Topic: Analysis - page 157. (Read 941567 times)
Actually they can and should be compared. No need to do that though, because it has been done so many times. And whether one agrees or disagrees, the variable elements are most interesting. The fact that so much of "value" is ascribed, not inherent. Or how much easier it is to get 10 million in BTC across a border than the same amount in gold.
I disagree, just look at gold.
Usage became lower and lower each year last few hundred years.
Price on the other hand...
It's nice to have a more superior form of gold which is actually much easier to spend than physical gold.
Gold became useless as a currency because it had to be broken down into dust to buy a bread.
Bitcoin solves this problem.
Spending 1 bitcoin is as easy as spending 0.00001
Usage became lower and lower each year last few hundred years.
Price on the other hand...
It's nice to have a more superior form of gold which is actually much easier to spend than physical gold.
Gold became useless as a currency because it had to be broken down into dust to buy a bread.
Bitcoin solves this problem.
Spending 1 bitcoin is as easy as spending 0.00001
You somehow assume that you can compare gold and bitcoins. This is a big logical fallacy.
Why can't you compare gold and bitcoin?
I think it's not so difficult to find some points which are comparable.
It's much harder to compare the moon with a flower.
Can you explain me the fallacy which I seem to be missing?
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Who people ? there is no one left
But but.. Increase blocksize to get moar people! Mass adoption It is! XDD
Greed is bad, Dark market is harming bitcoin, lets all pay frappucinos with bitcoin and dgaf about the inéluctable centralisation bigger blocks brings, cuz thats what It is meant for! Euro like store of value! Chooochoooo
I disagree, just look at gold.
Usage became lower and lower each year last few hundred years.
Price on the other hand...
It's nice to have a more superior form of gold which is actually much easier to spend than physical gold.
Gold became useless as a currency because it had to be broken down into dust to buy a bread.
Bitcoin solves this problem.
Spending 1 bitcoin is as easy as spending 0.00001
Usage became lower and lower each year last few hundred years.
Price on the other hand...
It's nice to have a more superior form of gold which is actually much easier to spend than physical gold.
Gold became useless as a currency because it had to be broken down into dust to buy a bread.
Bitcoin solves this problem.
Spending 1 bitcoin is as easy as spending 0.00001
You somehow assume that you can compare gold and bitcoins. This is a big logical fallacy.
[...]
True but it is pretty much always true that people are sending money to exchanges.
The question is, is it more money than usual?
I probably didn't make my point clear (or concise
) enough:No, I don't think it's more than usual in absolute terms. But as price declines and emission stays constant, if I'm right about the "money sent to buy more" being roughly constant, its effect on price increases, i.e. it might be enough to "hold" 1xx even though it wasn't enough to "hold" 3xx.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Something needs to give so that actual use increases greatly, its the only way the price will increase.
I disagree, just look at gold.
Usage became lower and lower each year last few hundred years.
Price on the other hand...
It's nice to have a more superior form of gold which is actually much easier to spend than physical gold.
Gold became useless as a currency because it had to be broken down into dust to buy a bread.
Bitcoin solves this problem.
Spending 1 bitcoin is as easy as spending 0.00001
A quick remark on the discussion above:
I'd like to point out that, other than the (extremely important, of course) "market mood" we tend to talk about in here, which can be seen as an extremely elastic, "fickle" supply/demand variable, there's also a supply/demand variable which is a lot less elastic, a type of nearly "guaranteed" supply/demand.
Simplifying somewhat, I'd describe it as: (a) coins mined per day, (b) price per coin vs. (c) number of "hardcore Bitcoiners", (d) monthly income of the group in (c), (e) determination of group (c) to spend (a portion of) their income to buy more bitcoins.
To be clear, I'm not saying that 1xx or double digits are impossible. But I'm going in a similar direction as fatman above, "[when price goes] below $230 people start sending money to exchanges":
At 9xx, 6xx, even 3xx prices, the "guaranteed demand" of (c)*(d) didn't seem to be enough to hold the dam against the "guaranteed supply" of (a)*(b) added to the supply/demand outcome of the market mood. Hence, price declined. At 1xx, that appears to be different (so far).
Of course, eventually the mood of the market will probably influence (e) as well, i.e. the willingness of the hardcore Bitcoin supporters to spend their income on coins might diminish. But I'm not completely sure that's going to happen before the market mood changes again to bullish, so that effect might not take place soon enough to drive us into the doubles.
Summarizing, I agree with the discussion above that we will enter No Man's Land should we go below $200 and stay there, but I also add that so far, any supply below $200 seems to be soaked up quickly and effectively.
I'd like to point out that, other than the (extremely important, of course) "market mood" we tend to talk about in here, which can be seen as an extremely elastic, "fickle" supply/demand variable, there's also a supply/demand variable which is a lot less elastic, a type of nearly "guaranteed" supply/demand.
Simplifying somewhat, I'd describe it as: (a) coins mined per day, (b) price per coin vs. (c) number of "hardcore Bitcoiners", (d) monthly income of the group in (c), (e) determination of group (c) to spend (a portion of) their income to buy more bitcoins.
To be clear, I'm not saying that 1xx or double digits are impossible. But I'm going in a similar direction as fatman above, "[when price goes] below $230 people start sending money to exchanges":
At 9xx, 6xx, even 3xx prices, the "guaranteed demand" of (c)*(d) didn't seem to be enough to hold the dam against the "guaranteed supply" of (a)*(b) added to the supply/demand outcome of the market mood. Hence, price declined. At 1xx, that appears to be different (so far).
Of course, eventually the mood of the market will probably influence (e) as well, i.e. the willingness of the hardcore Bitcoin supporters to spend their income on coins might diminish. But I'm not completely sure that's going to happen before the market mood changes again to bullish, so that effect might not take place soon enough to drive us into the doubles.
Summarizing, I agree with the discussion above that we will enter No Man's Land should we go below $200 and stay there, but I also add that so far, any supply below $200 seems to be soaked up quickly and effectively.
True but it is pretty much always true that people are sending money to exchanges.
The question is, is it more money than usual?
A quick remark on the discussion above:
I'd like to point out that, other than the (extremely important, of course) "market mood" we tend to talk about in here, which can be seen as an extremely elastic, "fickle" supply/demand variable, there's also a supply/demand variable which is a lot less elastic, a type of nearly "guaranteed" supply/demand.
Simplifying somewhat, I'd describe it as: (a) coins mined per day, (b) price per coin vs. (c) number of "hardcore Bitcoiners", (d) monthly income of the group in (c), (e) determination of group (c) to spend (a portion of) their income to buy more bitcoins.
To be clear, I'm not saying that 1xx or double digits are impossible. But I'm going in a similar direction as fatman above, "[when price goes] below $230 people start sending money to exchanges":
At 9xx, 6xx, even 3xx prices, the "guaranteed demand" of (c)*(d) didn't seem to be enough to hold the dam against the "guaranteed supply" of (a)*(b) added to the supply/demand outcome of the market mood. Hence, price declined. At 1xx, that appears to be different (so far).
Of course, eventually the mood of the market will probably influence (e) as well, i.e. the willingness of the hardcore Bitcoin supporters to spend their income on coins might diminish. But I'm not completely sure that's going to happen before the market mood changes again to bullish, so that effect might not take place soon enough to drive us into the doubles.
Summarizing, I agree with the discussion above that we will enter No Man's Land should we go below $200 and stay there, but I also add that so far, any supply below $200 seems to be soaked up quickly and effectively.
I'd like to point out that, other than the (extremely important, of course) "market mood" we tend to talk about in here, which can be seen as an extremely elastic, "fickle" supply/demand variable, there's also a supply/demand variable which is a lot less elastic, a type of nearly "guaranteed" supply/demand.
Simplifying somewhat, I'd describe it as: (a) coins mined per day, (b) price per coin vs. (c) number of "hardcore Bitcoiners", (d) monthly income of the group in (c), (e) determination of group (c) to spend (a portion of) their income to buy more bitcoins.
To be clear, I'm not saying that 1xx or double digits are impossible. But I'm going in a similar direction as fatman above, "[when price goes] below $230 people start sending money to exchanges":
At 9xx, 6xx, even 3xx prices, the "guaranteed demand" of (c)*(d) didn't seem to be enough to hold the dam against the "guaranteed supply" of (a)*(b) added to the supply/demand outcome of the market mood. Hence, price declined. At 1xx, that appears to be different (so far).
Of course, eventually the mood of the market will probably influence (e) as well, i.e. the willingness of the hardcore Bitcoin supporters to spend their income on coins might diminish. But I'm not completely sure that's going to happen before the market mood changes again to bullish, so that effect might not take place soon enough to drive us into the doubles.
Summarizing, I agree with the discussion above that we will enter No Man's Land should we go below $200 and stay there, but I also add that so far, any supply below $200 seems to be soaked up quickly and effectively.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Who people ? there is no one left
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
No, Bitcoin is backed by a belief that alternative currencies are healthy.
Greed came in later.
The important thing is stating Bitcoin is not about making money, it's about having a choice. That comes first. Making money off that fact is secondary.
No normal person cares about that choice mambo jambo. It just doesnt matter at all, we want to make big $. Fuck Bitcoin, just make us rich already!!!
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Do you have you any argument? Yea the very friggin definition of an investment vs money.
The idea that something that people keep on spending, hence "selling", will rise in value is utterly retarded.
Why do you think all the minions around keeps on saying hold?!
Lol i bet you do..
Euro to the moon! 1250$ Per euro!! Here we go! xD
Edit: and people wonder Why bitcoin is loosing value...
Friggin noobish retard socalist micro tipping curency bs attacking It, wanting to fork It! Thats why.
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Do you have you any argument? Yea the very friggin definition of an investment vs money.
The idea that something that people keep on spending, hence "selling", will rise in value is utterly retarded.
Why do you think all the minions around keeps on saying hold?!
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Do you have you any argument? Yea the very friggin definition of an investment vs money.
The idea that something that people keep on spending, hence "selling", will rise in value is utterly retarded.
Why do you think all the minions around keeps on saying hold?!
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Do you have any argument?
Either bitcoin is an Investment commodity (the ultimate one!) that you hold and speculate on
Or internet *stable* cash money that you you keep on spending
But the latter is not synonym with moonlanding.
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Or internet *stable* cash money that you you keep on spending
But the latter is not synonym with moonlanding.
And thinking you can have both is ATH delusions.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Greed has been the only thing that brought most people around here.
Greed will make some participants buy and hold. This removes coins from circulation. This increases the purchasing power of the coins in circulation and acts as a no-interest / negative interest loan to the people actually using bitcoin as currency. This zero interest loan will increase actual use. The more people that use bitcoin as currency drives the price upwards which will again increase the number of buy and hold speculators.
This positive feedback loop functioned nicely for some time, to some extend it still does but the speculative part of the bitcoin economy grew even faster than the actual. The speculation has completely overtaken the underlying usage economy, at least this is my sentiment. In one way or another it seems like this needs some kind of rebalancing so there is some kind of reasonable ratio between pure speculation and actual use. If bitcoins price and volume is 99% derived from speculation the price can, and will, fluctuate infinitely. Add 0% interest in the national currencies to the mix and speculative bitcoin positions can be leveraged greatly creating even more violent fluctuations in the price. Some fluctuations are OK, we live with these fluctuations in the national currencies too. But when you see double digit percentage movements up and down on a regular bases its bound to throw people off. The very people bitcoin should tender to, the unbanked and underbanked can't live with such fluctuations for their savings and they are consequently not going to use bitcoin. If this is not sorted colored coins and sidechains can take over. They can provide the stability that normal users desire. The price of bitcoin can reduce to the cost+profit miners want to provide the security for the colored coins and side chains. This can be substantially lower than today.
Something needs to give so that actual use increases greatly, its the only way the price will increase.
The situation today is that most of bitcoins price is derived from a bet on a future where actual use is sky high and general adoption is high. The very fluctuations and valuations this bet creates is preventing that future from manifesting itself. I think the price will continue to fall until a point where future bitcoin plays on the same ballpark as the present bitcoin so that present usage can explode. Either that or actual use catches up to speculation.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Greed has been the only thing that brought most people around here.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
Don't forget people that Bitcoin is backed by Greed
I disagree. Bitcoin is backed by the people using it.
What he's trying to tell you Fakhoury is that if you see double digits, consider it the buy of a lifetime. I know I will.
Are you sure you would buy at $99?
This forum would be filled with excited bears talking about single digits and they might even be right. Loads of coins from capitulating long-time hodlers might flood the markets. It wouldn't be a pretty sight and http://bitcoinobituaries.com/ would get some more entries for sure.
Jump to: