I reckon this is the 2nd greatest bear trap since $2.
I'm buying 10BTC at $350 flat.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24041. (Read 26611313 times)
December 13, 2014, 02:46:13 AM
December 13, 2014, 02:42:47 AM
Don't know the the Bitpay wallet statistics, but would be interested. Any link for it?
It was at the top of my post:
http://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/BitPay.com
There are several others, but I don't see Coinbase: www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/
I can't find an explanation of how that site works, but I guess that it looks for transactions with 2 or more inputs, and assumes that those input addresses belong to the same owner (because one needs all their private keys on hand to sign the transaction). Then one takes the transitive closure of those pairs (if addresses A and B are inputs to one transaction, and B and C are inputs to another one, then A and C must belong to the same owner too.) That logic breaks the addresses into clusters, which the site calls "wallets".
Quote
Anyway, in my opinion there are two general problems with your counter-arguments to the adoption evidence.
(1) Presented with several metrics that intuitively seem to be half-decent proxies for "adoption", you find fault with any of them on the basis of what I'd call minor problems.
(1) Presented with several metrics that intuitively seem to be half-decent proxies for "adoption", you find fault with any of them on the basis of what I'd call minor problems.
They are not minor problems... The USD volume (minus changebacks) is flat since April, and still less than January; and, among the metrics you showed, that should be the one most directly related to adoption. That metric being flat, one must conclude that the other blockchain metrics, that show increase in 2014, must be useless to measure adoption. In fact, the discrepancy between those metrics makes them all suspect, including the USD volume.
And I gave very strong arguments -- China, and the big peaks -- showing that the trade volume at the exchanges is totally unrelated to use in e-commerce.
Quote
If it makes you more inclined to see it my way, I will admit this much: I agree. We cannot be absolutely sure adoption is growing based on those statistics. They could be (partially) fake. They could over-represent non economically significant transactions. And so on.
However, they are the best approximation we have, and by and large, they point to increasing adoption. So while I agree that there remains some epistemic uncertainty perhaps, there is little aleatoric uncertainty that adoption grows given this data.
(2) You don't really follow the Copernican principle applied to time when you only concentrate on a very narrow range in the very recent past where adoption did not soar like it did before, and conclude from it that there seems to be no further adoption - ignoring that overall the adoption metrics are significantly up compared to where they were a year ago, and vastly up from 2 years ago. [ ... ]
In May 2013 Bitpay had a volume of 5 million USD per month processing transactions on behalf of their merchants. (source)
A year later, May 2014, it's 1 million USD per day. (source)
Time for the same spiel again? "Maybe it's up from May to May, but how can we be sure that from May to now adoption continued?!"
However, they are the best approximation we have, and by and large, they point to increasing adoption. So while I agree that there remains some epistemic uncertainty perhaps, there is little aleatoric uncertainty that adoption grows given this data.
(2) You don't really follow the Copernican principle applied to time when you only concentrate on a very narrow range in the very recent past where adoption did not soar like it did before, and conclude from it that there seems to be no further adoption - ignoring that overall the adoption metrics are significantly up compared to where they were a year ago, and vastly up from 2 years ago. [ ... ]
In May 2013 Bitpay had a volume of 5 million USD per month processing transactions on behalf of their merchants. (source)
A year later, May 2014, it's 1 million USD per day. (source)
Time for the same spiel again? "Maybe it's up from May to May, but how can we be sure that from May to now adoption continued?!"
Yes, I will give the same spiel again. As I wrote before, adoption surely increased from 2012 to 2013 to 2014. But I do not see any clear signs that adoption has been increasing over the last year. The most germane indicators that you use as evidence of year-to-year increase show a decrease and stagnation since January.
The BitPay wallet above shows the same thing. Here are preliminary plots of the inputs and outputs in that wallet:
Bitcoins per day, 2013-01 to 2014-11
Transactions per day, 2013-01 to 2014-11
(The second plot is not quite transaction counts; it is more like count of inputs and outputs of transactions that go into or out of the wallet. There are some puzzling details on those plots that I still must look into. Also, the first plot shows ~1000 BTC/day of inputs, on the average, unchanged since 2013-01; which would be 0.5 million USD/day -- only 1/2 of what Bitpay claimed above. Perhaps the wallet is incomplete, or perhaps they picked one good day in May. Note that the scale is logarithmic, and the traffic does reach 2000 BYC/day sometimes.)
The fact that Bitpay and the other payment processors are not giving monthly statistics is also a hint that those numbers are not good.
December 13, 2014, 02:00:41 AM
December 13, 2014, 01:48:21 AM
... Mostly, Monkey just expects me to shut up and stay short SPUs until roughly Wednesday ...
You used to call him "monkey". Now it is "Monkey". I'm glad it's earning your respect. I wish him to graduate to "Sir Monkey" eventually. 
December 13, 2014, 01:21:50 AM
Right now there is a group of people (ranging between 2-40 million in number) who are willing to hold ~$5 billion worth of value in bitcoin is as much as you can say with confidence.
As of September 10, there were only ~650'000 addresses in the blockchain with at least 0.1 BTC (~50 USD). Assming that a bitcoin user must have at least one address with 0.1 BTC in it, that its an upper bound to the number of bitcoiners.
There may be bitcoiners who have their coins scattered into many addresses, all with less than 0.1 BTC. Or bitcoiners who happened to be out of bitcoins on that date, but had more bitcoins at other times. On the other hand, there must be many bitcoiners who own several addresses with more than 0.1 BTC. Threfore, "650'000 bitcoiners" is more likely to be too high than too low.
True. Well, almost true to be honest. Judging from myself and close friends of mine, I like my wallets ''tidy''. That means scattering to ie: 1BTC per wallet when the price is below $1000 is not a sane thing to do if you get my point. So I'd say for a person that owns 50BTC the most possible solution is to divide his holdings to 2x20 + 10 on a 3rd wallet. I personally want to scatter my BTC but I feel that dispersion is not always a good thing when it comes to handling.
So, a rather pragmatic way to see this, would have been that ONLY when you have big holders their BTCs needs to be sliced to smaller wallets. If a bitcoin owner has only 10BTCs, most probably one wallet fits his needs. Nevertheless, there still are a rather big number of wallets that contain more than 100BTCs; that means even this way of calculating the wallet/users ratio may be wrong.
TL;DR: Speculation can't form calculative rules. Of course this is a speculation thread, but I feel you got this wrong (probably me too).
December 13, 2014, 01:05:24 AM
Right now there is a group of people (ranging between 2-40 million in number) who are willing to hold ~$5 billion worth of value in bitcoin is as much as you can say with confidence.
As of September 10, there were only ~650'000 addresses in the blockchain with at least 0.1 BTC (~50 USD). Assming that a bitcoin user must have at least one address with 0.1 BTC in it, that its an upper bound to the number of bitcoiners.
There may be bitcoiners who have their coins scattered into many addresses, all with less than 0.1 BTC. Or bitcoiners who happened to be out of bitcoins on that date, but had more bitcoins at other times. On the other hand, there must be many bitcoiners who own several addresses with more than 0.1 BTC. Threfore, "650'000 bitcoiners" is more likely to be too high than too low.
December 13, 2014, 01:00:43 AM
December 13, 2014, 12:00:43 AM
December 12, 2014, 11:00:42 PM
December 12, 2014, 10:56:05 PM
I've been surprised at the degree of correlation between XBTUSD and CL1. Still and all,
Monkey is telling me to try buying oil again between Monday and Wednesday, but doesn't expect XBT up until late next week.
Mostly, Monkey just expects me to shut up and stay short SPUs until roughly Wednesday.
USDJPY unlikely to see any upside until mid-to-late next week.
EURNOK going *up* through Tuesday or Wednesday.
Monkey expects a lot of turning points next week. First to turn might be US long bonds. Monkey actually made me sell, because risk was picking up too much.
Monkey is telling me to try buying oil again between Monday and Wednesday, but doesn't expect XBT up until late next week.
Mostly, Monkey just expects me to shut up and stay short SPUs until roughly Wednesday.
USDJPY unlikely to see any upside until mid-to-late next week.
EURNOK going *up* through Tuesday or Wednesday.
Monkey expects a lot of turning points next week. First to turn might be US long bonds. Monkey actually made me sell, because risk was picking up too much.
Why do you fuck around with risky junk lie that? Haven't you heard about bitcoin?
December 12, 2014, 10:39:21 PM
Looks like another test of new recent lows, if we catch this easily it's looking like a bullish triple bottom
I miss the days of watching clark moody with price swings 10x this.
It feels like we've been hovering around what's like 30-40 dollars for months now, with a very much grindingly slow market
I miss the days of watching clark moody with price swings 10x this.
It feels like we've been hovering around what's like 30-40 dollars for months now, with a very much grindingly slow market
December 12, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
people are adopting bitcoin all the time ... i've adopted it at least 4 or 5 times already.
First you start off by adopting a few percent of your net worth into bitcoin, then you adopt a little more maybe up to 10-15% then before you know it you adopt at the 30-50% and when you realise how absolutely corrupt and broken the fiat socialists ponzi scheme tax-prison farm really is then you go wtf and go all-in 100% adopt bitcoin.
ergo "adoption" is a meaningless non-quantifiable term useless for any sensible analysis.
Right now there is a group of people (ranging between 2-40 million in number) who are willing to hold ~$5 billion worth of value in bitcoin is as much as you can say with confidence. If those same people decided to double their btc hodlings would the be same effect if the numbers of people 'adopting' bitcoin doubled.
First you start off by adopting a few percent of your net worth into bitcoin, then you adopt a little more maybe up to 10-15% then before you know it you adopt at the 30-50% and when you realise how absolutely corrupt and broken the fiat socialists ponzi scheme tax-prison farm really is then you go wtf and go all-in 100% adopt bitcoin.
ergo "adoption" is a meaningless non-quantifiable term useless for any sensible analysis.
Right now there is a group of people (ranging between 2-40 million in number) who are willing to hold ~$5 billion worth of value in bitcoin is as much as you can say with confidence. If those same people decided to double their btc hodlings would the be same effect if the numbers of people 'adopting' bitcoin doubled.
Right. Higher value can come from any of these walks of bitcoin adaption. New users getting their first 0.2 BCT, or existing users digging in after self education.
December 12, 2014, 10:00:45 PM
December 12, 2014, 09:36:08 PM
Wow, same old people looking at the same old (highly subjective) charts: the cultists interpret them as proof of "adoption", Jorge says the metric is flawed, cultists get all angry, noobs call Jorge names, price continues to go down.
The story of Bitcoin 2014.
The story of Bitcoin 2014.
Yeah... What an objective summary.....
NOT
December 12, 2014, 09:32:28 PM
In that case there's a good chance a vast number of current investors would leave for good, and price would deflate to level that seems laughably low right now... but then what? Others will pick it up from there, as long as there is the confidence that Bitcoin is useful for something after all. Cue the trolls: "It's about as useful as beanie babies or tulips". I don't need to tell you that's just noise. The usefulness of Bitcoin (or crypto in general) is undisputed. What is up for debate is the scale at which it will be used (and, as a consequence, what the valuation of the network should be).
Forgot to respond before, but Beanie Babies are actually more useful than Bitcoins IMO. When I hold Bitcoin, I hide them in my cold wallet, too scared to even consider spending any because of the eternal public paper trail it leaves. It's already scary enough to securely handle cold storage considering all possible attack and data loss vectors, but at the same time, I have to be scared that they tremendously lose value again.
At least you can play with Beanie Babies, and some of them actually look nice. Plus, they're already worthless.
I just realized the moderator of this thread might be the most potent beartroll of them all
December 12, 2014, 09:30:28 PM
December 12, 2014, 09:00:45 PM
December 12, 2014, 08:00:42 PM
December 12, 2014, 07:59:29 PM
...
The merchant pays it (passing it on to the consumer by inflating the price).
The merchant pays it (passing it on to the consumer by inflating the price).
Wait a minute...
Naturally, this was the obvious answer but ... weren't you supposed to be a troll and sh|t and thus deny this answer?
Ah! I guess you finally managed to troll me by reverse-trolling.
Nice. You missed a chunk
Quote
This means that if you shop with cash or BTC without getting a discount, you're subsidizing my CC use.
It also means that Bitcoiners buying coin through purse.io are paying 20% more because they hate paying 3%.
Of course, the alleged 20% savings is actually a loss if you buy your coin through purse.io, amiright?
It also means that Bitcoiners buying coin through purse.io are paying 20% more because they hate paying 3%.
Of course, the alleged 20% savings is actually a loss if you buy your coin through purse.io, amiright?
December 12, 2014, 07:54:36 PM
Gentlemen fasten your seatbelts. Because down we go
Jump to: