Pages:
Author

Topic: We can breath now. - page 2. (Read 6319 times)

hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
April 05, 2013, 07:51:00 PM
#49
The funny thing is, I agree that MTGox's central position is absurd.
I agree that the price is bound to be higher in the future.
I agree that MTGox's stability can affect the market price... at least on MTGox.

But you refuse to countenance the idea that the instability might have saved us from a deeper dip, and that's funny. And a little sad, because your only evidence to the contrary amounts to "MTGox said so."

So, we'll agree to disagree, so long you're OK with me considering you a moron.

The fact that he fails to see how the main exchange going offline could actually help prevent a panic sell, in much the same way as closing the banks, prevents runs on banks etc, shows that his whole line of reasoning is based on fulfilling what he desires the case to be. Probably, he doesn't even realise that he is doing it. He may even through pure chance (certainly not through accurate market insight), execute his 'exit strategy', before this bubble pops. If that is the case both his wealth and ego will swell to unfathomable heights, rendering him even more unbearable than he has already shown himself to be.


So, you are right in stating that bitcoin is speculative or more speculative than as a currency/exchange of goods tool, however, that is changing with more and more businesses starting to accept bitcoin.
I don't know the numbers, but if bitcoin is 90% speculation and 10% commerce/trading of merchandise the only tendency that I see here is that the volume in transactions related to trading/ecommerce/exchange of goods will only increase and the amount of speculative capital will decrease until they even out.

If someone could tell me for sure that 10% of the total Bitcoin trade volume is due to real economic transactions, then I would be jumping into Bitcoin face first, even at these prices. However, I suspect that to determine the percentage of Bitcoin trade volume that actually constitutes real exchange, that you would have to be looking at a decimal figure.   If I am correct, then under no conditions, could Bitcoin be considered a safe haven investment suitable for masses of fleeing capital.  Alongside the myriad of heuristics, which have the conceivable potential to bring down Bitcoin within a single day (some of which you have mentioned), all that Bitcoin can be considered at the present time, is as an incredibly risky speculative venture, with the potential to net investors huge gains, providing they don't already believe that the top has blown too high already. With that in mind, Bitcoin couldnt be any less attractive a proposition to any sizable business that is run with a modicum of risk aversion in its company ethos.

Until this bubble pops, and some stability is found at massively decreased prices, real world transactions using Bitcoin cannot expand in any meaningful way. In between now and then, is a high risk guessing game, trying to gauge the level of fuel left in the speculative movement into Bitcoin, both in terms of the 'innocent' speculators and those entities who are very probably knowlingly manipulating what is still a miniscule, and thus still a very easily pushed around market.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 07:35:06 PM
#48
Well, I respectfully disagree with your theory.
As is your right.
Also, there is no reason to believe that MTGox statement is inaccurate.
Nor any reason to take it as fact, either. It should be noted, of course, that it doesn't contradict my proposed theory, nor does it back yours up.


We are back at square 0.
Basically, you're skeptical of their statement for whatever reason, and I'm not.
Also, it does backup my posture unless you're right and their statement is inaccurate.
What makes more sense? that they issue an inaccurate statement or that they issue a statement that is based on their findings?
Occam's Razor.
What makes more sense? That they're telling the god's honest truth, or that they're covering their ass? Let's ask Dr. House:



Well, there you go.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 06:40:44 PM
#47
Well, I respectfully disagree with your theory.
As is your right.
Also, there is no reason to believe that MTGox statement is inaccurate.
Nor any reason to take it as fact, either. It should be noted, of course, that it doesn't contradict my proposed theory, nor does it back yours up.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 06:10:44 PM
#46
The funny thing is, I agree that MTGox's central position is absurd.
I agree that the price is bound to be higher in the future.
I agree that MTGox's stability can affect the market price... at least on MTGox.

But you refuse to countenance the idea that the instability might have saved us from a deeper dip, and that's funny. And a little sad, because your only evidence to the contrary amounts to "MTGox said so."

So, we'll agree to disagree, so long you're OK with me considering you a moron.

First of all, I don't recall me calling you names, and second, I'm not sure I understand how the instability on MTGox saved us from a deeper dip in price, so please elaborate that and that seems like a new twist in our argument.
It's only a new twist if you haven't actually been reading what I've been writing. I've used that at least twice. Which brings me to my second point. I'm not calling you names, I am making an observation of your perceived intelligence, based on your ability to accept new information, and your willingness to accept a PR statement as fact.

Let me sum up my theory that MTGox's instability prevented a deeper dip:
Panic sell starts. Instability prevents users from entering new sell orders, or altering their buy orders. Buy orders are executed automatically, panic sell hits wall, price stabilizes. Users get back on, see stable price, and cease panicking.

You'll note also, that this meshes well with the theory that the panic sell caused the instability... if a constant DDoS is on-going, and suddenly there's more legit activity, such as a panic sell, the servers may well be unable to handle it.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 05:00:57 PM
#45
The funny thing is, I agree that MTGox's central position is absurd.
I agree that the price is bound to be higher in the future.
I agree that MTGox's stability can affect the market price... at least on MTGox.

But you refuse to countenance the idea that the instability might have saved us from a deeper dip, and that's funny. And a little sad, because your only evidence to the contrary amounts to "MTGox said so."

So, we'll agree to disagree, so long you're OK with me considering you a moron.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 04:02:29 PM
#44
MTGox is the biggest exchange for bitcoins in terms of transactions and volume, although some people seem to disagree on this. They process more than 70% of the whole exchange market.
That being said, it's easy to see why a collapse, a DoS attack, a hack can cause people to panic and sell (Remember 2011?)
Quite clearly. My question remains, though: If your confidence is shaken so much that you feel you must get your money out of that service, why would you, instead of withdrawing bitcoins, and selling elsewhere, sell there, and hope they have the USD to cover it? Certainly you're not implying that Bitcoin's stability is dependent on MTGox's?

Honestly, after the facts presented, do you still believe that a big sell was the cause of the panic?
Still waiting on facts - and not opinions - to be presented. I'll let you know once you present some facts.

How do they hide the "big sell" transaction from MTGox so MtGox doesn't take action against that particular account?
You're assuming that they would. They would need concrete proof that the DDoS is coming from that person. Not just a coincidence of timing.

We can go on and on with this, my contention won't change and I believe it's the most logical explanation. Can I be wrong? sure. But the evidence is enough for me to believe that I'm right.
By "evidence," you mean the statement you linked to earlier? I've yet to see any other evidence presented.

By the by, you are aware that all Gox's buy and sell orders are a matter of public record, and easily accessible? I can look just as well as you can, and the longer this continues with you not presenting any hard facts, the more likely it is that I go do that. What do you want to bet I find a nice large sale right at the start of the "crash"?
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
April 05, 2013, 03:11:51 PM
#43

None of my claims are unprovable. I know my position, I have an exit plan and I follow it to the dot. I have a bullish position that I don't hide and if I'm called an arrogant because I proved a few bears wrong, so be it!
Whatever problem MatTheCat has with me, I don't really care. This is not personal and I judge you for what you have to say. If it's stupid, I'll tell you. I can be wrong, I'm not the source of truth, but I never talk about things I don't know and I really dislike the people that do.

All of your claims are unprovable because they all just amount to your opinion and/or your personal will on the matters being discussed. Opinions cannot be quantified and proven. It may turn out that you are right in the long run, but for all the wrong reasons. In which case, you wouldnt be 'right', you would have just gotten lucky, which would make all the arrogance in your replies and condecension towards other peoples comments who have a different view from you, even more intolerable.

See, in my opinion, the fundamentals underpinning the Bitcoin boom are frighteningly weak. The transactions involving real goods and services have always accounted for a very small fraction of the total USD volume in Bitcoins, and that was before the price jumped 700% in 5 months. That means the vast majority of the money in Bitcoins is speculative capital chasing large profits. Now, as I understand it, your opinion differs in that you believe something more along the lines of the boom in Bitcoins being largely due to capital fleeing the collapsing petrodollar system, towards a safer, anonynmous, yet still highly convenient digital currency. However, the fact that you, despite being an early adopter, openly boast of your ever so ingenius 'exit strategy', suggests that your main motivation is, or has become, to seek maximum speculative USD profit.

Now, it is a well known human trait, that traders (that is what you and 99.95% of the other bitcoin participants are or have become as a result of this mega bubble) are much quicker to sell stocks that have gained in value, in order to lock in profit, than they are to sell stocks which have stagnated and/or declined in value. The big question is, when does the Bitcoin rocket run out of juice? That will be a matter of two things.
 
a) When the herd stampede organically peters out.

or perhaps more crucially.

b) When the powerful hands with the might to drive the market up or down, decide that it is time to let Bitcoin plummet back down to Earth.

As soon as enough of the specualtive herd get a whiff that the top is in. They will drop Bitcoins like a burning lump of dog shit.

Of course, with Bitcoins characteristic volatilty, the coin can drop in value by 40% in a few hours without it being cause for mass hysteria, which could both serve as the factor that prolongs the bubble and also the factor that causes the amateurs to fail to jump of the train as it goes over its final cliff edge.

This of course just my opinion and instead of pouring scorn and derision on it, why don't you try to 'prove' that I am wrong. Clutching at random cherry picked 'facts' that just so happen to support your own personal paradigm does not count as 'proving anything. Oh yes, and bare in mind, my opinion is based on market behviour that has repeated itself time and time again over hundreds of years. Your is based on, 'ah, but this time it is different'.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 01:38:50 PM
#42
Again, you were assuming all this time, that there was an initial BIG SELL at first, and I'm telling you that that's not the case.
Now that is a provable assertion. So prove it.
Again, I provided you supporting evidence (I'll have to be clear in my wording now) that it was the case. Yet, you misinterpret that evidence assuming things that are probably not true.
You kind of contradict yourself in the interpretations, you play the semantics game first talking about proof and supporting evidence, yet, you misinterpret or assume that by "sell" MTGox's statement meant "Big Sell"
I guess I rest my case here and again, I believe MTGox and their supporting evidence.

You're not even going to prove your assertion that there was not a BIG sell that started it all? Seems like that's a very easy assertion to prove... and your refusal implies that you can't.

To clarify: proof is data. Not somebody making a statement on their website. Thankfully, that data is available. Feel free to provide it.
I see what you did there  Cool

Let's assess the fact ok? because I believe your mind is in this state of "I must win this argument" when in fact, you should be thinking logically:

FACTS:

* There was an initial sell.

Big? Small? We do not know, but what do we know and can infer from this?:
Correction: I do not know whether this sell was large or small. You, presumably, have looked at the charts, and thus determined where and when the selloff started, and should thereby know the value of the original sell. Right? Or are you basing all of this, your entire argument, on the statement from the guys at Gox?

* The initial sell was performed by the attacker
Presumably. Of course, we only have Gox's statement to that effect.

* The initial sell was to gain the most value for the coin at the highest price
Given that this is the motivation behind all sell orders, large and small, malicious or virtuous, I think we can take that at face value.

If you agree to those two statements, we can proceed...

FACT:

* The attacker launches the DoS attack after a sell as stated by MTGox.
Presumably. But again, we only have Gox's statement to go by, for that. Unless, of course, they're willing to provide IP logs.

THE BIG QUESTION

Does the initial sell cause the sell-off or the destabilization of the trading engine does?

Yes, that is what we're discussing here.

Now, I have a question for you to answer:

People sell buy and sell ALL the time at MTGox. What makes THAT initial "sell" so special to cause a sell-off?
I believe this has been established. A large sell order can trigger a panic. Thus, the special feature of this sell is it's size.

The return question:
Websites (especially ones under near-constant DDoS attacks) experience outages all the time. What makes MTGox so special that being unable to log in, or make a trade, would cause someone to panic and sell all their coins using that very system?

Please think logically before answering and let your biased obsession for winning this argument go.

And that's all I have to say about that.
You might be wise to take your own advice, here.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 12:52:39 PM
#41
Again, you were assuming all this time, that there was an initial BIG SELL at first, and I'm telling you that that's not the case.
Now that is a provable assertion. So prove it.
Again, I provided you supporting evidence (I'll have to be clear in my wording now) that it was the case. Yet, you misinterpret that evidence assuming things that are probably not true.
You kind of contradict yourself in the interpretations, you play the semantics game first talking about proof and supporting evidence, yet, you misinterpret or assume that by "sell" MTGox's statement meant "Big Sell"
I guess I rest my case here and again, I believe MTGox and their supporting evidence.

You're not even going to prove your assertion that there was not a BIG sell that started it all? Seems like that's a very easy assertion to prove... and your refusal implies that you can't.

To clarify: proof is data. Not somebody making a statement on their website. Thankfully, that data is available. Feel free to provide it.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
April 05, 2013, 12:43:06 PM
#40
Sorry to be a buzz kill, but what Bitcoin needs for stability is people buying shit in Bitcoin. Which we have, to an extent. We need moar of dat.

The more people switch to BTC fully, the less need there is to trade BTC to fiat and back over and over, the less need there is for mtgox and friends.
newbie
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
April 05, 2013, 12:18:51 PM
#39
Stability will come to the bitcoin economy via distributed exchange of colored bitcoins and other similar currencies built on top of bitcoin (and thus driving up bitcoin values even further(. I personally doubt whether bitcoin itself will ever be stable enough to use for your groceries.

Unless we make bitcoin "credit cards".
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 12:15:12 PM
#38
Also, what if you sell and the DoS fails? then you sold, and the price goes up and you're screwed...
This is a danger with any attempt to panic the market.

Again, you were assuming all this time, that there was an initial BIG SELL at first, and I'm telling you that that's not the case.
Now that is a provable assertion. So prove it.
hero member
Activity: 609
Merit: 500
April 05, 2013, 12:10:58 PM
#37
I'm still not breathing; bought in at 138.  Roll Eyes

Relax, you're not the first to buy in at or near a short-term peak. Long term, you'll be fine.

This.  I'm actually going to start putting some (not all) of my 401k allocation into bitcoins.  I'll purchase each payday, and that might mean purchasing at new highs.  But I also know that these "new highs" will net me awesome gains down the road (much better than my 401k ever will).
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1031
Rational Exuberance
April 05, 2013, 12:07:02 PM
#36
Stability will come to the bitcoin economy via distributed exchange of colored bitcoins and other similar currencies built on top of bitcoin (and thus driving up bitcoin values even further(. I personally doubt whether bitcoin itself will ever be stable enough to use for your groceries.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Now they are thinking what to do with me
April 05, 2013, 11:46:47 AM
#35
Or is it the other way around?

Hey man!

Don't question deathcode's wishful thinking/paradigms/pseudo knowledge!

If you do, then it is because you are an idiot that knows nothing about Bitcoin!

Instead, you should just accept the reassurances of the most arrogant pig headed clown on the whole forum (with a nose made perfect for being punched, may I add). If he says everything is just fine, then everything is just fine! Understand?
Prove me wrong once! and if you're the violent type I guess I'm touched a nerve or something uh?
The beauty of making unprovable claims is that you can't be proven wrong, either.
None of my claims are unprovable.
Then prove to me that the DoS caused a panic sell.

Read this (if you haven't already): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-mtgox-its-been-an-epic-few-days-what-happened-166578
Are they lying? that's the part that can't be proven, however, I don't think there's a need for it.
You can believe their statement or not, but it's there.



Sooooo.....

Still waiting to see the PROOF that there was panic selling. Because as far as I can see, it's been the usual weekend selling, BUT this weekend the value has STILL increased. Regardless of the retarded ddos attacks.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
April 05, 2013, 11:45:59 AM
#34
We need a closed exchange open only to brokers to eliminate day trading.



"Tradehill Exchange Adds Dark Pools Of Bitcoin Liquidity"
Jon Matonis
Forbes, 28 March 2013

www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/03/28/tradehill-exchange-adds-dark-pools-of-bitcoin-liquidity/

MtGox would be smart to follow this path. Let BTC-E, Bitstamp, Virtex, and the other small exchanges bear the brunt against the 50 cent army.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 11:40:39 AM
#33
You're correct about the statement of this being supporting evidence. Finding "proof" per se in a situation like this is not easy, however, they (MTGox) know way more than you and I, they have logs, they probably do a lot of BI and analytics in the background to keep an eye on their transactions and find unusual patterns of buying/selling and many other trends, so their assertion  is by far more educated than yours and mine, mine being based on their statements.
Does that make sense?
Addressing your previous comment, please read this:
"Mt.Gox has been suffering from its worst trading lag ever, 502 errors, and at one point some users were not able to log in their account. The culprit is a major DDoS attack against Mt.Gox."
I think that statement should answer yours. sell-off occurs after the destabilization I don't see a double meaning in their words.

You have proven two facts:
There was a panic sell.
There was (and presumably still is) a DDoS attack on Gox.

What you have not proven, and this is crucial, because it is your claim, is the causal link between the two. By their own statements, the sell-off starts before the destabilization. Unless you can prove the destabilization made the sell-off worse, I'll have to assume that it is equally probable that the instability of the trade platform reduced the severity of the sell-off, by hampering other panic-sellers.

Of course finding proof is "not easy." You're making unprovable claims.

I'm not sure you read correctly or maybe, I didn't read correctly, but can you point out exactly WHERE in their statement it's implied or directly stated that the sell-off started BEFORE the destabilization?
Sure, I'll highlight it for you:

Also, between your assumptions and their assumptions, I think everyone will choose theirs. I stated earlier, they have more data to make "assumptions" than you do, if anything, their assumptions have way more supporting data.
And yet, they're not even saying what you are: that the DDoS caused a panic sell.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
#32
You're correct about the statement of this being supporting evidence. Finding "proof" per se in a situation like this is not easy, however, they (MTGox) know way more than you and I, they have logs, they probably do a lot of BI and analytics in the background to keep an eye on their transactions and find unusual patterns of buying/selling and many other trends, so their assertion  is by far more educated than yours and mine, mine being based on their statements.
Does that make sense?
Addressing your previous comment, please read this:
"Mt.Gox has been suffering from its worst trading lag ever, 502 errors, and at one point some users were not able to log in their account. The culprit is a major DDoS attack against Mt.Gox."
I think that statement should answer yours. sell-off occurs after the destabilization I don't see a double meaning in their words.

You have proven two facts:
There was a panic sell.
There was (and presumably still is) a DDoS attack on Gox.

What you have not proven, and this is crucial, because it is your claim, is the causal link between the two. By their own statements, the sell-off starts before the destabilization. Unless you can prove the destabilization made the sell-off worse, I'll have to assume that it is equally probable that the instability of the trade platform reduced the severity of the sell-off, by hampering other panic-sellers.

Of course finding proof is "not easy." You're making unprovable claims.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 05, 2013, 10:35:32 AM
#31
The beauty of making unprovable claims is that you can't be proven wrong, either.
None of my claims are unprovable.
Then prove to me that the DoS caused a panic sell.

Read this (if you haven't already): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-mtgox-its-been-an-epic-few-days-what-happened-166578
Are they lying? that's the part that can't be proven, however, I don't think there's a need for it.
You can believe their statement or not, but it's there.
Let's assume that they're telling the truth, as they see it. What did they say?
Quote
It is not yet clear who is behind this DDoS and we may never know, but these actions seem to have two major purposes:

Quote
2.   Abuse the system for profit.
Attackers wait until the price of Bitcoins reaches a certain value, sell, destabilize the exchange, wait for everybody to panic-sell their Bitcoins, wait for the price to drop to a certain amount, then stop the attack and start buying as much as they can. Repeat this two or three times like we saw over the past few days and they profit.
So the attacker sells a large number of coins, then destabilizes the exchange. Is it the original sell-off which triggers the panic sell, or is it the destabilization? Might the destabilization actually be harming the goals of the supposed attackers, by hampering others who also want to sell as fast as they can?

And regardless, This doesn't constitute "proof" at best it is "supporting evidence," but not proof. It's not even facts from Gox, just their theory.

Do I need to define "proof" for you?
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
April 05, 2013, 10:34:56 AM
#30
I'm not sure any of the options will lead to complete stabilization, though I'm not arguing that it won't help in the long run.

My thought is that Bitcoin will stabilize when there are more Bitcoins on the market. For example, the vast majority of people are holding onto their coins instead of trading. If you were to hypothetically sell off 500,000 Bitcoins all at once at the lowest price right now, you'd cover just about every major Bid (under Mt. Gox anyway)...yet that 500k is only, what, 4.5% of all Bitcoins that have ever been created so far?

The more coins on the market, the harder it becomes to create the wild swings we've been seeing.
Pages:
Jump to: