this post is to later be quoted on the "Track Record Forum Members" thread
Bitcoin will continue to rise steadily, and reach a new all time high right before the new year.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32368. (Read 26469958 times)
August 28, 2013, 01:41:45 PM
August 28, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.
and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.
also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....
Wouldn't be easier to just lobby against bitcoin. Or to make googlecoin or visacoin with fast adoption and make bitcoin just another altcoin. Or maybe just buy as much as they can, than sell everything, and buy,....Or maybe just buy as much as they can, then sell everything, and buy,....or spam with microtransactions or something.
making googlecoin just makes bitcoin look good.
VISA lobbying against bitcoin, is a ridiculous thought, would bring on soo much attention, and they are clearly on the wrong side....
buying and selling like crazy, let them clear the asks and then sell into bids at a loss, thats fine by me!
Google search engine didn't make Archie look good. New cryptocurrency can fix many of the bitcoin problems and with Google resources the mass adoption can realy happen.
Lobbying is done in pharmacy, weapons, pesticides, oil, ....everywere, and the firms look reputable and have good profits.
And I already wrote that selling or buying with conjunction with leverege trading makes you money not that you lose it.
AND ShroomsKit, RELAX!
August 28, 2013, 01:02:37 PM
August 28, 2013, 12:55:09 PM
[...]
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market
That's why I appreciate your posts here. You are one of the bigger traders/investors that I largely "trust" when they talk about their decisions. Not that I tend to follow your buy/sell advice, but I believe you when you say you did X or Y
EDIT: jsut to clarify, you usually don't give advice in the strict sense anyway. just that when you were pretty bearish in the last month or so, I took that into account, but decided otherwise myself.
You have to be kidding me. Together with Blitz he is the biggest clown in this thread. Just like Blitz i'm amazed he has the guts to still post here.
August 28, 2013, 12:51:10 PM
I wrote a longer answer to the 51% network attack over on r/bitcoin. The way I see it, the attack is almost trivially easy to pull of for a large motivated entity, such as, say, the US government.
There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.
two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.
two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
300 to 400 MILLION dollars is extremely expensive for anyone, that amount of money needs to be accounted for, and, preferably, not wasted. It's possible that someone could do it, sure, but there's no crime without a motive, right? Also, considering how much hash power that would bring you, only a crazy person wouldn't just decide to be 'la central bank' of bitcoin. Just too much money required. Besides, if they got started with their project right now, considering how fast the hash rate is going up, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be far more expensive to do by they time they finished then they expected.
August 28, 2013, 12:39:31 PM
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.
and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.
also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....
Wouldn't be easier to just lobby against bitcoin. Or to make googlecoin or visacoin with fast adoption and make bitcoin just another altcoin. Or maybe just buy as much as they can, than sell everything, and buy,....Or maybe just buy as much as they can, then sell everything, and buy,....or spam with microtransactions or something.
making googlecoin just makes bitcoin look good.
VISA lobbying against bitcoin, is a ridiculous thought, would bring on soo much attention, and they are clearly on the wrong side....
buying and selling like crazy, let them clear the asks and then sell into bids at a loss, thats fine by me!
August 28, 2013, 12:32:48 PM
I wrote a longer answer to the 51% network attack over on r/bitcoin. The way I see it, the attack is almost trivially easy to pull of for a large motivated entity, such as, say, the US government.
There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.
two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.
two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
August 28, 2013, 12:25:38 PM
I saw a website the other day (forgot the address, sorry) that just keeps a running statistic for how much it would cost to launch a 51% attack on bitcoin via hardware manufacturing. Right now it was something like $350m. That seems like a lot (depending on how you look at it) but if bitcoin was to gain the global acceptance that we all hope it will someday, it's not a lot at all. There is a big incentive to be the "federal reserve" of bitcoin, and a government entity might be willing to shell out that kind of money to do it.
$350M to attack is a large, but as you point out a very easy amount for motivated entities. Heck the FED prints $85B per month and no one bats an eye.
Another issue is the amount of electricity needed to sustain the network. If you assume that mining tends to increase until the value of the coins generated equals the electricity cost, then at today's market cap of $1.35B you need $422K in electricity per day.
The issue is this electricity burn scales linearly with bitcoin's total market cap. If the market cap goes up 100x to $135B (still not a lot for a currency), then you need $42.2M to sustain the network. At some point this will either constrain the price or make people legitimately question some core concepts around bitcoin. Burning $50M or $500M in electricity per day is massive waste of resources, another mechanism will be needed.
August 28, 2013, 12:22:06 PM
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.
and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.
also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....
Wouldn't be easier to just lobby against bitcoin. Or to make googlecoin or visacoin with fast adoption and make bitcoin just another altcoin. Or maybe just buy as much as they can, than sell everything, and buy,....Or maybe just buy as much as they can, then sell everything, and buy,....or spam with microtransactions or something.
August 28, 2013, 12:20:15 PM
[...]
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market :)
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market :)
That's why I appreciate your posts here. You are one of the bigger traders/investors that I largely "trust" when they talk about their decisions. Not that I tend to follow your buy/sell advice, but I believe you when you say you did X or Y :P
EDIT: jsut to clarify, you usually don't give advice in the strict sense anyway. just that when you were pretty bearish in the last month or so, I took that into account, but decided otherwise myself.
August 28, 2013, 11:36:26 AM
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.
and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.
also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....
August 28, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.
That's a good point as well. Regardless of who it is, the odds of someone trying it eventually are high, I think. Altcoins will prove critical to thwarting this threat.
August 28, 2013, 10:33:30 AM
If you mean that I'm waiting for sub 60s since 2 months ago, you are mistaken.
I sold at 120 after buying at 110, and shall buy again at the bottom of this upcoming drop,
because I believe that price will rebound enough to make a profit.
As for sub 60s, it's too early to predict that as capitulation price.
If Gox $ withdrawals return to normal (maybe, maybe not, I don't know), then a bottom at about 60 is possible.
I sold at 120 after buying at 110, and shall buy again at the bottom of this upcoming drop,
because I believe that price will rebound enough to make a profit.
As for sub 60s, it's too early to predict that as capitulation price.
If Gox $ withdrawals return to normal (maybe, maybe not, I don't know), then a bottom at about 60 is possible.
Can you please tell us your next move so we can learn from you. Thanks.
There's a few other guys who have been remarkably silent recently
I beg you pardon?
LOL, love that meme! Genius
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market
August 28, 2013, 10:02:08 AM
can we say winklevoss lol
No. They bought in the second half of 2012 at an average of 15$ / coin, and are one of the reasons
for the bubble spike in April. I doubt they'll buy again above 50$.
And of course you know exactly how it is, right?
That's what they claimed. About 100k coins bought for about 1.5 M$, a large part of the missing coins of 2012. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
As for my wrong decision not to expect a third whale buy, it's my loss. You can rejoice!
I expect another large buy in a couple of hours, but I can't say how strong it will be.
The reserve funds on the bid side are about 1.5M$, but I have no idea how much will be used.
Maybe you shouldn't expect anything because your predictions are as accurate as flipping a coin. Do you still not see that? Are you really that arrogant?
August 28, 2013, 09:59:35 AM
A few quotes from Blitz made in july
Goodbye, triple digits. See you 2015.
After this week, I'm not sure we will see triple digits in 2013 again.
This has never been a billion dollar market to begin with. Triple digit, billion, those are things of a faint past.
No more triple digits for 2013.
Noone buys the triple digit lie anymore.
Looks like MtGox is beginning to shake off its denial and join the ranks of the 80s. This is only the beginning.
What if the buyer is an established casino firm that wanted to get into the Bitcoin game? If that's the case, then they would've been accumulating beforehand and have been responsible for some of the buying pressure. This would now be gone, along with 350k coins released on the market.
I smell blood.
I smell blood.
Indeed. That he still is posting here is beyond me. And don't forget Rampion who still is waiting for Bitcoin to hit 50 dollars because that's what is needed before it can go up again.
August 28, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
A few quotes from Blitz made in july
Goodbye, triple digits. See you 2015.
After this week, I'm not sure we will see triple digits in 2013 again.
This has never been a billion dollar market to begin with. Triple digit, billion, those are things of a faint past.
No more triple digits for 2013.
Noone buys the triple digit lie anymore.
Looks like MtGox is beginning to shake off its denial and join the ranks of the 80s. This is only the beginning.
What if the buyer is an established casino firm that wanted to get into the Bitcoin game? If that's the case, then they would've been accumulating beforehand and have been responsible for some of the buying pressure. This would now be gone, along with 350k coins released on the market.
I smell blood.
I smell blood.
August 28, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
Does Litecoin crank up the Scrypt parameters over time?
August 28, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
Litecoin might seem ASIC-hostile right now but how long will it be until an ASIC can be designed with enough memory to handle even Scrypt with the Litecoin parameters? I understand the ASIC advantage won't be as great as it is with Bitcoin but eventually a Litecoin ASIC should beat a generationally comparable CPU, GPU or FPGA.
One day in the perhaps distant future a CPU could come along that beats one of today's Bitcoin ASICs (but of course the future ASIC folks won't stand still for that). Then again maybe the economic factors in the future will make it unattractive to develop ASICs for Bitcoin mining.
One day in the perhaps distant future a CPU could come along that beats one of today's Bitcoin ASICs (but of course the future ASIC folks won't stand still for that). Then again maybe the economic factors in the future will make it unattractive to develop ASICs for Bitcoin mining.
August 28, 2013, 09:39:53 AM
If you mean that I'm waiting for sub 60s since 2 months ago, you are mistaken.
I sold at 120 after buying at 110, and shall buy again at the bottom of this upcoming drop,
because I believe that price will rebound enough to make a profit.
As for sub 60s, it's too early to predict that as capitulation price.
If Gox $ withdrawals return to normal (maybe, maybe not, I don't know), then a bottom at about 60 is possible.
I sold at 120 after buying at 110, and shall buy again at the bottom of this upcoming drop,
because I believe that price will rebound enough to make a profit.
As for sub 60s, it's too early to predict that as capitulation price.
If Gox $ withdrawals return to normal (maybe, maybe not, I don't know), then a bottom at about 60 is possible.
Can you please tell us your next move so we can learn from you. Thanks.
There's a few other guys who have been remarkably silent recently
I beg you pardon?
August 28, 2013, 09:39:45 AM
can we say winklevoss lol
No. They bought in the second half of 2012 at an average of 15$ / coin, and are one of the reasons
for the bubble spike in April. I doubt they'll buy again above 50$.
And of course you know exactly how it is, right?
That's what they claimed. About 100k coins bought for about 1.5 M$, a large part of the missing coins of 2012. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
As for my wrong decision not to expect a third whale buy, it's my loss. You can rejoice!
I expect another large buy in a couple of hours, but I can't say how strong it will be.
The reserve funds on the bid side are about 1.5M$, but I have no idea how much will be used.
Jump to: