Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21728. (Read 26609669 times)
May 13, 2015, 01:08:03 PM
250 before friday, i hope in june 300+
May 13, 2015, 01:04:52 PM
Trading taking off on GBTC. 25BTC.
May 13, 2015, 12:58:01 PM
May 13, 2015, 12:21:42 PM
Stop confusing being trendy with being knowledgeable.
Stop confusing an expense with an investment.
May 13, 2015, 12:08:51 PM
If the price has stopped collapsing I guess I shouldn't complain, but a lot of the companies that have seen investment the last couple of years (not all) have products that are sensitive to sudden and massive falls in price. Which is why I would have thought that some of the people who invested in the industry would want to invest in a stabilization fund to keep the prices from hitting the customers of the businesses they have invested in over the head. I know a lot of people think that this is against the free unregulated nature of Bitcoin, but if it is free and unregulated it shouldn't be a problem to do something like that as well.
Ask Norman Lamont about trying to stabilize a currency...
Or are you actually George Soros?
No, of course not. Don't be silly. Why would I want to short a rich boy fund out of its money?
May 13, 2015, 11:57:52 AM
May 13, 2015, 11:46:25 AM
If the price has stopped collapsing I guess I shouldn't complain, but a lot of the companies that have seen investment the last couple of years (not all) have products that are sensitive to sudden and massive falls in price. Which is why I would have thought that some of the people who invested in the industry would want to invest in a stabilization fund to keep the prices from hitting the customers of the businesses they have invested in over the head. I know a lot of people think that this is against the free unregulated nature of Bitcoin, but if it is free and unregulated it shouldn't be a problem to do something like that as well.
Ask Norman Lamont about trying to stabilize a currency...
Or are you actually George Soros?
May 13, 2015, 11:30:31 AM
I was listening to metric before it was cool, i think we are all trend setters, let's buy more coins before everyone else does 
I think you're still ahead on that one, unless you mean "canadian cool".
May 13, 2015, 11:14:33 AM
May 13, 2015, 11:05:35 AM
im guna give you guys one tip and one tip only.
http://blog.nem.io/press-release/
white paper out very soon.. and i can 100% assure you it wont disappoint. written by PhD's and industry leaders in software engineering.
so ya.. tip of the year..
May 13, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
I was listening to metric before it was cool, i think we are all trend setters, let's buy more coins before everyone else does
May 13, 2015, 10:57:48 AM
May 13, 2015, 10:22:57 AM
But why won't the same people more consistently invest directly in BTC? It wouldn't take much for all those VC investors to prop up the currency/token such that their more indirect investments stands a much better chance of succeeding.
3 main reasons
1/ Practically all VC money (and this applies to the 'Wall Street' money people here talk about) is not someone with a pile of money who can spend as he pleases. It is constrained and monitored and designed/structured for investing in companies.
2/ The hope is that the investment will generate an income stream (BTC in itself won't) as well as capital growth.
3/ The returns could be multiplied (a successful company x a successful new asset class)
Of course, what the individuals involved (or their families) might do with their own play money - once they see where the investments are going - is another matter. A little side-bet always keeps things interesting.
May 13, 2015, 10:19:33 AM
Why continue building your position if you're not also working on building the economy that eventually, hopefully, leads to an increase of valuation of position?
because money has been pouring into infrastructure for a year and a half while BTC price has plummeted. Price conveys information. investment in infrastructure and the underlying economy should be balanced in a healthy ecosystem. bulls are helping to achieve relatively more balance.
May 13, 2015, 10:12:00 AM
[ ... ] It may take the Wall Street idiots a while to figure that out.
They're no match for a fireman from the sticks, granted. Give them time.Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Points for putting "match"' "sticks" and "fireman" in the same sentence.
Billy Joe, though even a cat may look at a king, it's in no position to judge.
"Ad hominem" doesn't apply here. Not attacking your character. It's only reasonable to assume that financial advice of a fireman from the sticks is less likely to be useful than that of those who were educated and work in finance.
Just like it's perfectly reasonable to take medical opinion of a physician over ...oh, let's say "fireman from the sticks."
Ad Hominem doesn't just apply to character. Judge the argument, not the person making the argument. It should stand or fall on it's own merits, not mine. I'm not appealing to my authority as an expert. Having said that, I did buy a car on the Internet before the World Wide Web was invented, had my first wireless modem in 1997 and bought a first generation iPhone a two weeks after launch. I'm good at spotting tech trends. I'm a firefighter because I'm an adrenaline junkie, not because economics and finance are beyond my comprehension.
May 13, 2015, 10:11:53 AM
Not wrong, but not the full picture either:
a) true, it might quite well go down in flames, and that early VC capital will be lost like tears in the rain;
b) then again, it's a (controlled) gamble on their side, similar to early dotcom seed/investments: if it pays off, it'll pay off rather royally, if not, it's a (comparably) minor hit to their total holdings. Which brings me to:
c) on a different scale, through a different aspect of the market, that's similar to the "bet" we're making here as well: most who hold some long-term BTC position do so because of the chance (by his/her best judgement) that there's a big unrealized economical potential for the Blockchain (emphasis on the Blockchain), which (again, by his/her best judgement) in turn would likely lead to a major appreciation of market value per token.
The flip side of this bet just as the one by VC: it might not work out that way - alternative blockchains might take the lead, public and business interest might stay comparably small (i.e. "solutions looking for problems" turns out to be true and stay true), etc.
Some people here conveniently ignore the latter point, only going on about the limitless potential. Others pretend there is no potential, only risk, and eventually: doom. Personally, I think it's simply too early to draw either conclusion, 6 years since launch, and ~2 years since VC started pouring in for real.
a) true, it might quite well go down in flames, and that early VC capital will be lost like tears in the rain;
b) then again, it's a (controlled) gamble on their side, similar to early dotcom seed/investments: if it pays off, it'll pay off rather royally, if not, it's a (comparably) minor hit to their total holdings. Which brings me to:
c) on a different scale, through a different aspect of the market, that's similar to the "bet" we're making here as well: most who hold some long-term BTC position do so because of the chance (by his/her best judgement) that there's a big unrealized economical potential for the Blockchain (emphasis on the Blockchain), which (again, by his/her best judgement) in turn would likely lead to a major appreciation of market value per token.
The flip side of this bet just as the one by VC: it might not work out that way - alternative blockchains might take the lead, public and business interest might stay comparably small (i.e. "solutions looking for problems" turns out to be true and stay true), etc.
Some people here conveniently ignore the latter point, only going on about the limitless potential. Others pretend there is no potential, only risk, and eventually: doom. Personally, I think it's simply too early to draw either conclusion, 6 years since launch, and ~2 years since VC started pouring in for real.
But why won't the same people more consistently invest directly in BTC? It wouldn't take much for all those VC investors to prop up the currency/token such that their more indirect investments stands a much better chance of succeeding.
I would guess: because it's VC, not quasi-Forex gambling money. Also, because the market is rather illiquid. Paper profits are extremely far from actually realizable profits at current levels. Finally, they probably do hold some stake in the native tokens. So it's really asking "why won't they prop up price?". Only, why would they?
There is no function the Blockchain would suddenly & magically be able to perform just because total valuation is twice of what it is now, at least not without public interest growing equally as well. Probably the only thing price affects right now is speculative interest, but I see it as largely unrelated to fundamental growth of the Bitcoin economy, as long as per coin price is high enough to make the network "secure enough" - which it is, despite the sometimes desperate seeming attempts of Sirer, Stolfi et al. to prove otherwise.
Why continue building your position if you're not also working on building the economy that eventually, hopefully, leads to an increase of valuation of position? From that point of view, it makes sense to me that any accumulation that might occur from the VC side would be rather marginal compared to current inflation... Let's say $50M of VC capital are flanked by the same amount of "accumulation effort". At ~$300 per coin, that would have soaked up around 50 days of block reward. So even if it would be on the program (which I doubt, they might be perfectly happy with their position built at vastly lower prices), it wouldn't single-handedly turn the tables on the greater market situation.
If the price has stopped collapsing I guess I shouldn't complain, but a lot of the companies that have seen investment the last couple of years (not all) have products that are sensitive to sudden and massive falls in price. Which is why I would have thought that some of the people who invested in the industry would want to invest in a stabilization fund to keep the prices from hitting the customers of the businesses they have invested in over the head. I know a lot of people think that this is against the free unregulated nature of Bitcoin, but if it is free and unregulated it shouldn't be a problem to do something like that as well.
May 13, 2015, 10:08:50 AM
Why is the volume so low on GBTC tho?
That's the nature of the beast - extremely low liquidity pool ATM ...
May 13, 2015, 10:07:58 AM
Don't sleep on this Monday. Xbt provider goes live. I'm planning on buying some coins over the weekend in case of a price jump.
May 13, 2015, 10:04:47 AM
He's pretty hot on the correlation between smoke and fire 
Why are you quoting nlc?
May 13, 2015, 10:04:39 AM
Still not understanding your logic BJA . How can the BTC:EUR chart look more bullish than BTC:USD chart if USD is weakening against the Euro? Hint - it can't
This is my last reply on the topic. You can carry on believing your false logic if you like, but I'm done trying to help you see the error in your thought process.
Nothing personal - it's just boring now ...
because of arbitrage. inverse BTC:USD correlation implies that as the dollar continues to sink against other currencies, BTC:USD will go continue to go up. basically BTC:everyotherfiat currency is more constant than BTC:USD.
Sorry I didn't explain this well. I'm not sure what the FX terminology is.
Jump to: