Topic: Prices to fall below $50 (Read 2057 times)
that graph has us at $500 by april 2014
What the heck is that supposed upper bound, its utterly meaningless...
Anyways this indicates that the price supposedly doubles every 6 months even if it stays on the lowest trendline? Huh, if I have to wait until we go down to 40-whatever but then we're sure to get $100 in like 8 months and like $200 in a year, I guess I'm k with that.
The lower line is the lower limit. Probably the lowest limit possible due to the actual usage of bitcoin at the moment.
My opinion is the lower trendline is growing a little slower (to be expected) than the line shown.
But, the price incorporate the actual value perceived by the buyers and sellers and the projected value in the future perceived by the buyers and the sellers.
On the lower trendline bitcoin is just actual value o little more, so the pressure to the price to incorporate the future value in greater.
This imply the probability of correction higher are greater near the base line than when the price is higher than the baseline.
With the current book of MtGox 10 M$ are enough to clean up 100.000 BTC and bring the price to 158$, double the sum to clean up all other exchanges.
20-22 M$ to double the price.
200K BTC is 1% of all bitcoins possible, around 2% of the actually existing now bitcoins, but given the number of BTC stored in addresses never touched or rarely touched, 2% is more like 5% or more.
Anyone thinking bitcoin have a bright future in the realm of 100K$ to 1M$ (or more it could be more) would be hard presses to not buy when the BTC is very undervalued.
We MUST always remember that bulls runs are born in desperation and die in euphory.
When all run for the exit it is time to enter and when all want enter it is time to exist.
When will see people battling to change their fiat for millibitcoin or microbitcoin, then it is time to spend our bitcoin.
Do you actually know the nature of the bug? They used the wrong data format.
This is not chance, it's human error.
This is not chance, it's human error.
Nope. Not what happened. As I've noticed with you in the past, you're obscuring detail in order to strengthen your perceived point. IIRC...there was a size limitation in the implementation of BerkeleyDB that the v<=0.7 reference client used which caused blocks with more transactions than that limit to be rejected by v<=0.7 yet generated and accepted by 0.8 nodes. So the combination of an obscure limitation AND the happenstance that almost exactly half the network was upgraded were the factors that led to the fork with competing chains. That's VERY different than "used the wrong data format". If I were core dev and you trivialized the issue to that and called me incompetent because of it, I'd tell you to go f*ck yourself.
Additionally, if you think or thought that these things should never happen, then you are simply naive. Large software systems are complicated. Issues are going to arise. Everyone (who's rational) involved in this space understands that. If the inevitability of software issues in cryptocurrencies makes you think they should have little value, that's fine. I personally think such would be an unworkable opinion (generally in modern society), but that would at least be a consistent and non-misleading subjective stance.
Now I think you owe core dev an apology.
I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now
all in the way you see things. lol +1
I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now
I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now
Not really desperate. I just understand what happens when making complicated software because I have a degree in it.
Speculation at its finest.
Indeed he's desperately trying to shift the debate from the being about the occurrence of the Bug to how it was fixed.
Speculation at its finest.
Do you actually know the nature of the bug? They used the wrong data format.
This is not chance, it's human error.
This is not chance, it's human error.
When something bad happens due to lack of competence (human error always is) whoever is responsible isn't as competent as they should be.
This is not debatable.
This is not debatable.
Who says it's lack of competence? Maybe it could have been solved but it would have been 100x the effort and it's just easier to hard fork. Maybe hard forking is the competent answer.
When something bad happens due to lack of competence (human error always is) whoever is responsible isn't as competent as they should be.
This is not debatable.
This is not debatable.
No you didn't.
The dev team is perfectly competent. It's not like Bitcoin has been around 100 years and they are making minor tweaks to it. They are in uncharted territory.
The dev team is perfectly competent. It's not like Bitcoin has been around 100 years and they are making minor tweaks to it. They are in uncharted territory.
I merely stated a fact.
Since when do I have to be competent on creating a product when concerning myself with using it?
That's too bad you are clearly a genius! Please work on Bitcoin your greatness!
It's that it happened at all that concerns me.
Totally. I can't understand why software in beta had some problems.
Mucus you should take up as head developer. I think you got some good ideas.
Since when do I have to be competent on creating a product when concerning myself with using it?
It's that it happened at all that concerns me.
Totally. I can't understand why software in beta had some problems.
Mucus you should take up as head developer. I think you got some good ideas.
I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.
IDK, I freaked out about the fork when it was happening, but it doesn't sound like a particularly important technical point IMO~.~
It was important from a fundamental perspective, (dev team not as competent as they should be)...
Wow, you're nuts if that was your takeaway from the fork.
How quickly and competantly (and with consensus) it was handled is a testament to how the community can and does operate in the inevitable scenarios where technical (or malicious) issues arise. In sharp contrast to your awful misunderstanding is the correct takeaway; ie, a sense of more confidence in the overall robustness of bitcoin, both from a technical and community perspective.
It's that it happened at all that concerns me.
I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now
Bounces can be made in two different directions
maybe another bounce later from 70s to 50s
I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now
Jump to: