How To Use Bitcoin – The Most Important Creation In The History Of Man

[Tolls]

How much?

I'd want a definition of "stable"...

 

[Tyke]

I'd want a definition of "stable"...

Well, true, I don't think Bitcoin has been stable by most people's standards for quite a while. We've quickly become accustomed to 20% swings happening in the time it takes to make a coffee.

I was going to take it as staying $400 to $600 over 3-4 days, but he'd have already lost.

 

[mhaze]

Well, true, I don't think Bitcoin has been stable by most people's standards for quite a while. We've quickly become accustomed to 20% swings happening in the time it takes to make a coffee.

I was going to take it as staying $400 to $600 over 3-4 days, but he'd have already lost.

Oh, I don't think so. We could likely all agree that it seems to establish a floor, and bounce around that floor. Then later, it establishes another floor, and bounces around that. We're on the fourth set of that. When I say "floor" I refer to a general level say for a month or a couple months.

I'm not a believer in technical analysis or chart reading, but this does seem to be the general pattern.

Regarding the matter brought up of an AP for $200 being a $600 problem before payment was due...

It occurs to me, that if I was making a donation to a charity or cause that I believed in, I would then be happy they got $600 in USD value instead of $200.

Of course, for a commercial supplier we should preferrably pay him in the most worthless stuff available, like the USD.

 

[mhaze]

I'm sure you'd like to think anyone who has the slightest objection to anything Bitcoin related could just be written off as mindless haters

Not as all. But I note that you assert sureness as to my motives and attitudes, and that your same sureness has been repeatedly been shown factually wrong in this thread.

 

[mhaze]

They lost that much huh?

I'm worried about how much I lost. For the coins that I bought at 30 they zoomed to 900 and then down to 480 and back to 628. So I should figure my loss as ...

qty * (900-480) = LOSS AYIIII, ALL IS LOST!!!!!

I'm just trying to get in the general spirit of things here.

Is that right?

I'm scared to even look at the problem for the coins bought at $100 each. It's going to be really depressing, right?

Cuz these naysayers were saying the same stuff in June 2011 on this thread......and I know that something that's said that is 'right' is not right extemporaniously at some moment of choosing such to affirm it's righteousness, but rather something that is 'right' is right a fair percentage of the time....so the identical negativity displayed in this thread when bitcoin was 30, 2, 100, 50, 400, 600, and 900 must, therefore be very truey.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

That is NOT how the math works, just so you know. Failing to take a gamble and win is not a "loss" in any sense of the word, unless you have a very poor understanding of risk.

Huh, look at that. 13k+ worth of BTC sold early in the morning of Nov 20th at a price well below $750/BTC with no expectation that it will return there anytime soon. Looks like some shlubs got themselves fleeced by the pros. Hope they had their BTC bankroll totally separate so they can at least play the long haul and hope for another unsustainable spike to break even.

Like the 'unsustainable spike' earlier this year when people were backslapping themselves for getting out at $220 and offloading to a bunch of mugs? You could be right, but Bitcoin seems to confound most predictions.

 

[383LQ4SS]

Thus waves of new owners of bitcoin may be expected. How many such waves before widespread understanding? I'd say at least a dozen, say before 5% of the investing public owns some bitcoin. Those numbers could be way way different in other countries where the cultural dynamics are different, like China. So this would be similar phenomena to the adoption of ebay or paypal or amazon.

I am late to the discussion but I have been following somewhat. I am not anti-bitcoin. But it seems there is a bit of a "mission creep" regarding how bitcoin was presented and what its become. I was under the assumption from the first line in the OP that bitcoin was to be a currency (see below). The discussion certainly seems to have shifted much much more to "investment" and away from "currency". While certainly not a zero sum idea...it does seem that the more bitcoin is a short term investment with volatility...the less it becomes a currency. My interest is more in currency use. But the volatility prevents me from using it. And the reasons for this are multi-fold even with the overall trend of bitcoin value moving towards "skyrocket". I tend to think its a sound idea to keep my currencies separate from my investments for what should be obvious reasons. But I may just be too risk averse I suppose.

The article goes on to explain how to use the new currency and why it is superior to all other currencies in existence. .

 

[mhaze]

I am late to the discussion but I have been following somewhat. I am not anti-bitcoin. But it seems there is a bit of a "mission creep" regarding how bitcoin was presented and what its become. I was under the assumption from the first line in the OP that bitcoin was to be a currency (see below). The discussion certainly seems to have shifted much much more to "investment" and away from "currency".....

Not really.....

Yes it is a currency and will in the future be a currency. Period. On it's way to being an accepted 'internet currency' it is having some interesting adventures, isn't it? You see, the speculation or whatever it is is based on the fundamental assertion that bitcoin will have a future utility. And that can only be as a currency, although I see it more useful as internet backbone than retail store front.

 

[mhaze]

Like the 'unsustainable spike' earlier this year when people were backslapping themselves for getting out at $220 and offloading to a bunch of mugs? You could be right, but Bitcoin seems to confound most predictions.

Not to mention the jokers who were bragging about how smart they were to get out at 'the high' of $30 a while back.

There's some real humor here somewhere...

 

[Tyke]

Of course, for a commercial supplier we should preferrably pay him in the most worthless stuff available, like the USD.

You mean that currency by which you still measure the value of your Bitcoins Those useless fiats that practically everyone you know uses to conduct financial transactions.

Not as all. But I note that you assert sureness as to my motives and attitudes, and that your same sureness has been repeatedly been shown factually wrong in this thread.

You were happy to make assumptions about my attitude.

I'm worried about how much I lost. For the coins that I bought at 30 they zoomed to 900 and then down to 480 and back to 628. So I should figure my loss as ...

This might come as a shock to you, but you're not the only person that folk might be talking about.

Besides, you've not actually made anything until you convert them into something useful.

Cuz these naysayers were saying the same stuff in June 2011 on this thread......and I know that something that's said that is 'right' is not right extemporaniously at some moment of choosing such to affirm it's righteousness, but rather something that is 'right' is right a fair percentage of the time....so the identical negativity displayed in this thread when bitcoin was 30, 2, 100, 50, 400, 600, and 900 must, therefore be very truey.

It's very easy to be right in hindsight, isn't it?

Were you involved in the gold bull thread? That one turned out really well for those who said, in Sept 2011, that the price was going to continue through the roof... to $6000/oz even. They were pretty sure too but not for any particular reason, or at least not one that turned out to be correct.

So I have to ask, what is the actual reason for you thinking that Bitcoin prices will rise, except that they have done before (on average), and to what level? This argument isn't about just determining who's right, it's as much about discovering why; for me at least. There's little merit in being right by accident.

 

[383LQ4SS]

Not really.....

Yes it is a currency and will in the future be a currency. Period. On it's way to being an accepted 'internet currency' it is having some interesting adventures, isn't it? You see, the speculation or whatever it is is based on the fundamental assertion that bitcoin will have a future utility. And that can only be as a currency, although I see it more useful as internet backbone than retail store front.

Although I see bitcoin having great utility in the future as possible...I am slightly less optimistic than you I suppose. Confidence is something inherently required in successful currency. IMO bitcoin has quite a long dangerous road to go before it is more than a tech geek currency for the more risk prone among us. The list of potential potholes isnt very long...but they are quite serious and dont seem to have a fix in the works that will raise confidence to higher levels for average people.

I also think your statement that current speculation is driven by the belief that BTC will likely have future utility as a currency a bit naive. Speculation need not be driven by long term beliefs. My uninformed opinion on current speculation is that it is driven by several different human factors, the least of which is probably how speculators envision BTC in its final form.

It is however very very interesting to watch this evolve. I am glad major govts have mostly stayed out of it.

Who knows. Certainly not me. If I had the knowledge and skill to predict markets I would have a few more dollars in my pocket than I currently do...lol.

 

[mhaze]

....
So I have to ask, what is the actual reason for you thinking that Bitcoin prices will rise, ....

The algorithm. Why not just read Satoshi's paper, it's easier than guessing at all these things.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

....bitcoin has quite a long dangerous road to go before it is more than a tech geek currency for the more risk prone among us. The list of potential potholes isnt very long...but they are quite serious and dont seem to have a fix in the works that will raise confidence to higher levels for average people......

My opinion is that the average person does not need to adopt or understand bitcoin for it to become a huge success. This is because if, say, internet auction sites emerge to operate with bitcoin as the international payment backbone, end users can simply log on the auction sites and do their thing. There have been several implementations of this already.

What drives the transaction volume is simply lower fees for the end users. They may not know or care about what's happening behind the scenes.
Other people see many other forms of utility in bitcoin, of course.

Right now, dozens of startups are implementing various forms of utility in bitcoin applications and with considerable venture capital backing.

 

[383LQ4SS]

My opinion is that the average person does not need to adopt or understand bitcoin for it to become a huge success. This is because if, say, internet auction sites emerge to operate with bitcoin as the international payment backbone, end users can simply log on the auction sites and do their thing. There have been several implementations of this already.

.

Possibly. Maybe even likely. Heck by some standards bitcoin is already a huge success. Although maybe not quite "the most important creation in the history of man"

 

[mhaze]

Possibly. Maybe even likely. Heck by some standards bitcoin is already a huge success. Although maybe not quite "the most important creation in the history of man"

Yeah, total bitcoin market capitalization is 7 or 8b, it's getting up there. But RE 2nd assertion...

....it's got a ways to go to compete with beer...

 

[pantsorama]

Until Bitcoins can be used to borrow against, purchase capital, finance operations, pay suppliers, pay workers, issue securities, and a whole host of other day to day stuff that any business of a decent size must do, it will not supplant any government backed currency.

That's Ok, I guess, it certainly has a niche.

But until such time as I can go to a bit coin bank and borrow the equivalent of a couple of million USA, buy a hunk of land in Bitcoins, build the factory and pay the GC in Bitcoins, etc., etc. It is really only a novelty currency.

Even if it had 100% penetration in to retail outlets as an accepted currency it would still only command a small fraction of GDP.

 

[Tyke]

The algorithm. Why not just read Satoshi's paper, it's easier than guessing at all these things.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Because it isn't the algorithm that determines the price, that's why not, and that much should be obvious.

You can test this yourself by creating your own identical implementation of the algorithm, and then seeing if anyone is willing to pay you $600 per hazecoin.

Price is determined by market forces. You can limit the supply programmatically, but that's just one of the factors.

 

[catsmate]

You must be taking lessons from the remirol school of censorship. Anybody who is too lazy to click on the link might think you are responding to what I posted.

Until Bitcoins can be used to borrow against, purchase capital, finance operations, pay suppliers, pay workers, issue securities, and a whole host of other day to day stuff that any business of a decent size must do, it will not supplant any government backed currency.

That's Ok, I guess, it certainly has a niche.

But until such time as I can go to a bit coin bank and borrow the equivalent of a couple of million USA, buy a hunk of land in Bitcoins, build the factory and pay the GC in Bitcoins, etc., etc. It is really only a novelty currency.

Even if it had 100% penetration in to retail outlets as an accepted currency it would still only command a small fraction of GDP.

Exactly. However you'll never persuade the True Believers of that.

 

[mhaze]

Because it isn't the algorithm that determines the price, that's why not, and that much should be obvious.

You can test this yourself by creating your own identical implementation of the algorithm, and then seeing if anyone is willing to pay you $600 per hazecoin.

Price is determined by market forces. You can limit the supply programmatically, but that's just one of the factors.

By your logic it's fine for the US government to print dollars endlessly. The number of dollars is only one factor in establishing their value.

One currency has more of it's units every year, the other has a hard limit of 21 million. It follows that one is inflationary, the other deflationary.

All other factors equal, yes.

Until Bitcoins can be used to borrow against, purchase capital, finance operations, pay suppliers, pay workers, issue securities, and a whole host of other day to day stuff that any business of a decent size must do, it will not supplant any government backed currency.

That's Ok, I guess, it certainly has a niche.

But until such time as I can go to a bit coin bank and borrow the equivalent of a couple of million USA, buy a hunk of land in Bitcoins, build the factory and pay the GC in Bitcoins, etc., etc. It is really only a novelty currency. .....

Really? Let me apply your tests to Paypal. Odd, it fails.

Yet it is highly successful. Must be something wrong with your analysis.

What could it be?

 

[psionl0]

It is really only a novelty currency.

If the average price (volatility not withstanding) continues to rise the way it has over the last couple of years then it won't be long before bitcoin is anything but a novelty.

 

[pantsorama]

That is just an assertion. Please describe why a steep increase in price will establish a currency 's bona-fides in international finance? How is its average price rise going to lead to the establishment of a stock market or banks dealing in bitcoins?