Topic: Why bitcoins are dropping, and will continue to do so (Read 28139 times)

Hello people!

I could be saying important things!

I could be saying utterly useless things, or perhaps invalid points!

Either way, no one will care because my post is too difficult to bother to read!

Well done.

Wow that was some formatting. Only objection I have to your assertion is the claim that lots and lots of new miners = more and more supply. Supply stays the same, producing only 50BTC every 10 minutes. Only thing lots and lots of new miners adds is lots and lots of new people, however poor, who are also interested in/have demand for bitcoin  

Why bitcoins are dropping, and will continue to do so?


So you askin me why btc prices will keep diving deep in blue sea ?


Well I tell ya ...


1) Lots of (Poor-mid class to poor - wealth dreamers) are jumping into (mining-mining gear-mining contracts-mining shit , .. etc) with huge investments dreaming of creating wealth out of thin air.



2) Very low number of (speculators-long term investors - normal people saving money - daily btc buy from a shop users) are buying in! and this is really strange since everything else is turning out to be obsolete investment with over priced current prices or nu future or whatever. I really wounder where are the normal people and the real investors hiding their reserve cash since it is a global decline and yet no specific single market/stock is chosen to be the last resort yet!



3) Very Very Very low business (that offers real services/goods for BTC only or with slight advantage for using btc - like discounts maybe) entering the market.








So,.............








Simply we have the 'ld good market rule  (Supply and Demand)


AAAAAAAAAAAAAA+ Lot of Supply (dreaming Miners)


and


tiny steady demand            <<<<<   "Tiny Steady demand"


and


Swinging Speculator  demand-supply-demand-Supply to make money out of idiots.



SO the final sum will be a lot of supply and almsot no demand >>>>>



BTC prices = 000.0000000000000000000000000001 USD

I have to agree with the 3rd post on the referenced thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.330368

Making generation rate dependent on transaction volume? That idea is truly horrible.

I was happy to pick up some coins again at $6, but in the same day I sent a donation, in which I still calculate as though the price is $30. I don't consider myself a hoarder, I just think they are temporarily 80% devalued. At the end of every trading day, I try to close in bitcoins, not dollars. I can move my bitcoins effortlessly. That's amazing!

this isn't helping our cause; how many wallet holders are you influencing to sell  with this topic name.
at least you should have posted this in speculation

I agree, the supply side is running wild.
This is why I suggested making it a factor of transactions (read https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proposal-idea-for-a-much-more-stable-bitcoin-26380)

You have to be kidding yourself if you think the price will drop to 10 cents. Anyone who sold a decent amount between $10-30 would happily buy thousands of coins at $1 or $2. If I sold 1000 coins at $25 and prices fell to $1, I would want to buy those 1000 coins back, plus more and still have a large profit. Especially considering there is nothing wrong with bitcoin, it just hasn't taken off as fast or in the way some have envisioned.

Obviously a guess, but anyone who made a good amount of money in the double digit range would have to be an idiot not to invest some, say 1/10th, back in once they think it has hit a low point. The chance to gain that income twofold would outweigh the risk of losing a small amount of your income at those low costs. That alone would keep us above the very low digits.  

So, entirely guess-based then...

Well, with no reason to use them instead of regular fiat, and real risk of government intervention making them worthless, and a continuing supply coming on the market daily, I would guess under 10 cents.  That worth comes from the very small chance this will take off.  A low probability, huge payoff bet.     

Imho of course, and I could be dead wrong.  So diversify.  I personally would start watching charts for a buy point under 1.00, just to see if it sets up.  I might buy some around 10 cents regardless of charts.

Can you list the numerical aspects of the fundamentals, and the corresponding price?

Just had to bump this lol.  Looks like the fundamentals are winning out now that the dumb money from the media exposure has dried up.  Classic bubble/pumpndump. 

STREPSIADES: No Zeus? Then who makes it rain? Answer me that.

SOCRATES: Why, the Clouds, of course. What’s more, the proof is incontrovertible. For instance, have you ever yet seen rain when you didn’t see a cloud? But if your hypothesis were correct, Zeus could drizzle from an empty sky while the clouds were on vacation.

STREPSIADES: By Apollo, you’re right. A pretty proof. And to think I always used to believe the rain was just Zeus pissing through a sieve.

Oh, the irony.

Like it or not, fractional reserve banking exists and must be described. The Fed created M0 inflation to counter M1, M2 deflation. Bad money deflates, people default or pay off principal, contracting the debt based money supply. Many of those same people/institutions who once had debt now have newly printed dollars. Is that inflation or deflation?

The more 'real' (food, energy, metal, M0) inflated massively in the last three years. The less 'real' (M2, M3, deposits) deflated.


Please read the article I personally retrieved for you. It's short.

There's certainly been a perversion of the language to a point, but you have to be realistic. The vast majority are confused by archaic usage. Even those 'in the know' can not be expected 'to know' without context unless you preach to the choir. Perhaps you can use the monetary- and price- terms as I have, which would have been just as well understood in Jefferson's day as today.

I have a pet peeve against the loose usage of 'irony' - the contradiction of the context - not just contradiction nor unfortunate circumstances. Or the use of 'tea' to refer to any herbal infusion. The use of 'liberal' to mean economic conservative and 'conservative' to mean liberal. But what's the point? Whether by manipulation, improvement, or laziness, language changes.

Yes, the mainstream economists misuse the term. Given that they were unable to predict the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, I tend not to lend credence to their opinions and misguided definitions. Not to mention the manipulation of this terminology is insidious, it has confused the entire world as to the reasons for the increasing price of milk. It has gotten to a point where people believe "inflation" is just a natural phenomenon in a market economy, instead of an intentional and deliberate policy by the central bank.

The discrepancy in definitions is not an innocent evolution of language, it is an intentional perversion of meaning which obscures an extremely important phenomenon. I refuse to mislead other people and follow suit by adopting and perpetuating molested vernacular.

I am careful to distinguish between 'monetary xflation' and 'price xflation'. I have not confused terms; You have. I'm sure you've read a lot of Austrian, but perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the mainstream (aka the century in which you live), if only to know thy enemy, if you will:

On the Origin and Evolution of the Word Inflation
by Michael F. Bryan
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/1997/1015.pdf

Bitcoin has never deflated - it is always inflating at a diminishing rate. Its price has fallen. Price changes =/= inflation or deflation.  Don't confuse a symptom of inflation (rising prices) with inflation itself (increase in the money supply).

Bernanke does this all the time and it drives me crazy. He says, "the rising costs of food and energy are driving inflation higher." Nonsense. HE is driving inflation higher, and as a result food and energy costs are rising. It's like 1984 word-isms. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Debt is stimulus