Topic: Here we go sub 400! (Read 6993 times)

Looks like OP wins this time... of course when you throw out 10 theories a day of course youll be right some times

Jesus Christ so many kwuduck threads, this guy must work here full time advocating the doom of Bitcoin. I wonder how many threads he has done in 2015 alone, if someone counts them let me know.

I noticed that too from a post I put up a few days ago about bitstamp.
I realized their price ticker stopped all the sudden for 5-10 minutes which I found odd to say the least.
Then after I check that time outage the price dropped by $5. That is what I was waiting for so I can buy.
They did that on purpose.

its sad that the price is lower than 400 again, i hope there will be a huge rise in a few weeks

Bitstamp and Bitfinex are part of a cartel so....who trust them?!!?!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstamp-the-new-okcoin-20-volume-manipulators-fake-wall-observer-1205564

Look at the volume that occurred North of $390 on Stamp, Finex, and look that the volume that has taken BTC back down to here. Volume on break out was much bigger than volume on correction to beneath the break out, right?


a) The pump was totally fabricated to begin with repleat with FU moves to shake out longs (I know all about that as my long trade was shaken out the game).

b) How many BTC traders so you think bought into BTC merely chasing momentum, are now bag holding and chomping at the bit to get out their trades.


I have never seen such a horrible looking BTC 4hr chart in a long time. All that upside, wiped out so quickly, and on so little (USD) volume. Sure, it may well bounce a bit....but just so many market participants right now will be desperate to get out with their shirts on their backs. The big fucking MASSIVE red candle which always dwarves the green candles from the previous move up, is yet to come.

Did it just bottom out at $390? I saw a posting on the wall observer thread and some are posting crying memes
It is Friday so am watching the price too closely too and won't all night as it was to depressing at the end of this week already 

LOL!

Fully agreed, Bitcoin and fiat have approximately the same amount of inequality. Things will always be unequal; it's just a fact of life.

I wouldn't say that we'll go as low as $385 again, I assume something more like $390 or higher. There are probably too many people intent on not losing all their money from the upswing, but it is entirely possible it will go that low (And looking at the markets right now, you're probably right).

Hate to say it but fiat has just as much inequality as Bitcoin does, they were just earned in different ways.



Back on topic, we are officially sub-400 again.  I expect us to plummet to 385 for a while, then decide if it wants to hold steady and wait for a rally or fall til we find a support point.  If I were day trading I'd sell and try to make a few bucks on the panic that will follow.  There's good support at the moment, but I expect people to start pulling orders when they see 400 didn't hold

I can say IMF chief Chriistine Legard is  buying  http://www.coindesk.com/imf-paper-preserve-digital-currency-benefits/

but ii will say Baidu is funding btc exchange project,big news,if you know what Baiidu is http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-baidu-fintech-accelerator/

First of all, who are you, and what have you done with the real KwukDuck ?    

This is the first time Ive seen you actually make *any effort to respond intelligently instead of just ignoring responses to your noise and posting more of it.
Congratulations, keep this up, and people might eventually believe you arent just a cracked record player.


"Considered Significant in the world of finance" is a bit of a vague term though.  *What world of finance ?  NYSE ?  Visa ?  M-Pesa (Do you know of it ?  - It runs on SMS messages, with hard limits caused by the mobile network tower capacity, but that doesnt stop it from being a very useful and successful payment system *right now)

Bitcoins *initial iterations were never intended to have the starting capacity to outright replace any major current part of the "Finance Worlds" present operations.  The deliberate limits placed on the protocol were *chosen to make it workable without overloading the bandwidth and CPU power available to small home users at the time.  Nobody would run the software if their computer and network connection immediately slowed to a crawl.

I hope you have looked at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability ?    Your blanket statements like "Bitcoin doesnt scale" make me wonder.   People used PC's with hard limits (640k Ram, 2 Gb Hard drives etc) in them for many years without being concerned that "PC's dont Scale !".  When solutions were required, they were chosen.  Choosing a solution too far prior to the point that it is required makes it more likely that the best solution will not yet have been determined.

The present disagreement in the dev community over the "right" solution says to me that one that a majority can agree upon has not been found yet, *and that there is no present need *for one to be found *right now.  The interested parties obviously feel that there is still time to keep thinking about it before settling on one, despite the cries of hyperbolic naysayers that all potential future issues be addressed immediately before Bitcoin can "Succeed".  In short, cross bridges when you come to them, not before.  

I can see that there *is significant effort being put towards solving this future issue, and am confident that it *will be solved, despite the pessimistic cries of those who seem to have no memory of other systems limits being solved just fine when required.  Demanding a final answer *now is unnecessary and alarmist.


I am quite aware that a majority of money exists purely as numbers in a computer.  Even that 8% of physical cash uses a ridiculous amount of energy, effort, and environmental impact to process and handle.  I doubt that the wattage used by the Bitcoin network would even compare to the cost of the fossil fuel required to move that 8% of physical cash around, not to mention the vault constructions, guards, printing, destruction, accounting proceedures, records and so on it additionally requires,  

It would be nice to be able to compare the power used by the existing networks to handle their computer transactions in a "watts vs transactions processed" manner, but unfortunately, unlike Bitcoins "Network hash rate" number which is available to all as part of the difficulty algorithm, There is no easy way to measure the power consumption of the present finance system networks.   This allows critics to point in horror to the estimated megawatts used by Bitcoins crypto network based on the public hash rate, while actually having no idea of the power used by the legacy bank networks for comparison.

Knowing just a few data points from a friend of mine who works in a large bank processing data center, such as the multiple shipping container-sized TurboCharged V16 Diesel standby generators that are required to keep power on to (just that one site of many in this country alone) facility in the event of grid failure, and nightly human-assisted batch processing of transaction queues using virtual machines running ancient COBOL code that nobody is game to even try replacing, I would guess that their network efficiency (watts vs transactions) would be "very low".   But this is just guesswork, I doubt they even know themselves.



A difficult statement to prove or disprove.  By "Fiat Systems", do you include the government creating billions out of mid air in quantitative easing measures ?  Banks generating interest on money that they never had in the first place ?  Arbitrage networks ?  International Loans where countries merely pay the interest for decades knowing that depreciation will make it far easier to pay off the capital with future money that is worth less ?  All of these contribute to the rapid devaluation of the small amounts of "cash" held by the little guys, while the bigger players make billions from their manipulations of this "unreal" money.   Do you include all of these in your "Inequality" ?


The "Ponzi" argument was dead and buried years ago and using it just makes you look foolish.  No doubt because it is one of the few "scary" financial terms that the general public *thinks it understands is "Bad" (like "Pyramid" and "Bubble" !).  

A ponzi is a zero-sum game that generates little or no value itself and pays early-investors purely from the ongoing enticement of new "investors" to provide an inflow of cash.   The Bitcoin network already provides actual inherent value as a secure global payment processing system that is in use by many daily, and has many other additional value-generation functions that people find useful.  

Thus it completely fails to meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme and resembles it in no way other than the superficial "Early adopters make more profit than latecomers" that fools the ignorant.   You might as well call *all Stockmarket's Ponzi schemes, since they too reward early adopters more than later ones.  

*No early users were given "handouts".  They *invested their time, interest, energy, electricity, processing power and bandwidth into a "startup" concept long before the majority took it seriously.  It was not hidden, and there were no pre-mines.  Anyone was free to join the network and generate coins with their "CPU miners" at any time.  You might as well complain that "everyone wasnt aware" in the 70s of how big Microsoft/Apple would become later on, and so present shareholders of those companies should be divested of their current stock in the name of fairness.


Bull, they took a risk with their prior-earnings and available-to-risk resources on a project with a high initial likelyhood of failure.  That willingness to take an early chance is what powers *all innovation and capital gains.   If someone paid $1000/coin (or a stockmarket-company-share) today, held on to them throughout the subsequent waves, and sells them for $2000 each at whatever future time, did they "Do Nothing ?   Of course not, they deprived themselves of the ability to use that invested money for other wealth-generation in the meantime, and having made those resources and confidence available to whatever project/company for the duration, are well deserving of their capital gain.   Whether they purchased their early coins with cents, dollars, or cpu cycles - They "earned them at the price prevailing at that time".   "Doing nothing" is a stupid argument used by those who think you need to labour to "earn" wealth.


Im sure there are.  Can you name some that will benefit anyone other than the banks ?  Not that they *should.  If the banks are paying to develop these new systems, they deserve the profits from doing so.  Bitcoin is merely a *competing system that is being openly developed, and will profit anyone who participates intelligently.   It is a democratic payment system that is available for all to assist with its operation.   I dont know of any others (excluding copycat altcoins based on bitcoins innovative tech).


No, I dont *want an additional middleman either.  But if *you want some feature *now that the present network does not currently offer, you *can add to it if you want it that badly -  Crying that the current network presently doesnt offer infinite scalability, instant confirmations, or some other lack doesnt mean it cant be done.  It may be included in the future, but in the meantime the applicable statement is "There's an app for that" (or could be one if enough want it)  


Just like financial investigators can "follow the money" through shell corporations, offshore accounts and other money laundering systems.  Any system that allows the movement of large amounts of anonymous money will be attacked for providing a laundering service.   Nonetheless, they still exist.  If you use legitimate established exchanges that comply with "know your customer" requirements, then of course you are trackable - you provided the ID to someone.  If you use local-bitcoins (or equivalent) to buy/sell your coins from someone who does not comply with KYC requirements, and do not leave coin-to-ID tracks, then the network will not inherently reveal your identity.  Its not that hard.  Yes it takes some effort, but it can be done.  

So the statement "Bitcoin is not anonymous" is completely erroneous.  The Bitcoin network *IS anonymous.  Using non-anonymous exchange or other services compromises that anonymity in the same way an Alias can be blown by a single careless statement.  A network cannot protect you from this, it is up to you.


Riiight.  And you *arent a known bitcoin shorter attempting to profit from downturns in its exchange rate, with a history of making demonstrably false statements as if they are fact and confidently proclaiming that you have analysis teams and secret contacts with insider knowledge of upcoming market movements.  pardon me.. but *Bullshit.


What have *you done to "resolve" these issues other than talk crap at every opportunity, shouting from the rooftops whenever the exchange rate goes down, and strangely disappearing during any periods of increase ?   And where do you see any *credible people "promoting it to the Average Joe" ?   Only the ones who are in it for their own personal gain and treating it purely as a speculative vehicle..  

Yes, there *are lots of such people, but your implied inclusion of them (and yourself) as "we" suggests that *all participants in this venture are driven by the same nefarious motivation simply to profit at the expense of later adopters.   Do you consider *all stock market traders in the same vein ?  

Many bitcoin proponents actually see the proven repeated flaws in the current collapse-like-clockwork financial systems and are working to try and develop something new - it may too have present and future flaws that will need to be overcome, but it is starting on completely different foundations than the current known-to-fail fiat systems, and so presents the *opportunity to grow into something that might prove to benefit the world beyond the short sighted petty "Please profit me now" concerns of the day-traders.

Not that I expect you to believe that.  Your poor attempts at manipulative word tactics are as transparent as glass to anyone with a modicum of comprehension.

A nice try at a reasoned response, but I see the "Lying to sell your ponzi bags to the greater fool" message is re-emerging at the end here.  
Is the strain of having to think for a while and express oneself rationally instead of spamming emo arguments getting a bit too much for you to sustain ?

It's pump and dump. The price is not realistic this way.
People are too confused what's happening. Let's home soon it's more stable

all those fixes are not there yet, because apparently consensus is not working as expected, everyone want to have advantages from  the next fork, miners are the first, this is the real problem, the consensus mechanics seems to actually give birth to some greedy identity...

It's fixable yes, but it requires a hard-fork, which could be problematic if there's no consensus within the community. The dynamic or scheduled blocksize increase should have been implemented years ago to decrease the risk of split chains and all the drama. The longer we wait with this, the bigger the risk of it resulting in a complete catastrophe.


True, but i believe there are more green ways to sustain the network than using PoW, however green, i'm not a big fan of the alternatives i've read about so far for economic and security reasons.


Let's hope so, it naturally balances out but i think it may just be too big to distribute somewhat fairly across the global community. Considering the value bitcoin could get with mass adoption this could be very dangerous i think.


This comes back to my argument that development has stagnated... "X will not be an issue when Y is solved." That's all nice and flowers and honey, but Y1,2,3,4... do not get addressed, as such, the problem remains.

Well I guess our favorite FUD poster had a really lucky day as Mike Hearn posted his FUD on the new york times and the price crashes to sub 400. If this didn't happen, it would have never happened, therefore ducky had an insanely lucky strike. Well not really lucky as he has been announcing this a ton of times until it actually happened.

1)scaling is fixable easily, just increase block size, but for now there is no need to do it becuse otherwise we get bigger block and expensive fee for nothing since there is no real adoption for a 8mb block, for example

2)the energy used to sustain the network is a backup of the value itself, so it is autoregualted, no issue here

3)again this is because, bitcoin is still young compared to fiat were inequality was always present and i'm sure it was much worse at the beginning, same thing here, bitcoin will have better equality when there will be more adoption

4)every new method is not getting any confirmation, because simply any method of fiat money that run on those know circuit, visa and mastercard can be chargeback up to 180 days, and their confirmation time is terrible compared to bitcoin

5)faster confirmations is not needed, when the malleability issue will be solved, merchants will be able to accept zero conf, without third party, and be safe like you're safe with visa and mastercard

other points are again stupid problems, non-real-issue

- It doesn't scale to any level that could be considered significant in the world of finances. We can barely get the 3tps, which isn't close to the theoretical 7tps. If you compare that to even small payment providers it isn't even anything significant.


- Only 8% of the money supply is physical. We have moved on from your ancient view of money a long time ago.


- Inequality is far worse within the bitcoin community than in regular fiat systems. Inequality will aholways be and isn't bad per se, what is bad is that bitcoin operates more like a ponzi in this sense. A small hand full of users was given big handouts right from the start when other people weren't even aware of it. At least with fiat everyone has aware more or less fair start. You do work aware earn depending on that. Early adopters got Rich by doing nothing.


- Credit cards have had their best time. Banks are deploying newer more intuitive and faster payment methods every day. There are many systems far worse than bitcoin in this sense, there are also systems far better.


- No.. I don't want a 3rd party. One of the core ideas behind bit coin was getting rid of the middle man, your solution: 'add a middle man'...?


- No, correlating addresses has become quite easy with all the blockchain tools available to us now. You only need to connect one of them to a real-world identity.
What agenda are you talking about? All i would like to see is bitcoin get back on it's tracks of being an innovative revolutionary system that solves problems we have in our current monetary system and that is available to everyone.


- Yet, blind groupthink is what's going on here on a big scale, everybody ignoring or lying away problems in order to sell their bags to the next fool. How about we address and resolve these issues before we start to promote it to the average Joe again...

What you talking about  It was as high as 420's last night. It has scaled back down to 410 but still a good jump up from recent weeks and not too soon as I would say.

Couldn't agree more. Besides that why would someone log on on Bitcointalk everyday for months if not years to tell others to sell their Bitcoins?  Its obvious for anyone with a brain that kwuduck is a butthurt troll. I believe he sold a big stash at 1$/btc or something. He has 0 credibility on this forum.