Rally!!!!!

[paraipan]

Good points technomage!

+1 i couldn't have said it better, and btw i'm doing a "falkvinge" here because i trust bitcoin to achieve it's full potential some day, if not, it will not make me live on the streets either.

[1714124819]

1714124819

[1714124819]

1714124819

[1714124819]

1714124819

[Piper67]

Good points technomage!

+1 i couldn't have said it better, and btw i'm doing a "falkvinge" here because i trust bitcoin to achieve it's full potential some day, if not, it will not make me live on the streets either.

Can we turn Falkvinge into a verb? You know, like Zhoutong except meaning something good?

[FreeMoney]

Good points technomage!

+1 i couldn't have said it better, and btw i'm doing a "falkvinge" here because i trust bitcoin to achieve it's full potential some day, if not, it will not make me live on the streets either.

Falkvinging is backing out after making a big public statement.

[paraipan]

Good points technomage!

+1 i couldn't have said it better, and btw i'm doing a "falkvinge" here because i trust bitcoin to achieve it's full potential some day, if not, it will not make me live on the streets either.

Falkvinging is backing out after making a big public statement.

Probably he got into it too soon, you got to take your time with bitcoin

[Vandroiy]

Wasn't Falkvinge the dude who tried to use his influence to profit from his followers?

Anyway. There was a post above, and I read it up to the word "manipulator". Would everyone finally give him a rest? The omnipotent manipulator explanation is so old, you can wrap a whale into its beard. And still, I don't remember any sensible explanation of market movement that came from it.

Well. Apart form the aforementioned Falkvinge case. That was proper manipulation.

[SgtSpike]

Wasn't Falkvinge the dude who tried to use his influence to profit from his followers?

Anyway. There was a post above, and I read it up to the word "manipulator". Would everyone finally give him a rest? The omnipotent manipulator explanation is so old, you can wrap a whale into its beard. And still, I don't remember any sensible explanation of market movement that came from it.

Well. Apart form the aforementioned Falkvinge case. That was proper manipulation.

I always viewed "the manipulator" as a collective of like-minded people who inadvertently make similar decisions.

In other words, us.

[molecular]

No one can short BTC anymore.  That is, without doubt, the biggest likely reason for a BTC rally.

Then any rally from here out is probably not going to end well once shorting is brought back.

Exactly.  As soon as people start shorting again, those extra (arguably artificial) sells are going to push the price down.

well, I've used bitcoinica to go even longer than I already was (buy more BTC on leverage) before. You know, there's also people that have BTC to play with, but not much fiat, but they don't want to sell BTC because they're bulls. What I'm saying is: when the shorts are back... so are the longs.

Of course it might be the shorts are heavier. thoughts?

[Technomage]

Wasn't Falkvinge the dude who tried to use his influence to profit from his followers?

Anyway. There was a post above, and I read it up to the word "manipulator". Would everyone finally give him a rest? The omnipotent manipulator explanation is so old, you can wrap a whale into its beard. And still, I don't remember any sensible explanation of market movement that came from it.

Well. Apart form the aforementioned Falkvinge case. That was proper manipulation.

Well, the portion of my post that concerned "the manipulator" was pure speculation. It's entirely possible that there is nothing like that really going on. That wasn't the main point of the post, the point was that the lack of shorts means lack of longs just as much. Also it was an attempt to explain the rally by simple terms, that there is simply more faith in Bitcoin than there was before.

However it's important to take into account that staying at $5 was growth by itself. Bitcoin is still experiencing heavy monetary inflation. Going up means that there is not just growth (because staying at $5 is already growth), there is significant growth. If you take away the manipulation aspect, price development itself should be the best indicator of what is going on at any point in time.

[Vandroiy]

I agree that there is no reason to assume there would be more shorts than longs at this point, which makes the argument of a price rise due to missing shorts moot.

Using price as an indicator for price is no good idea though. If everybody does that, price change depends on price... whee, the teachers' favorite differential equation, and exponential price movements! We tried that last year around this time.

Well, that aside, I'm also a bit bullish at the moment. Just because Bitcoin is fundamentally good, and enough people are on the boat to make 5 USD per coin look a tad cheap.

[anu]

Well, that aside, I'm also a bit bullish at the moment. Just because Bitcoin is fundamentally good, and enough people are on the boat to make 5 USD per coin look a tad cheap.

Price is actually ridiculous. There is a chance that Bitcoin will fill a gap soon, if the Euro crashes. I don't see how this is priced in already. I also doubt that the halving of the block reward in a few months is already priced in - at least not fully. I think people are so afraid of another bubble that they grossly undervalue Bitcoin.

[Technomage]

I believe the reward halving will become priced in once it starts to be a major talking point. It really isn't yet, it's still too far away. There are many reasons to be moderately bullish about Bitcoin right now, but it is dangerous to go too far with it, we've seen what can happen. I've learned a lot and I think that the market has learned many lessons in general, going "to the moon" won't happen easily. Even though $5 might look a tad cheap, for most it doesn't look ridiculously cheap. We might not get serious selling pressure at $5.x but we will get some eventually.

Although it's important to note that a rocket type growth can be justified as well. It's only bad if it's just based on hype, then it will run out of fuel and crash badly. There is nothing really going on that justifies it just now, but it might be just a matter of time when such developments happen which justify a real rocket. Bitcoin's only real rocket has been silk road but I have a feeling that we're actually quite close to realizing new markets for Bitcoin in a significant way, within a year or two.

Bitcoin will also go up simply with time. With this I mean trust and faith. As long as Bitcoin continues to function and deliver, people will take it more and more seriously. 3rd party setbacks will have less and less effect, if Bitcoin itself just goes on and on. This increased faith will allow more people to store more wealth in bitcoins, which is where Bitcoin starts to realize its promise as a store of value, which it certainly can be. This will of course have a very significant effect on Bitcoin's price.

[FreeMoney]

It seems some angel and venture money is starting to come into play. When that is common I'd bet that some realize that their project and the 'inside' knowledge they have about it means bitcoin will be more valuable and pop some money directly into coins too.

[SgtSpike]

I don't think mining rewards are going to have much to do with it.  I started an (informal) poll on the forum, and just about every miner said they keep their coins instead of selling them.

[dree12]

I don't think mining rewards are going to have much to do with it.  I started an (informal) poll on the forum, and just about every miner said they keep their coins instead of selling them.

A common misconception here is that supply is equivalent the the number of coins produced. In fact, studying dynamics suggests that supply has to deal more with the total money supply than the coins produced each day (it is something like 3-5% of total money supply that needs to be bought a day), i.e., supply is increasing and will be for the near future.

[adamstgBit]

I don't think mining rewards are going to have much to do with it.  I started an (informal) poll on the forum, and just about every miner said they keep their coins instead of selling them.

A common misconception here is that supply is equivalent the the number of coins produced. In fact, studying dynamics suggests that supply has to deal more with the total money supply than the coins produced each day (it is something like 3-5% of total money supply that needs to be bought a day), i.e., supply is increasing and will be for the near future.

do these miners mine on deepbit? whats their hash rate? are they even profitable :p
I guess to the small time miner, its kinda like buying...

[molecular]

I guess to the small time miner, its kinda like buying...

you mean because his not "pulling out" fiat for his power bill and to cover his initial investment? probably true.

The miners have to cover monthly cost and initial investment. In case they have enough fiat to cover, they can choose to not do it and instead "buy" bitcoins (by not selling them).

It used to be the case that power cost was pretty close to the mining income (if directly converted to fiat). With fpga mining the bulk of the cost has shifted from the operational cost to the investment for the rig. The "modern" miner clearly had the fiat to invest into the fpga hardware beforehand (so he's no poor sucker aiming for the quick buck he needs so badly), so he might be inclined to just "write that investment off" and keep the bulk of the coins. No need to sell all the coins for the power bill which is reasonable with fpga.

It used to be (I'm talking about all the quick-buck-hype-miners that joined a year ago during or shortly after the hype spike) that miners were either forced to sell their coins because they had to cover power bills and are living on the edge anyway (they got into bitcoin mining because they don't have money in the first place) or (to a large extend, I remember the forum mood) didn't even think of bitcoin as money, put zero trust in its future value and sold voluntarily. These "quick buck miners" preferred at the time what they thought of as "real money" (USD). Ironically - in hindsight - if they kept the fiat and bought back in now, they did the right thing. I doubt most of them followed through on the second part, though.

We're talking about just a single measure here: what percentage of mined coins is being sold directly for fiat?

I'm guessing:

Aug 2011: 80%
Jun 2012: 20%

[Technomage]

Something happening again. New 24h high. A new test of $5.7 could be close perhaps? I put the correction at $5.3 at the lowest but $5.4 works for me.

This is not at all surprising, on top of all the good stuff google trends/insights is spiking quite nicely right now. The new articles on Ars Technica, Financialpost and lastly and most notably Al Jazeera, are effective.

We seem to be having a good run of articles ranging from fairly positive to very positive. The trend change which I've been talking about for months seems to be happening. I'm excited about the weeks to come, hopefully there is more positive and insightful coverage on the way.

[adamstgBit]

 
cypherdoc:  It's that smell again.
        S3052: THE CLEAR PATH 
waveaddict:

but now cypherdoc appears to have second thoughts

cypherdoc: Update emailed: not good

i wish i could read this "not good" email... could the price drop below 5 again.... back to square one? ... that would suck... or would it! OMG BUY BUY BUY

[notme]

 
cypherdoc:  It's that smell again.
        S3052: THE CLEAR PATH 
waveaddict:

but now cypherdoc appears to have second thoughts

cypherdoc: Update emailed: not good

i wish i could read this "not good" email... could the price drop below 5 again.... back to square one? ... that would suck... or would it! OMG BUY BUY BUY

Not good is unrelated to bitcoin.

[elux]

Not good is unrelated to bitcoin.

Obvious reply: Good.