Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NotLambchop]

...
Some people just can't seem to fathom the following is in the realm of possibility:



...

>Person A
>Person B
>No Person C

[1500785755]

1500785755

[1500785755]

1500785755

[1500785755]

1500785755

[FNG]

pretty classy presentation by Fred Ehrsam.  we need more from him.  what caught my ear was that Coinbase has 1.6 million confirmed users.  that's alot:

http://avc.com/2014/09/video-of-the-week-fred-ehrsams-bitcoin-presentation/

edit:  and with all that said, he didn't even talk about the SOV function.

This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this:

1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely.
2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats.
3) A significant amount of coinbase users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins.
4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees?
5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data?

Am I missing something?


[1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=320000

3   + people who keep btc on exchanges

[notme]

pretty classy presentation by Fred Ehrsam.  we need more from him.  what caught my ear was that Coinbase has 1.6 million confirmed users.  that's alot:

http://avc.com/2014/09/video-of-the-week-fred-ehrsams-bitcoin-presentation/

edit:  and with all that said, he didn't even talk about the SOV function.

This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this:

1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely.
2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats.
3) A significant amount of coinbase users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins.
4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees?
5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data?

Am I missing something?


[1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=320000

How about some people have more than one address.  With a market cap at 5,240,808,508 and 1,600,000 users, that is $3275.50 per user.  Of course, there are more users than coinbase users.  I know I don't have all my funds on a single address.

Also, there is the fact that coinbase btc for multiple users are stored on a single address that is in cold storage.

Point being, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between users and addresses.

[flipperfish]

pretty classy presentation by Fred Ehrsam.  we need more from him.  what caught my ear was that Coinbase has 1.6 million confirmed users.  that's alot:

http://avc.com/2014/09/video-of-the-week-fred-ehrsams-bitcoin-presentation/

edit:  and with all that said, he didn't even talk about the SOV function.

This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this:

1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely.
2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats.
3) A significant amount of coinbase bitcoin users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins. (EDIT: thx to FNG)
4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees?
5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data?

Am I missing something?


[1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=320000

3   + people who keep btc on exchanges

Thx. This is just logical, the less users that don't hold the private keys to their bitcoins, the less addresses are used. And this phenomenon not only applies to coinbase.

How about some people have more than one address.  With a market cap at 5,240,808,508 and 1,600,000 users, that is $3275.50 per user.  Of course, there are more users than coinbase users.  I know I don't have all my funds on a single address.

Also, there is the fact that coinbase btc for multiple users are stored on a single address that is in cold storage.

Point being, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between users and addresses.

Yes, if you assume, that some people have more than one address, the comparison of 1.6 million addresses vs. 1.6 million coinbase users even more implies, that one of the above explainations has to be true. I don't try to establish a 1:1 relationship between addresses and users. But with 1.6 million addresses, there can only be 1.6 million users (at most), who control the private key to their bitcoins.

[notme]

pretty classy presentation by Fred Ehrsam.  we need more from him.  what caught my ear was that Coinbase has 1.6 million confirmed users.  that's alot:

http://avc.com/2014/09/video-of-the-week-fred-ehrsams-bitcoin-presentation/

edit:  and with all that said, he didn't even talk about the SOV function.

This number is something that bothers me. According to bitcoinrichlist.com [1], there are only about 1.6 million addresses with a current value of more than 0.001 (= $ 0.40 currently). Assuming, that each bitcoin holder has to control at least one address, this feels a bit wrong. I assume there are a many ways to explain this:

1) All bitcoin holders currently owning more than $ 0.40 in bitcoin are also coinbase users. -- Somehow this seems to be unlikely.
2) Coinbase sugarcoated their stats.
3) A significant amount of coinbase bitcoin users does not hold the private key for their bitcoins. (EDIT: thx to FNG)
4) A significant amount of coinbase users bought coins with a total value less than $ 0.40. -- Is this even possible or rational because of fees?
5) Stats of bitcoinrichlist.com are wrong. -- Are there alternatives that provide the same data?

Am I missing something?


[1] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=320000

3   + people who keep btc on exchanges

Thx. This is just logical, the less users that don't hold the private keys to their bitcoins, the less addresses are used. And this phenomenon not only applies to coinbase.

How about some people have more than one address.  With a market cap at 5,240,808,508 and 1,600,000 users, that is $3275.50 per user.  Of course, there are more users than coinbase users.  I know I don't have all my funds on a single address.

Also, there is the fact that coinbase btc for multiple users are stored on a single address that is in cold storage.

Point being, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between users and addresses.

Yes, if you assume, that some people have more than one address, the comparison of 1.6 million addresses vs. 1.6 million coinbase users even more implies, that one of the above explainations has to be true. I don't try to establish a 1:1 relationship between addresses and users. But with 1.6 million addresses, there can only be 1.6 million users (at most), who control the private key to their bitcoins.

Well I personally have several addresses with less than 0.001 btc, but maybe I'm just weird.

[cypherdoc]

Look at this ad. Makes you proud enough to want to bomb everyone out of existence:

Bloomberg: F-22 Stealth Fighter Debuts Firepower in Syria

http://bloom.bg/1vdjOyK

[FNG]

Look at this ad. Makes you proud enough to want to bomb everyone out of existence:

Bloomberg: F-22 Stealth Fighter Debuts Firepower in Syria

http://bloom.bg/1vdjOyK

As a U.S Expat...it makes me feel ill

[ssmc2]

Look at this ad. Makes you proud enough to want to bomb everyone out of existence:

Bloomberg: F-22 Stealth Fighter Debuts Firepower in Syria

http://bloom.bg/1vdjOyK

As a U.S Expat...it makes me feel ill

I can't wait for the day I can apply that label to myself.

[justusranvier]

Look at this ad. Makes you proud enough to want to bomb everyone out of existence:

Bloomberg: F-22 Stealth Fighter Debuts Firepower in Syria

http://bloom.bg/1vdjOyK

As a U.S Expat...it makes me feel ill

I can't wait for the day I can apply that label to myself.

Obtain a location-independent income derived from a non-US source.

Once your income and savings are in bitcoin, it hardly matters where you're located geographically.

[Peter R]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

[FNG]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

Depends how much they have..

Business assets covering expenditures would be best then a couple of years cash on hand combined with 70% gold and 30% btc of excess funds. If btc goes up don't reshuffle but I feel that is a decent enough entrance amount.

[Peter R]

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

Right, so it's possibly a good time for people who were thinking of increasing their exposure to begin to do so.  I'm thinking 3-4% of financial assets in this case is acceptable: enough upside to make a difference to their lifestyle should bitcoin adoption continue, but the downside is limited to only a few % of net worth.    

[cypherdoc]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

For alot of us,  it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there.

I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12.

BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about.

[cypherdoc]

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

Right, so it's possibly a good time for people who were thinking of increasing their exposure to begin to do so.  I'm thinking 3-4% of financial assets in this case is acceptable: enough upside to make a difference to their lifestyle should bitcoin adoption continue, but the downside is limited to only a few % of net worth.    

I'd push it to 5% Peter. Especially given what I think are low and getting cheaper prices. That's not an unreasonable % and I'd be more concerned if they were buying at 1000. Leg in slowly.

[cypherdoc]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

For alot of us,  it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there.

I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12.

BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about.

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Well then, sell now if you feel so bad.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

For alot of us,  it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there.

I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12.

BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about.

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Well then, sell now if you feel so bad.

Early adopter with nothing to lose? Thanks for the advice

[devphp]

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Diversify, dude. Even Doge will fare better than Bitcoin. Don't let your money go to waste for nothing.

[FNG]

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Diversify, dude. Even Doge will fare better than Bitcoin. Don't let your money go to waste for nothing.

wtf is with the doge pump overload the past couple of days....fuck off already

[devphp]

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Diversify, dude. Even Doge will fare better than Bitcoin. Don't let your money go to waste for nothing.

wtf is with the doge pump overload the past couple of days....fuck off already

You sound agitated. That's a sign of uncertainty.

[cypherdoc]

Sorry for OT, but I need your advice fellow posters (and this thread needs more posts)…

My parents recently asked me to help them with their investment portfolios (they're retired and in their 60s).  They don't have pensions, so it's important that they avoid excessive risks with their capital.  But my opinion is sitting 90% in cash, bonds, GICs (excluding real estate) is actually more risky.  

They presently have about 1.7% of their non-real estate assets as bitcoin.  How high do you think I could suggest they push this without it being viewed as "reckless" should things work out poorly?  

Honeybadger is bleeding to death. What's next guys?

For alot of us,  it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain. And we'll also be big buyers well before it gets there.

I do feel bad for those who got in higher than this. Hell, I feel bad for myself as I've been buying small chunks on the way down. But I'm not worried for the long term as nothings changed in the fundamentals. In fact, those are better. Maybe we are in the equivalent stage of the NASDAQ crash of 2001. Apple was at 12.

BTW, gold certainly is not UP. You've got plenty to be worried about.

Wowow. I bought in at $550. lol

Such investmenting

Well then, sell now if you feel so bad.

Early adopter with nothing to lose? Thanks for the advice

I helped fund a major portion of the Bitcoin economy  early on when it was not in any way clear it was going to make it especially during the down turn from 32 to 2. So yes, I do have a lot to lose. There were guys all over here just like you crying foul and trying to scare everyone.

So what's your excuse?