Topic: Why bitcoin will hit 100000$/BTC in 2014. My conspiracy theory - page 2. (Read 10153 times)
January 07, 2014, 06:11:19 PM
Well I guess they are preparing for eMunie and silently getting rid of the competing CCs...
January 07, 2014, 01:07:25 PM
I like your theory!
But realistically, it's just wealthy Chinese investing. I invested some for some Chinese businessmen back in the 50s after the April crash. Then Baidu announced accepting BTC, getting the ball rolling -plus free trading at BTCChina, people put money in to trade, pushing up the price, causing a mania - Asians love this type of stuff.
But realistically, it's just wealthy Chinese investing. I invested some for some Chinese businessmen back in the 50s after the April crash. Then Baidu announced accepting BTC, getting the ball rolling -plus free trading at BTCChina, people put money in to trade, pushing up the price, causing a mania - Asians love this type of stuff.
To play devils advocate, the government in china is pretty much controlled by the same rich businessmen. Is it not in their interest to have the chinese government pushing up the value of their investments.
January 07, 2014, 05:30:53 AM
Lighten up. This is a CONSPIRACY thread.
That means any marginally plausible posts are to be expected. Sheesh, some of you actually believe posters are truly pushing substantive ideas. [We're not, btw]
-----------
Now, as I was saying: The "satoshi" name was a brilliant misdirection which some appear to be falling for wholesale. Same goes for the other misdirections.
Why would Treasury or the Fed do it? Because there is no other way to pull all those trillions out of the system without blowing up the global economy. The dollar (and all fiat) boat has been sinking since 1913 when a dollar was actually a dollar. Today's dollar will buy what $.03 would have bought in 1913. This is not new news; and there are plenty of smart people who have known for quite some time that propping up the global economy by printing (globally) $100-200 billion per month is unsustainable.
Creating an entirely new government-neutral currency is a brilliant way out for any country wanting a way out of the fiat farce. It's actually the USD that will benefit most (or is adversely affected the least) because as the current dominant reserve currency, when all the others go tits up, people will still be converting BTC to/from the USD.
That means any marginally plausible posts are to be expected. Sheesh, some of you actually believe posters are truly pushing substantive ideas. [We're not, btw]
-----------
Now, as I was saying: The "satoshi" name was a brilliant misdirection which some appear to be falling for wholesale. Same goes for the other misdirections.
Why would Treasury or the Fed do it? Because there is no other way to pull all those trillions out of the system without blowing up the global economy. The dollar (and all fiat) boat has been sinking since 1913 when a dollar was actually a dollar. Today's dollar will buy what $.03 would have bought in 1913. This is not new news; and there are plenty of smart people who have known for quite some time that propping up the global economy by printing (globally) $100-200 billion per month is unsustainable.
Creating an entirely new government-neutral currency is a brilliant way out for any country wanting a way out of the fiat farce. It's actually the USD that will benefit most (or is adversely affected the least) because as the current dominant reserve currency, when all the others go tits up, people will still be converting BTC to/from the USD.
wow this is a good idea at least i think... i have heard that the FED will haveto somehow "extract" the additional money (it printed) from the system... So your idea is that it has made bitcoin and when theres enough money in it, they will crash it somehow, thus "destroying" the money they wanted to destory. Did i get it right? (im not, thats why im asking). Thats quite a brilliant idea!
But i think its not true, because even when it sounds possible, dont forget that the money which "is" in bitcoin wont get destroyed, it will just get transfered from the last buyer of bitcoin to the last seller... Thats all. The money still exist, it just changed hands. The only waya how to really destroy is, when the last seller of bitcoin (thus the person receivng majority of the cash) would be the FED or GOV, this means that they would have to hold the appropriate ammount on BTC. Which would have to be huge...
Its an interesting idea, maybe i didnt fully understood it, how did you meant it please in detail?
Yes, you misunderstood. What I am suggesting is that Treasury and the Fed realize the USD is doomed if the status quo continues. So, they reached out to the crypto-minds over at the NSA to serruptitiously release XBT in 2009. The objective being to blow up the status quo and REPLACE it with XBT.
As the price of XBT rises and gains acceptance, the masses will voluntarily exchange their trillions of USD and other fiat for XBT. The end game would be XBT as the global, anti-hegemonic, deflationary standard currency with the USD being the sole surviving fiat along with it; AND minus the over-supply of USD which exists today.
January 04, 2014, 12:41:44 AM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.
Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen.
[1] BTC is not a stock, when will you stock people understand this,
do you understand that no one made money selling stock/buying them? All you do is swap around existing fiat, that is gov controlled by basel III CCR, through FRB.
[2] In here (the BTC forum) it looks like everyone knows about BTC, out there, look around, I can go to any public area, shops, beach, park, and everyone I see, 10 000's of people, none of them know about (in any actual detail) and less, 1/100,000 have btc.
[3] BTC is an S curve uptake event, that will likely go faster as it gets bigger until it reaches saturation, like email, microwaves etc. The saturation point is some where in the xx trillions. The only question that remains it what share of the pie will BTC, vs LTC, PPC, NXT, EMUNIE and
[4] Wealth will flow to whatever entity legalises/ uses BTC Since Singapore Denmark, Germany have legalised BTC capital will flow to them, the city of London, will also come online, which operates as a power unto itslef, with thousands of years of history. Where there money to be made the City will do it. Thats why it does +1.3 T forex a day.
BTC can fork to tech that it needs, has a competent dev, and network effect, but you never know.
[1] OK, I'm a stock guy. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt calling XBT a stock. Ok, lets go currency. What's the daily maximum value you've seen a currency go up? Ok, maybe a commodity? How much does gold move? XBT acts more like a penny stock (yes, not anymore) than anything else currently on the market so refer to it as a "stock".
[2] That still $100B in -new- money needed to get to 10k...
[3] BTC is a -possible- S curve uptake event. So far. But there is enough negative news that can effect the price more than the actual fundamentals.
[4] I've actually posted about that in another post. There will a country that fully embraces XBT. It won't be US, Russia, China, etc. It will be a somewhat smaller country with a very inflated currency. Money will flow into that country. I think that is the best bet for XBT exponential price increase.
[1] German mark inflation vs gold, exponential. S
Stock traders have to get their head around they have never made any money, ever on any trade. The just swap existing money supply.
BTC is completely different. This is direct currency competition, money itself.
Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Toyota, BHP ,
The existing money supply is controlled by fractional reserve banking in tandem with the capital reserve ratios they ascribe to and interest rates, via Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (Banks)
Excluding cash, which is the minor part of the economy, this means everyone ultimately is paid because some one stood in-front of a bank and obtained a loan
The only way to pay of that loan of is to execute another loan from a bank, and so you get a massive inverted pyramid of never ending loans needing to be executed to service existing loans. This causes endless devaluation of money, and profiteering of banks at your expense or work. It also insulates central government from bad decsion making which cost trillions, because they can just print more money, by self executing loans and propping up the banks with taxpayer labour appropriated by both using the common currency, printing more and tax of that
BTC has for the first time given a mean to catch all of this inefficient behavior, money printing, bad decisions, over taxation.
And we are not talking billions, bit multiple trillions.
[2] $100B is not much money in the scheme of things, and it only needs a little bit of that , to push the market cap to $100 B.
[3] agree, but see 4.
[4] agree
January 03, 2014, 08:17:31 PM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.
Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen.
[1] BTC is not a stock, when will you stock people understand this,
do you understand that no one made money selling stock/buying them? All you do is swap around existing fiat, that is gov controlled by basel III CCR, through FRB.
[2] In here (the BTC forum) it looks like everyone knows about BTC, out there, look around, I can go to any public area, shops, beach, park, and everyone I see, 10 000's of people, none of them know about (in any actual detail) and less, 1/100,000 have btc.
[3] BTC is an S curve uptake event, that will likely go faster as it gets bigger until it reaches saturation, like email, microwaves etc. The saturation point is some where in the xx trillions. The only question that remains it what share of the pie will BTC, vs LTC, PPC, NXT, EMUNIE and
[4] Wealth will flow to whatever entity legalises/ uses BTC Since Singapore Denmark, Germany have legalised BTC capital will flow to them, the city of London, will also come online, which operates as a power unto itslef, with thousands of years of history. Where there money to be made the City will do it. Thats why it does +1.3 T forex a day.
BTC can fork to tech that it needs, has a competent dev, and network effect, but you never know.
[1] OK, I'm a stock guy. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt calling XBT a stock. Ok, lets go currency. What's the daily maximum value you've seen a currency go up? Ok, maybe a commodity? How much does gold move? XBT acts more like a penny stock (yes, not anymore) than anything else currently on the market so refer to it as a "stock".
[2] That still $100B in -new- money needed to get to 10k...
[3] BTC is a -possible- S curve uptake event. So far. But there is enough negative news that can effect the price more than the actual fundamentals.
[4] I've actually posted about that in another post. There will a country that fully embraces XBT. It won't be US, Russia, China, etc. It will be a somewhat smaller country with a very inflated currency. Money will flow into that country. I think that is the best bet for XBT exponential price increase.
January 03, 2014, 08:00:30 PM
There's a chance it'll hit $10k per BTC, albiet fairly small.
I doubt 100k, though.
I doubt 100k, though.
I think the "easy" money is gone for Bitcoin. I like the settling we're having in the 650-850 range. Building up a good support, and of course resistance. If bitcoin had a vix it would be off the wall, so a little price stability isn't bad at all. If we see $2,000 next year I'd be happy. Slow and steady wins the race...
yes I am sure it was very easy holding as price went from $1 up to $1000, and it will be much more difficult to hold when price goes from $1000 to $1m
January 03, 2014, 07:19:50 PM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.
Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen.
[1] BTC is not a stock, when will you stock people understand this,
do you understand that no one made money selling stock/buying them? All you do is swap around existing fiat, that is gov controlled by basel III CCR, through FRB.
[2] In here (the BTC forum) it looks like everyone knows about BTC, out there, look around, I can go to any public area, shops, beach, park, and everyone I see, 10 000's of people, none of them know about (in any actual detail) and less, 1/100,000 have btc.
[3] BTC is an S curve uptake event, that will likely go faster as it gets bigger until it reaches saturation, like email, microwaves etc. The saturation point is some where in the xx trillions. The only question that remains it what share of the pie will BTC, vs LTC, PPC, NXT, EMUNIE and
[4] Wealth will flow to whatever entity legalises/ uses BTC Since Singapore Denmark, Germany have legalised BTC capital will flow to them, the city of London, will also come online, which operates as a power unto itslef, with thousands of years of history. Where there money to be made the City will do it. Thats why it does +1.3 T forex a day.
BTC can fork to tech that it needs, has a competent dev, and network effect, but you never know.
January 02, 2014, 06:42:29 PM
Lighten up. This is a CONSPIRACY thread.
That means any marginally plausible posts are to be expected. Sheesh, some of you actually believe posters are truly pushing substantive ideas. [We're not, btw]
-----------
Now, as I was saying: The "satoshi" name was a brilliant misdirection which some appear to be falling for wholesale. Same goes for the other misdirections.
Why would Treasury or the Fed do it? Because there is no other way to pull all those trillions out of the system without blowing up the global economy. The dollar (and all fiat) boat has been sinking since 1913 when a dollar was actually a dollar. Today's dollar will buy what $.03 would have bought in 1913. This is not new news; and there are plenty of smart people who have known for quite some time that propping up the global economy by printing (globally) $100-200 billion per month is unsustainable.
Creating an entirely new government-neutral currency is a brilliant way out for any country wanting a way out of the fiat farce. It's actually the USD that will benefit most (or is adversely affected the least) because as the current dominant reserve currency, when all the others go tits up, people will still be converting BTC to/from the USD.
That means any marginally plausible posts are to be expected. Sheesh, some of you actually believe posters are truly pushing substantive ideas. [We're not, btw]
-----------
Now, as I was saying: The "satoshi" name was a brilliant misdirection which some appear to be falling for wholesale. Same goes for the other misdirections.
Why would Treasury or the Fed do it? Because there is no other way to pull all those trillions out of the system without blowing up the global economy. The dollar (and all fiat) boat has been sinking since 1913 when a dollar was actually a dollar. Today's dollar will buy what $.03 would have bought in 1913. This is not new news; and there are plenty of smart people who have known for quite some time that propping up the global economy by printing (globally) $100-200 billion per month is unsustainable.
Creating an entirely new government-neutral currency is a brilliant way out for any country wanting a way out of the fiat farce. It's actually the USD that will benefit most (or is adversely affected the least) because as the current dominant reserve currency, when all the others go tits up, people will still be converting BTC to/from the USD.
wow this is a good idea at least i think... i have heard that the FED will haveto somehow "extract" the additional money (it printed) from the system... So your idea is that it has made bitcoin and when theres enough money in it, they will crash it somehow, thus "destroying" the money they wanted to destory. Did i get it right? (im not, thats why im asking). Thats quite a brilliant idea!
But i think its not true, because even when it sounds possible, dont forget that the money which "is" in bitcoin wont get destroyed, it will just get transfered from the last buyer of bitcoin to the last seller... Thats all. The money still exist, it just changed hands. The only waya how to really destroy is, when the last seller of bitcoin (thus the person receivng majority of the cash) would be the FED or GOV, this means that they would have to hold the appropriate ammount on BTC. Which would have to be huge...
Its an interesting idea, maybe i didnt fully understood it, how did you meant it please in detail?
January 02, 2014, 06:32:27 PM
Guys, think about it for a while.
To be able to control worlds reserve currency is one of the biggest weapons US has. Why on earth would they be giving that power willingly away? That is just not plausible. Americans would also never ever invent a currency that calls one of its units with a japanese name "Satoshi".
Remember that the people running US are not exactly technological geniuses. Many of the have serious problems even understanding what bitcoin is about. Can you imagine a secret meeting in which some government hacker suggests:
"Hey guys, I came up with this idea! Now this might sound complicated to some of you but it's really great.. Well we can't control our currency anymore if we do this, but please listen the whole story before you downvote! It's based on cryptography which you NSA guys hate, but don't be too fast to dismiss this complicated plan..."
After the long silence, there would probably be a single liner like "Tom, your fired."
To be able to control worlds reserve currency is one of the biggest weapons US has. Why on earth would they be giving that power willingly away? That is just not plausible. Americans would also never ever invent a currency that calls one of its units with a japanese name "Satoshi".
Remember that the people running US are not exactly technological geniuses. Many of the have serious problems even understanding what bitcoin is about. Can you imagine a secret meeting in which some government hacker suggests:
"Hey guys, I came up with this idea! Now this might sound complicated to some of you but it's really great.. Well we can't control our currency anymore if we do this, but please listen the whole story before you downvote! It's based on cryptography which you NSA guys hate, but don't be too fast to dismiss this complicated plan..."
After the long silence, there would probably be a single liner like "Tom, your fired."
Thats just stupid... :-(
1)Nobody cares about the name (satoshi), in addition, it was given to the smallest BTC fraction by the community
2) Be sure that the people in the charge ARE very inteligent
3) Dollar is probably already dead its justr a matter of a time, so why dont come beforehand with something different.
January 02, 2014, 06:25:24 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I don't think there is "no way" we can't go above 2k this year. I think 10k and 100k is fairly obviously a near "no way" bet. But didn't Mom teach you -never- use an absolute?
I think we can see 2k this year. I reference the commodity and stock markets a lot. XBT has $12MM "shares" outstanding, and way less in the float (what can be freely traded). Maybe $7MM? Lost, locked up, government owned, etc. That is a really small amount of shares to be freely traded in a worldwide market. It's one of the reason XBT prices reacts so much on positive or negative news.
So is that you hedging your bets? Yes 57 No 42 BTC? Pretty sure same person with both bets...
Lol, I will bet no, probably .5-1 BTC within the next week. And I will I hope you win.
But honestly think I will win. Too soon and too quick. 
January 02, 2014, 05:03:45 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I don't think there is "no way" we can't go above 2k this year. I think 10k and 100k is fairly obviously a near "no way" bet. But didn't Mom teach you -never- use an absolute?
I think we can see 2k this year. I reference the commodity and stock markets a lot. XBT has $12MM "shares" outstanding, and way less in the float (what can be freely traded). Maybe $7MM? Lost, locked up, government owned, etc. That is a really small amount of shares to be freely traded in a worldwide market. It's one of the reason XBT prices reacts so much on positive or negative news.
So is that you hedging your bets? Yes 57 No 42 BTC? Pretty sure same person with both bets...
January 02, 2014, 05:03:04 PM
Nothing is impossible, bitcoin will rise up but 100k in 2014 will be high prediction lets hope it will reach 10K so next will be turn of 40-50K
January 02, 2014, 05:02:43 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I don't think there is "no way" we can't go above 2k this year. I think 10k and 100k is fairly obviously a near "no way" bet. But didn't Mom teach you -never- use an absolute?
I think we can see 2k this year. I reference the commodity and stock markets a lot. XBT has $12MM "shares" outstanding, and way less in the float (what can be freely traded). Maybe $7MM? Lost, locked up, government owned, etc. That is a really small amount of shares to be freely traded in a worldwide market. It's one of the reason XBT prices reacts so much on positive or negative news.
So is that you hedging your bets? Yes 57 No 42 BTC? Pretty sure same person with both bets...
January 02, 2014, 04:56:33 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I don't think there is "no way" we can't go above 2k this year. I think 10k and 100k is fairly obviously a near "no way" bet. But didn't Mom teach you -never- use an absolute?
I think we can see 2k this year. I reference the commodity and stock markets a lot. XBT has $12MM "shares" outstanding, and way less in the float (what can be freely traded). Maybe $7MM? Lost, locked up, government owned, etc. That is a really small amount of shares to be freely traded in a worldwide market. It's one of the reason XBT prices reacts so much on positive or negative news.
January 02, 2014, 02:43:05 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
But you must realise how very few people are in Bitcoin at the moment. It really is a small fraction, even of those of the right generation, demographic, geographic location etc.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - media coverage is highly fickle. We've had the impression that Bitcoin has been all around the world and back in 2013 - that really could not be further from the truth. It is an infant!
January 02, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.
Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen.
It will keep growing exponentially until nobody will sell BTC for $. At that point there is no point of exchanging any more and the exponentiality will stop.
January 02, 2014, 12:57:13 PM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
Fairly simple actually, stocks don't grow exponentially after a certain point, it just isn't feasible. XBT increased its market cap in one year by ~10B. Which was a great feat. But for XBT to increase 100x again, the market cap would have to increase from 10B to something with way too many zero's on it in one year.
Can it get there eventually? Who knows. A LOT of factors have to fall into place for that to happen.
January 02, 2014, 12:37:55 PM
Wall Street could push Bitcoin over $100k. Bitcoin went 100x in 2013, why not again in 2014?
January 02, 2014, 12:27:20 PM
C'mon guys, be realistic... No way we can go beyond 2000 this year...
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I do not understand why people think logarithmic. From 100 to 1000 it's a ten-fold increase but just 900 usd growth. 900 usd growth from here would bring us at ... 1600. And gold parity will be a major battle.
I don't think there is "no way" we can't go above 2k this year. I think 10k and 100k is fairly obviously a near "no way" bet. But didn't Mom teach you -never- use an absolute?
I think we can see 2k this year. I reference the commodity and stock markets a lot. XBT has $12MM "shares" outstanding, and way less in the float (what can be freely traded). Maybe $7MM? Lost, locked up, government owned, etc. That is a really small amount of shares to be freely traded in a worldwide market. It's one of the reason XBT prices reacts so much on positive or negative news.
January 02, 2014, 12:18:33 PM
I do not understand why people have such trouble with the exponential function.
As Kurzweil and others have pointed out, this is a "flaw" in our human predictive software. We have great difficulty understanding exponential growth, despite the fact that is all around us in nature all the time. We tend to think in terms of linear change, and this works out pretty well for most day- to day problem solving issues. We have only recently (evolutionary-wise) had to struggle with understanding, anticipating & managing exponential change. Up till recently nature has been handling this without our participation. This is a massive gap in our collective ability to respond wisely to much of the change affecting the planet and complex systems.
Albert Einstein is said to have called "the power of compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe." He was not just talking about money. He was talking about understanding exponential change.
Jump to: