Topic: the order of declines (Read 2240 times)

Oh trust me, they will.

The only reason why it doesn't matter much now is because a great portion of transactions are done online via business purchases and exchanges and not p2p or in person.  When a person is sending emergency money to a relative 3,000 miles away or wants to snipe an auction item last second, and it takes 10-15 minutes for the payment to be confirmed and credited/usable...then people will start to realize how dated the protocol really is.  The only reason why it's acceptable right now is because it's not being used by the 'common consumer' but rather bitcoin believers and grassroots supporters that represent a mere microfragment of the market segment.

I don't actually think that more than 80% of the people who know about bitcoin know as deep tehcnical knowledge about it to worry about an altcoin being better.
The only reason for decline is people selling in fear of losing more money due to price falling further.

The technology is still very young, relatively speaking.  And basically every altcoin has many more real world advantages over bitcoin.  

So while bitcoin currently holds the 'popularity' crown this early in the race, I wouldn't quite hold so much confidence in that notion.  The technological segment can be cruel and unforgiving. 

TCP/IP is still around.
basically, all i am saying is-show me a real contender-and you might be proven right.
Right now bitcoin is supported by ~300PH of computing power plus there are ten, maybe hundred times more people working on bitcoin vs alts.
Nothing else comes close, but my eyes are open.

You must be extremely young.

Almost every company/technology listed held a domineering lead in their respective fields for a good amount of time.


Google? LOL.  If your frame of reference is that short sighted, then I'll just assume you're 12 years old and think Apple were the pioneers of the cellular world lol.

Altavista, Lycos, and Geocities were all front runners in the internet search engine biz in the mid to late 90's, long before Google stormed onto the scene.

And you know why the only 2 examples you gave are still around and going strong?  Because they constantly evolve with the people and create new technologies to appease ever changing user needs.  Bitcoin doesn't do that.  It's protocol has evolved very little if any over the course of it's life.  It does not grow with the population...it just hopes that the population adapts to it.

The bitcoin protocol is the first.  And thus the most primitive of it's kind.  It offers no real-world advantages compared to its successors with exception to the fact that companies are investing in it strictly because of this premise.  But that is far from a guarantee of sustenance...since things move extremely quickly in the technological world, and what is here one day can just as easily be gone tomorrow and replaced by something 'better.'

After all, the same argument bitcoiners make about its benefits vs. fiat, are the same arguments that could be made for altcoin2.0 vs bitcoin.  

Well, AAPL and MSFT are both standing pretty good after ~40 years at ~1tril in market cap between them.
Try to dislodge GOOG with a new search engine-it's very unlikely.
Your examples do not really hold water as none of these mentioned had managed to hold on to a dominant market share for a long time.
Bitcoin has >90% market share for more than 5 years already.
Show me something that suddenly gains >50% market share and I might agree with you

Newsflash: The feds (aka jp morgan) already owns 60% of the world's gold derivatives.  It's the modern day hunt brothers scenario, but with much bigger and greedier hands.

It's not like they're just suddenly looking to invest.  They control the market...and you best believe if shtf the first thing to see an astronomical rise are good ol' tried and tested precious metals.   There's a reason why they abandoned the gold standard.  Because at the end of the day when all the dust clears, they want to be the only ones holding the loot and having the population on their knees.   Bitcoin now and never will be in their sights.  If they were really interested in the bitcoin protocol, they'll just create their own coin lol.  They have no need for the outdated original bitcoin system.



To many people get stuck into the old-world mentality that just because bitcoin was the first and most lucrative of its kind, that it will automatically be the only one standing in x amount of years.  But when you really look at it, that couldn't be further from the truth.  There are a ton of other alts that are far more superior both in terms of security/anonymity/and transfer times than the original dated protocol.  Here's a small golden list of a few other companies/inventions that used to hold the crown early into groundbreaking technologies:

Cyrix, AOL, Netscape, Atari, Palm Pilots, Altavista, Lycos, Geocities, Motorola...etc etc

Looks like its all pointed towards a big economic crash. Might happen soon , probably sometime in 2016.

yes, when something is unprecedented, we don't know where it is going.
For example: if 5 year bonds have negative yield, then short term bonds are likely to have negative yields as well. if short term bonds or notes have negative yield, then money market have to be either subsidized (it could be costly) or also have negative yield. if money market has negative yield, people will take money out as cash as zero (the proverbial mattress) is a better return.

I say that if FED is smart, they will try to reignite animal spirits by concentrating on one asset class. Stocks look tired, so the options are gold plus other PM and bitcoin. Bitcoin can be made much more liquid then gold due to it's properties, so my hope would be that they will decide to move bitcoin. However, they might just take no action and be frozen in the headlights of the incoming deflation train.

You mean like the dollar?

I read your sig pushing an alt before I read your comment just to see what approach you were going to take to bashing Bitcoin. You did not disappoint.

For every person who says "Alt coins don't hurt Bitcoin, it is a free market and they create a great field of experimentation", I just think of how many trolls each alt coin creates thinking their coin will be the next Bitcoin...if only we can destroy Bitcoin first.

thanks for the interesting discussion gentlemen.. among all those drunk bulls i just wish we had more sober people like flipstyle on this forum.. all i can add bitcoin is an exotic investment and as with any exotic investments its the last to draw interest if there is any at all..

bitcoin - rising soon, falling soon. for now, it's still a speculation

Interesting point re:declines.

I think stocks and RE will have a tough 2015 and the threat of sovereign default will loom large at some stage. Junk bonds are already in trouble with oil staying below $80 (I wonder how long some projects can hold out for at sub $50) - could trigger a massive implosion.

Will bitcoin be the first out of the quagmire? Well, its pinned on that gold will benefit from any trouble (and imagine if China 'audits' its holdings). Bitcoin also stands a good chance of doing the same as an alternate asset class.

As negative yields stretch further and further out no one knows what will happen. It's unchartered territory.

If SHTF in traditional main st asset classes it could dwarf 08 because there's more debt, more tbtf and no more bullets in the chamber. I have to think in this situation, gold, btc, no debt and hard assets are winners.

My sole argument was that it's pretty irrational to even compare the bitcoin market to the housing or stock market (who also have a much more length and established history) in terms of order decline.  In the grand scheme of things, bitcoin is such a new, fledgeling technology that the only certainty is that...there is no certainty.  It could be here today, and gone tomorrow.  Or it could go on to do wonderful things.  

But trying to formulate any correlation between it and the cycling stock or housing markets in regards to trending declines, in my opinion, is pretty worthless and as close as you can get to inconclusive.  

Initially i was just arguing about an order in which markets seem to decline, nothing else-it was you who brought up, in my opinion, erroneous notion that there is much of intrinsic value in markets. My point is that this value exist (it is not zero), but it is much, much smaller that you can gather by looking at the current asset prices. How much smaller-it seems that we are about to find out, and by this I mean the next 5-10 years, not tomorrow.
Case in point: Nikkei at 39000 in 1989, then Nikkei at 7600 in 2009 (lost 80% in 20 years).

The stock market will always exist.  So not sure where you were going with the IBM narrative.  I was referring to stocks in general as a basic fundamental of the global economy.  The stock market will always exist.

Same with apartments.  Where did I say anything about particular prices of housing units?  The housing market in general is a necessary component of the global economy as well and will never go away.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the stock or housing market will one day vanish into thin air?  


I shouldn't have to hold your hand when explaining intrinsic value.  When everything goes south, you can still live in a house.  It has value as shelter from outside elements and being...a homeless ass bum.  They will always retain value and demand because they are essentials.  You CAN NOT say the same about bitcoin.  It is not a fundamental component to sustaining life, as it's simply one of other countless alternatives to fiat payments.

If bitcoin collapses...you cannot do shit with a 'bitcoin.'   It can go to $0.    All you have are just a few arbitrary bytes of data on your harddrive, no different than a txt file or email.  I suppose if a die hard bitcoiner really wants to get philosophical, they can find sentimental value in a worthless bitcoin should the situation ever arise.  That's pretty adorable.

if you think that there is a "need" for IBM to be $152, let me tell you -there is no such need. It could be at $50 just as well.
In fact, SP500 would function just as fine at 1000 as it is at 2000.
There is no "need" for an apartment to be at 15 mil in London. It could be just 1 million, right?
The levels that you see are historical in that they have a historical reason to be where they are now, but it does not mean that the asset prices cannot be 50% lower or even 80% lower. So, remind me-what is the "intrinsic" price of oil-is it $100, $80, $45 or $30?
As far as bitcoin is concerned-I think that it will recover first, but i have no idea where it will bottom.
In fact, if i was at the FED, i would started pumping bitcoin as much as i could as it is the only high velocity asset class with low liquidity (easy to pump) and rising bitcoin might reignite the animal spirits in a market that is just about to either fall asleep or have a coronary.

Lol first to recover? Are you seriously comparing a new speculative payment method to fundamental necessity markets?

Oil and housing markets will always eventually recover because...humans need houses and gasoline and power.   

Nobody 'needs' bitcoin to sustain life.

You're better off just speculating that BTC will go to the moon 'just because.'

what period do you considerate?

the whole 2014 year?