The Willy Report...What do you guys make of it?

[JorgeStolfi]

It's possible that the november bubble was not entirely driven by the fundamentals or even that the bots contributed significantly to its sustenance. [ ... ]

what are the fundamentals?
what is the real demand for Bitcoin?

In the case of the 2013 bubbles, there defintely was a new, sudden, huge demand in China: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/1206/Why-the-Chinese-can-t-get-enough-of-Bitcoin-despite-bank-ban 

[Dr. Pepper]

Anyone elkse wondering why they had to call it the Willy report? Cant take myself serious when I say it.

[JorgeStolfi]

Anyone elkse wondering why they had to call it the Willy report? Cant take myself serious when I say it.

The nickname "Willy" was given to the robot shortly after it was noticed, back in December IIRC.

[bluemeanie1]

Because bitcoin fulfils the function of secure store of value better than your altcoins that have a very uncertain future. Secure implies more likely to continue to exist. I do not think BTC is overvalued compared to any other altcoins existing today, quite the contrary.

a secure store of value that anyone can produce by creating an altcoin?

the model isn't exactly rock solid.

-bm

[Gimmelfarb]

i feel like this was all pretty much common knowledge to those on the forum/reddit months ago. i remember reading all about it in the "speculation" subforum shortly after MT Gox shut down and the market crashed.

[tatu]

This business is very sketchy and not good for bitcoin. I wonder if this puts mark in more trouble?

Anyone elkse wondering why they had to call it the Willy report? Cant take myself serious when I say it.

The nickname "Willy" was given to the robot shortly after it was noticed, back in December IIRC.

Why'd they call it willy though? 

[MahaRamana]

Because bitcoin fulfils the function of secure store of value better than your altcoins that have a very uncertain future. Secure implies more likely to continue to exist. I do not think BTC is overvalued compared to any other altcoins existing today, quite the contrary.

a secure store of value that anyone can produce by creating an altcoin?

the model isn't exactly rock solid.

-bm

Everyone can create an altcoin. But not bitcoin.
Nobody can create an altcoin that will get the same support that bitcoin has. Of course in theory everything can happen. But we are talking about facts, not theory.

Your logic is flawed. It's like saying that everyone could launch a social media website with some cheap code, therefore Facebook has no value as a social media. But its USE and SUPPORT as a social media is what creates its value as a social media. It has nothing to do with the ease of replication of its concept.

The value of bitcoin lies only in its use, support and recognition by people. The value of bitcoin has nothing to do with the ease of replication of its concept.

Do you fail to understand this ?

[bluemeanie1]

Because bitcoin fulfils the function of secure store of value better than your altcoins that have a very uncertain future. Secure implies more likely to continue to exist. I do not think BTC is overvalued compared to any other altcoins existing today, quite the contrary.

a secure store of value that anyone can produce by creating an altcoin?

the model isn't exactly rock solid.

-bm

Everyone can create an altcoin. But not bitcoin.
Nobody can create an altcoin that will get the same support that bitcoin has. Of course in theory everything can happen. But we are talking about facts, not theory.

Your logic is flawed. It's like saying that everyone could launch a social media website with some cheap code, therefore Facebook has no value as a social media. But its USE and SUPPORT as a social media is what creates its value as a social media. It has nothing to do with the ease of replication of its concept.

Do you fail to understand this ?

that's a horrible analogy.

Facebook isn't a currency or 'store of value'.  It's very easy to clone bitcoin and have it work with all the adapters that exist for Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin were to rise in price enough, all the services can just switch to an altcoin or offer a choice.  You can even automate exchanges to and from Bitcoin.  Bitcoin has a small privilege, but not a big one and ultimately price will determine how valuable it is.

[MahaRamana]

that's a horrible analogy.

Facebook isn't a currency or 'store of value'.  It's very easy to clone bitcoin and have it work with all the adapters that exist for Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin were to rise in price enough, all the services can just switch to an altcoin or offer a choice.  You can even automate exchanges to and from Bitcoin.  Bitcoin has a small privilege, but not a big one and ultimately price will determine how valuable it is.

The analogy only serves to show that the value lies in the recognition and acceptance and choice of people. This is the case whatever we talk about.

The privilege of being the chosen store of value is not a small privilege. It makes all the difference. It creates trust.

Altcoins do not create trust. And the ease of creation of new altcoins actually plays against all of them. The more altcoins are created, the less chances any altcoins will succeed at all in the long term.

The ease to use another crypto on the infrastructure is true, but if there is no incentive to hold and use an altcoin as compared to holding and using a bitcoin, why would someone choose an altcoin with less trust than a bitcoin ? It won't make much sense.

As you say, ultimately price will determine how valuable bitcoin is as an easily transferable store of value.

[MahaRamana]

a secure store of value that anyone can produce by creating an altcoin?

the model isn't exactly rock solid.

-bm

Another important point that strengthen the facts I talk about is the actual need for this secure store of value.
If people would dilute into hundreds of altcoins - the function of secured store of value would be considerably lowered.
What makes a crypto secure is directly related to the number of people who use it as a store of value and the people who use it to transact.

The argument here is that there will be no individual or collective incentives to depreciate the store of value function of bitcoin. In fact, it is the contrary that is true. Individually, people will have interest to store their wealth in BTC as compared to altcoins because altcoins play this function very poorly. They might be nice speculative toys, but they are very poor store of value. Collectively, people will have interest to store their wealth in BTC because it strenghtens the security of that store of value.

People will use BTC as a store of value mostly because they need a store of value. The BTC properties and support make it possible, but the most important ingredient is the need of the people.

Arguing that crypto will never play the role of storage of value because altcoins will proliferate is illusory in my opinion. Crypto already plays this role, it is bitcoin. Arguing that this role will be shared amongst hundreds of crypto is also illusory. The reason is that crypto are so easy to create that it would bring the value of all of them to zero, defeating the role of store of value and making it impossible to transact with. It is happening with altcoins, their multiplication is hurting the very little storage of value function that they were having. I don't see things improving much for altcoins as a whole going forward.

[bluemeanie1]

"What makes a crypto secure is directly related to the number of people who use it as a store of value and the people who use it to transact. "

if that is true, the Proof of Stake model is superior because it achieves this without the need for expensive computing power.

-bm

[Finchy]

I love how half the threads on this forum are currently talking about this. Has Karpales spoke out publically regarding it?

[MahaRamana]

"What makes a crypto secure is directly related to the number of people who use it as a store of value and the people who use it to transact. "

if that is true, the Proof of Stake model is superior because it achieves this without the need for expensive computing power.

-bm

This is another subject. The point is that if bitcoin is the chosen store of value, it's model will be adapted to what is perceived as offering the highest network security and reliability.
Proof of Stake is likely to be adopted at some point imo.

[bluemeanie1]

massive fraud

clearly there's some hidden element here involving mostly China and partly Russia.  The Chinese are obviously tripping up some kind of back-room dealings, and they're blaming the corruption on them when clearly it's not coming from China.

-bm

This is a scandal of great proportion, no doubt about it.
Wait until the Mainstream News Agencies get hold of this story.
Good Times. 

just look at a small portion of the sheer corruption and madness emanating from the Bitcoin Foundation!

not sure about this Phineas guy, he seems a bit ragged - but you can't deny that there is some fishy stuff happening here.

-bm

And, will probably become more ragged the longer I wait for davout, staff on this forum, to return my 1,132 BTC that's currently residing in one of his fat-ass bitcoin wallets thanks to InstaWallet "hack".

Odd, how he and his two partners became bitcoin-rich, in spite of having no returns on their failed enterprises, and with Bitcoin-Central - back by a bank name Lemon Way known for its ONLY ONE app - performing lacklusterly, at best.

BTW, David Francois and Mark Karpeles have been friends for years, possibly French Fuck Fuddies.

so you're accusing the forum moderators of stealing your 1,132 BTC?

haven't really followed your story, but this is the land of Bitcoin and if you think your money is safe here you are WRONG.

-bm

[keithers]

I love how half the threads on this forum are currently talking about this. Has Karpales spoke out publically regarding it?

I don't think Karpeles has spoken publicly about anything...let alone a potential bot that most would assume he was either behind, or had to do with..

[Taras]

Very, very interesting... Although I think a better name than Markus could have been used.

[keithers]

i feel like this was all pretty much common knowledge to those on the forum/reddit months ago. i remember reading all about it in the "speculation" subforum shortly after MT Gox shut down and the market crashed.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was common knowledge (which is why it was all speculation), but (correct me if I am wrong), nobody to this point has presented the data as detailed and broken down as this report does.

[hdbuck]

in a sens all this manipulation story is very bullish. basically Bitcoin has been overtaken by obscure greedy forces including the foundation et al. that wont stop until they eventually end up filthy rich. so i would reasonable argue that if you manage not to get eaten by those sharks, you should eventually end up with coins valued @10k+ within the next 4 years (& considering its growth rate since the last 4 years). there is no efficient market, free from fraud and from manipulation. as long as there are dark forces driving us up for their very own profit, im good. we're on the winning team guys

[Taras]

After reading further, Markus suddenly sounds like a perfectly appropriate name. Nevermind my earlier post.

[derpinheimer]

i feel like this was all pretty much common knowledge to those on the forum/reddit months ago. i remember reading all about it in the "speculation" subforum shortly after MT Gox shut down and the market crashed.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was common knowledge (which is why it was all speculation), but (correct me if I am wrong), nobody to this point has presented the data as detailed and broken down as this report does.

I've never even heard of the "bot buyer" theory @MtGox until now, so its FAR from common knowledge even amongst those "in the know" of bitcoin.