Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking &amp; discussion - page 33103. (Read 26496682 times)

Quote from: jubalix on June 17, 2013, 06:14:48 AM

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day

I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

This is not about the Bitcoin reaching 300K this year. It's the simple evaluation of his reasoning to get to the 300K figure in 2013-valued US Dollars (so the 300K might become 310K in 2014 USD with inflation, etc). He's basically postulating that if everyone were to use Bitcoin, it's value would reach 300K. He gets to that number by estimating the average number of Bitcoins each person would have and equates that with the average gold weight that everyone uses (historical data 1913-2013). He uses the average wage for a skilled worker (in the "West") as the basis of his price verification.

Even if the number is totally wrong, his math looks alright and his reasoning has some merit. I do find it ironic that he turns Bitcoin on its head by making it the new gold though (the basis for the old monetary system).

The math is not wrong, but the assumptions are. Before that kind of adoption many things have to improve, and he is just forgetting about all that, blinded by his delusions of grandeur.

If my grandmother had wheels and an engine, she would be a motorcycle. But there's no way to implant wheels+engine on a grandma, unless you give her a wheelchair, which does not make her a living motorcycle but a poor disabled woman.

I don't know if you are getting the metaphor, I admit it was a long shot Cheesy

I'm not a zealot trying to convince you, I'm merely looking at his reasoning (I didn't say I joined that church either). I also think that tying Bitcoin to gold is of limited value (no pun intended Wink

), but he's into gold so that's what he's working with.

I'd say the CAPEX and OPEX on mining equipment are a better view of the intrinsic value, but if no one wants to buy...

10c

full member

Activity: 658

Merit: 100

BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace

I not sure the Bitcoin infrastructure has to support it in the sense you may mean. The blockchain can handle any particular price, all that would happen is buying bitcoins would be too expensive except for the ultra rich and big corps and govs, which would use bit coins to do things like store wealth, big currency swaps, big deals and balance the nightly's

I'm not saying BTC will go to 300K though.

nah, Ramp is aiming at the limited amount of tx/s
also if wider adoption is taking place in a exponential tempo we have insufficient infra to sustain price.
the amount a BTC is worth can handle it easy as we transition to mBTC.
We have no choice other then to go mBTC, there is no need to own a BTC if prices are that high.
if you were to buy some icecream you pay with a $5 bill instead of a$1000 bill

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

Quote from: dexX7 on June 17, 2013, 05:16:32 AM

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day

I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

I not sure the Bitcoin infrastructure has to support it in the sense you may mean. The blockchain can handle any particular price, all that would happen is buying bitcoins would be too expensive except for the ultra rich and big corps and govs, which would use bit coins to do things like store wealth, big currency swaps, big deals and balance the nightly's

I'm not saying BTC will go to 300K though.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1819

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

Each time the sum of bids and asks on the book was lower than the price, we could observe a local price minimum and trend reversal following.

Do you realize that those variables ( bid sum/ask sum & price; bid sum & ask sum) are displayed in those charts taking into account their own relative highest and lowest points in a given timeframe, and thus them intersecting on the chart is just arbitrary and meaningless, right?

You should pay attention to the values, but the fact they cross on the chart has no meaning at all.

EDIT: I will try to explain you visually the example. In the chart you posted, the bid sum and ask sum crossed for a moment at the beginning of June, and nowadays are very far away one from each other. Now look at the 15 days timeframe, they are crossing each other consistently for the last days. Thus, the fact they intersect or not depends on how they are charted, it will depend on their relative values on an arbitrary timeframe, and therefore is 100% meaningless.

10c

full member

Activity: 658

Merit: 100

BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace

That's what I agreed to as well, exponential growth. the numbers ad up real quick. and to use some proper TA. up until now that works for BTC. look at it 'since time began' in some charts floating around here.

I am disregarding may as this is just normal bubble burst with over correction in highs and lows.
also disregarding the markt lows as they are just that 'lows' the support are the lines I drew.
So what do think? on the right track or better of using the coin?

FT.. picture posting not for me Huh

Coinseeker

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: gandhibt on June 17, 2013, 04:51:04 AM

You defend reason and then you say that bitcoin will never be used as much as gold? Why? It's possible that bitcoin will be the global currency of the world. There's always that possibility, just like there was when one bitcoin was worth <1 USD, it was LESS possible than it is now.

Absolutely no chance. Roll Eyes

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

Quote from: KS on June 17, 2013, 05:38:11 AM

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day

I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

This is not about the Bitcoin reaching 300K this year. It's the simple evaluation of his reasoning to get to the 300K figure in 2013-valued US Dollars (so the 300K might become 310K in 2014 USD with inflation, etc). He's basically postulating that if everyone were to use Bitcoin, it's value would reach 300K. He gets to that number by estimating the average number of Bitcoins each person would have and equates that with the average gold weight that everyone uses (historical data 1913-2013). He uses the average wage for a skilled worker (in the "West") as the basis of his price verification.

Even if the number is totally wrong, his math looks alright and his reasoning has some merit. I do find it ironic that he turns Bitcoin on its head by making it the new gold though (the basis for the old monetary system).

The math is not wrong, but the assumptions are. Before that kind of adoption many things have to improve, and he is just forgetting about all that, blinded by his delusions of grandeur.

If my grandmother had wheels and an engine, she would be a motorcycle. But there's no way to implant wheels+engine on a grandma, unless you give her a wheelchair, which does not make her a living motorcycle but a poor disabled woman.

I don't know if you are getting the metaphor, I admit it was a long shot Cheesy

KS

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

That will probably never happen. BTC would still be a running success if 10-50M people used it daily. What would you reckon the price range would be? 500 to 2500 USD (pro-rata or some other factor might apply?)

You made my day

I bet you were serious

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

This is not about the Bitcoin reaching 300K this year, or the infrastructure capability etc. It's the simple evaluation of his reasoning to get to the 300K figure in 2013-valued US Dollars (so the 300K might become 310K in 2014 USD with inflation, etc). He's basically postulating that if everyone were to use Bitcoin, it's value would reach 300K. He gets to that number by estimating the average number of Bitcoins each person would have and equates that with the average gold weight that everyone uses (historical data 1913-2013). He uses the average wage for a skilled worker (in the "West") as the basis of his price verification.

Even if the number is totally wrong, his math looks alright and his reasoning has some merit. I do find it ironic that he turns Bitcoin on its head by making it the new gold though (the basis for the old monetary system).

phoenix1

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dexX7 on June 17, 2013, 05:16:32 AM

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

It never gets old ...

10c

full member

Activity: 658

Merit: 100

BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace

Two random visual cues:

The price movement doesn't fit well at all, but tendency and time periods does.

Each time the sum of bids and asks on the book was lower than the price, we could observe a local price minimum and trend reversal following.

So your TA tells us we hit 120+ within 2 weeks?

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

Quote from: 10c on June 17, 2013, 05:16:53 AM

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

You're spot on with the infrastructure.
Block chain is the easy thing to fix.

True.

EDIT: anyhow, as the block size gets bigger, it will be more difficult to run full nodes on home computers. If the block size is not fixed and it adjust automatically, big miners could just push out small miners creating on purpouse very big blocks. This has been discussed ad nauseam, and there's no easy answer. Higher capacity of transactions per second will inevitably lead to a bigger centralization (only "servers" running full nodes), the point is to reach an equilibrium in which a lot of transactions per second can happen while the average Joe can still run a full node.

Anyhow, what you said is true: blockchain can be fixed quickly and easily to accomodate more transaction per seconds (the negative side of that is a different discussion). What's slower is the enhancement of the trading platforms and other infrastructure (services).

10c

full member

Activity: 658

Merit: 100

BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace

Man, $300k per BTC this year is just a delusion of a crazy guy. You have to be as dumb as you could possibly get to do not see that Bitcoin's infrastructure is too weak to support that kind of adoption. The blockchain is not technically ready to support that kind of use (block size hard limit, etc.), let's leave apart Gox and the other exchanges managing that kind of "singularity" (LOL) in just a few months from now.

Everybody in here sees the amazing potential of BTC. How it can go to the moon and skrocket very fast. We all see that, you don't need to be a Supernode 1337 trad3r. But the difference between the sane and the crazy guy is the latter loses touch with reality, being blind to hard facts like the very real limits of Bitcoin's infrastructure.

That's why you should never trust your money to a guy like Rpietila, because when he goes nuts he loses sight with reality's knocking on his door. And he may very well end up leaving your BTC's in a Sauna.

You're spot on with the infrastructure.
Block chain is the easy thing to fix.

dexX7

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1026

Two random visual cues:

The price movement doesn't fit well at all, but tendency and time periods does.

Each time the sum of bids and asks on the book was lower than the price, we could observe a local price minimum and trend reversal following.

10c

full member

Activity: 658

Merit: 100

BuyAnyLight - Blockchain LED Marketplace

I am. His calculation is based on gold, so he simply swaps Bitcoin for gold. Using historical data for gold, rounding errors and whatnot and he obtains a nice round figure of 300.000USD (2013 value) per Bitcoin. But that's only when everyone uses Bitcoin (I'm counting 6 billion people, which might be a little too low). It's quite a simple calculation.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1886147

The problem is whether this can stand the reality test. Maybe his assumptions are wrong etc. Bitcoin is not tied to a physical item, so, unlike gold, it can vanish. Will that risk factor be included in the price? OTOH, you can absolutely store paper wallets. You could thus make Bitcoin banknotes (or IOUs), so the market cap could be multiplied (but then we're right back where we started: a debt ridden system).

Anyway, the whole Bitcoin experience is very interesting.

I agree it won't take that much to add 1 or 2 digits.
I for one am very anxious to see what price will be when BTC mainstreams and economy accepts it.
exponential growth will heave taken place and price will have skyrocketed to proportions that would make our last bubble look like normal growth and no one seems to understand why it 'corrected'

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018