Just wanted to let fellow TA's that the China Ban is now confirmed as real, Bobby Lee has also confirmed it, check here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/breaking-news-bobby-lee-confirms-bitcoin-china-ban-its-finally-happened-553276
This is huge news, Exchanges like OKCoin already talking about moving out of China.
Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 263. (Read 907227 times)
The beauty of the 5.25-year trendline with exponential fit (R^2=0.93 which is pretty darn good) is that it takes into account every worry of every person who has ever owned or not owned bitcoins. I put more weight on that than the individual worries of a single person.
The trendline is a representation of how people have speculated in the history of Bitcoin. As Anonymint points out we have a large merchant adoption that we haven't had the last 5.25 years. Do you think new factors with a possible large impact like this can make the trendline less accurate?
According to the theory underlying the trendline model, we expect to encounter new factors with large impacts. A year from now, there will be new factors with large impacts that make today's large factors seem unimpressive. When we see them, it should make us more confident in the trendline model, not less.
The beauty of the 5.25-year trendline with exponential fit (R^2=0.93 which is pretty darn good) is that it takes into account every worry of every person who has ever owned or not owned bitcoins. I put more weight on that than the individual worries of a single person.
The trendline is a representation of how people have speculated in the history of Bitcoin. As Anonymint points out we have a large merchant adoption that we haven't had the last 5.25 years. Do you think new factors with a possible large impact like this can make the trendline less accurate?
The more transaction traffic, the more accurate the models should become. The trendline can be derived from the active wallet trend. As sample size increases, moments computed on the sample convert to the moments of the population. It's only when the samples start coming from a different population that the trendline would be less accurate. That would happen if market dynamics underwent a major structural change.
The beauty of the 5.25-year trendline with exponential fit (R^2=0.93 which is pretty darn good) is that it takes into account every worry of every person who has ever owned or not owned bitcoins. I put more weight on that than the individual worries of a single person.
The trendline is a representation of how people have speculated in the history of Bitcoin. As Anonymint points out we have a large merchant adoption that we haven't had the last 5.25 years. Do you think new factors with a possible large impact like this can make the trendline less accurate?
The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.
Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
I dont understand how a merchant base that converts everything to fiat will lead to a single service provider controlling all merchants. Could you please elaborate?
If I understand you correctly your biggest concern is not short term price drop but that your anonymous altcoin will not be adopted because of all this?
...
What fool would lose 3-5% spread (at least) on two times exchanges instead of paying 0% to spend the fiat with a credit card?
And cause a premature capital gains event.
And then only accomplish destroying our collective liberty.
Incredible powers of logic!
Serious parties are being contacted. And will reap incredible wealth because of it (and be able to hang on to it). You know who you are-
...
What fool would lose 3-5% spread (at least) on two times exchanges instead of paying 0% to spend the fiat with a credit card?
And cause a premature capital gains event.
And then only accomplish destroying our collective liberty.
Incredible powers of logic!
Serious parties are being contacted. And will reap incredible wealth because of it (and be able to hang on to it). You know who you are-
...
The costs of a credit card transaction can vary widely, from under 1% to even over 50%. It all depends on the circumstances of the consumer and the merchant. At one extreme on has a consumer with a 1% cash back credit card that has a low merchant fee of say 1.64% rate that a large merchant can get for a domestic card present transaction and one has an effective cost well under 1%. I have such a credit card. At the other extreme one has a person with poor credit spending $50 to purchase a prepaid credit card in order to make a $20 purchase online. Add to this the merchant fees for the much riskier card not present transaction and the cost is well over 50%. I have also witnessed this. Bitcoin will have a hard time competing in the first case but will completely blow the second case right out of the water. Bitcoin does not need to become a replacement for fiat or eliminate all fiat transactions, or cause the demise of the USD or EUR to be successful. In fact this is very unlikely. No all Bitcoin needs to do to be successful beyond most of our wildest dreams is pick off those transactions that are currently horribly inefficient, and least profitable, in the fiat system.
Think of lionesses going after a herd of zebra or wolves going after a herd of bison. They pick off the weakest zebra or bison and eat it, they do not need to take down the entire herd.
Thank you for all the kind words and comments and for linking to my piece. I don't want to get into the minutiae here, except to say the following:
My price range of $350-$550 is based more upon gut feel, not technical analysis. If I use the technicals, then it is most likely the psychological barrier of $400 - $436, but I accept that markets overshoot technicals intraday. I think the equilibrium point is somewhere in that range.
As a corollary to my "gut", I'm seeing a number of high net worth individuals and funds who are long Bitcoin looking to reduce their average holding price from the $800-$1000 range and are continuing to pour dry powder into the market. I don't know how long this will last, but it's a stabilising factor to some degree. Given the high beta upside of Bitcoin, I don't think we're going to see a bottom much lower than $350, given that Silicon Valley is awash with liquidity right now and the general consensus is that Bitcoin has high upside. The real question is how much selling pressure comes from Coinbase & BitPay.
Again, the title of my piece was aptly named - "Finding Equilibrium", no-one knows for certain what the true value of a Bitcoin is but it's really a factor of balancing fiat into Bitcoin and fiat out of Bitcoin that will determine the short term price. The long term utility and use cases of Bitcoin are yet to be defined and proven and as a result placing the value on a single coin is undeterminable right now - it's just speculation and psychology intertwined.
External factors aside. If Bitcoin lives up to half the promises and expectations from it's enthusiasts, the outcome will be a price greater than 10x the current price. So, if you assume a 10x payback, you would buy Bitcoin at $450 if you thought it only had a 10% chance of success. On the basis of that logic alone, I'm still a buyer... (and also a keen poker player, of course)
My price range of $350-$550 is based more upon gut feel, not technical analysis. If I use the technicals, then it is most likely the psychological barrier of $400 - $436, but I accept that markets overshoot technicals intraday. I think the equilibrium point is somewhere in that range.
As a corollary to my "gut", I'm seeing a number of high net worth individuals and funds who are long Bitcoin looking to reduce their average holding price from the $800-$1000 range and are continuing to pour dry powder into the market. I don't know how long this will last, but it's a stabilising factor to some degree. Given the high beta upside of Bitcoin, I don't think we're going to see a bottom much lower than $350, given that Silicon Valley is awash with liquidity right now and the general consensus is that Bitcoin has high upside. The real question is how much selling pressure comes from Coinbase & BitPay.
Again, the title of my piece was aptly named - "Finding Equilibrium", no-one knows for certain what the true value of a Bitcoin is but it's really a factor of balancing fiat into Bitcoin and fiat out of Bitcoin that will determine the short term price. The long term utility and use cases of Bitcoin are yet to be defined and proven and as a result placing the value on a single coin is undeterminable right now - it's just speculation and psychology intertwined.
External factors aside. If Bitcoin lives up to half the promises and expectations from it's enthusiasts, the outcome will be a price greater than 10x the current price. So, if you assume a 10x payback, you would buy Bitcoin at $450 if you thought it only had a 10% chance of success. On the basis of that logic alone, I'm still a buyer... (and also a keen poker player, of course)
Besides even if you are 100% correct, your point is irrelevant. If those merchants were increasing their savings of BTC instead, then there would be more upwards pressure on the fiat price of BTC.
Also remember M x V = P x Q. Thus increasing V increases P or Q (in our case we want Q which is quantity of merchants who hold BTC). You make the mistake of thinking value come from a equilibrium of stock. Rather value comes from flows. If the flows are actually occurring in the fiat, then the value from those flows is lost from BTC because there isn't an apparency of more money stock (M x V). Risto apparently can't do this level of math. In short, we increase the # of merchants who accept fiat, not who accept BTC. The switcheroo will later be trivial.
And there was also the issue that miners have razor thin margins now and must convert more to fiat.
The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.
Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
Bitpay and coinbase are on the edges of the bitcoin economy. What's important to note is that they continually push the edges outward.
Just as merchants were motivated to accept bitcoin through bitpay (because it's virtually no risk), the same will happen with those merchants' suppliers. And once that happens, the merchants don't need to completely convert to fiat anymore. Eventually the merchant can keep their income in bitcoin, and it's the suppliers who use bitpay.
What's going to stop the edges from moving outward?
Quote
What fool would lose 3-5% spread (at least) on two times exchanges instead of paying 0% to spend the fiat with a credit card?
And cause a premature capital gains event.
And cause a premature capital gains event.
If you lose money on the two exchanges, how do you have capital gains?
The reason is that people who buy on overstock or tigerdirect are just buying more bitcoin to replace what they spent. They originally bought the bitcoin as an investment, they are excited to be able to use it for something, but they don't want to exit their position.
I don't have any solid numbers to support this assertion, but I don't think anyone does. The takeaway is that the selling pressure is lower when you take into account the behavior of current retail bitcoin customers.
I don't have any solid numbers to support this assertion, but I don't think anyone does. The takeaway is that the selling pressure is lower when you take into account the behavior of current retail bitcoin customers.
You don't have any data. I have spent 2 or 3 BTC and did not replace it. Occam's Razor says it is not likely that it is isn't lossy in spite of the best intentions.
Besides even if you are 100% correct, your point is irrelevant. If those merchants were increasing their savings of BTC instead, then there would be more upwards pressure on the fiat price of BTC.
Also remember M x V = P x Q. Thus increasing V increases P or Q (in our case we want Q which is quantity of merchants who hold BTC). You make the mistake of thinking value come from a equilibrium of stock. Rather value comes from flows. If the flows are actually occurring in the fiat, then the value from those flows is lost from BTC because there isn't an apparency of more money stock (M x V). Risto apparently can't do this level of math. In short, we increase the # of merchants who accept fiat, not who accept BTC. The switcheroo will later be trivial.
And there was also the issue that miners have razor thin margins now and must convert more to fiat.
The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.
Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
What fool would lose 3-5% spread (at least) on two times exchanges instead of paying 0% to spend the fiat with a credit card?
And cause a premature capital gains event.
And then only accomplish destroying our collective liberty.
Incredible powers of logic!
Serious parties are being contacted. And will reap incredible wealth because of it (and be able to hang on to it). You know who you are.
In spite of my disappointment (dejection and depression) in our moderator, I thank him for allowing me to post.
Bitcoin is wonderful for merchants (no chargebacks) but sucks and for consumers .
FTFY.
I used Etch-A-Sketch in kindergarten too.
Boycotting merchants who don't use BTC as their unit-of-account will prevent mass adoption. Thus we can now be sure that BTC is converting itself to fiat. And anyone supporting BTC and claiming it helps us get away from fiat is just full of BS.
It will depend on the quality of fiat. For the majority of the countries out there BTC is better than hard currency like the USD or EUR, because in many cases they have restrictions regarding foreign exchange. Convertibility to better quality fiat, which is regarded as "stable", is another issue though. But EU and USA are like 1/10th of the world's population, not 100%.
By the time the confiscation begin in EU (2015?), then you better pray you have a serious anonymous coin because Bitcoin ain't gonna help you hide it.
And Darkcoin's developer is actually saying he doesn't want to try to make it anonymous:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6019142
Bitcoin is wonderful for merchants (no chargebacks) but sucks and for consumers .
FTFY.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
Liberty might be the only thing I'm able to be serious about. What are my options? I can't code, nor am I an engineer. So far my activity has been limited to traveling the world and spreading ideas of liberty and explaining crypto to people.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRMThought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
Tis folly to be wise.
--Thomas Gray 1742
If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out.
But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low,
it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor,
exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly
allow itself to be boiled to death.
--Daniel Quinn's The Story of B 1996
It’s amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
--Thomas Sowell
Bitcoin is slave to fiat for as long as the merchants predominantly want fiat, because this drains fiat from the ecosystem as investors bring fiat into the ecosystem.
It's not only "investors" that are bringing money in the system but also any person who is converting Fiat for bitcoin with the intent to use it to make payments. In this case it is closer to a currency conversion. If I sell my EUR to buy USD to buy something in the USA, I am not "investing" in the USD.
If people are happy with the way the transaction happened, they are likely to convert their fiat into more bitcoin for later use. Probably a bit more than they used last time because past experience increases confidence in the technology and perceived utility.
About the investors and their use of bitcoin, of course they are less likely to buy-back right away after a purchase at a time when the price is going down. For this reason the point of Risto makes sense in that it only makes the reversal more pronounced when all the people who spent coins feel that we have bottomed, price keeps rising and they have to panic buy.
If Bitpay grows 3 times faster than adoption, the question lies in the rate of replacement amongst the buyers with bitcoin. Do you know how the bitcoin position of consumers in bitcoin is evolving ? What if they would be re-converting as much as they spend ? Then even a stagnant adoption would mean a stagnant price, not an endless drop. And a growing adoption would mean a rising price. And what if existing bitcoin consumers are actually converting more fiat than last time at each conversion ?
The question is : do you have data that proves that the bitcoin going through bitpay are "getting rid of", as opposed to "being used and replaced" ?
... people who buy on overstock or tigerdirect are just buying more bitcoin to replace what they spent. They originally bought the bitcoin as an investment, they are excited to be able to use it for something, but they don't want to exit their position. ... The takeaway is that the selling pressure is lower when you take into account the behavior of current retail bitcoin customers.
I agree with jmw. Merchant adoption probably does create some downward pressure on the bitcoin price (short term only) for the reasons that were well-articulated in Vinny's article [1] (which is one reason why I brought it to the attention of this thread), but jmw points out why that downward pressure may be limited.I don't think this was mentioned in the article, but here's another source of short-term downward pressure on the bitcoin price: I wonder how many early adopters are currently selling off bitcoin to cover unexpected capital gains taxes? I for one played around with arbitrage in 2013, not realizing that when I bought from exchange A at $200 and sold at exchange B at $210, I was incurring capital gains. (Luckily my base was 2011, so it's long term cap gains. And luckily I am fundamentally a hodl'er, not a day trader, so my cap gains was pretty small.)
[1] Finding Equilibrium : Searching for the true value of a Bitcoin
Vinny Lingham, CEO of Gyft
https://medium.com/p/ba5f3fcce103
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
Boycotting merchants who don't use BTC as their unit-of-account will prevent mass adoption. Thus we can now be sure that BTC is converting itself to fiat. And anyone supporting BTC and claiming it helps us get away from fiat is just full of BS.
It will depend on the quality of fiat. For the majority of the countries out there BTC is better than hard currency like the USD or EUR, because in many cases they have restrictions regarding foreign exchange. Convertibility to better quality fiat, which is regarded as "stable", is another issue though. But EU and USA are like 1/10th of the world's population, not 100%.
The crucial thing is, that aminorex has been persistently wrong on the one thing I care about the most when reading this forum.
I rarely comment on short term price movements, which I think is your primary if not exclusive interest. I am not consistently wrong on that when I do. If I were, I would long since have learned to autofade.
You will rarely if ever find my comments useful. I am much concerned with encouraging weak hands. You don't need or want that. You are almost certainly better off putting me on ignore.
As a neutral third party I personally find both aminorex's and MatTheCat's posts valuable and interesting. The focus is entirely different long terms predictive models versus short term daytrading which I suppose accounts for the bizarre animosity.
My message to the two of you would be to both keep up what you are doing as I enjoy your posts. However, maybe putting each other on ignore might not be such a bad idea
I don't like to post again, but it seems no one can figure out obvious analysis without my posts.
I guess I am not surprised Risto that you haven't figured out the math yet. I guess you just aren't that bright. I have had many indications of it.
It BTC was a unit-of-account at merchants, then all BTC spends would never enter the market as asks for fiat.
The fiat bidding to invest in BTC is not increased by those Bitpay transactions, thus there is an increase in asks / bid ratio. Thus price must goes down in order to balance.
Only a dunce can't do that math.
znaky, how do you know I haven't used BTC to buy things with merchants that take Bitpay? How do you think I could otherwise anonymously purchased the domains for an altcoin. I guess there are anonymous Visa debt cards, but would be much more hassle. Didn't think of that huh before you started your ad hominem diatribe.
I guess I am not surprised Risto that you haven't figured out the math yet. I guess you just aren't that bright. I have had many indications of it.
It BTC was a unit-of-account at merchants, then all BTC spends would never enter the market as asks for fiat.
The fiat bidding to invest in BTC is not increased by those Bitpay transactions, thus there is an increase in asks / bid ratio. Thus price must goes down in order to balance.
Only a dunce can't do that math.
znaky, how do you know I haven't used BTC to buy things with merchants that take Bitpay? How do you think I could otherwise anonymously purchased the domains for an altcoin. I guess there are anonymous Visa debt cards, but would be much more hassle. Didn't think of that huh before you started your ad hominem diatribe.
Seems the emotional and defensive card has been passed along...
I don't like to post again, but it seems no one can figure out obvious analysis without my posts.
I guess I am not surprised Risto that you haven't figured out the math yet. I guess you just aren't that bright. I have had many indications of it.
It BTC was a unit-of-account at merchants, then all BTC spends at merchants would never enter the market as asks for fiat.
The fiat bidding to invest in BTC is not increased by those Bitpay transactions, thus there is an increase in asks / bid ratio. Thus price must goes down in order to balance.
Only a dunce can't do that math.
I guess also you don't know how to do compounding. Otherwise you would have easily calculated that Bitpay is growing much faster than adoption. 3X per month! (that will slow as small things grow faster and that was Xmas surge, nevertheless it is still growing faster than adoption)
Bitcoin is slave to fiat for as long as the merchants predominantly want fiat, because this drains fiat from the ecosystem as investors bring fiat into the ecosystem.
Boycotting merchants who don't use BTC as their unit-of-account would prevent mass adoption. Thus we can now be sure that BTC is converting itself to fiat. And anyone supporting BTC and claiming it helps us get away from fiat is just full of BS.
I am tired of you Risto. You are a threat to humanity. Go ahead with your incessant pushing of Bitcoin. I am very disappointed in you. I thought you were a genuine defender of liberty. Instead you are only interested in wealth. Thanks for letting me speak, but I am not interested in you any more. I have deleted you from Skype and deleted my CryptoCrypt account.
znaky, how do you know I haven't used BTC to buy things with merchants that take Bitpay? How do you think I could otherwise anonymously purchased the domains for an altcoin. I guess there are anonymous Visa debt cards, but would be much more hassle. Didn't think of that huh before you started your ad hominem diatribe.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Did you graduate from kindergarten.
If there are any adults who are interested in defending liberty, then you are welcome to help those of us who are serious. I don't have any more time trying to convert those who deserve their fate.
You don't have any data. I have spent 2 or 3 BTC and did not replace it. Occam's Razor says it is not likely that it is isn't lossy in spite of the best intentions.
Besides even if you are 100% correct, your point is irrelevant. If those merchants were increasing their savings of BTC instead, then there would be more upwards pressure on the fiat price of BTC.
Also remember M x V = P x Q. Thus increasing V increases P or Q (in our case we want Q which is quantity of merchants who hold BTC). You make the mistake of thinking value come from a equilibrium of stock. Rather value comes from flows. If the flows are actually occurring in the fiat, then the value from those flows is lost from BTC because there isn't an apparency of more money stock (M x V). Risto apparently can't do this level of math. In short, we increase the # of merchants who accept fiat, not who accept BTC. The switcheroo will later be trivial.
And there was also the issue that miners have razor thin margins now and must convert more to fiat.
The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.
Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
I guess I am not surprised Risto that you haven't figured out the math yet. I guess you just aren't that bright. I have had many indications of it.
It BTC was a unit-of-account at merchants, then all BTC spends at merchants would never enter the market as asks for fiat.
The fiat bidding to invest in BTC is not increased by those Bitpay transactions, thus there is an increase in asks / bid ratio. Thus price must goes down in order to balance.
Only a dunce can't do that math.
I guess also you don't know how to do compounding. Otherwise you would have easily calculated that Bitpay is growing much faster than adoption. 3X per month! (that will slow as small things grow faster and that was Xmas surge, nevertheless it is still growing faster than adoption)
Bitcoin is slave to fiat for as long as the merchants predominantly want fiat, because this drains fiat from the ecosystem as investors bring fiat into the ecosystem.
Boycotting merchants who don't use BTC as their unit-of-account would prevent mass adoption. Thus we can now be sure that BTC is converting itself to fiat. And anyone supporting BTC and claiming it helps us get away from fiat is just full of BS.
I am tired of you Risto. You are a threat to humanity. Go ahead with your incessant pushing of Bitcoin. I am very disappointed in you. I thought you were a genuine defender of liberty. Instead you are only interested in wealth. Thanks for letting me speak, but I am not interested in you any more. I have deleted you from Skype and deleted my CryptoCrypt account.
znaky, how do you know I haven't used BTC to buy things with merchants that take Bitpay? How do you think I could otherwise anonymously purchased the domains for an altcoin. I guess there are anonymous Visa debt cards, but would be much more hassle. Didn't think of that huh before you started your ad hominem diatribe.
Seems the emotional and defensive card has been passed along...
What the hell is wrong with you people? Did you graduate from kindergarten.
If there are any adults who are interested in defending liberty, then you are welcome to help those of us who are serious. I don't have any more time trying to convert those who deserve their fate.
The reason is that people who buy on overstock or tigerdirect are just buying more bitcoin to replace what they spent. They originally bought the bitcoin as an investment, they are excited to be able to use it for something, but they don't want to exit their position.
I don't have any solid numbers to support this assertion, but I don't think anyone does. The takeaway is that the selling pressure is lower when you take into account the behavior of current retail bitcoin customers.
I don't have any solid numbers to support this assertion, but I don't think anyone does. The takeaway is that the selling pressure is lower when you take into account the behavior of current retail bitcoin customers.
You don't have any data. I have spent 2 or 3 BTC and did not replace it. Occam's Razor says it is not likely that it is isn't lossy in spite of the best intentions.
Besides even if you are 100% correct, your point is irrelevant. If those merchants were increasing their savings of BTC instead, then there would be more upwards pressure on the fiat price of BTC.
Also remember M x V = P x Q. Thus increasing V increases P or Q (in our case we want Q which is quantity of merchants who hold BTC). You make the mistake of thinking value come from a equilibrium of stock. Rather value comes from flows. If the flows are actually occurring in the fiat, then the value from those flows is lost from BTC because there isn't an apparency of more money stock (M x V). Risto apparently can't do this level of math. In short, we increase the # of merchants who accept fiat, not who accept BTC. The switcheroo will later be trivial.
And there was also the issue that miners have razor thin margins now and must convert more to fiat.
The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.
Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.
Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.
The reason is that people who buy on overstock or tigerdirect are just buying more bitcoin to replace what they spent. They originally bought the bitcoin as an investment, they are excited to be able to use it for something, but they don't want to exit their position.
I always buy back the same or exceeding the amount I just spent. It's a rule I've always stuck to over the years.
Yes. We gave some away at Christmas and just bought back what we gave. It is nice to end up with the same amount or more Bitcoin at this stage of it's growth for sure!
Jump to: