Never trust a proudhon.
Price can't go much below USD$200 now without starting to squeeze margins on a large portion of miners. The next wave of input cost pressure should hit at around 50-100,000,000,000 difficulty, just as it helped kick off the price rise after the 100-200,000,000 level. As long as we get back to business as usual after a few more bouts of panic selling, that is.
War is on, got popcorn?
Price can't go much below USD$200 now without starting to squeeze margins on a large portion of miners. The next wave of input cost pressure should hit at around 50-100,000,000,000 difficulty, just as it helped kick off the price rise after the 100-200,000,000 level. As long as we get back to business as usual after a few more bouts of panic selling, that is.
War is on, got popcorn?
2011->GPU saturation, available now
Difficulty even declined for several adjustment periods.
April 2013->ASIC adoption beginnings
Difficulty continued to climb until price caught back up.
Now->ASIC nearing saturation? Available now.
This is a face flag event, not that proudhon isn't trust worthy, he is testing people's trust in Bitcoin.
ASIC saturation is a point to keep an eye out for but I don't think it is here yet.
This is all rather fascinating, lots of main stream media calling Bitcoin a scam yet this stuff doesn't filter through the Bitcoin blogosphere..
Note following the link, Mark Williams is under the impression Bitcoin is a hot potato and is oblivious to the reasons most have invested in the first place.
Interesting to watch the Krugman video bit linked below that article. It seems Krugman got a little softer on Bitcoin:
Quote from: Paul Krugman
I basically think that [bitcoin] is a digital version for gold cranks, but [..] it's hard to not be a little bit shaken when it goes on this long and of course we know that's always true of bubbles. But still, I mean: in principle, you can have assets which are considered valuable even though there's nothing backing them because of the self-fulfilling expectations.
Now, we don't actually think that fiat money is like that, because ultimately that's backed by the fact that you pay taxes with it. Fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns. Bitcoin is not. So why should this thing have any value. And of course it doesn't pay interest.
On the other hand, maybe the ability to do transactions that you think are invisible, after what we learned about the NSA I wouldn't bet on it, makes some of these people willing to hold. So, there is a case that says this actually might make sense. I very much doubt that that case is what's actually driving the value of Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is being driven by the fact that it sounds impressive and people think there must be something there.
But,... who knows?
Now, we don't actually think that fiat money is like that, because ultimately that's backed by the fact that you pay taxes with it. Fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns. Bitcoin is not. So why should this thing have any value. And of course it doesn't pay interest.
On the other hand, maybe the ability to do transactions that you think are invisible, after what we learned about the NSA I wouldn't bet on it, makes some of these people willing to hold. So, there is a case that says this actually might make sense. I very much doubt that that case is what's actually driving the value of Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is being driven by the fact that it sounds impressive and people think there must be something there.
But,... who knows?
