Why Bitcoin will not go past $1000

[spazzdla]

Who will wanna buy Bitcoins at $3000?

You'll be buying bits, or satoshis.

333 bits for a dollar? That's a freakin' steal!

I'd put some bits on 1 bit will be worth 1 USD before 2030.

[serenitys]

My understanding - which is possibly incorrect and if so, please correct - is that the price of btc was around $900-$1100 just prior to the Gox failure. Was the rate of rise leading to the $1100 point considered a bubble? If so, what price range had been the stable foundation first before the price shot up strong to over $1k?

Do you measure the actual btc value from that baseline amount before the bubble rise and if that's the baseline, if we exclude the bubble and gox failure, and look at the price recovering from both, is it meeting that baseline or has it exceeded it?

I don't know what the actual amount is because I wasn't aware of all this back then. I was considering the market in terms of dynamics and Newton's Law - it'll keep doing what it's doing until something disrupts it. If the bubble/gox failure is the disruption, then the price prior to that would be where the market was naturally at...and compared to where it is now, is it steady growth or has it reached the break even point yet?

[Melbustus]

Bitcoin value is easy enough to model. Magnitude just boils down to assumptions:

http://honestnode.com/bitcoin-fair-value-a-first-assessment/

Edit: tl;dr: $27,381 / BTC on relatively conservative success-case assumptions.
Fair value today depends on your analysis of the reasonability of those assumptions, and your estimation of the probability that the success case will happen.

[Gimmelfarb]

My understanding - which is possibly incorrect and if so, please correct - is that the price of btc was around $900-$1100 just prior to the Gox failure. Was the rate of rise leading to the $1100 point considered a bubble? If so, what price range had been the stable foundation first before the price shot up strong to over $1k?

Do you measure the actual btc value from that baseline amount before the bubble rise and if that's the baseline, if we exclude the bubble and gox failure, and look at the price recovering from both, is it meeting that baseline or has it exceeded it?

I don't know what the actual amount is because I wasn't aware of all this back then. I was considering the market in terms of dynamics and Newton's Law - it'll keep doing what it's doing until something disrupts it. If the bubble/gox failure is the disruption, then the price prior to that would be where the market was naturally at...and compared to where it is now, is it steady growth or has it reached the break even point yet?

i'm not positive, but if i remember correctly in taking a look at the historical charts, we were closer to the $700-800 range before the Gox meltdown really unfolded.

[serenitys]

Thanks. I also forgot to include the silk road drop but if it was $700 before, then now it would be returning to that level...and if it goes up again, it was always going to 

I think btc has gained too much traction and been invested in by big money to just cave to government/banking pressures to conform. I think the people who put money in it will comply to a point but fundamentally adopted and support btc because it frees us from these institutions. I'm okay with a little cooperation just to get to enough adoption it'll basically put the government right back in the position the bankers did: we own your ass, we're too big to fail, you can't let us fall else it'll destroy the economy...only in btc terms, too many businesses have invested in it and have mass adoption...so you can't outlaw it or regulate it out of existence without mass exodus out of fiat 

[beetcoin]

once the ETFs come out and wallstreet jumps into the game, i'm pretty certain it will reach $1,000.. oh and that's not even mentioning a major company like ebay, newegg, or amazon adopting btc.

[piramida]

bitcoin will go past 1000 not later than august, sorry OP. 5000+ by May, 2015. the price grows by x10 every year now, we are in an explosive adoption phase. willy bot and china are just tiny detractions that can delay the growth by a month maybe. irrelevant tiny dips on a yearly scale.

[Gimmelfarb]

bitcoin will go past 1000 not later than august, sorry OP. 5000+ by May, 2015. the price grows by x10 every year now, we are in an explosive adoption phase. willy bot and china are just tiny detractions that can delay the growth by a month maybe. irrelevant tiny dips on a yearly scale.

speaking of the willy bot, i noticed the wordpress site has been taken down. is it posted anywhere else? does anyone think the media may pick up on the story and it will have a negative impact on price?

[bananaControl]

bitcoin will go past 1000 not later than august, sorry OP. 5000+ by May, 2015. the price grows by x10 every year now, we are in an explosive adoption phase. willy bot and china are just tiny detractions that can delay the growth by a month maybe. irrelevant tiny dips on a yearly scale.

speaking of the willy bot, i noticed the wordpress site has been taken down. is it posted anywhere else?

Here you go:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140525171522/http://willyreport.wordpress.com/

Once on the web, always on the web.

[Anduck]

About the Willy: I've heard most of the volume were at chinese exchanges, not Mt. Gox. Gox had like 7% of the volume (iirc.)

Here's a good(?) graph

[Gimmelfarb]

About the Willy: I've heard most of the volume were at chinese exchanges, not Mt. Gox. Gox had like 7% of the volume (iirc.)

Here's a good(?) graph

yes, but there are a couple considerations. 1) Chinese exchanges have been shown to fake volume (e.g. OkCoin) 2) was MT Gox price action driving the price action on Chinese exchanges? if so, then that is pretty significant, i think.

[Anduck]

yes, but there are a couple considerations. 1) Chinese exchanges have been shown to fake volume (e.g. OkCoin) 2) was MT Gox price action driving the price action on Chinese exchanges? if so, then that is pretty significant, i think.

If we don't look at the obviously faking volume -exchanges, still Mt Gox proportion of the volume was quite low. I've not analyzed anything myself but I've understood it's clear that Chinese exchanges were leading the rise.

[Gimmelfarb]

yes, but there are a couple considerations. 1) Chinese exchanges have been shown to fake volume (e.g. OkCoin) 2) was MT Gox price action driving the price action on Chinese exchanges? if so, then that is pretty significant, i think.

If we don't look at the obviously faking volume -exchanges, still Mt Gox proportion of the volume was quite low. I've not analyzed anything myself but I've understood it's clear that Chinese exchanges were leading the rise.

on the first part, though -- removing the obviously faking volume -exchanges. how can you do that? personally, i don't trust the volume numbers coming out of any of the Chinese exchanges, but that is partly because i don't know where to start this sort of volume analysis. also, the Chinese exchanges offer margin trading, which tends to excite volume numbers, though that may not be any real reason to detract from their numbers.

[Anduck]

yes, but there are a couple considerations. 1) Chinese exchanges have been shown to fake volume (e.g. OkCoin) 2) was MT Gox price action driving the price action on Chinese exchanges? if so, then that is pretty significant, i think.

If we don't look at the obviously faking volume -exchanges, still Mt Gox proportion of the volume was quite low. I've not analyzed anything myself but I've understood it's clear that Chinese exchanges were leading the rise.

on the first part, though -- removing the obviously faking volume -exchanges. how can you do that? personally, i don't trust the volume numbers coming out of any of the Chinese exchanges, but that is partly because i don't know where to start this sort of volume analysis. also, the Chinese exchanges offer margin trading, which tends to excite volume numbers, though that may not be any real reason to detract from their numbers.

BTC China is 'OK' in my eyes. I searched some info and apparently, based on the link, Gox volume were just 7% of the Bitstamp volume. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26h8tv/the_willy_btc_volume_is_only_equivalent_to_7_of/

[Gimmelfarb]

yes, but there are a couple considerations. 1) Chinese exchanges have been shown to fake volume (e.g. OkCoin) 2) was MT Gox price action driving the price action on Chinese exchanges? if so, then that is pretty significant, i think.

If we don't look at the obviously faking volume -exchanges, still Mt Gox proportion of the volume was quite low. I've not analyzed anything myself but I've understood it's clear that Chinese exchanges were leading the rise.

on the first part, though -- removing the obviously faking volume -exchanges. how can you do that? personally, i don't trust the volume numbers coming out of any of the Chinese exchanges, but that is partly because i don't know where to start this sort of volume analysis. also, the Chinese exchanges offer margin trading, which tends to excite volume numbers, though that may not be any real reason to detract from their numbers.

BTC China is 'OK' in my eyes. I searched some info and apparently, based on the link, Gox volume were just 7% of the Bitstamp volume. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26h8tv/the_willy_btc_volume_is_only_equivalent_to_7_of/

interesting. that is actually really surprising to me. i guess it's been so long now since i was watchin the action on Gox on btc wisdom, but i remember feeling like Gox has SO MUCH liquidity, such walls. i always felt like they had so much volume. but never actually looked too deeply.

[Bit_Happy]

The Winklevoss twins did some calculations and said that Bitcoin is supposed to be in the ten thousands range.
Here, this article on CNBC talks about the Winklevoss twins stating that the price is supposed to be atleast 100 times what it is now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101190181

Many people will want to own at least 1 whole BTC.
The extremely low supply will be a huge factor as demand rises. Once Bitcoin is above $2,000 (for example) it might never again "go past $1,000" on any correction. 

[Skele]

The Winklevoss twins did some calculations and said that Bitcoin is supposed to be in the ten thousands range.
Here, this article on CNBC talks about the Winklevoss twins stating that the price is supposed to be atleast 100 times what it is now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101190181

Many people will want to own at least 1 whole BTC.
The extremely low supply will be a huge factor as demand rises. Once Bitcoin is above $2,000 (for example) it might never again "go past $1,000" on any correction. 

Yes, one btc will be like "hey dude, he owns an ENTIRELY BTC!" , imagine if the 8 decimals bitcoin has become useful, lets say 1 satoshi = 1 cent, each bitcoin will worth 100,000 .

[Gimmelfarb]

The Winklevoss twins did some calculations and said that Bitcoin is supposed to be in the ten thousands range.
Here, this article on CNBC talks about the Winklevoss twins stating that the price is supposed to be atleast 100 times what it is now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101190181

Many people will want to own at least 1 whole BTC.
The extremely low supply will be a huge factor as demand rises. Once Bitcoin is above $2,000 (for example) it might never again "go past $1,000" on any correction. 

what kind of calculations do they use to come to this conclusion? is it similar to some of the analysis i have seen regarding metcalfe's law as a measure of value based on the network effect? i still haven't been able to fully wrap my head around that stuff.

[RandomPedestrianN9]

The Winklevoss twins did some calculations and said that Bitcoin is supposed to be in the ten thousands range.
Here, this article on CNBC talks about the Winklevoss twins stating that the price is supposed to be atleast 100 times what it is now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101190181

Many people will want to own at least 1 whole BTC.
The extremely low supply will be a huge factor as demand rises. Once Bitcoin is above $2,000 (for example) it might never again "go past $1,000" on any correction. 

what kind of calculations do they use to come to this conclusion? is it similar to some of the analysis i have seen regarding metcalfe's law as a measure of value based on the network effect? i still haven't been able to fully wrap my head around that stuff.

1) grab a calculator
2) type in 200
3) times 10
4) 2000 result
5) this proves the price will be 2000

[flailing Junk]

According to Petko Draganov bitcoin isnt worth paying attention to unless it is doing 200 billion a day in volume. Assuming bitcoin will be worth paying attention to the market cap will have to be well into the trillions to support that.