Topic: The money is not disappearing - page 2. (Read 2083 times)

I couldn't have moved them, that was my first reply in the thread.

You did in fact shift the goal posts, in two ways:

many of the original investors who felt most strongly became people who invested thousands - you're talking about two different groups of people

are leaving became [not]stay fully exposed - you're talking about two different actions

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make.  You don't have any evidence that any "original investors who felt most strongly" are actually leaving the community in any fashion whatever.  You're simply making an assumption based upon projection of your own perspectives.  That's an opinion, not a fact, as you implied.

Actually you moved the goal posts when you asked me to point to "one person" who left bitcoin and the community I was just refuting your argument and showing that by your target of "one person" I am correct. If you don't like that please choose more carefully when you propose something that the person your arguing with is supposed to show.

Also later I describe how a fall in price suggests a flow of capital out of bitcoins, this therefore means that by logic a large percentage of the funds are moving out of the system.

giarc uses shift goal posts...

It's not very effective!


Bitcoin was never designed to and may never be stable in exchange against fiat currencies.

How would it be possible to prove, the whole system is designed to make it easy to hide who owns what.

 The idea that you are suggesting people who invested thousands are all gonna have enough faith in bitcoins for every one of them to stay fully exposed to bitrcoin is crazy. During busts there are always people who decide the risk inherent is higher than they can handle and so decide to leave, if there weren't the price wouldn't fall. Being in the community isn't enough to support a currency you need holders, good wishes are commn place its people taking on risk in the currency that matters.

I'm not saying this will destroy bitcoin although it might do it damage in the medium term as it takes people time to rebuild confidence in the stability of a currency, exchange rate changes do matter as people rarely can buy and spend their bitcoins instantly.

I challenge you to find one person who held bitcoins a year ago who has sold out and left the community behind.  Accused fraudsters excepted, of course.

And no, Satoshi has not sold out.

In hindsight, I agree with this assessment.  It sure didn't feel like it on the way up, though.  I, for one, could not tell that it was in a bubble above $10 until it was well over $20.  These things are not clear except in retrospect.

I think although the total value of money has not decreased, the value within the bitcoin economy has as the people who sold and left took their money with them and their buy transactions no longer add value to the total pool of bitcoins. Also the fact the currency is falling in value and many of the original investors who felt most strongly are leaving could well damage its future prospects as these are the people who believed in it as a medium of exchange.

This is just one of the risks I see it doesn't mean I don't think it will succeed, just that I still think its far from a sure thing.

There are a few other things I would like to point out. First, if you want to see a skyrocketing bubble, just flip the bitcoin exchange rate around. USD is going through the roof. There's a lot of Bitcoin to be made buying and selling USD.

Second, the market is volatile because the wealth is still diffusing from a high concentration to lower concentration. Notice that the price always staircases up as the small players buy in and then plummits when a major player sells. That's the way it's got to be if you want to move money from the 1% to the 99%. People want to profit from BTC. That requires BTC to be exchanged for something else at least once. Money will tend to move from the few to the many because the player base has increased so much. It's kind of analogous to Fick's Law (scientist, not an economist). The early distribution created a high concentration, low entropy state that was unstable. Value is like potential energy, the owner wants to make the biggest jump down so as to maximize their profit. With a bit of work I think I can make a real theory out of this. Do economists apply the concept of entropy to the movement of money?

Looking at all the graphs and numbers for the past couple of days, I think that the bubble period was an exception, rather than a rule.  We seem to have fallen back to the point where bitcoin value would be if it had grown linearly and the difficulty to produce a new has is dropping back down to a reasonable level for new miners. 

BitCoin was probably not ready for that level yet, but it doesn't mean it still can't grow there.

Agreed. No one likes to talk about the losers when the market is up or the winners when it goes down. But they are both always there.

also, about the forum restrictions: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/newbie-restrictions-15958

A lot of people are talking about how the falling bitcoin prices is making money evaporate, as though Bitcoin is somehow eating up life savings. The only thing that is evaporating is electricity and overheated GPUs, everything else is just changing hands. If you draw an imaginary boundary around all of the people playing the bitcoin exchange game and consider all of the real dollars that they have put into it, there is no sinkhole where dollars are disappearing into. It's just they have redistributed there wealth between the players. It's like playing poker at your buddies house, you came to the table, made a bet, and someone lost and someone won. The people who bought at $30 lost, and the people who sold at $30 won.

Similarly, there was no money tree when the price was ramping up. If you made money, that was late adopters putting cash into your hands. A purely speculative commodity trading environment (which is pretty much what Bitcoin is if you get rid of mining and the constant flux in how many people are playing) is just another type of poker. You are gambling on the actions of other individuals who in turn are gambling on the actions of you and everyone else. In a sense it's more pure than poker because if there is no fundamental value then the game is purely psychological. There is some data to be studied in looking at how many people are joining in based on media attention and whatnot. But I think that the sheep are the minority, and most players are out to make personal profit.

Also, why can't I post anywhere else yet. I've been stuck in this stupid forum for too long.