Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 192. (Read 907212 times)

Yes I know what you're advocating. The goal of my question was mostly to give you the opportunity to explain yourself here as well and to answer the question more directly.

On the other hand the compliment wasn't lost on me, thank you (although my "contributions" have mostly been limited to my participation in discussions). I still believe many many others to be far better candidates than me (people actually creating things such as yourself for instance).

Oh, and at times I can be a frugal bastard

Looking at the total number of transactions (excluding popular addresses) I think one can question this break out. Thoughts?

BTC2 is cheap and it sounds very promising. Malla looks like a place to see/feel. All my wishes of success for this brilliant event and bitcoin-center project.
I would have come but the sight of animal flesh in a human's plate causes me great pain, not to mention his mouth. Therefore my social whereabouts are strictly limited.

The state is going to have a hard time doing that.  Unless this all happens very soon, it will be impossible to identify holders of crypto by then.  As technology advances it only gets easier to integrate zero knowledge proofs without overloading the network.

But even if they can identify and kill the holders of crypto, that doesn't guarantee capture (or loss) of the private keys by any means.  Any reasonable billionaire would prepare for this eventuality and pass on his keys.  So the state has only one option left then, to blacklist coins, destroying the fungibility of this currency they're trying to sell everyone on?  Not going to happen.  If you are trying to convince people NOT to use a currency, threatening them with death by accepting the "wrong" coins is a great way to do it.

Metcalf's Law, as charted by Perter_R, would suggest that the user base need only grow at a third of the rate of price growth. His model is that the network value, i.e. the market cap, is proportional to the square of the number of network nodes, e.g. number of investors, number of transactions, or number of Bitcoin addresses. Price growth averaging 10x annually is accordingly supported by 3.2x annual growth of new users, which works out to 13-14% average monthly growth in users.

http://www.bitcoinpulse.com/ as most know has many adoption indicators being tracked.

As you know by reading my thread in ToF, I advocate that people deep in bitcoins spend a percent of their holdings annually for keeping up with what happens in Bitcoin, projects, donations, etc. In the 1000% per year appreciation framework, I am anyway proposing a 30% divestment per year (10% at each doubling). Giving 5% back to the community is in the limits of possibility, right? Often picking a good meetup is really enlarging.

Then there is the other side: if you don't follow what's happening, even the loss of your bitcoins is a possibility. I know many people who lost a lot in Mt.Gox case where 7% of all bitcoins were stolen. Investing 5% is also reasonable in this context, if it enables you to be on the better side of the 7%. (I lost there also, but less than 7% of my holdings, so I was lucky - or prepared).

The main thing of course is that I'd like to have you there cause I think you are one of the most valued contributors here!

2 on 100 is 2%. That's a lot. Maybe it's different because I'm from the time of paying $1 for a stock purchase instead of the few percent a lot of people seemed to accept from their brokers in the eighties.

Even at BTC1000 I would consider BTC2 a serious expense (0.2%)

If it's mine, it will be pulled. I'm not selling below $3 

The first class would be BTC1000 or more currently. The guys who don't need to care about anything else

Here the context was about participating the conference. And I would say it is a +EV experience for a 100 coin holder because he gets to know the advance info on what happens when his stash is worth a million. Attending costs about BTC2 for a European (incl all) so it is reasonable for somebody with BTC100 but not for one with BTC10.

I explored the final megabubble idea about 6 months ago in detail. AnonyMint was the opponent. We found it quite realistic, if TPTB wants to promote it, the supply and demand dynamics coupled with the rapid rate of price increase and the insane difficulty for any large holders to actually convert their stash to other assets in a short time (it took 3.5 months for me from selling the bitcoins to buying the castle, with the proceeds being in 3 different fiat currencies in the meantime, and at least 3 AML checks). The market cap of all the bitcoins may actually rise to a multiple of the rest of the world combined (BTC1 being equivalent to $10-$100 million in present dollars) if engineered such by TPTB.

About 14 months ago I calculated that if bitcoin were the anchor of a flexible monetary system with most of the circulating money provided by credit expansion and self-liquidating real bills, the price for one would be in the tune of $300k (bitcoins having the same market cap as gold). Dropping to this level from the unfathomable heights will hurt the ones that bought at 100 times the price, of course.

If bitcoins stay "hard" so that no (or very little) credit expansion is possible, the market cap can reach a significant % of the total sum of all liquid assets in the world. That figure is currently about $100T or more. So therefore $1-$5 million per BTC is realistic.

I would suggest you to buy bitcoins so that you will hold a target amount of them at the time when they reach $1 million. Because you want to sell periodically to cover your expenses and hedge bets, you need to buy 3-10 times the amount now. If your target is to have BTC2, which would allow a retirement in a nice country, a position of BTC10 or preferably BTC20 now ($5-$10k investment) is recommended. More details are in the SSS plan. The plan ends when bitcoins are $1M, because the world will be very different.


Exactly. In absence of coercion in the Bitcoin regime, Satoshi is not causing any trouble to the rest of us, although he holds nearly 10% of the coins outstanding. If he starts spending them in goods and services, he is generating demand for the rest of society and dissipating his stash. If he invests them in the generation of goods and services, and makes profit, it improves the quality of life of others. If he makes a loss, then the coins move to the better entrepreneurs. If he does nothing, everybody's coins are worth more.


Most of the people are net debtors in fiat terms. Whether fiat's value increases or decreases vs. their income, is more important to them than how they invest their free money that they can afford to lose. In the optimistic case, all debts are effectively cancelled. In the pessimistic case, all debtors are foreclosed (as the effects of the CB policy to pop the bubble by raising interest rates and causing unemployment), and bitcoin people get to buy their assets for cheap, but this may cause indignation. AnonyMint thinks that crypto holders will be declared enemies of state at this point and eliminated.

yes there are plenty of people with enough money to do this, and whilst they may push the price sky high, so it costs more to buy, all they are doing is increasing the market-cap-value of everything they already own (i.e. bought for less than the current price). If their intention is not to sell it but to own a big chunk of coin, then there is only so much selling everyone else can do at the higher prices, because FOMO keeps them from selling all, but damn they just have to cash something out....

For a player with enough cash to buy the entire order book 100 times over, its possible. The FED prints $85bn a month.... that we know of

It's in their interest to keep accumulating, to keep the price up (and thus the perceived value of their holding) and to continue to legitimise BTC as the new money in the eyes of the world. All the while devaluing the actual worth of the dollars they just put in everyone's pockets! When you are rich enough that you don't measure wealth in absolute terms, but in terms of what percentage of *all the money* is yours. This is a legit strategy.

Now, if somebody (or bodies) were doing this, then its likely that when they were buying the price would increase exponentially, until the natural (non whale actor) buying pressure represents a very small fraction of the natural selling pressure (everyone else cashing out their gains) at which point the whale can pull their buying, and allow the market itself to drive the price way back down again (perhaps assuring this buy selling a chunk at the 'top' to instigate the collapse) the market participants will do the rest.

When natural buying/selling returns to equilibrium, the cycle can repeat.

This sounds familiar.

Pretty soon it will only take BTC1. There goes the neighborhood ....

Considering there has been an ongoing currency war for some time now with debt as one of the driving forces, seems overly simplistic to think that a nation would build such a position overtly. 

Risto calculated that $4 billion of new investment would drive the price to $7000. It would be interesting to calculate how much $$ it would take to accumulate one or two million bitcoins. At a constant value of $7000, it would take $ 7-14 billion, which is peanuts for the Fed, and would have virtually no effect on the value of the USD (other than the fact that the rest of the world might think the leaders of the Fed were all insane, lol). Of course that much investment would drive the price higher. But I think they could feasibly get a sizeable chunk of all bitcoin in existence, in principle at least. Maybe even enough to cover the entire US debt in a coupla years.

Wasn't it BTC1000 before? BTC100 is only $52k of buying power atm.

Just BTC100 makes you a supernode now? things have changed!

In this context it means a person with personal crypto holdings valued at least BTC100, plus other qualifications.

Imagine if Janet Yellen and the rest of the top brass at the Federal Reserve woke up this morning and suddenly grokked everything there is to know about bitcoin, and decided to buy up as much as they could. They would print up some small sum -- 5-10 billion or so, just pocket change for the Fed -- and buy as many bitcoins as they could. Imagine they could get a significant percentage of all bitcoins -- one million or maybe several million. Can you imagine the long term consequences? I seriously doubt that they would do something that ballsy and smart at the same time. But it would be an interesting scenario!

If Central Bank of nation N were to simply create currency and exchange it for Bitcoin, the effect would be (1) the price of Bitcoin would rise until CB stopped buying, and in no case could it buy all or even a significant portion of the BTC on the market (the more is bought the higher and faster it rises)  (2) the national currency of N would be devalued, instantly vs. Bitcoin, and gradually vs. other fiat currencies.

No CB would do that.  The Fed has stated (Yellen) that it has no authority or responsibiliity over Bitcoin, they are certainly not going to put the dollar at any further risk by pumping BTC. And no CB of any economy that counts, even tiny ones, is run without (a) independence from political pressure, (b) massive internal controls, (c) a clear mandate to protect its own currency. But if, per impossibile, some rogue CB starts trying to accumulate BTC, well, that's great for Bitcoin, see (1) above.

I think people do not understand crypto because they do not follow up on it.  I researched bitcoin when I first heard about it (and this forum really help my understanding).  It is complex because we are used to  a physical source that gets recycled through means of work or effort (jobs and selling stuff).  

It would be nice for people to start programs going to the high schools or colleges and teaching the young minds about this alternative.  I still think people need the effort to research bitcoin because even if they were spoon-fed, they need to be able to want to understand it.