OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4830
Merit: 4535
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 07:23:58 PM |
|
Led by bitfinex. Gotta love shorts rushing to cover. This could get ugly for them.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 07:24:59 PM |
|
Led by bitfinex. Gotta love shorts rushing to cover. This could get ugly for them.
i love it when shorts gotta chase. squeeze time.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 07:32:16 PM |
|
and where is the next page?
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLtCcJjL.jpg&t=665&c=zAZul5E35iAYmA)
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 07:49:29 PM |
|
since everyone prefers to look at charts that only go up, here's DZZ: back over the top!: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx4IrwwO.png&t=665&c=fuMHLx0ya5ZwVg)
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 08:11:40 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 09:10:07 PM |
|
-snip-
I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell). the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law. Ergo you don't understand moores law, but it's not your fault education has failed you. nuff said meh, thats just a brilliant argument. You are saying 200GB SDcard isnt the result of moore's law because i lack education. Who the fuck are you to juge? Moore's law implies increasing transistors density whilst reducing (production) costs. Its not because you'll pay an extra money as a dumb late consumer downstream that it is not valid. But whatever i'll leave it to your ego.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 09:47:52 PM |
|
Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
And we're just getting started.
|
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 11:57:53 PM |
|
and where is the next page?
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin. When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 12:21:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Wandererfromthenorth
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 12:29:40 AM Last edit: March 03, 2015, 12:39:48 AM by Wandererfromthenorth |
|
and where is the next page?
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin. When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say. The author of the "no" column raises perfectly valid points. Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW. What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO. For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox. The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 12:49:32 AM |
|
and where is the next page?
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin. When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say. The author of the "no" column raises perfectly valid points. Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW. What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO. For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox. The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon. And you are using the exact same flawed logic to say this. I never said that people should use bitcoin as a currency NOW (you said that). I said that to properly guess what the future will look like, it is necessary to look at the innate properties of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's innate properties are what will determine how it is used in the future, not what it's usage pattern looks like today. Bitcoin is not perfect, and there are issues, but its current usage is a transitory property that can and will change. Using your logic, in 1985 everyone should have sold MSFT stock because very few people had PCs "right now", but the smart people looked to what the future could look like and determined valuation based on their predictions of a changing future, not what the present looked like. You, like Krugman and all the other "experts", are predicting Bitcoin failure based solely on the present world, not a rapidly changing future world.
|
|
|
|
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 660
Merit: 101
Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 02:40:40 AM |
|
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
Which is precisely what the author of the "Yes" column said. Just look at the title.
|
|
|
|
empowering
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1441
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 03:58:08 AM Last edit: March 03, 2015, 03:30:59 PM by empowering |
|
-snip-
I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell). the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law. Ergo you don't understand moores law, but it's not your fault education has failed you. nuff said meh, thats just a brilliant argument. You are saying 200GB SDcard isnt the result of moore's law because i lack education. Who the fuck are you to juge? Moore's law implies increasing transistors density whilst reducing (production) costs. Its not because you'll pay an extra money as a dumb late consumer downstream that it is not valid. But whatever i'll leave it to your ego. Relevant: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns
|
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
|
|
|
uki
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
cryptojunk bag holder
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 11:15:12 AM |
|
Here another article pointing out what still needs to be done, before one can get excited again about BTC prices: http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/03/03/will-bitcoin-worth-500-2015/Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
And we're just getting started.
gold is under terrible pressure since a month or so, yet, it did manage to hold above $1200. That is very positive for gold. I expect further pressure to the downside, but if it fails to break the price below $1180, expect some short rally up.
|
this space is intentionally left blank
|
|
|
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 11:27:05 AM |
|
Lack of regulation
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand If two non-reasons and one technical trendline is all that's holding the Bitcoin price back, that's pretty exciting.
|
|
|
|
uki
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
cryptojunk bag holder
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 11:32:08 AM |
|
Lack of regulation
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand If two non-reasons and one technical trendline is all that's holding the Bitcoin price back, that's pretty exciting. why are you underestimating the role of the central banks, holding in check every other asset? I wouldn't call it a non-reason. Secondly, I am missing in that article adoption problems, as on of the fundamental obstacles, BTC has to face.
|
this space is intentionally left blank
|
|
|
|
Wandererfromthenorth
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 10:53:03 PM |
|
and where is the next page?
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin. When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say. The author of the "no" column raises perfectly valid points. Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW. What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO. For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox. The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon. And you are using the exact same flawed logic to say this. I never said that people should use bitcoin as a currency NOW (you said that). I said that to properly guess what the future will look like, it is necessary to look at the innate properties of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's innate properties are what will determine how it is used in the future, not what it's usage pattern looks like today. Bitcoin is not perfect, and there are issues, but its current usage is a transitory property that can and will change. Using your logic, in 1985 everyone should have sold MSFT stock because very few people had PCs "right now", but the smart people looked to what the future could look like and determined valuation based on their predictions of a changing future, not what the present looked like. You, like Krugman and all the other "experts", are predicting Bitcoin failure based solely on the present world, not a rapidly changing future world. If people can't use bitcoin as a currency right now because volatility (among other problems) makes it unusable they will use it for speculation. And that's exactly what is happening today. Pretty much nobody uses bitcoin for its intended purpose compared to the amount of people using it to profit from the volatility. When enthusiasts talk about how "volatility will decrease as adoption grows" they are talking about actual "adoption" as money/currency/store of value, not as a volatile profit-making instrument for traders and gamblers on OkCoin and Huobi... Your microsoft analogy doesn't stand because there is no paradox right there. People just had to start using PCs. They can't do the same with bitcoin because of problems that will go away only if bitcoin becomes widely used, but at the same time that can't happen because of those same problems. See the paradox? I'm not judging bitcoin for what it is used, I'm using bitcoin for what it could (and couldn't) be used.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 11:10:49 PM |
|
If people can't use bitcoin as a currency right now because volatility (among other problems) makes it unusable they will use it for speculation. And that's exactly what is happening today. Pretty much nobody uses bitcoin for its intended purpose compared to the amount of people using it to profit from the volatility.
Who are you to decide what Bitcoin's "intended purpose" is? How is its speculative use as a store of value not a legitimate purpose? When enthusiasts talk about how "volatility will decrease as adoption grows" they are talking about actual "adoption" as money/currency/store of value, not as a volatile profit-making instrument for traders and gamblers on OkCoin and Huobi...
That's just not true. By adoption what people really mean is increased liquidity. Whatever use-case this liquidity is derived from is irrelevant. People just had to start using PCs. They can't do the same with bitcoin because of problems that will go away only if bitcoin becomes widely used, but at the same time that can't happen because of those same problems. See the paradox?
I'm not judging bitcoin for what it is used, I'm using bitcoin for what it could (and couldn't) be used.
PCs were considerably expensive back then and before the internet there was little you could do with it from a consumer, general public standpoint. PCs were considered a niche because they were a. too expensive b. too complicated. Those "problems" were solved by increased adoption and improving technology. This is very much the situation Bitcoin is in right now.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
|