you mean 99 or 299?
I mean 99.
What's the reason for another crash? I don't get it?
Speculation.
Right now, most of Bitcoin's value has been speculative. In other words it hasn't been needed as a currency and its speculative value as such is available to chart traders to make money on. They can take the value anywhere as long as the monetary value (the amount of Bitcoin that's needed to fill the pipes of retail merchants, international money transfers and all needs other than those of speculative 'gamblers') remains below the market value.
If the Bitcoin price were to go to $99, the marketcap would still be around $1.3 Billion. Probably more than enough to cover the turnover of the current bitcoin economy when you exclude speculative trading.
Remember, Overstock only took around $3 million in bitcoin sales last year. Lets be generous and multiply that by 100 to pretend that Overstock's Bitcoin turnover is only 1% of the industry total. That gives you a marketcap of $300 million which, when you factor in the coin supply, comes out at a bitcoin price of $23 dollars.
So 23$ is the bottom below which it's undervalued. Therefore even at $99, speculative trading would still have a margin over the 'real' monetary value of bitcoin. They are not likely to go below that though because the future prospective monetary value is so high that the speculative premium would be huge at that price level and such a low valuation would be unlikely to last long.
This is why I keep saying that adoption is everything. By garnering adoption you raise the floor below which speculative traders cannot go. Darkcoin has huge mileage to be gained in this domain and, to me it's going about it the right way. By taking the "warts an' all" approach where the problems all come to the surface early, thereby keeping the speculative premium low. The developer team can try things out and on a community that's reasonably accommodating and keep the balance between consolidation and development at an optimum without causing huge disruption in the markets. (The tiny wee DRK market that we have right now).
There is one thing that any market values over everything else when it comes to technology: reliability. It's like air safety. Something that's never spoken about by airlines but that underpins the value of everything they do.
If a cryptocurrency project is taking on a challenge as difficult as total anonymity (in addition to the 'double spend' problem which has only just been solved after decades of research) it would do well to concentrate on nothing else.
A product that does very little but very well is a dead cert for adoption. People don't care about bells and whistle's, they care about doing the big things right, and right every time. Mundane repetitiveness sells which is why I made my post yesterday about Darkcoin starting to leave the competition behind.
InstantX would be nice but we must not be distracted. Cryptocurrency is a monetary base - not a payments system. Anonymity and speed of confirmation are way different objectives and one should not be compromised for the sake of another.
The reason that I am not bothered about InstantX and that I think Darkcoin should not be wasting its time on it is that point of sale systems (POS) will never be be doing direct transactions with the blockchain. That will be taken care of by payment processors. The blockchain is a clearing system that is at least 1 tier away from point of sale. It doesn't matter if blockchain confirmation time gets down to 5 seconds, it still will never be able to compete with a buffered point of sale system that can instantly reverse the packet of cornflakes that the cashier accidently rung through from the person behind you in the queue.
For that reason, for me, Bitcoin's blockchain clearing time of 30 minutes to 1 hour is going to be much more attractive to the retail industry that a confirmation time of 20 seconds. 30 minutes at least sounds like it has reliability behind it whereas 20 seconds will sound flaky as f*ck.
Banks have a clearing time of 1-2 days so there isn't exactly a lot of urgency.
Stick with the anonymity priority for this coin because that's what it does well and a reduced blockchain confirmation time will only make it look like a toy.
Tok, you're one of my favourite posters on this forum (you can hear a 'but' coming can't you! No, there's no 'but', just appreciation).
You bring a wealth of understanding and knowledge to us all.
I completely understand what you're saying about POS. One of the challenges in a community like this is that everyone sees enormous potential for the technology and with great fervour and excitement, they start imagining the impact it will have and how things will be revolutionised in the same way the Internet has revolutionised almost every aspect of business, media and communications. And much of this imagining is in realms and arenas that most of us have little experience with; POS, being most likely an example of that (perhaps bigrcanada and his wine bar excluded; but to really understand retailers' requirements for POS you have to have implemented such systems in large national retail chains where all the back-end processes have to be seamlessly integrated).
Having worked in corporate and government large scale IT for a long time, I can so easily concur that retailers will have about as much interest in deploying a POS system that's linked directly to a block chain for a crypto currency such as DRK as they have in accepting gold at the checkout. They're just not interested in being involved in all the mechanics of the transactions down at a technical protocol level. That's why payment processors exist; to facilitate all the techo knowledge, security, integration, back-end accounting, consumer legal protection/adherence to laws, support, loyalty systems interfacing and most of all performance SLAs. Everyone talking about 20 second confirmations and the checkout operator being able to void the cornflakes packet purchase and re-charge it to the next customer in line, etc, is just silliness. There's no way, crypto (as it currently stands or even as it may be 10 years from now) is going to be acceptable directly connected to POS terminals. There HAS TO be a layer in between the base monetary system (as you've described it Tok) and the retailer. Performance at a checkout is everything for large scale mainstream retailers. Even if DRK with the masternode network got down to 10 second confirm times, that's still too long at a Walmart checkout by comparison to the Visa/Mastercard networks which have SLAs guaranteeing sub 5 second times. An open source network like that which DRK is built on won't be competitive with the likes of these payment processors, for the moment.
And "for the moment" is a key point. Unlike you, I wouldn't say "(POS) will never be be doing direct transactions with the blockchain" because people have made these sorts of statements before only to then be proved completely wrong some time down the track. Things could develop dramatically over time and block chain technology could become THE network technology that everything works on. The mere fact IBM has invested so much into their IoT ("Internet of things") block chain architecture is indicative of how ubiquitous this stuff is likely to become. But your points about clarifying that DRK is a base monetary system, not a POS tool is a very important differentiation that I think many of us are not clear on. There will be many online businesses that will transact directly with the block chain, but they'll be specialist niche affairs (like DirectBet). Mainstream business is not likely to use DRK for a start because of it's association with illegality (and that would segway into the name issue....but I'm not going there in this posting), but they will use it if a payment processor picks it up and builds products/services around it (that's why that Coinbase $75mil of capital raising story is of such importance; this is where mainstream will meet crypto).
As for InstantX I'm of the opinion that this can only be good for DRK. It will give us an incredible edge and open up much instant trade that will arise where it's currently tethered by BTC's long confirmation times. The key to success will be whether the technology can be robust enough to with stand network forks (like we've just had) and not result in a big mess. It will take years before DRK has a reputation of certainty and reputability, and even then, it will still be payment processors that use it and provide the front end initially.
Keeping posting Tok. I and many others really appreciate your input.