What will happen is that more miners and speculators quit and the people who remain will continue to develop Bitcoin further. It can also be summarized as early adoption part 2. Not that it'll be like it was for the first pioneers but it'll be close enough.

I don't really think the community has much use for people who think that the usefulness of Bitcoin is dependent on positive price development. With this I don't mean that a constantly crashing price isn't a bad thing, it definitely is. Bitcoin needs a real bottom and a new start. I don't care if it takes 2 months, 6 months or 2 years before the price starts going back up, what we need is a real bottom. Bitcoin needs it desperately and has needed for a while now.

[Revalin]

Yes, actually it does. If, for instance a large volume of trading were done with goods of any manner that had a fairly stable value denominated in the US Dollar then Bitcoin would become correlated with the Dollar, and this would make the exchange rate with the Dollar more stable. This is what everyone has been saying, including you, but in different terms.

Last time before I drop it:  A large volume of goods trading integrates Bitcoin into a larger economy.  This causes: 1) correlations; 2) stability.  It does not cause correlations which in turn cause stability.  The correlations are just the consequence of being part of a larger economy.

But this does not solve the problem of market depth on its own. A low price would demand a relatively large exchange trade volume to prevent a liquidity crisis in the event of a large buy/sell. As long as the exchange rate remains at a low level the utility of Bitcoin remains limited to small purchases. As soon as a largish exchange has to be made to execute a purchase of some sort then the price will swing all over the place. The likelihood of this happening with a high exchange rate is lower than with a low exchange rate. Apples to apples, a high exchange rate will have less volatility than a low exchange rate.

I agree with everything you say here.  I disagree that propping the price up helps liquidity.  Unless it's backed by large amounts of commerce (and therefore trade volume), it's just a high price in a thin market, and therefore subject to high volatility...  Even worse than a low price, since a propped up price drops whenever the fleeting interests of the price-proppers changes.

The high price is an effect, not a cause.  You have to create the root cause: commerce, which creates volume, which creates depth, which creates stability.  Note that "price" isn't in that chain: it's a sibling of volume, an effect of commerce; artificially recreating a correlated sibling effect (high price) does not magically recreate their common cause.

It's like saying that land with lots of wildflowers makes a good place to grow crops.  Sure, they correlate - because they have good soil, rain, and sunlight.  But planting flowers everywhere doesn't make the land good for farming.