Topic: [poll] 200$ bitcoins? (Read 3218 times)

Perfectly explained, +1

I dont think many people here haven't yet figured out by themselves that the fundamentals are good. Some VC dudes figuring that out doesn't change their view of the fundamentals from "good" to "extremely good" somehow. It doesn't change the fundamentals themselves either.

Looks to me like that trend is broken.

We will reach 200 eventually, but not this month, perhaps not this year also

These opinions are mixed, but all have valid backing.
I guess we can only wait and see, right?

I approve of these opinions! ZB+1

Holding tight for great justice.

Thanks (no sarcasm), this is just what the lazy were looking for.  The WSJ Blog link is the only one that seems to mention $$$ invested?  I know this sounds pedantic, but it's hard to base irl  financial decisions on PR banter.  I realize there's serious money in Bitcoin -- don't need to look further than Mt. Gox.  It would be nice to lay hands on some actual numbers to churn, instead of "OMG so psyched Bitcoin peed my pants!" 

It didn't jump to $100 "on thin air". It jumped to $100 because of speculative mania. We broke $20, and we had a lot of press coverage saying that Bitcoin was growing steadily. It was on all main newspapers at the end of January, how this "monopoly money" looked like it was getting serious. So it started growing faster. After that, we broke $32, and we had lots of news about how Bitcoin was skyrocketing, breaking all time high.... So at that point it started to grow exponentially.... Until the bubble popped.

"The price is going up up up", that's the only kind of news that will bring more and more people in, bubbling the price. Now price crashed hard, and the news that stick in people's head is that the ones who bought at $250 got burned BIG TIME.

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2013/05/07/coinbase-nabs-5m-in-biggest-funding-for-bitcoin-startup/

http://pandodaily.com/2013/03/08/bitcoin-me-adam-drapers-boost-vc-makes-a-big-bet-on-the-virtual-currency/

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/features/heresashton-kutcher-buys-into-bitcoin_864073.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/29/big-vc-says-bitcoin-is-gold-2-0-its-a-huge-huge-huge-deal/

http://mashable.com/2013/04/12/bitcoin-startups/


for the lazy

That's cute.  Though ?q=VC+idiot gives me "About 2,440,000 results," while q=vc+millions+bitcoin only "About 312,000 results."  See my problem?  Could you give me a link?  I was asking for a link, not a Google lesson.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vc+millions+bitcoin

Hi-
I keep seeing references to VCs pumping millions into Bitcoin, but never links to sources or even names of the players.  Would be great to know who & how much. 
Thanks.

Yeah I think we agree, but it was a good chance to talk about the epistemology of estimation.

Also, yes, I almost never post without editing it five or six times afterward. Somehow it's too hard to judge it until it's out there, and I'm always in a hurry.

I voted no, not because I'm a disbeliever but because I don't think bitcoin has it in it right now to generate another huge surge of public money like that. I don't even think it would be good if it did. Let the price slowly climb back to 200 - over the next two months, not the next two weeks.

"false sense of precision". nice way to phrase the concern I had. But your "smoking hot girl vs. godess" example is spot on as well, conciseness is a virtue. Guess there's not much to argue about actually, seems we have pretty similar opinions on this. In my own ramblings ("Dear diary. The loseness of my stool today was a solid N.") I tend to use 1-10 scales, only integers, no fractions. Precise enough to avoid the pitfalls of pragmatics, without broadcasting too much unjustified precision. ymmv.

EDIT: haha, did you just edit your post this second? was about to ask what 'srt' is. My best bet was 'The Singapore Repertory Theatre'.

I'm sort of on the fence as far as whether to use percentages (and risk portraying a false sense of precision) or words, but my reasoning is that percentages can at least be broken down into definite regular intervals, whereas natural language has more fuzzy, irregular intervals like slightly, somewhat, quite a bit, rather, significantly, substantially, considerably, etc.

On the other hand, those intervals or distinctions are born out of the natural order of language usage and therefore have passed a sort of market test for usefulness. Perhaps, for example, they are fuzzy where humans tend to be worst at estimating, making that a feature, not a bug.

However, the sphere such terms were vetted in is not investing so much as general everyday talk, like talking about the weather or how hungry you are. I tend to think at least the 11-21 distinctions allowed for by percentage multiples of ten (0%, 10%, 20%...100%) or multiples of five can be learned to be used accurately enough to provide additional utility over natural language terms.

Also consider, "She's hot, but this girl is smoking hot, and that girl over there is a freakin' goddess," versus "She's an 8, this girl's an 8.5, and that girl over there is a 9+." While one man's 6 is another man's 10, the latter is still vastly easier to work with and communicate with consistently. Hard numbers at least give a reference point; you at least know that if someone says there's a 90% chance and later says there's an 80% chance, you know the latter is supposed to be lower.

Sorry if I sounded more confrontational than intended :/

I personally think estimates of likelihood *and* confidence are a good idea, but maybe because I'm a mathematical pedant, I prefer to express them in words, or at least words+numbers, rather than pure numbers if the model I use (intuitions, chart reading, etc) is not numerical either. Something like "Slightly more likely we'll go up than down, but I'm comparably uncertain at this time". On second thought, your style expresses the same, but shorter... well, pedantery then, I guess.

This, totally.  I can't believe that the price jumped $100 on thin air, and now is piddling along on this kind of news.   And this is not just "news", some of these are strong indicators that the fundamentals are good.  These kind of VCs don't drop millions on a project without some very serious research.  The same would apply to China's ruling cadres, I would suppose.

It sometimes makes me question the viability of the $10,000 coin, which I always thought was a given if Bitcoin went mainstream.

Nothing black magic, just additional info. The confidence is based on introspection on my ability to faithfully match estimated visceral sense of odds with hard percentages. It's simply not as useful to say just "30-40% chance of Yes," when that could mean "I'm 90% confident that there's a 30-40% chance of Yes" or "I reached the conclusion that there's a 30-40% chance of Yes, but I'm only 55% confident in that conclusion."

It's something I wish everyone would do when they give their estimated odds on something, so I'm doing it.

Haha, I really like your argument, also completely agree with your 3 salient factors, but you have to teach me how you get from that argument to not only a likelihood estimation in percentage but also an estimation of your confidence interval. Black magic!