Topic: I am predicting a spike above $3 - page 5. (Read 10622 times)
It hasn't been able to break $3, but the gains are quite encouraging and bitcoins appear to be able to hold on to the gains.
Ummm some of us have actually made quite a few good decisions based on this analysis 
And just as many of you will have made just as many bad decisions. Thats not the point, the point is that bitcoin as a whole is losing badly from the volatility caused by this kind of short term
Quote
If enough people believe your predictions, it becomes a self full fulling prophecy no matter what you predict. Just about the *only* thing determining BTC price currently is short term speculation, so what you are really predicting is the behavior of short term speculators. It makes no sense, and frankly, its undermining bitcoin's usefulness as a trade tool I wish Satoshi had implemented a "tobin tax".
Ummm some of us have actually made quite a few good decisions based on this analysis
we are predicting long term, mid term and short term trends. you can chose to not read them.
there are many people wanting this service
there are many people wanting this service
If enough people believe your predictions, it becomes a self full fulling prophecy no matter what you predict. Just about the *only* thing determining BTC price currently is short term speculation, so what you are really predicting is the behavior of short term speculators. It makes no sense, and frankly, its undermining bitcoin's usefulness as a trade tool I wish Satoshi had implemented a "tobin tax".
that is not true. i predicted the decline from the 32$ high, then predicted the decline to 5$ and below, giving many sell signals to subscribers.
you can chose to subscribe to get all signals, or not. it is up to you./color]
you can chose to subscribe to get all signals, or not. it is up to you./color]
compared to previous walls, the ask wall at 3$ is quite small
You was always too bullish in your predictions...
compared to previous walls, the ask wall at 3$ is quite small
It hit $3 bang on, but now there's an evil bid 'wall' in the way. Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. Tear it down! :-)
Looks like a bit late, but the bitcoin is going up quite well, maybe $3 is really within reach.
I am going to make a short term position here and say that the first spike tonight was the product of a massive buy by some big hitters. The second spike was just a reaction to the first spike. The third drive up will push through with some real momentum behind it.
It will soon enough.
But there is no fundamental factors to support this rise.
Number of nodes is decreasing and the inflation rate is constant.
there was nothing fundamental about the long fall.
It will soon enough.
But there is no fundamental factors to support this rise.
Number of nodes is decreasing and the inflation rate is constant.
It will soon enough.
Well looks like it finally happened
Looks like it was inspired by your prognosis.
The funny thing is that the price will not go above
nice call. i'll take some credit.
About the spike, you just got it...
Well looks like it finally happened. The funny thing is that I was playing with the small roller coaster and missed the big jump
Nagle, genuine question which I believe others have, but I'll frame it respectably:
Are you 100% bear, ie the bitcoin project will fall to pennies and will never regain stature, or are you just suggesting that for the mid-term?
If it's the former option, why do you continue to spend your time posting? Your tone doesn't ring of altruistic intent, so what else can it be attributed to?
Are you 100% bear, ie the bitcoin project will fall to pennies and will never regain stature, or are you just suggesting that for the mid-term?
If it's the former option, why do you continue to spend your time posting? Your tone doesn't ring of altruistic intent, so what else can it be attributed to?
OK, I'll give a real answer. I think Bitcoin is an interesting concept, and I want to see how it plays out. I also strongly dislike scams.
If someone could come up with something good enough to replace PayPal or debit cards, that would be a win. Bitcoin, as currently designed, isn't it.
Bitcoin, the software, provides a means for unidirectional, irrevocable money transfer between anonymous parties. This is the scammer's dream. There's almost no risk of the mark coming back with cops or a baseball bat. With no revocation mechanism, no dispute resolution mechanism, no reputation mechanism, and no enforcement mechanism, the Bitcoin world has been able to replicate, in only a few months, almost every classic financial scam of the 19th century, from John Law's bank to tulipomania to the South Sea Bubble. That's the biggest problem with Bitcoin on the currency side.
It's worth watching Bitcoin to see how not to do it. Technically, I think the revocation problem could be fixed. I've suggested using a two-phased commit, where a money transfer takes place with an "authorize" and a "capture" phase. I've described that elsewhere. This thing needs something so that scammers can't scam without consequences.
The speculation market is a straight pump and dump. That's why I'm down on the "pumpers". This is a zero sum game. Bitcoin generates no revenue. Frantic efforts to recruit more investors to pay off the old ones make it a pyramid scheme. I'm thus suspicious of the "BUY BUY BUY crowd".
Now I'm waiting to see how the endgame plays out.
I was kind of interested to see how you would respond to this.. The network / protocol in and of itself may not solve the scam problem you mention.. but I don't see that as a shortcoming OR it's responsibility at all. The protocol was built with a purpose, it serves that purpose very well. Protocols may be revised / updated for functionality, security, etc.. we all know this. What's usually more important than the protocol itself is the implementation of said protocol, how it is used in the real world. Just because the core protocol itself does not support revocation (in my opinion it shouldn't), that does not mean that entities that use this back-end protocol in their systems / applications can't support such things, it is up to the people / businesses that build on top of this protocol to make this happen.
What we have here is a very experimental time where people are playing with a very powerful low-level protocol that just happens to have a fairly easy gui attached to it. How often are people exposed to such technology and such a low-level? The events you have mentioned are bound to happen in this type of scenario. Just as crazy data breaches of the 80's and 90's and even recently happened with early versions of protocols that are now in dominant use today.
People should be wary of all kinds of pump and dumps, this is not unique to bitcoin. Is it going "to the moon"? Probably not anytime soon. Are people going to be "running a node" and using this back-end protocol to buy a pack of gum? I sure hope not. I don't think you're going to get to see the endgame, because you won't live that long. The concept is too powerful to be abandoned, one way or another, even if it isn't specifically bitcoin (I still think it could be), this idea isn't going away. The scam problem is really just because people are attempting to use this low-level beta protocol without fully understanding the implications. Obviously the argument has been made a bunch of times, but I'll say it again, the same thing could be said with cash, it is non-revocable, there are many other services that build on-top of cash to try to provide (badly) the same thing bitcoin does, western union for example. Try sending a WU, having it accepted on the other side, and getting that money back..
Two phase contracts are possible with current bitcoins, just something that isn't implemented into the program. Gavin Anderson put up some talks about smart contracts and various ways that money can be tied up in limbo with or without a third party. For example, you could send payment to someone whereby you lock up the funds but payment is not completed until the payer agrees that the transaction is completed, or the receiver agrees on a refund or both parties agree to send the money to a third party.
Jump to: