1802
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Why Bitcoin will collapse in price.
|
on: January 15, 2015, 03:46:36 PM
|
So you are telling me because bitcoin price drop from 31$ to two, it can't recover? Wait a moment... I saw this before. It lasted a year.
It would be important to understand why it rose to 32, perhaps more than why it dropped to 2. Each bubble in bitcoin's history is can be explained as the opening of a new market -- either a new use, or a new community of users separated from previous markets by some barrier -- language, geography, profession, socioeconomic status, whatever. Most bubbles had a fast rise, a crash, some oscillations, and then settled at a steady level substantially higher than the previou stady level. The famous 2011 bubble, that started soon after 2011-04-01, at 0.5 $/BTC, began like the others; however, after the oscillations died out, instead fo settling to a steady state, it started to decay eponentially. By 2011-11-09 is was down to 2 $/BTC; however, if a new bubble had not started at that time, it would probably have continued to drop until the pre-bubble level d 0.5 $/BTC. The Nov/2013 buuble behaved in a similar fashion, but we have an explanation for it: it was created by the opening of the Mainland Chinese market, and it deflated during 2014 because the Chinese lost interest in bitcoin, since they could not use it for anything except gambling in the exchanges. Now the last Chinese day-traders are dumping BTC to play in the Chinese stock market, which is booming. So the question is: what was the "market" that created the 2011 bubble, and why did that market evaporate?
|
|
|
1805
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: January 15, 2015, 02:03:14 AM
|
And that assumes an honest market which now that Wall Street is involved is anybodies guess.
Wait, what?!? How is Wall Street involved in Bitcoin? Yep my mistake. There is no Winkelvoss coin etf. No syndicates. No Pantera. No Second Market. No BIT. No Tim Draper. And of course all those people with money and connections have no influence at exchanges. The regular stock market is full of fail to deliver and shorts without actual borrowed shares. But that could never happen to bitcoin. You're right. The Winkelvoss COIN ETF is only a request to the SEC so far. Approval is by no means guaranteed. The syndicates for the USMS auctions grouped small investors who could not afford to buy 2000 BTC by themselves. That is not Wall Street. Pantera is a venture capital firm, that provides investments on the order of 10 million dollars to startup firms that may or may not prosper. SecondMarket is a financial firm that specializes in non-standard instruments, such as pre-IPO equities. Its only involvements with bitcoins were the organization of syndicates for the USMS auctions (it collected 1% fee from the second one) and the BIT fund. SecondMarket's BIT fund is an investment fund backed by bitcoins, that is not openly traded; clients buy shares from the BIT management company (a subsidiary of SecondMarket), and can withdraw only by selling those shares back to the company. It owns ~135'000 BTC that are in theory deposited by its clients It has collected maybe 60 million dollars of since Sep/2013, but since the nominal price of its shares is tied to that of BTC, its assets are now worth only ~25 million USD. Since Oct/2104 it has suspended redemptions (withdrawals). Pantera has a similar bitcoin fund, PBP, but I don't know its numbers. There are a few other bitcoin funds out there. I doubt that they together got as much investment as SMBIT. Tim Draper bought ~30'000 coins at ~600 USD/BTC, and another 2000 at ~350 USD/BTC, total ~19 million USD. All those amounts are small change by Wall Street standards. One million dollars is the price of a median house in many US or European cities.
|
|
|
1808
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 11:49:02 PM
|
"99% (including Chinese day-traders, blah, blah, blah)" DON'T MATTER - only the MINERS matter in defining the Bitcoin protocol - and the miners DO know that changing the protocol at the whim of of anyone who promised to buy a lot would render the coin valueless.
Well, it seems that we have very different views about the motivations and ideologies of miners and other players. I don't know how we could resolve this difference, so let's leave it at that. However, note that a large fraction of the miners are Chinese; that the Chinese may not have much trust in bitcoin as the currency of the internet; and that miners, more than any other bitcoiners, cannot plan much beyond a 2-year horizon, because their equipment quickly becomes uncompetitive due to improvements in the energy efficiency.
|
|
|
1809
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 11:30:23 PM
|
3- to see long-term potential in bitcoin is to come to the conclusion, already expressed in the original paper, that it is irrational for an actor or cartel to perform a 51% attack on the network, as it costs more to successfully carry out the attack than what can be expected to be gained by it.
Well, I don't agree with that. The "proofs" I have seen usually assume that the cartel has some specific goal (say, pulling a double spend), and a specific simple-minded strategy, and argue that that attack would not pay off, of that strategy would fail. However, there are many other goals that a cartel may have, and better strategies to carry out the "attack". I can see some "attacks" that would probably succeed, would have to be accepted by the users, and would results in substantial payoffs for the cartel. But I have worn my fingers arguing this issue in other threads, so please forgive me for not doing it again here.
|
|
|
1810
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 10:04:59 PM
|
Yes, and that is what I meant: if someone with billions to spare offered to buy 25 million bitcoins, the protocol would be immediately changed to create them, with the full cooperation of miners AND approval of developers.
I disagree. It would damage the reputation and hence value irreparably. But there's no way to prove either way. Many people have told me that. But "many" may be a thousand bitcoiners, perhaps, who care for the Core Values; and they may not include any big holders. The other 99% of the bitcoin community (including the Chinese day-traders, who may still be setting the price) probably don't understad why a change in the protocol would be a bad thing, or don't care. Note that increasing the supply of bitcoins is bad for the price only if the demand remains the same. If there were enough new demand, increasing the supply would not prevent the price from increasing, too.
|
|
|
1811
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 09:39:28 PM
|
Where is it The Honorable Doctor Professor Jorge Stolfi works again? I need to know so I can advice my children never to apply there.
pretty sure it's an argentinian school. Now THAT is offensive. May you spill coffee all over your paper wallets. (My macumba should get you soon, just waiting for six confrmations.) Itīs offensive to born in Argentina? Try calling a Belgian "Frenchman". Or an Austrian "German". Or an Ukranian "Russian". Or...
|
|
|
1812
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 09:35:06 PM
|
If they did that, they would have created Yet Another Alt Coin (which happens very frequently), and it would have no effect on Bitcoin at all.
Yes, I know that bitcoiners have taken solace in that belief, since the 51% risk became real. Keep believing. There is no belief involved. What constitutes Bitcoin is defined by the consensus of the miners - period. If a majority of miners were to choose to mine according to a different protocol than what they currently do, that protocol will effectively become Bitcoin. It has nothing to do with what Gavin or the foundation want. Yes, and that is what I meant: if someone with billions to spare offered to buy 25 million bitcoins, the protocol would be immediately changed to create them, with the full cooperation of miners AND approval of developers.
|
|
|
1814
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 09:14:43 PM
|
Where is it The Honorable Doctor Professor Jorge Stolfi works again? I need to know so I can advice my children never to apply there.
pretty sure it's an argentinian school. Now THAT is offensive. May you spill coffee all over your paper wallets. (My macumba should get you soon, just waiting for six confrmations.)
|
|
|
1815
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: January 14, 2015, 09:04:17 PM
|
What's the most bullish thing imaginable? I would like some brainstorming please.
The US government announces plans to buy 25 million bitcoins over the next 3 months. It sounds like they should read the white paper first :/ TL;DR Where is it The Honorable Doctor Professor Jorge Stolfi works again? I need to know so I can advice my children to never apply there. If they too need a " " to recognize a joke, it would be a waste of time to apply. I suppose you have me on ignore, so you must not have seen this: It sounds like they should read the white paper first :/
I bet that 25 million bitcoins would be promptly made available for the occasion, with the full blessing of Patriarch Gavin. And this is not entirely a joke. I am pretty sure that the protocol would be turned inside out, with full agreement of all the Defenders of the Dream, if that meant more money for them.
|
|
|
1819
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: SecondMarket Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer
|
on: January 14, 2015, 05:46:10 PM
|
OK, sorry, I did not mean that. The point is that the money that went into SM will not come out again. Wouldn't it be like this project of mine? Oh. I fully expect the money I put in through SM will indeed come out again someday. Your "project" is clearly fraud and not like Bitcoin or SM at all. Well, I suppose SM or even Bitcoin could turn out to be frauds but so far I doubt it. Do you have evidence that either are indeed frauds? Never said they are frauds. Unlike my "plan", I am sure that everything was clearly spelled out in the prospectus, and investors were fully aware of the risks.
|
|
|
|