Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22037. (Read 26608070 times)
April 11, 2015, 11:58:29 PM
April 11, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
Gosh, people are still giving this dinosaur attention? 
Solution != Tool. Typical slippery Trolfi.
Ask anyone that has used a passer-by's phone camera footage to achieve justice how they feel about technology. What's naive is 20th century mindsets thinking that the status quo is permanent. What happened to EMI again?
Solution != Tool. Typical slippery Trolfi.
Ask anyone that has used a passer-by's phone camera footage to achieve justice how they feel about technology. What's naive is 20th century mindsets thinking that the status quo is permanent. What happened to EMI again?
April 11, 2015, 11:45:48 PM
Somebody should invent something.
Somebody should invent something that is irreversible, so that it can only be purchased with bitcoin.It is naive to expect a technological solution to a social/political/economic problem. The bad guys -- "powers that be", criminals, corrupt politicians and officers, cartels, etc. -- will either ban it, neutralize it, or twist it to serve their purposes. (You can see it happening with bitcoin already.) Such problems can be addressed only by substantial, sustained, and clear-thinking political effort.
It's not naive at all. It's naive to think that technology's only purpose is watching cat videos and video phones. It's typical of someone that is over-the-hill to assume all new technology is somehow bad or useless. This is just like the file sharing talks from 10 years ago all over again. All the old folks sit behind desks say "we will stop it" when they don't understand how powerful P2P is. You can ban it, but you can not stop it.
April 11, 2015, 11:33:34 PM
My crystal ball says we'll be going up soon. I even saw the number 3 followed by two zeros.
April 11, 2015, 11:22:32 PM
April 11, 2015, 10:58:29 PM
April 11, 2015, 10:57:06 PM
Somebody should invent something.
Somebody should invent something that is irreversible, so that it can only be purchased with bitcoin.It is naive to expect a technological solution to a social/political/economic problem. The bad guys -- "powers that be", criminals, corrupt politicians and officers, cartels, etc. -- will either ban it, neutralize it, or twist it to serve their purposes. (You can see it happening with bitcoin already.) Such problems can be addressed only by substantial, sustained, and clear-thinking political effort.
April 11, 2015, 10:57:04 PM
I think there's a fair amount of reluctance for average investors to send international wires to bitcoin exchanges. I think the redemption terms really killed the traditional BIT as a vehicle (also the center of their stealth listing of GBTC option).
Not to say that I think GBTC will unleash a tidal flow of investment, but it is a channel that hasn't existed before. Buying paper bitcoin exposure with a Scottrade acct.
Not to say that I think GBTC will unleash a tidal flow of investment, but it is a channel that hasn't existed before. Buying paper bitcoin exposure with a Scottrade acct.
April 11, 2015, 10:42:51 PM
Damn, now I have to look at Stolfi when he posts.
Hm, sorry about that. I will consider replacing my avatar by something less scary or disgusting...
April 11, 2015, 10:37:02 PM
Somebody should invent something.
Somebody should invent something that is irreversible, so that it can only be purchased with bitcoin.
April 11, 2015, 10:30:14 PM
Damn, now I have to look at Stolfi when he posts.
April 11, 2015, 10:28:39 PM
Great thesis... but, can you deny, that "big money" would be put off by a lack of clarity regulation-wise? Sure "big money" could buy into anything at anytime, your assertion that they could have bought in, and chose not to, is kinda limp, as you have implied yourself, and I can attest to from personal experience, in actual fact, serious money IS put off by regulatory issues, more than ANYTHING else!! businesses and investors do not like uncertainty, and there is a definite correlation between lack of regulation, and lack of backing by "serious" or "institutional" investors. To claim that is not the case is plain daft imo (and again, I am not guessing here.. I am talking from experience)
The gist of this argument seems to be that "big money" does not want to invest now in raw bitcoins for fear of future regulations, but it would invest now in bitcoin fund shares because future regulations will not affect them.
I do not quite see what regulatory risks could apply to companies investing in raw bitcoins, that would not apply also to companies investing in bitcoin fund shares, and on the funds temselves.
Suppose, for example, that some future regulation essentially forces Coinbase and all other "clean" exchanges to shut down, so that it becomes nearly impossible to trade raw bitcoins in an open market. Presumably the "bubble-packaged" bitcoins (fund shares) will remain tradeable on OTCQX, NASDAQ, and the like. But then the bitcoin funds themselves will no longer be able to trade their bitcoins in an open market. Whatever channel the funds will retain to do that (e.g. OTC trading), the large long-term investors should be able to use too. In that eventuality, raw bitcoins then would become low-liquidity assets like real estate or industrial installations. How could raw bitcoins lose value because of those restrictions, without the fund shares losing value too?
So I would think that "big money" presently does not want to invest in raw bitcoins or in bitcoin fund shares, because it sees both as bad investments, with considerable risk (including, but not only, the risk of both being hit by future regulatory changes), and without any solid fundamentals or potential market that could justify an expectation of rising prices. On the contrary, this expectation is entirely based on the hope that 'big money' will start investing in bitcoin; but, if such a "circular" demand could lift the price of bitcoin, it could lift the price of any penny stock.
Quote
The thing is , and what I disagree with you on Jorge, is you seem to have this picture that investors, who are in a position to make meaningful investments in BTC, only do so essentially "to make money from the greater fools " and I put it to you, that actually, if all they wanted to do is earn a "few bucks" by scamming a few newbies, then in actual fact they have many many MANY FAR less riskier ventures that they could earn them a decent, and far far less riskier and easier return from far larger and more understood markets, than being involved with BTC. So ergo, most investors that are involved in BTC are not just involved to make a few bucks in a "risky" as fuck and uncertain market.. sure you could argue that they saw an opportunity and leveraged funds to make a quick and "easy" profit , but if they have the money to enter the BTC market, then they have the money to enter all sorts of other ventures, with a fraction of the risk, and perfectly decent returns. Go figure.
I would not say that all big investors are explicitly aiming to make money out of "greater fools", but they are generally indifferent to that possibility, provided that the profits are reasonably likely.
For example, if some 'big money' had predicted the evolution of gold prices 15 years ago, it would surely buy a lot just before the bubble, and sell everything at the peak, with no moral scruples -- while knowing well that its profit would come entirely from the loss of the "greater fools" who bought at the peak.
That said, I did not get your point in the above paragraph. Do you mean that there is 'big money' that would invest in BTC for the long run, hoping for its lasting success, rather than for sort-term speculation -- if there was no risk? I can believe there is such money, but I cannot see how it could see bitcoin as "too risky" without seeing bitcoin funds in the same way.
April 11, 2015, 10:25:30 PM
April 11, 2015, 10:00:54 PM
Somebody should invent something.
That part's done. It's the scaling up section that gets sticky with disparate incentives and motives.
April 11, 2015, 09:58:30 PM
April 11, 2015, 09:53:31 PM
Somebody should invent something.
April 11, 2015, 09:48:01 PM
It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.
I don't disagree with you. What was bad in 08 got printed into worse. It won't be an isolated event, however.
Not isolated for certain. Nearly all countries are complicit in the fiat money scam.
Interesting times.
April 11, 2015, 09:35:33 PM
It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.
I don't disagree with you. What was bad in 08 got printed into worse. It won't be an isolated event, however.
Edit: Chinese wash volume... grumble grumble.
April 11, 2015, 09:33:29 PM
...
...
My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.
If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.
...
My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.
If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.
I understand. But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home. I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.
I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty. Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion.
Ex-patriation from the U.S. is an increasingly popular option.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/08/11/irs-releases-list-of-americans-hoping-to-expatriate-number-tops-1000/
Seems like people are voting with their feet. It's unfortunate that the federal gov't is trying to limit the exodus by increasing the toll, thus screwing the poor once again, but since when have they ever cared about the poor?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/29/us-quadruples-expat-fee-as-record-numbers-of-americans-renounce-citizenship/
It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.
April 11, 2015, 09:30:12 PM
...
...
My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.
If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.
...
My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.
If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.
I understand. But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home. I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.
I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty. Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion.
+ 1 + 1 + 1
Jump to: