Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 96. (Read 907229 times)
Dumps started to begin more frequent so we would notice that and also dump outselfs. The walls are of course from the dumper.
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
He called the bottom 1,5 month ago.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-calling-the-bottom-740394
I think there are not many people who really know.
I also called the bottom 2 weeks ago, now look
I knew this was happening.. we arent at a bottom yet... it all depends on LTC not btc... we need to go down on LTC then both will bottom.
Ive got it in my posts i posted a bunch of times.. its volume/price correlation. Been using it for over a year... its what kept me out since then (well not really... i bought some at a little under $500 to buy btsx which I am up as a whole on because im largely more bullish on btsx than btc right now). It's also what will get me in at the right time.. and I think we are close.
Do you perhaps have a link or topic where btsx is briefly explained?
$300 here we come?
I knew this was happening.. we arent at a bottom yet... it all depends on LTC not btc... we need to go down on LTC then both will bottom.
Ive got it in my posts i posted a bunch of times.. its volume/price correlation. Been using it for over a year... its what kept me out since then (well not really... i bought some at a little under $500 to buy btsx which I am up as a whole on because im largely more bullish on btsx than btc right now). It's also what will get me in at the right time.. and I think we are close.
Interesting. I could not find your posts very quickly, but I will keep it in mind for future reference.
But about the LTC, do you mean BTC or USD pair?
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
He called the bottom 1,5 month ago.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-calling-the-bottom-740394
I think there are not many people who really know.
I also called the bottom 2 weeks ago, now look
I knew this was happening.. we arent at a bottom yet... it all depends on LTC not btc... we need to go down on LTC then both will bottom.
Ive got it in my posts i posted a bunch of times.. its volume/price correlation. Been using it for over a year... its what kept me out since then (well not really... i bought some at a little under $500 to buy btsx which I am up as a whole on because im largely more bullish on btsx than btc right now). It's also what will get me in at the right time.. and I think we are close.
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
He called the bottom 1,5 month ago.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-calling-the-bottom-740394
I think there are not many people who really know.
I also called the bottom 2 weeks ago, now look
I knew this was happening.. we arent at a bottom yet... it all depends on LTC not btc... we need to go down on LTC then both will bottom.
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
He called the bottom 1,5 month ago.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-calling-the-bottom-740394
I think there are not many people who really know.
I also called the bottom 2 weeks ago, now look
I knew this was happening.. we arent at a bottom yet... it all depends on LTC not btc... we need to go down on LTC then both will bottom.
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
He called the bottom 1,5 month ago.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-calling-the-bottom-740394
I think there are not many people who really know.
I also called the bottom 2 weeks ago, now look
The problem is that it will not happen in the near future.
Real life is in dollars. You have to buy hardware parts in dollars to build mining rig. You pay electricity in dollars. So unfortunately for all of us, it is gonna crash hard...
It is a sign of tulipomania when people don't want to ear any bearish prediction (or put anyone that disagree with them on ignore list).
Listen to all opinions. All of them make a market not only the one in your head.
Guys, stay smart and factual.
The problem is that your statements are bald assertions that demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the complexity of the Bitcoin economy, not an educated opinion.
rpietilla, what's your price projection for the end of the year? is btc going further into bear market or we will see a recovery?
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
The problem is that it will not happen in the near future.
Real life is in dollars. You have to buy hardware parts in dollars to build mining rig. You pay electricity in dollars. So unfortunately for all of us, it is gonna crash hard...
It is a sign of tulipomania when people don't want to ear any bearish prediction (or put anyone that disagree with them on ignore list).
Listen to all opinions. All of them make a market not only the one in your head.
Guys, stay smart and factual.
stay factual yet listen to all opinions? sounds like a waste of time...
you should know that most orders from the earliest ASIC chips were denominated in BTC, even before that many components for GPU riga could be bought in BTC.
you don't understand the complexities of this economy and how it works. what is happening now has very little to do with people paying electric bills.
even the explanation above is rather simplistic and 1 dimensional.
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
The problem is that it will not happen in the near future.
Real life is in dollars. You have to buy hardware parts in dollars to build mining rig. You pay electricity in dollars. So unfortunately for all of us, it is gonna crash hard...
It is a sign of tulipomania when people don't want to ear any bearish prediction (or put anyone that disagree with them on ignore list).
Listen to all opinions. All of them make a market not only the one in your head.
Guys, stay smart and factual.
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
The problem is that it will not happen in the near future.
Real life is in dollars. You have to buy hardware parts in dollars to build mining rig. You pay electricity in dollars. So unfortunately for all of us, it is gonna crash hard...
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
The problem is that it will not happen in the near future.
Real life is in dollars. You have to buy hardware parts in dollars to build mining rig. You pay electricity in dollars. So unfortunately for all of us, it is gonna crash hard...
Cryptocurrencies are weird animals, as far as markets are concerned. There is a great degree of anomalous behavior that allow the markets to behave in a less "rational" and predictable manner.
With hundreds of thousands of BTCs hacked and on the loose, a single hacker can crash the price for the lulz by dumping a small percentage of his holdings, and make everyone wonder "is it the Alibaba? Is it price stagnation? Is it something else? Why is someone selling below mining costs?" when the accrual of hacked BTCs might have come at zero cost for him - so he can dump at will, without much price consideration... any price is good as far as he's concerned.
Most analyses overlook that aspect, expecting the market to be 100% "rational", which it would be if every player had a normal accumulation cost and a normal exit strategy / trading strategy.
This was further highlighted with the altcoin exodus a few weeks back when -what I suspect were hacked BTCs- were pulled out of altcoin investments with totally irrational liquidation prices.
With hundreds of thousands of BTCs hacked and on the loose, a single hacker can crash the price for the lulz by dumping a small percentage of his holdings, and make everyone wonder "is it the Alibaba? Is it price stagnation? Is it something else? Why is someone selling below mining costs?" when the accrual of hacked BTCs might have come at zero cost for him - so he can dump at will, without much price consideration... any price is good as far as he's concerned.
Most analyses overlook that aspect, expecting the market to be 100% "rational", which it would be if every player had a normal accumulation cost and a normal exit strategy / trading strategy.
This was further highlighted with the altcoin exodus a few weeks back when -what I suspect were hacked BTCs- were pulled out of altcoin investments with totally irrational liquidation prices.
yes let the BTC move into Alts, move them around a bit, then pull them back out. come out with a few POS coins that have a 2 week POS period no one knows about use clean money to mine them. Pump the shit out of them with the dirty, sell out into BTC, cash out like it ain't no thing...
You all don't think it was pure coincidence that suddenly there was interest in "dark" coins with automated mixing.
Also there were some big movements of very old addresses from end of last year to the first half of this year.
Cryptocurrencies are weird animals, as far as markets are concerned. There is a great degree of anomalous behavior that allow the markets to behave in a less "rational" and predictable manner.
With hundreds of thousands of BTCs hacked and on the loose, a single hacker can crash the price for the lulz by dumping a small percentage of his holdings, and make everyone wonder "is it the Alibaba? Is it price stagnation? Is it something else? Why is someone selling below mining costs?" when the accrual of hacked BTCs might have come at zero cost for him - so he can dump at will, without much price consideration... any price is good as far as he's concerned.
Most analyses overlook that aspect, expecting the market to be 100% "rational", which it would be if every player had a normal accumulation cost and a normal exit strategy / trading strategy.
This was further highlighted with the altcoin exodus a few weeks back when -what I suspect were hacked BTCs- were pulled out of altcoin investments with totally irrational liquidation prices.
With hundreds of thousands of BTCs hacked and on the loose, a single hacker can crash the price for the lulz by dumping a small percentage of his holdings, and make everyone wonder "is it the Alibaba? Is it price stagnation? Is it something else? Why is someone selling below mining costs?" when the accrual of hacked BTCs might have come at zero cost for him - so he can dump at will, without much price consideration... any price is good as far as he's concerned.
Most analyses overlook that aspect, expecting the market to be 100% "rational", which it would be if every player had a normal accumulation cost and a normal exit strategy / trading strategy.
This was further highlighted with the altcoin exodus a few weeks back when -what I suspect were hacked BTCs- were pulled out of altcoin investments with totally irrational liquidation prices.
Simple, brilliant conclusion
that is a fascinating analysis.
It's highly likely to be true. It also matches Zangelbert Bingledack's earlier analysis https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9007751
I think for the first time I understand the driver of the massive ramps in Bitcoin's long-term price.
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
that is a fascinating analysis.
It's highly likely to be true. It also matches Zangelbert Bingledack's earlier analysis https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9007751
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
that is a fascinating analysis.
Can someone explain me why the hashrate going up is good for the price?
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I mean, I know economics. I know that the supply is a function of price and cost. So if cost goes up for miners, then the supply will shrink. But why the hashrate should be consider as proxy of cost?
It's is quite possible that the cost for most of the miners is actually going down while the hashrate and difficulty are increasing. If there is a consolidation of the mining market, big mining farms are making economy of scales, so their margins increase while the hashrate increase too, so they could very well selling a greater proportion of their mined coins to enjoy their high margin.
All of that to say that I am not convince that the hashrate is a good proxy for evaluating the cost of mining BTC, therefore not necessary a good indicator for the future price of BTC.
I agree with you. There have been lengthy arguments about "hashrate follows price" or "price follows hashrate" for years now. I'm in the former camp.
I was never involved in that argument about hash rate follows price / price follows hash rate, so ill chip in here
I think both happens but cyclically.As price rises so does hashrate, however hash rate lags price. As the price climbs people start to see mining gear as a better investment then buying BTC direct, so less money goes into the market and more goes into mining. This causes a cyclical top. When price tops out you still have a buttload of hash rate that is on order, waiting to be deployed, or in the process of coming online. As price drops, this puts pressure on miners to sell, and as the hash rate increases so does selling pressure, at which point price starts to lag hash rate. As mining becomes less profitable the tide changes, all the money going into mining gear shifts back to buying cheap coin. Which drives up demand, only this time there is even more dollars chasing that limited supply (based on the principal that adoption is constantly increasing). As the prise starts to rise, miners are able to recoup their capital investment in dollar terms and start to think that perhaps holding is a better option, as the price is rising. This cuts supply and drives the price higher, and thus the cycle repeats.
This cycle exists because miners are (imho wrongly) still measuring things in dollars. When miners start looking in terms of BTC only thats when this cycle will start to break down. That's where your piece of pie comes in, and thats what people should really be looking at long term. (miners or investors). If BTC becomes money, what percentage of it do you own.
When you compare that to the present situation with dollars, pounds or whatever your local currency, you see how little you need just to 'hedge' your position. It astounds me that people don't at least buy that *just in case* especially given how little that actually costs right now.
I guess thats why banks are so rich though eh
Jump to: