Topic: Bitcoin value in January 2013 (Read 16204 times)

Don't forget the bitcoin price back then in late 2011 was around $2 - $5.
https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1×pan=all&scale=1&address=

easy your hairy , this will all tune itself

Came here looking for the price in Jan 2013, and found speculation that it might be $5.00 or $2.50.

Wow!

Hello mufa23,

I would like to ask you something privately.
Could you please PM me an e-mail address through which I may contact you?
For some reason I am not allowed to send a PM on this message board.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Well, I was wondering what the heck this $5/BTC and $2.5/BTC these guys were talking about and finally realized its two years old...A LOT HAS CHANGED!

It's fun revisiting old topics. So much has changed since the initial guesses.

Netrin is right, no mainstream company like Sony, MS or even Facebook are going to make a currency capable of being what Bitcoin is. The most they can do is make an internal or partially internal credit system. I wouldn't worry about competition from mainstream company currencies.

But they simply won't. Suppose it was popular and kids accepted untraceable PlayStationCoins selling pictures of their sister - or more nefarious business. Any/every corporate legal team would ensure it's a non-starter.

I wonder what would happen if MS, Sony, and Nintendo develop crypcoins that run on their nextgen systems.

First - not exactly. Centralized only emission. Company will just sell all initial coins. To the end uses (not miners) this is don't play any role. Then - decentralized use on bitcoin principles.

Second - different countries, different rules. Big company always can find country that can support such thing.

Why would they do that? What makes Bitcoin, would be destroyed in the process IMHO. First, probably centralized network, so, controlled. Two, being a company, they would have to play by big gov rules. Three, given one and two, how that creation would be different from dollars and make users jump on it? If you like getting screwed, there is PayPal there for you.

Part of appeal of Bitcoin comes from the fact that this is basically a guerilla network, uncontrolled, no masters, no fear, everyone is equal and has equal opportunity to profit from this system. Nobody can shut you off from your resources, nobody knows how much you have and how you spend it. Proprietary currency would have none of it.

I am talking not about giant companies. I am talking about relatively small websites. User auditory of 10 million people is enough to launch bitcoin killer.

Sure Facebook, Google, Apple, may be successful selling paypal-like tokens and they may be wildly popular and useful. They still will not match all of the properties of bitcoin. I strongly believe no US/EU registered company can produce a bitcoin killer without some revolutionary as-yet unfathomed idea.

Facebook will never produce anonymous cash. Never!

Bitcoin lacks demand. Any social network (like FB) can make huge demand on currency. And I don't see any reason they choose bitcoin over own fork.

I don't think any company can afford the liability associated with 'owning' a bitcoin fork. A company may use and integrate bitcoin or a future improvement, but any value a company 'adds' will likely be more of the same (credit card, paypal, online banking).

I guess bitcoin value in 2013 will be around 0. Bitcoin is nice thing, but any huge company can (and some day will) start own fork of btc. If they don't than the price will be OK

When the block return halves, theoretically we should see miners selling half of what they did when blocks gave 50 coins.

As for what non-miners do with their coins will depend heavily on the usefulness of coins at that point in time. I guess there is a lot of pressure on bitcoiners this year.

$2 - $3 is more unstable than $12 - $15. A drop from $3 to $2 means that I lost 1/3 my money while a drop from $15 to $12 means that I lost 1/5.

While it is true that difficulty follows price, it is also true that miners are a big part of the selling force at the markets. That selling force will halve in 2013, so this could create some upward pressure in the markets. But then again, there are so many things that affect price... We've seen a 90% drop and the bitcoins per block are still at 50.

I fit your description.

Re: supply vs. demand:

A supply and demand market is not rocket science. The true law governing it is that the market will always try to equalize the supply and demand. If we know the value of the supply S, the value of the demand D, and the price P we can easily determine the target price via the formula:
or more commonly
Target is to current price as demand is to supply.

So because we know exactly what the price will become, the important part is estimating supply and demand. This task is not as simple as one would assume, because both parts are unpredictable. Notice that supply is not the same as money supply or money supply growth, because much of that is infungible.

Simple Demand Model: Demand is constant
To simplify things, we can assume that demand remains constant. This is untrue, but is the simplest approximation possible. Since we are not dealing with quantified prices, we do not need to know exactly what the demand is, only that it remains constant.

Supply Model 1: Fixed proportion of miners selling¹
The gross underestimation of supply, we assume that only miners sell their coins. The effect of the halving on this is that the price should spontaneously approach the doubling mark, because the effect is geometric.

Supply Model 2: Fixed proportion of money supply sold¹
This seems more of a overestimation of supply, and under our demand scenario will cause the price to drop in a manner looking like an exponential decay² trend, with drops slowing down the decline.

Supply Model 3: Custom model
Effectively, this model is based on the amount moved as both a function of total money supply and mined supply. This hybrid can produce interesting price target models, some listed below:



Footnotes
1: This proportion can be greater than 1
2: Actually the multiplicative inverse (1/x), which mathematically is completely different from "exponential decay". The term "exponential decay" however is more common, and is used here. The term "reciprocal" is rarely if ever used to describe a trend.