Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 277. (Read 907227 times)

I don't believe that the ones that bought at higher levels will sell bigger as the price goes lower. One argument would be that i think the most that bought at higher levels can afford to wait at least a few months and weren't so dependent on a very quick profit.

RE point#8. Large and growing mining farms sell ALL of their output. For example, KnC farm sells at least ~10%  of all mined coins daily or $0.5 mil daily. There might be more doing exactly the same.

occam's razor is a cool tool

You are ignoring my point about marginal supply and demand sets price.

We can't use fundamental demand arguments during a speculative move.

The lower the price goes, the more panic selling among those who bought at higher nosebleed levels during the 2013 bubble.

At what price did the huge surge in new buyers come last year? Looking at a volume x price chart from 2013 should tell us where the bottom should be.




You ignore and did not address the point.

Also all jurisdictions are classifying Bitcoin as a commodity or property that is subject to capital gains tax. (It is irrelevant to my point, but Obama and EU are planning to raise taxes to 70%).

Bitcoin will continue to have value because it is an ignorance bubble among white male fanatics. It will also have value because it is the liquid backbone of exchange for an ecosystem that will solve the above problem with altcoins that are superior to Bitcoin. Bitcoin will also grow in value because it is the NWO coin and the governments are going to be promoting it and the institutional players will chime in with government compatible offchain services that eventually get the blessing from the government and exclusions to tax hurdles in order to increase mass adoption. At that point, Bitcoin will be effectively a fiat system. Any way, Bitcoin is already controlled by a few people.

Bottom line is Bitcoin will bottom and then the price will go up again. It is an investment but not a solution to what we wanted idealistically. But it is a necessary stepping stone.




Those bad guys wielded widespread power to pull off what they did and get the entire world to change into a police state against terrorism, yet you attribute relative impotence to them.

Have you not seen the billboards for example in London urging citizens to report anything they see, because of the threat of terrorism. Have you not traveled and seen that nearly all public venues (malls, airports, etc) have security guards that have hissy fits if they see even a hang bag laying unattended.

Or I guess that global coordination was just a random outcome.  

You ignore the overt efforts of for example David Rockefeller who travels the globe working on the global coodination, such as his Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg group. These are all real institutions for global coodination.

You ignore that corporations and media all over the world push this junk science of man-made global warming. Just a random, uncoordinated outcome eh?  




Stay away from that thermonuclear idea. That is outlandish and planted to make us look like kooks.

The best hypothesis I've seen thus far is the buildings were brought down with detonated Thermite cutting charges planted on the steel beams. There is much evidence of this, in spite of the steel was quickly shipped to China to be melted to destroy the evidence. The Thermite (which melts steel) is why it burned hot for weeks as can be seen by aerial IR photography. The melted angle cuts can even be seen on photos of beams from the rubble.

One problem I have with the Thermite hypothesis is that how could timing of the cuts be so tightly coordinated to obtain the free fall implosion onto self. Perhaps the Thermite was combined with traditional demolition charges. I haven't followed the detailed developments much in many years because the evidence is mostly destroyed and my understanding is satisfied based on other analysis that the government's story was impossible. Knowing we've been lied to and that it required some form of demolition is sufficient to prod me into the activities I am doing now to defeat this slide into totalitarianism.

I'm definitely not panicking. I've been buying for the last few days because even though it seems TA is based off a disintegrating perspective - I'm gambling it will continue for now. Personally I think the tax issue is incredibly inflated. My main concern is continuing collapse. A lot of recent adopters are disillusioned from their [insane] expectations. What I'm really interested in is a ~definitive outlook that accounts for this.

Once the majority of adopters realize this isn't a new economic paradigm (at least for common purposes), what will the market look like? How much will adoption decrease if at all? I could definitely be overestimating the amount of speculative holders/opportunistic futurists but I'm assuming many recent btc users have adopted on false pretenses. Most people probably don't recognize the systems utility outside of personal gain, if they're a futurist then maybe they saw it's utility in terms of an alternative medium of exchange. How many people here are hodling due to tech prospects...

Well...  $400US puts @ bitstamp(?) with what expiry date?

I sent a PM by the way...

Looks like we are getting close to a "bottom".

Let the weak hands sell.

If you anticipate a violent move down OR quick turnaround (but don't know which one), it makes sense for you to buy puts.

The reason this is tempting is exactly because of the panicking.  I see it as a possible way that you would help me add to my position without using an exchange.

I think if we do not move up sharply and soon the next support level should be around 325, and I doubt even that holds long.  And I don't see why we would start moving up yet.  Along with bearish sentiment rising we have some sick fundamental issues (china, china, china).

What a wallet software needs to do is that every time you receive bitcoins, it prompts you to enter a "fiat cost basis" in other words how much you paid for them. If not entered, it uses a daily average. When you spend bitcoins, you can order it to automatically spend the ones where you pay the least tax. Because bitcoins are NONfungible, the taxman must accept this. You can always review the balance and print out the tax form.

This is actually better than with precious metals, because they are defined fungible, and I must use FIFO accounting. This tailormade accounting is way better

Only way when you must pay a lot of tax is when both of the following are fulfilled:
a) your expenditures are more than your income - otherwise you can spend your income, acquired at about the same price
b) bitcoin price has risen a lot - making great taxable gains for the early purchases

If you think about the situation more carefully, I am sure you agree that it is only fair to be taxed if and only if you are living off your obscene bitcoin gains, and not taxed otherwise.

LOL  

I would imagine that being programmable money this fungibility issue could actually be resolved in quite a clever automated way.

Because price is now low, people are making this supposed loss of fungibility a big issue, as if it was the end of everything. We have been dealing with this kind of legislation in the PM industry for decades and it is not a big deal. It is not the reason why PM's are not practical to be used as money.

Sure you have to pay taxes on gains, but the fact that you have gains should be the interesting thing here. Even if there was a blockchain-level registration of all your bitcoins, and requirement to keep track of the cost basis of every satoshi, you would not even notice given proper software. This ruling is the beginning of all good things bitcoin, except the loss of anonymity which wasn't there to begin with.

Besides I am sick with this US-centricism. There are 220 other legislations out there to choose from if you don't like the ruling. In my opinion it was very reasonable and I can only dream of 18% cgt rates here..

TL;DR: You are just panicking. Sell all your bitcoins to me.

So this renders all of the speculation regarding mass adoption rate null. In the hypothetical you offered wouldn't fongibility still be a significant issue considering capital gains? Does your funds transfer theory of btc assume significantly less volatility? We know that the minting rate decreases over time and that demand will eventually taper off as well. How do we know there will be an acceptable rate of deflation? Won't any deflation require deduction of capital gains for each transaction? Is this not an issue or did I misunderstand something?

In terms of investing, is it possible to estimate a value for that hypothetical market? Shouldn't we shift our focus to determining the utility as a medium for efficient transfers. The current fervor has assumed adoption on an epic scale. Would this not lead to a massive price correction, or are there non-apparent price floors at play?



 

Yes, it makes sense in my situation. I am not keen on sending lots of money to exchanges to increase the position (lost some on Gox), but would like to increase it (or pocket the premium if it never goes that low).


Selling puts is actually increasing my position. Whether the total position changes or not, you cannot determine unless knowing my accounts.

good to know rpietila is exiting his position from Bitcoin

Are you saying you are truly interested in selling 100btc puts?

This represents too much of my holdings to play with... but I could be interested in a smaller amount.

Not sure yet.  It's foggy out there now.

Exactly as it should be. Now we are finally there.

I am interested in any kind of deal which effectively means that you will have insurance that your BTC can be sold for $400 regardless of the numbers in any exchange. (It is called "buying a put option"). BTC100 minimum. PM.

The forums activity in general is pretty dead actually, a lot of new people lost money i assume (bought at the $1000) so they observe instead of participate. New memberships are also low and i don't see old timers as i used to, it does feel kinda deserted lol.

ADD: It is official, bitcoin is now dead. So the average historical return for the next 12 months is about 1,000%. DYODD.

There are two things to distinguish : bitcoin as a payment technology and bitcoin as a unit of value. These are two completely different things and most of the confusion in the media and in the mind of people is linked to the fact that we have named the platform/ecosystem and the "system units" with the exact same name.
The author of the bye bye bitcoin article assumes that bitcoin needs to be used as a unit of monetary value to have a commercial role, which is absolutely not the case.
Good and services can be denominated in FIAT currency, but bought through a web of services that are built on the bitcoin technology rather than through Visa Mastercard for exemple.
Where this leads us is that bitcoin will not be used that much as a direct payment unit by the masses. In such scenario, we would not see prices denominated in bitcoins and people paying from their personal bitcoin wallet due to the non-fongibility concerns created by authorities like the IRS.
However, we can still see the huge development in the use of the bitcoin technology in the context of exclusive FIAT denomination of goods and services and exclusive FIAT denomination of the funds of the consumer. This is what is completely missed by that Georgetown law professor who mixes the bitcoin technology with the unit of monetary exchange function.
What must be understood is that each bitcoin is nothing else than a piece of the bitcoin system. Wether individual consumers need bitcoin or not to make payments is not very relevant if they are going to use a service that does use bitcoin. Because in that case the bitcoin will need to be held by the companies who operate the services that are based on the technology. If large volumes are traded on services that are using this technology, the bitcoin value will have to reflect in FIAT value, the FIAT value of these trading volumes.

Bitcoin is growing up from a gadget that people are sending directly between themselves to being a payment system technology. Claims that the technology is not suitable are based on the current experience based on the current ecosystem in which there are almost no big companies offering user interfaces, offering insurances, hiding the complexities at technical, fiscal, legal and all other levels.

Imagine for exemple the application of the "pay for online content" use, where website and content providers can ask the payment of a fee for a direct access to their content wether it is a single article, a video or whatever. Today they have to do it as a recurring monthly fee because most people would not bother going through a purchase with credit card to pay a few cents and the transaction fees would not make it possible. But if people know of a company who is managing this, you just install a browser plugin, you have your credit card linked with your account with that company, and that company gives you access to all the content, automatically deducting your account of the few USD cents. What happened behind the doors ? There was a bitcoin based transaction at the moment you authorised your browser plugin to charge you a fee for that content : the company offering you that browser plugin will send bitcoin to the company having the deal with the content provider. But wether you are the content consumer or the content provider, you are not concerned about it. Only the company offering the service to you and the company offering content providers to be paid will be using the technology and will have used a portion of the 12 million BTC "system units" in existence to reflect the monetary value of the transaction.

So, no. BTC will not replace USD or EUR in the monetary denomination because it cannot be a monetary unit. It's volatility and non-fungibility in some countries make it impossible. It is rather a share of the usability of an ecosystem. Even if the analogy is far from complete, we can say that you don't need a Facebook share to use Facebook. Yet the facebook share value reflects the amount of users that are using the platform. If it was misunderstood that one had to actually buy Facebook shares to open a Facebook account and use the platform, it would be easy for experts to claim that this social website would not work. Not because the social website could not function, but because of their misunderstanding.

What we are seeing right now is the death of the dream of the new universal monetary unit that some imagined BTC would have become. At some higher level it will always be a unit of exchange, but not for the masses. At the same time, after a technological breakthrough, we are witnessing the birth of an ecosystem of services that would offer tremendous value to a big portion of the population. Today, it seems that this ecosystem is going to be built on 12 million "system units" or "shares" called bitcoins, which is what gives them a speculative and theoretical value far beyond today's value.

The value of Bitcoin must go down for all that it cannot and will not be. Similarly, it will go up for all that it can and will be.