Topic: Volatility, ain't seen nothing yet, 10K to 1M in 1 year??? - page 2. (Read 9582 times)

How many times have you come out with that thing about Beanie Babies in just one thread, damn, pot, kettle.

Just to be clear I am saying there will be two more in my lifetime (maybe 50 more years, which is all I am going to talk about), one that is shortly coming (3-9 months from now) and one after (3-5 years from now).

What is different before these two bubbles compared to any point after? Mass adoption. Once mass adoption is close to being here, you are way too late.

A good theory is time-invariant, or gives good reasons of why special times are special.
It means that if you have an explanation for something happening now, based upon observations of the past, there are two possibilities:
1) your explanation will be also valid tomorrow, with the data of tomorrow (which will be the result of your explanations today)
2) your explanation is unique and only valid today, not valid tomorrow, and you should have a good reason for that.  Indeed, the same reason that makes your explanation tomorrow invalid, could make it invalid already right away.

This is what I try to point out with the "to the moon" scenario, where people say that people buy bitcoin because the price will rise.  So the theory here is: "people buy bitcoin today, because they expect its price to be 10 times higher in 2 years from now".

That theory should then also be applied 2 years from now, where people will buy bitcoin at 10 times higher prices.  And again in 4 years, where it will be 100 times higher.  And so on. So obviously that theory will FAIL some day: when coins are at $ 3 million, they won't rise 10 times anymore !  So if that theory fails then, why doesn't it fail today !

Now, your theory is interesting, in that you say "there will be one more surge". 

Then 2 questions arise: 

1) why will your theory NOT hold after the next surge ?  What changes, that makes you think that there will still be another surge, that will change after that surge so that your theory "there will be one more surge" will NOT hold after that ?

2) If your theory does not hold after the next surge, then why doesn't that reason apply right now ?  That is, it already applies now, and we've had already the last surge ?

What makes this moment special with respect to the past (we're before the last surge) and makes this moment special with respect to the future (there won't be a surge anymore) ?

In other words, how do you know that there won't be any surges anymore after the next one, and why do you think there will still be one ?

You're right that the proof of the pudding is the eating :-)

I don't really understand what you mean, do you think the next halving will increase the bitcon price?

You think the highest price for bitcoins will be at end 2016 or mid 2016? Lots of people say that around 2016 we should see some rise in the price because of the halving. And anything that is made in less quantity, people will be ready to pay more for it, most of the time.

just watch 

Because there will be no "departure for the moon".  If the moon is reached, it will be slowly.


As far as I understand, the previous bubble was a scam from MtGox.  I won't think such a naive manipulation would be possible at such a scale, again.  People learn.


As I pointed out, that market adoption, which is a fundamental, will be obvious, slow, and through merchant adoption.  It won't happen overnight.  You don't wake up a sudden morning to realize that 1% of world economy has switched to bitcoin overnight.
You don't wake up a sudden morning to find out that 10% of the gold market switched to bitcoin the evening before.
This is for $30 000. - a coin.  A "rocket to the moon" to $30 000.- is hence not possible overnight. 
Which means that a surge to, say, $3000.- is not going to go much higher overnight.  You can really take your time to watch.  There's no FOMO.  If you are at $3000.- and you've not seen the gold market being taken over, you've not seen 1% of world economy taking on bitcoin, you know it won't rise a factor of 10.  So it is at the ceiling at $3000.- (hence no hurry) or it will go down (most probably).




The point is that the higher bubbles are, the more expensive they are.  And the money that is looking at bitcoin is also much less naive than before.
Bigger, smarter money won't get trapped so easily in a bot manipulation on an exchange.

How does "one already knows that a surge is not a departure for the moon" ? How do you know where the "surge" will stop? It can be 1000, 1500,3000, 5000, 10000.

Greed has fueled most of the previous bubble. It has nothing to do with "greater fool" but FOMO. Yes we do know how this ends : the price bubbles up an order of magnitude above previous low and then pops to eventually create a new, higher low. You need to recognize that there has been numerous bubbles in BTC and that last year was not unique. The Tulips analogy does not apply.

I also disagree with your last statement. Please refer to OP. The rises or bubbles we have seen pale in comparison to the potential market adoption that Bitcoin could experience. I will venture to say that the next bubbles will be significantly bigger than previous ones. There is considerably more money looking at Bitcoin right now then there ever was. If somehow we show any sign of approaching previous ATH, that money will want to ride the next wave. FOMO

It depends how $1000.- is reached.  If it is smoothly reached over a long period of steady rise, yes.  If it surges, no.

One already knows that a surge is not a departure for the moon, but will be followed by a prolonged period going down.
And now one can make profit with that , by shorting.  

If greed is the drive, then it would be based upon the "greater fool" hypothesis.  We all know how that ends.
Point is, the greater fool has already been tested last year.
The higher the price, the lower the expected remaining rise, so the less the greed motive works.

Point is: the ceiling of bitcoin is in sight.  The absolute maximum price of a coin is $3 million.  At that point, bitcoin took over all of fiat, and mining is going to consume all of electricity if it happens soon.

When bitcoin was $1.-, there was potentially a factor of 3 million to win.  That's a huge potential.  Even if bitcoin only takes 1% of that, you still have 30 000 as a gain.  Huge.
Now that bitcoin is some $300, the potential gain is 10 000.  Still huge, for full moon.  Even if bitcoin only reaches 1% of that, the gain is 100.  Not huge, but significant.

If bitcoin is $3000, the potential gain is 1000.  Very big.  If bitcoin only takes 1% of that, a factor of 10.  Well.  A factor of 10, that's not spectacular, is it.  It is a good investment.  Not more.  If you are sure.

1% of world economy, that's BIG.  So the 1% estimates are already very optimistic for the near future. 
This is why the potential for 'greater fool' falls rapidly when the price rises in the few $1000.-.

Bitcoin would then reach quite some maturity.  It is maybe already quite mature.

Nop, only FOMO and greed. Merchants will follow.

If you believe that once we reach 1000$ people are not gonna be throwing money at Bitcoin like no tomorrow then you are more clueless than I would've thought.

The point is that the initial booms of bitcoin were potentially of another kind.  There weren't the same trading possibilities, one was not involving so much money (I suppose), and, I pointed this out, except in 2011, there has never been a very prolongued decay that did hurt several people so much for so much money as the MtGox manipulation (which was the origin of the rise to $1200.- if I understand it: willy bot, no ?).
This is, in other words, the first time that somewhat serious money got lost.
The MtGox rise made people think the trip to the moon started and they had to get onto the train before.   Now, everybody informing himself about the bitcoin price knows that after a surge, you better wait for the price to come down again before buying.   Yes, price can be somewhat higher than the "stable" price before the peak.  But not too much.

I really would be surprised if there were a lot of people burning themselves again in a peak to a few $1000.- in the coming months.  And if nobody, or almost nobody's buying at such prices, price WILL of course come down. 

Bitcoin may eventually one day become a currency.  If there is generalized merchant adoption.

You are repeating the "good money drives bad money out of the market" theme.   Point is, it is the market that decides what good money is :-)  It will be determined by merchant (and customer) adoption.

One thing Bitcoiners are great at is repeating vacuous buzz phrases.
What do you mean by "superior to every traditional form of currency that exists"?  How?
Can you gas up your car with it?
Spend it in more places than real money?
Can you get it back when Anon going by ABitInterested sells you shares in his "Legit offline business?
Can you spend it without web access?
Does it give head?

Or did some senile liber tell you that it was "freedom"?

Tulips didn't boom twice.  True... Bitcoin has boomed at least 4 or 5 times depending on how you count.  Bitcoin = Not Tulips.  You can't just pick a number on a certain peak and say, "well that's a high number so therefore bitcoin will not go any higher"

Bitcoin is superior to every traditional form of currency that exists.  Billions of people use currency.  If anything, price is far too low!

Thanks for your comments, have a good day

There is no amount of financial instruments that would be able to hold the price down once the flood-gates are open. But you have to wait for it, as conditions for this to happen might take some time to develop. It wouldn't be all or nothing though. It would just get to the next level, slide-down a bit (so that sane people can rejoice once in a while) and stabilize there. Rinse and repeat.

I'm glad there is still sane people in this world. Otherwise this place would be boring

One thing most here overlook is it was very difficult to short Bitcoin until about a year ago.  Now it's a thing.
Shorting and penny stock together = Bitcoin market

I don't know if the early days are still a good model for the future.  

In the past, the surges never penalized a lot of people, it was a small club of enthousiasts (I suppose), and the surges followed quickly enough so as to make up for past losses.  Not a lot of money was involved after all.

The MtGox manipulation hurt.  People got burned.  More important sums were lost.

Tullips didn't boom twice.

Also, this year, a lot more trained traders are on the market, bigger money is circulating, and financial derivatives are being put in place.  That's usually something that stabilizes, in the sense that there are now so many speculative tools operational, that any surge is going to be professionally sucked out by fast traders.

The fact that people have seen the price fall (sometimes at their expense) for more than a year, means to me that any BIG surge is not going to be sustainable: many people are going to cash in (traders most !), and not much money is going to flow in for a long time at high prices.  Everybody would expect a drop again.  Unless something FUNDAMENTAL changes (say, the Swiss national bank guarantees the Swiss franc against bitcoin :-) ).

Try to understand that repeating hollow, meaningless nonsense, no matter how convincing it seems to you, is still nothing but repeating hollow, meaningless nonsense.
You'll get a "+1!!!!1!" from other loons, but sane folks will just point fingers and laugh

Maybe. He complained that a few companies he worked for went bankrupt during recent economic woes and the one he is currently at doesn't look very stable either. He had no idea that the debt-spiral model of today's fiat system was the cause though. He has now.


Periods of rapid growth will be interleaved with periods of slide-down and some stability. That's how Bitcoin has been since inception, that's how it will go on.

The S-curve adoption by itself not: that only means that at a certain point, a quick evolution to a natural market share is obtained.
But if you combine S-curve adoption AND "good money drives out bad money" as a hypothesis, then by definition there is no room for "bad money", as the hypothesis is that it will be driven out.

And it cannot be driven out "slowly" because that would contradict S-curve adoption.

Both hypotheses together can only mean an S-curve that saturates at 100%.

If "good money doesn't drive out bad", then ANY market share could be the limiting market share.  Maybe we already reached that.  Maybe bitcoin then came already to maturity and its market share is more or less reached.  Maybe it will go to 0.1% of the total money market.  Maybe it will go to 0.1% of the gold market share.  Ha, it is there already.  Maybe it is 1%.  Maybe it is 10%.

But I was taking the often-mentioned two hypotheses of S-curve adoption AND "good drives out bad" together.  Then there is no choice, except for the moment of the "vertical", and then people say "soon".  I considered: within the next 10 years.