Crunch time!

[removebeforeflight]

Do any of you peeps subscribe to metcalfes law? If BTC follows that law then it must rise (in correspondence to physical users); its more of a question of when.

[1714698227]

1714698227

[1714698227]

1714698227

[1714698227]

1714698227

[1714698227]

1714698227

[nanobrain]

Do any of you peeps subscribe to metcalfes law? If BTC follows that law then it must rise (in correspondence to physical users); its more of a question of when.

You need to check out Risto's thread -- there's a lot of discussion referencing ML there.  But I'd check out AnonyMint's posts in that thread -- he proposes a number of theories which suggest there are other factors which will negate such an 'easy' assumption of adoption.  Thus far he is being proved correct.

[wilth1]

According to the red line, a bitcoin today is worth 234$.

Marginally more than estimated mining cost at the current diff. But, pricing in another 40% for hodl seems reasonable.

[johnyj]

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/number-bitcoins-owned-by-richest

[klee]

Funny that the market takes so long to find a bottom while we here already established long ago, empirically, that the bottom is right above the previous rally's ATH So I've known since January that we will bottom out above $260, and also known that we'll stop above $32 last April.

How much will be the gap between actual bottom and the previous ATH is an unknown in the equation, determined by how this reverse (also known as "dutch") auction for cheap coins will unroll and how low people with money will allow it to drop.

Methinks: if a certain market bottom (or top) is taken for granted by the majority, it likely isn't granted to happen at all.
In fairness I still see a likely bottom around 250 but I don't discount a quick dip below 200.
Not that I'm going to take any coin out of cold storage because of this.

people used to say bottom was $1000 $900,$800,$700,$600,$500,$400,$300..
guess what? some day you will say the bottom is $0.01 and still goes wrong because bitcoin is going to nowhere but down lower and lower then the final capitulation

{debunked chart}

Like contemporary art:

[EuroTrash]

Do any of you peeps subscribe to metcalfes law? If BTC follows that law then it must rise (in correspondence to physical users); its more of a question of when.

In a simple model, the on-chain transaction volume is proportional to the square of the number of participants, so yes I subscribe to the Meltcalfe's law. We are offering the same views from different angles and getting to the same conclusion that the network is growing.

But also in my opinion both the number of transactions and the number of unique bitcoin addresses used (which are the indicators cited by the Meltcalfe's law supporters in rpietila's threads) are probably getting inflated by more mixing going on now than in the past, so to me they are not as reliable indicators in order to size an economy as the estimated USD transaction volume is. The latter is calculated by blockchain.info with an algorithm that keeps change addresses into account. The algo can also be fooled with coinjoin, but fooling it is not guaranteed to inflate the numbers.

[EuroTrash]

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/number-bitcoins-owned-by-richest

Nice list of addresses of actors who are too lazy to spread their coins over a lot of different wallets. Also surely coinbase, bitstamp and chinese exchanges have their addresses listed there, which in theory does not make them rich because they are not their coins but their users'.

[inca]

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/number-bitcoins-owned-by-richest

Nice list of addresses of actors who are too lazy to spread their coins over a lot of different wallets. Also surely coinbase, bitstamp and chinese exchanges have their addresses listed there, which in theory does not make them rich because they are not their coins but their users'.

A chart of large holders vs price would be useful (ideally excluding exchanges or businesses)

[bucktotal]

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/number-bitcoins-owned-by-richest

Nice list of addresses of actors who are too lazy to spread their coins over a lot of different wallets. Also surely coinbase, bitstamp and chinese exchanges have their addresses listed there, which in theory does not make them rich because they are not their coins but their users'.

i agree. i also dont know what to make of these lists. personally, i spread my coins out earlier this year. i am no longer in one category, but rather now represent ~100 entries in lower categories. these lists are addresses that want to be known (ie, large aggregates of many peoples coins) or some big holders. but clearly, the numbers of large individual holders is bigger than we think.

[mmortal03]

Speaking of crunch time, a diff chart subtracting the current daily price from a year ago would be interesting. If we don't take off pretty soon, it will begin to approach zero pretty rapidly here. We're about a month and a half away from going negative after 365 days.

I decided to just put the chart together myself. I got the data from the following page: https://www.quandl.com/BAVERAGE/USD-USD-BITCOIN-Weighted-Price
 I filled in occasional missing dates with the previous day's price.

Dates along the horizontal axis represent hypothetical past sell dates following a hold of exactly a year. The vertical axis shows the percentage gain or loss that you would have experienced had you decided to sell your bitcoins that you'd purchased exactly a year prior.

For context: For much of of May-August 2012, you would have taken a loss on year-old bitcoins. This is contrary to the idea going around that if one had simply bought and held for at least a year, he would have always profited. I will be watching to see if we continue to approach 0%, and hoping that we don't.