Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.

[cypherdoc]

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.

maybe.

lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption.  for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.

[smooth]

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.

maybe.

lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption.  for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.

Yes I agree if done in poorly conceived and chaotic manner it would be destructive. Zangelbert Bingledack's original message indicated that exchanges would need to be set up to handle this properly in order to treat forks as a market question. Likewise wallets, etc. It is a significant undertaking, but in many ways likely less challenging, less complicated, and possibly with less risk of people losing money, than side chains.

More later.

[cypherdoc]

why the hell do we ever invite Chris Larson to Bitcoin conferences?:

http://coinfire.io/2015/03/16/ripple-ceo-says-bitcoin-as-currency-unneeded-to-california-assembly/

[cypherdoc]

http://altoz.liberty.me/2015/03/17/why-ripple-is-the-enemy/

[cypherdoc]

so will Lawsky and the BitLicense shut out Rakuten?

[cbeast]

Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.

yup ... and some.

Payment channels technology are (another) game changer ... (multi-hop off-chain transaction routing, now that is the TCP/IP of money)

[domob]

People *still* don't understand the problem that blockchains actually solve.

Yes, I keep coming across that a lot.  It seems to me that a lot of people without the technical understanding just believe that "blockchain = something with 'bit' in its name or claiming some kind of decentralisation".  As if absolutely every kind of decentralisation needed a blockchain.  For instance, newbies with Bitmessage (P2P encrypted messaging) often keep talking about the "blockchain", even though there is nothing even coming close to a blockchain involved in Bitmessage.

[Wekkel]

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/thoughts-on-valuing-bitcoin-as-network.html?m=1

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain .

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

[solex]

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

between $10k and $300k by 2024 maybe?

[shields]

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/thoughts-on-valuing-bitcoin-as-network.html?m=1

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain .

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

I skimmed over it, but I believe his fatal flaw that leads to the ridiculously high estimates is assuming the price at any point in time does not already price in expected future growth.

[Wekkel]

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

[HarmonLi]

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

Bitcoin is effectively a currency or asset born to use a log scale, after all. I haven't seen many real world examples that follow an exponential growth as well as Bitcoin does

[cypherdoc]

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Backatchya2]

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.

[markj113]

Spike in gold price due to $1.2 billion bid, someone has been splashing the cash -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/gold-spikes-sudden-12-billion-bid

Maybe the Irish finance minister -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/irish-finance-minister-dumps-stocks-buys-gold

[Goldinger]

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.

Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...

[cypherdoc]

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

O RLY?














I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.

Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...

i absolutely can.  there's been several goldbugs like you who have held me to a higher standard of using the original posting date of this thread or its precursor as a start point to measure the success or failure of this call.  and this was when the outcome wasn't so clear.  that is a reasonable request, unlike the cherry picking timeframes you are doing.  when done in this manner, Bitcoin has killed gold in terms of relative performance.

[lunarboy]

Funniest story in the press at the moment 

US pissed at the Brits for joining the Chinese-led Asian development bank.

now Australia France and Germany Also join in on the joke.

That Dollar is starting to smell a little Whiffy   

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31921011