we are bitcoin for life! lol 
Topic: 78% of Bitcoin users are smarter than the rest of the world (Read 2871 times)
im flattered we are bitcoin for life! lol
we are bitcoin for life! lol 
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
For fuck sake listen to yourselves, what you are saying is batshitinsane. Everyone will want bitcoins which will make them worthless?! Don't you see how retarded that sounds? Why would everyone want something that is worthless? Why would something everyone wants be worthless?
That was not what I was saying at all... Thanks for calling me an insane idiot though...
Yeah I'm sorry for my brainfart.
Happens to the best of us
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
For fuck sake listen to yourselves, what you are saying is batshitinsane. Everyone will want bitcoins which will make them worthless?! Don't you see how retarded that sounds? Why would everyone want something that is worthless? Why would something everyone wants be worthless?
That was not what I was saying at all... Thanks for calling me an insane idiot though...
Yeah I'm sorry for my brainfart.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
For fuck sake listen to yourselves, what you are saying is batshitinsane. Everyone will want bitcoins which will make them worthless?! Don't you see how retarded that sounds? Why would everyone want something that is worthless? Why would something everyone wants be worthless?
That was not what I was saying at all... Thanks for calling me an insane idiot though...
Maybe I should spell out my point a little more.
No good is traded continuously, the (traded) price of a good is defined as the last price at which a transaction between a seller and buyer was conducted. Therefore, no trade is needed to keep the price constant. I was just saying that if people were content with the use of bitcoins as a store of value, as something to be used as a savings account that cannot be inflated away, it could maintain a stable price with very little trade in it.
But it did go down to 1.99 in the following months didn't it?
Well yeah, but mainly because people were concerned over the safety of bitcoins I would say, not because they weren't traded enough.
Also, bitcoin had undergone a major price appreciation, that allways sets the stage for increased profit taking.
It doesn't matter what "you say". You cannot use you own opinion to provide weight to your argument. I haven't said that the reason is not enough trade either and you didn't reply to the rest of my post.
But it did go down to 1.99 in the following months didn't it?
Well yeah, but mainly because people were concerned over the safety of bitcoins I would say, not because they weren't traded enough.
Also, bitcoin had undergone a major price appreciation, that allways sets the stage for increased profit taking.
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
50% of mined gold is in jewelry. A significant percentage is used in the electronics industry. The device which you are using currently has gold in it.
Golds monetary use has a large effect on its price. If (above-ground) scarcity and usefulness in industrial applications were the determinant of value, silver would be more valuable than gold.
This is already addressed in my previous post. It's the Comex contracts which matter and that includes gold in the ground, so it's not about above ground scarcity but overall scarcity.
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
50% of mined gold is in jewelry. A significant percentage is used in the electronics industry. The device which you are using currently has gold in it.
Golds monetary use has a large effect on its price. If (above-ground) scarcity and usefulness in industrial applications were the determinant of value, silver would be more valuable than gold.
But it did go down to 1.99 in the following months didn't it?
Also during all that time period there was significant practical use for bitcoin silkroad was kickin and so on. I am talking about a scenario where those uses would disappear in which case the effects on the price would be devastating. Now I am not saying that this is going to happen, and even if silkroad were to go away there would be other services, but if those would supply enough real demand for Bitcoin is anybodies guess.
Also during all that time period there was significant practical use for bitcoin silkroad was kickin and so on. I am talking about a scenario where those uses would disappear in which case the effects on the price would be devastating. Now I am not saying that this is going to happen, and even if silkroad were to go away there would be other services, but if those would supply enough real demand for Bitcoin is anybodies guess.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
We are talking practically though.
I think it might be true practically as well. Bitcoins could have a useful function in being a store as value as well as being a medium of exchange (although a longer track record of resilience against possible attacks on the system would be much appreciated of course). Although something cannot be a store of value without the ability to exchange it for something else, not a lot of exchange is needed.
In that case it will take only 2 stray investors to start a sell-off. One who takes the profit and the one which follows. Everything else is just basic crowd psychology.
Not true, if the majority of people holding the asset see the value of it, it will retain this value in the end, nothwithstanding short spikes or crashes in price due to low liquidity. Just look at the mt-gox debacle where the price went close to zero, it bounced right back up afterwards...
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
50% of mined gold is in jewelry. A significant percentage is used in the electronics industry. The device which you are using currently has gold in it.
Yes, but that isn't traded, at least not as gold. It's traded only as an indistinguishable portion of a consumer product. It's the trade of pure gold bullion that sets it's monetary price, and that occurs very little.
Neither, it's contracts which are traded on Comex which set it, and that is huge, especially since it includes gold which hasn't even been mined yet.
Physical Gold in the form of investment bullion bars affected by those just like any other use for gold, if it is consumed or not.
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
50% of mined gold is in jewelry. A significant percentage is used in the electronics industry. The device which you are using currently has gold in it.
Yes, but that isn't traded, at least not as gold. It's traded only as an indistinguishable portion of a consumer product. It's the trade of pure gold bullion that sets it's monetary price, and that occurs very little.
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
50% of mined gold is in jewelry. A significant percentage is used in the electronics industry. The device which you are using currently has gold in it.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
We are talking practically though.
I think it might be true practically as well. Bitcoins could have a useful function in being a store as value as well as being a medium of exchange (although a longer track record of resilience against possible attacks on the system would be much appreciated of course). Although something cannot be a store of value without the ability to exchange it for something else, not a lot of exchange is needed.
True. Gold is a fine store of value, but trades very little percentage wise.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
We are talking practically though.
I think it might be true practically as well. Bitcoins could have a useful function in being a store as value as well as being a medium of exchange (although a longer track record of resilience against possible attacks on the system would be much appreciated of course). Although something cannot be a store of value without the ability to exchange it for something else, not a lot of exchange is needed.
In that case it will take only 2 stray investors to start a sell-off. One who takes the profit and the one which follows. Everything else is just basic crowd psychology.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
We are talking practically though.
I think it might be true practically as well. Bitcoins could have a useful function in being a store as value as well as being a medium of exchange (although a longer track record of resilience against possible attacks on the system would be much appreciated of course). Although something cannot be a store of value without the ability to exchange it for something else, not a lot of exchange is needed.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
We are talking practically though.
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...
I feel like some user on this thread are missing a key point. If everyone just saved their bitcoins they wouldn't be worth anything! They would be useless as there would be no trading on the exchanges, no reason for businesses to accept them and just no point. Yes, its good to save, and yes, it's generally a great thing for the individual, but unless a certain portion of bitcoins are circulated to some extent, they will not grow in value or maintain their current value. They have to at least support a basic structure around them.
Woo Hooo, I'm one of the 23%
Jump to: