Topic: Monthly average USD/bitcoin price & trend - page 23. (Read 118205 times)

Sounds like we agree.

Well, just saw this http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

Seems like the elite forces are already scrambling to identify Bitcoin users. We are all doomed.

Been following this thread and several others that AnonyMint has been active in. Find his posts very facinating and refreshing. Have a few thoughts though. First a short summary of AnonyMints thoughts..

- He thinks Bitcoin is created by the elite because:
     - Mining converges towards a centralized system.
     - Bitcoin isn't anonymous in the sense that IP numbers can be tracked by agencies such as the NSA.
     - The elite controll the media and media has been very active in reporting on Bitcoin.

- He thinks bitcoin holders will be taxed to death and hunted down by the 98% that don't own coins.

- Based on Armstrong Econic Confidence Model and the fact that almost all coins will be mined 2033, he thinks around this time the elite will roll out their new fiat based system and crash bitcoins.

- He thinks Bitcoins will go to several trillion dollar valuations before the above.

- Despite having a potential of a thousand bagger he doesn't own any Bitcoins because of the point above where bitcoin holders will be hunted down.

- He sees no way out of this except engineering a new coin which is more anonymous and therefore harder for the elite to track. This and only this has the potential of fighting off the evil elites plan.

- He believes the elite are behind the Georgia Guidestones in which one of their "commandments" is that the earths population should not surpass 500M


First I'd like to thank AnonyMint for producing so many exciting posts. I spent 2h of my life just reading through all these threads. Second I'd like to say that AnonyMint seems like someone that should get out, breath some fresh air, walk in the woods and relax. Seems like a very anxious person who may or may not be a bit over paranoid. Wouldn't be surprised if he lives in a Faraday cage and doesn't own a cell phone.

All honesty though, like I said it's an interesting read. Concerning that Bitcoin owners will be taxed and hunted. I have this to say. If Bitcoin does go to several trillion dollar valuations I'm more than fine paying taxes on my gains. Even if taxes will be insane like 70%. Call me a socialist if you like but I don't see this as a huge problem. I'm also not concerned about the masses hunting me down. Wealthy people have been around throughout history. As long as one isn't flamboint and respects their neighbour no matter how much or little they own this is not a huge concern. Why AnonyMint won't purchase Bitcoins is beyond me. Sure he can try and fight the elite he thinks exists but in all honesty if all he says is true it's probably better to just play by their rules instead of fighting them. I'd put my money on the elites winning no matter what if they are as powerful as AnonyMint is hinting at.

All this said though i'll be one of the first people to purchase some of his anonymous altcoins if he is successfull in creating them. Well done in promoting your new coins. Couldn't have done a better job imo.

That's perceptive. The chosen few sitting on tens of thousands of coins have an interesting problem to solve, if they choose to try to solve it.

Interesting reading !

SlipperySlope I am sending you a private msg to ask some assistance on a model for coin supply.

Got it. 

Any one with large size in Bitcoin has to make sure they sell well before the peak. The larger the holding, the earlier they must start selling. Or they use their coins as margin in a deep shorting market, so they retain their coin value by increasing the number of coins they own upon the crash.

Thus I expect deep shorting markets to come as the market cap becomes significant.

The large holders know they can't sell as a way out, they must short as the way out.

Deep shorting markets might also discourage some capital from buying altcoin competitor as a hedge, although I think if any altcoin succeeds it must appreciate faster than Bitcoin thus capital would still be motivated by larger gains.

However with options, then one can amplify their gains on Bitcoin.

Many factors to consider.

I am coming at this from the perspective of being old and more concerned about the future of humanity than just making a buck. If I can make money while doing something to help humanity, then I am much more motivated. I am very concerned that Bitcoin is designed to be cartelized.

I am bit frustrated with people here that they only care about making a buck and ignore the outcome Bitcoin presents. Yet I must not blame them, because they don't really have an alternative.

I accept and understand your well-founded critique of my use of the logistic function to model bitcoin price behavior.

Regarding the ability to short bitcoin, I participated last spring in the lending program provided by Hong Kong-based Bitfinex, who provide margin and short selling for bitcoin speculators. I withdrew from the modest bitcoin returns that I gained due to my perceived risk, remote but nonetheless catostrophic, that the exchange could be hacked or bankrupted. In addition to the well established Bitfinex, a just-announced startup Coinsetter in New York says that they will be fully compliant with applicable US financial institution regulations and offer short selling too. You can purchase short options on MPEx http://mpex.co/ .
  

Look at Cisco and Microsoft, they both recovered after the waterfall crash at a much lower price after some oscillation, but not as symmetric as you charted.

Unless something replaces Bitcoin entirely, then that would be the normal outcome.

So I think we are all roughly in agreement then. Looks like 2 - 4 years before that waterfall risk is upon us.

The lack of shorting means you will likely get more flash crash opportunities to buy.

Hopefully there will be deep shorting markets before 2016 and the risk of the waterfall permanent sell off. Without shorting, it could go too high before the crash and too low after, as more a mania.

If I was sure I could buy and sell anonymously in large size, I would have been buying since $50 when rpietila suggested I look at Bitcoin. Or surely since $120. But alas, it is not worth it to me as a US citizen. They are going to come after us very aggressively. I didn't get rid of that citizenship soon enough. A US person with more than $2 million in networth has to go through very intense audits before he can renounce citizenship. I purposely sold everything I had invested (in silver and stocks) at a loss to avoid capital gains.

Fucking IRS tax code only gives a $3000 per year allowance for claiming capital losses on future gains.

Buttcoin is not good enough. I want something that will really set us free.

He is very smart. Think marginal price, not all of the BTC are in float. Rather only a small percentage of the BTC is actually for sale, and this factor is feeding the exuberance too.


I don't think logistic can apply to speculation, because it is highly non-linear due to the marginal float effect and emotions. No one is investing with perfect rational knowledge of the future.

Whereas with logistic adoption curves for technology, the people are acting predictably and rationally (who wouldn't want to own a washing machine and a cell phone, they improve our personal efficiency).


Rather I think the market is pin-pricked by some event which causes everyone to doubt if it was really worth that price.

The biggest problem right now with Bitcoin price is there is no market to short it, thus there is no liquidity on the downside and the upside has no balancing brake on speculation. This is extremely dangerous.

Normally shorts will cover on the downside, thus providing buyers for those who are panic selling. Bitcoin doesn't have this, so it can end up like the Tulip Mania.

Will reply to the rest of your post later.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I would say that at the midpoint, half of the population of convincible speculators have been convinced to buy. Rpietila has questioned just how much capital, i.e. fiat-to-bitcoin purchases are required to move the price at any given point. We need to think more about this aspect. But my intuition is that because the price is still higher past the mid-point, that the total capital input is still greater past the mid-point even as fewer speculators contribute it. My logistic model rationale is that the constraint on bitcoin price growth is that committed capital is exhausted beyond some maximum price.


Yes, indeed these are the assumptions of the model and you illustrate its deficiencies. However, the curves I fitted demonstrate that the exponential growth, even in the most wildly bullish scenario of a $5,000,000 maximum bitcoin price, stops exponentially growing within 48 months. Because bitcoin price appreciation front-runs the underlying bitcoin economy, there will be some set of expectation-changing circumstances that end the exponential growth and mark the mid-point of speculation adoption. The factors such as those you mention might just be those expectation-changing events.

Rpietila believes that there will be a final blow-off crash at the peak bitcoin price. You may believe that bitcoin may crash way back down, but I think that the final blow-off peak will be resolved by a damped oscillation similar in shape to April-August 2013 - settling down to a bumpy plateau which will benefit the underlying bitcoin payment economy as it disrupts the current payment infrastructure.

Shaped like this ...

Cool, thanks. I absolutely *loved* Ventura Publisher running on GEM. Workstation-quality software running on PC hardware. I had to switch between Word for DOS and Ventura for my work; the difference between the two was laughable.

As far as I remember, it wasn't full-featured as what we did with WordUp at that first launch date (we combined word processing with page layout a la Ventura Publisher). But yes we are all about that time, that is why I said "and others". We were all influencing each other, e.g. Ami Professional, Ventura Publisher, etc.. Btw, I later in 1993 - 1995 worked with Lee Lorenzen the author of Ventura Publisher. And one of my co-authors (or boss) was close with Steve Jobs and works for Apple, etc..

I am listed as a contributor to CSS.

We (Mike Fulton) had the first full-featured font editor FONTZ! I personally wrote the first accelerated printer driver for laser printers employing the new RLE encoding, TurboJet.

Note I am going to delete all these posts at some point.

Just curious, Word for Mac came out in 1985. Did you get your dates mixed up or do you not consider it to be a "full-featured WYSIWYG commercial word processor"?

Isn't the simplest way to put that is that majority of the capital has already purchased at the midpoint? Okay I realize that velocity matters too.

The problem I have with that logistic model is that it assumes that capital has only one place to go and can't leave, or that the trend has permanence (at least over the relevant timescale), e.g. some proportion of the population will own a cell phone and they won't suddenly stop owning cell phones until some distant time when cell phone is supplanted by some new evolutionary technology.

Speculation markets don't work that way especially when the trend is exponential thus implying irrational exuberance that expects perfection. There are usually unforeseen shifts in the competitive, regulatory, and business environment, and other exogenous factors.

Exponential rises in speculation markets invariably have waterfall crashes. Can you find counter-examples? For example, see Cisco and Microsoft stock price history. There is something everyone on the internet must use, routers, yet you see the exponential rise and the waterfall crash.

I don't think we will see such a waterfall collapse in Bitcoin (at least not one that doesn't recover the trend) soon.

I think the danger for Bitcoin comes when the marketcap hits $trillions. Then it will begin having effects on the viability of the $quadrillions in financial derivatives. Then the risk of dystopian outcomes increases and who knows what governments do. Also I don't think a hypothetical altcoin competitor could make an impact on Bitcoin before then (although it could make an impact on itself nearly immediately). I did the math in another post. I will go find it.

So roughly 2015 or 2016 I see potential for risk rising. We will know better as we get closer to that juncture.

EDIT: here is the link referred to above:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3573793

I think that I understand your concern now. Obviously you agree now that an ideal logistic model does not exponentially increase without end, rather after the mid point of adoption, there is an exponential decrease in the adoption rate ...



My model attempts to fit a logistic curve to the price history of bitcoin. Stretch your mind a bit. We agree that exponential growth cannot go on forever, but how does it end for bitcoin prices?

Rather than  model the population of bitcoin technology innovation adopters, I am modelling the population of bitcoin financial speculators who transfer fiat to bitcoin. My rationale is that motivation to buy and hold bitcoins spreads through the finite population of speculators in a manner which positively depends on the size of the already-convinced speculator population, and is limited by the amount of funds that speculators are willing to transfer from fiat to bitcoin at a given bitcoin price. The logistic model has only two parameters, the adoption period (X axis above) and the maximum population size (Y axis above). I guess at the latter, i.e. what is the maximum price that speculators will pay when every convincible speculator has been convinced to buy. And I determine the adoption period by fitting the curve to the historical bitcoin price data.

Because the bitcoin price series is subject to periodic bubbles and crashes, e.g. most recently in the form of dampened oscillations, my model only suggests a likely trend for any supposed maximum bitcoin price.

Here is the shared spreadsheet that contains the model, which can be viewed - or copied and edited ... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdGhDN3FBWFptTlZTREN0cFkxZ3JHTnc

The misapplication of the logistic function is precisely on topic to this thread.

Thus you are agreeing that you also could not comprehend.


Well it is par for the course, when you can't comprehend it will appear to be noise, yet if you comprehend then you realize I am none of those things.

If I am not regularly pissing stupid people off, then I am doing something wrong.

Ego is for little people


I've already influenced the world several times. I created the first full-feature WYSIWYG commercial word processor in 1986. So you can thank me (and some others) for all the nice formatting features you have in forums, HTML, word processors, etc.

I created arguably one of the worlds first million user social network back in 1999 - 2001, so you can thank me to some extent for making the precursor to friendster, myspace, and facebook.

And I wasn't trying to have influence on you here. You are irrelevant. I posted to rpietila in this thread (then a bunch of you others made stupid replies), and I got the reaction I was hoping for here from rpietila:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/could-a-government-supplant-bitcoin-331325

So for me, it was a total success.

When I do influence you, you won't even know it is me. And you will willingly give me all your money without knowing it. Or if you suspect, then you will resist, so you will be late and lose. Either way, I win.


Nice fantasy you have. I am just playing with your ignorance, like a cat toys with a piece of yarn. It is recreation as what else am I supposed to do with stupid people other than ignore them?

Sunlight is a very diffuse energy source and thus it is not economic compared to concentrated energy sources. I studied this. Any engineer or scientist who studies it deeply and rationally comes to the same conclusion. Popular propaganda will tell you otherwise. Peak oil, peak energy, human caused global warming, etc... are all lies and nonsense.

Wealthy spend only a fraction of their net worth on personal expenses, unlike non-wealthy who spend a significant percent.

If you are concerned about personal expenses, you are not in proximity of being wealthy. You will understand this if you are one day wealthy. Rpietila now understands this well.

There are some former wealthy who thought being wealthy meant increasing expenses proportionally, e.g. most NBA stars, etc..