I think the main stream of selling bitcoins are those miners, since the mining rig now is so high priced, the price of bitcoin will not be too low, maybe 100 dollars is proper.
Or else those miner will cry
Topic: Looks more and more like a 2011 repeat - page 6. (Read 14959 times)
Perhaps someone should start a sweepstake for the date of the next bubble to pop 
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
This point only applies if you ignore how a bubble is generally defined. We are past the point of being able to retrospectively identify the 2013 bubble as such. Perhaps you call a parabolic rise and fall something else, but maybe you could explain why it wasn't a bubble, since it is clear to so many that it was.
You could define a bubble as a parabolic rise and fall afterwards, and according to that definition we've definitely seen a bubble recently in bitcoin. However, this definition does not say how deep the fall should be, so it doesnt work as an argument to back up one's belief that the current price is still not sustainable and the price has to fall some more. You can make a somewhat educated guess, but that's all it is and it's definitely not guaranteed to come true.
Even though Bitcoin uses the Internet, it is not fundamentally the stuff of the Internet; fundamentally, it is sound money -- and this is the major difference which renders the comparison moot. It's like saying mobile phone adoption is a bubble and the same will happen to it that happened to home phones.
There is a difference between adoption of a tool and its price. The price of Bitcoin is only one of its characteristics and is not more or less important than the security, the ease-of-use, the utility or the development of it.
Adoption means accepting the whole package of Bitcoin, with ALL its characteristics. It's possible for any characteristics to not be valued correctly in a certain period of time, and I think that it is the case with the price right now.
I think we might be talking past each other (probably because I didn't sufficiently read the initial post to which Brunic was responding). In my book, 2013 was a bubble the same way 2011 was a bubble, but bitcoin will over the term of a few years still do well, and will not only be able to sustain these values, but add to them (though in the short run my guess is it will go down some more). Perhaps we are only quibbling over timelines here.
Likely. I'm not saying that the bubble top is not sustainable long term. 
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
This point only applies if you ignore how a bubble is generally defined. We are past the point of being able to retrospectively identify the 2013 bubble as such. Perhaps you call a parabolic rise and fall something else, but maybe you could explain why it wasn't a bubble, since it is clear to so many that it was.
I think we might be talking past each other (probably because I didn't sufficiently read the initial post to which Brunic was responding). In my book, 2013 was a bubble the same way 2011 was a bubble, but bitcoin will over the term of a few years still do well, and will not only be able to sustain these values, but add to them (though in the short run my guess is it will go down some more). I though Brunic meant with the 'cant sustain a bubble' that the current values were much higher than bitcoin is worth, but perhaps we are only quibbling over timelines here.
Even though Bitcoin uses the Internet, it is not fundamentally the stuff of the Internet; fundamentally, it is sound money -- and this is the major difference which renders the comparison moot. It's like saying mobile phone adoption is a bubble and the same will happen to it that happened to home phones.
Your personal view of "sound money" has no effect on the real world. You're just fantasizing. This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
This point only applies if you ignore how a bubble is generally defined. We are past the point of being able to retrospectively identify the 2013 bubble as such. Perhaps you call a parabolic rise and fall something else, but maybe you could explain why it wasn't a bubble, since it is clear to so many that it was.
You forgot about the difficulty, it is growing. What's the difference, reduction of reward twice (50 => 25) or with growth 25gh to 150gh? 
I have often debated about this, I came to the conclusion that the bubble isn't necessary a bad thing. As an investor, that could be a key piece on how you decide to trade. Bubbles has repeated itself in history countless time, that is why it is wildly studied.
Bubbles are not wrong or right, they are just bubbles. Like you say, they can help you to trade. My problem is with the crap of "this time it's different, it's going to change the fundamentals of economics, it's not your typical finances, it's magic!".
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
I'm not the one arguing against economic phenomenons that are well documented in history.
Even though Bitcoin uses the Internet, it is not fundamentally the stuff of the Internet; fundamentally, it is sound money -- and this is the major difference which renders the comparison moot. It's like saying mobile phone adoption is a bubble and the same will happen to it that happened to home phones.
I have often debated about this, I came to the conclusion that the bubble isn't necessary a bad thing. As an investor, that could be a key piece on how you decide to trade. Bubbles has repeated itself in history countless time, that is why it is wildly studied.
Bubbles are not wrong or right, they are just bubbles. Like you say, they can help you to trade. My problem is with the crap of "this time it's different, it's going to change the fundamentals of economics, it's not your typical finances, it's magic!".
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
I'm not the one arguing against economic phenomenons that are well documented in history.
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
"Because it's a bubble" isn't much of an argument either...
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
I have often debated about this, I came to the conclusion that the bubble isn't necessary a bad thing. As an investor, that could be a key piece on how you decide to trade. Bubbles has repeated itself in history countless time, that is why it is wildly studied.
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
Well, the dot-com was a bubble and Bitcoin is also a bubble. If the dot-com, an economic ecosystem that based its potential on the Internet(which is the biggest revolution of mankind until now) was not able to sustain a bubble, I don't see how Bitcoin can sustain any bubbles either, whatever the potential of Bitcoin could be.
"Because it's Bitcoin" is not a good reason enough to change basic economics rules.
This is not your typical finance though; this is really and truly revolution, on a bigger scale than has ever been comprehended.
The dot-com bubble crashed and was based on Internet. If the whole Internet wasn't strong enough to prevent any bubble crash, how something smaller like Bitcoin is supposed to do that?!?!
How does the dot-com bubble relate to the price of bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a dot-com startup.
manfred thnaks for your answer
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011)..
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011)..
Maybe DIY?
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/78241320112013.jpg
manfred thnaks for your answer
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011)..
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011)..
Maybe DIY?
manfred thnaks for your answer
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011).. I assume my own chart isn't very precise too
I saw your chart "run-up aligned" on post 18, I'm sorry but the chart is still not valid because the zero line of the 2 charts are not aligned.
I don't invented chart or statistics, I'm just telling you the way all people do when they need to compare 2 charts : align the zero line and align the start of the lines.
On the chart above the 2 lines begin on the same graphic point, but of course not on the same prices (must be somthing like ~$15 for 2013 and ~$0.75 for 2011).. I assume my own chart isn't very precise too
@ marvinrouge
As u are hopefully aware the stable lead-up price in 2013 was ~ $13, in 2011 it was ~ £1.
If you do like to a run-up aligned chart please look at post #18, if u prefer peak aligned its the very first post
As u are hopefully aware the stable lead-up price in 2013 was ~ $13, in 2011 it was ~ £1.
If you do like to a run-up aligned chart please look at post #18, if u prefer peak aligned its the very first post
I redraw the chart with the same starting point.
Jump to: