Bitcoin - Part 2

[GlennB]

For a friendly wager:

If you think Bitcoin will go below 1,000 this year, name the date when that first happens (never mind if it later climbs back above 1,000), or just state "It won't happen".

April 10th

 

[Eddie Dane]

For a friendly wager:

If you think Bitcoin will go below 1,000 this year, name the date when that first happens (never mind if it later climbs back above 1,000), or just state "It won't happen".

April 10th

My bet:

it won't happen this year. It will find support somewhere around $3000.

 

[GlennB]

He pronounced on a loud voice that blockchain will go away. That makes him is an idiot.

Did he?

"Blockchain has “been around for 10 years, and the only application is cryptocurrencies, which is a scam,” the New York University economist added."

 

[psionl0]

And even the blockchain. I have contracts at home in a folder, a copy in the cloud and a copy at my notary's office. Do I need it to be part of some ever-expanding ledger spread out over thousands of locations?

That's a bit like saying "Why do we need banks? I have money in my mattress".

Don't let lack of imagination blind you to future prospects. Blockchain and smart contracts have the potential to eliminate middlemen like lawyers and notaries. For example, in the near future, blockchains may render large profit raking companies obsolete. People wishing to book private taxis may do so directly and there will be a permanent record of how the driver performed their service.

 

[psionl0]

Did he?

"Blockchain has “been around for 10 years, and the only application is cryptocurrencies, which is a scam,” the New York University economist added."

Like I said, "idiot".

 

[Samson]

Ah, yes. The good old "oh, it was a joke", also known as the "it was just locker room talk" excuse.

Just own your mistake, Samson.

Sorry you took it seriously and lost your shirt.

 

[xjx388]

I want my beer cold please.

The bitcoin scam is not like the stock market although the scammers are trying hard to make it seem so to get more suckers.

The financial market is where one buys a share in a company. When that company makes a profit so does the shareholder. If the company grows and so do their earnings then people are prepared to pay a higher price for the share in order to get a higher benefit than other investments they might make.

Typically a stock price should follow the earnings of the company - hence the PE (price to earnings) ratio. The normal used to be 12 but the typical is much higher, indicating that the stock market is overheated and overpriced.

OK, I generally agree with this. You can study the stock market with fundamental analysis which looks at all those factors and more, which all have to do with the actual company you are buying stock in.

However, in this thread, we have someone who is advocating for technical analysis which only uses price history to analyze an asset. I think this is folly. No one can beat the stock market with TA. Which brings us to bitcoin:

There is no underlying asset or earnings growth in bitcoin. It is a gamble like betting on horses. The winners are happy, the losers sigh, the bookies take their cut. Bitcoin pays the early buyers with money from the late buyers and the exchanges make a ton of money in the process.

The exact same thing applies to people who use TA in the stock market. They don't care about a company's fundamentals, they only care about price history. It is exactly like betting the ponies. My dad loved horse racing. He would pore over the Daily Racing Form ticking off little marks here and there looking for certain things in the past performance of each horse that might indicate a likely result for this race. As with every other bettor who uses some "genius system" to beat the track, he won some, lost some. He would get so mad when my brother and I won something on sheer luck. He couldn't see that his system was giving results consistent with chance; you simply cannot predict which horse in a field of 12 is going to win each race with any consistency. Why? There are too many variables.

I totally agree with you that you cannot analyze bitcoin the way you analyze a stock. This applies to FA, obviously, but TA as well. And it's worth mentioning that neither FA nor TA has been shown to produce a consistently winning strategy in the stock market. This is where horse racing, stocks and bitcoin have something in common: Their price is influenced by real world variables that no one can predict. Maybe the "best" horse isn't feeling well that day? Maybe that solid blue chip company gets involved in a scandal? Maybe banks start accepting bitcoin deposits? We cannot predict these variables; thus, we really can't predict any market.

When the buyers dry up, the race is over, and can be talked about. It is like musical chairs - and the music is about to stop.

I doubt the music is about to stop. The music might change from the frenetic EDM to the mellow Smooth Jazz but I don't think anyone is unplugging the jukebox anytime soon (although if Kenny G comes on, I wish they would!).

One can bet on anything in any way. The stock market fluctuates with various events and there are many ways of betting a ton of money of what goes and what goes down.

Yes, but there is no way to consistently predict when things are going up and when they are going down.

 

[angrysoba]

Wow!

One Bitcoin is currently worth: 810208.05

Japanese Yen

That's the lowest I have seen it in a while.

I asked my friend who owns two of them if he was ready to sell yet. His answer was "You don't sell when the price is low!" I suggested you do if you think it is going to continue going lower and not recover.

He replied that that's what all the "newbies" think who have just got into Bitcoin, like our co-worker, who is apparently panicking now about having bought in in such a high price.

I said fine and I am not going to hassle anyone over their financial decisions, but it really looks like it is sliding big time and he should get what he can out of it. He bought them when they were literally* being sold for peanuts, so anytime he sells between now and them going to something like 10 dollars is a "win", but his winnings probably won't be bigger than a million yen each now.

*not literally

 

[PartSkeptic]

Ooh! Now you are going to rehash the ancient conspiracy theories that were flogged on this forum years ago.

No longer is it about individuals freely buying or selling bitcoin at whatever price they can get. It is about the evil reptilian aliens luring sweet innocent earth dwellers (with candy no doubt) into a life of bitcoin induced slavery.

I was wrong before. This thread doesn't belong in the paranormal section. It belongs in the CT section.

It is not a conspiracy when a bunch of sharks are attracted to bleeding meat to eat. The bunch of scammers all using the same technique to feed off the (stupid?) public does not mean a conspiracy either.

In my view, the governments are at fault for not reacting soon enough and passing laws to stop the rot. The fact that they stood by and did nothing gave the whole mess an air of government sanction and for being okay except for the tax issue.

Bitcoin tech did not start as a scam but as a theoretical means of open transparency for transactions. I am okay with the idea.

However, the people who really started using the tech were doing illegal transactions across borders and anonymous transactions. The small time players were swamped by drug money and other illicit large scale dealings. This created demand.

Once the scheme got traction it attracted the "get-rich-quick" crowd (the scammers), and they grew as fast as the speculation. It has become a massive global Ponzi scheme where the scammers are going to disappear on a large scale with the dollars and leave people holding the useless crypto.


How should I end - mark my words!!!

 

[PartSkeptic]

OK, I generally agree with this. You can study the stock market with fundamental analysis which looks at all those factors and more, which all have to do with the actual company you are buying stock in.

However, in this thread, we have someone who is advocating for technical analysis which only uses price history to analyze an asset. I think this is folly. No one can beat the stock market with TA. Which brings us to bitcoin:

The exact same thing applies to people who use TA in the stock market. They don't care about a company's fundamentals, they only care about price history. It is exactly like betting the ponies. My dad loved horse racing. He would pore over the Daily Racing Form ticking off little marks here and there looking for certain things in the past performance of each horse that might indicate a likely result for this race. As with every other bettor who uses some "genius system" to beat the track, he won some, lost some. He would get so mad when my brother and I won something on sheer luck. He couldn't see that his system was giving results consistent with chance; you simply cannot predict which horse in a field of 12 is going to win each race with any consistency. Why? There are too many variables.

I totally agree with you that you cannot analyze bitcoin the way you analyze a stock. This applies to FA, obviously, but TA as well. And it's worth mentioning that neither FA nor TA has been shown to produce a consistently winning strategy in the stock market. This is where horse racing, stocks and bitcoin have something in common: Their price is influenced by real world variables that no one can predict. Maybe the "best" horse isn't feeling well that day? Maybe that solid blue chip company gets involved in a scandal? Maybe banks start accepting bitcoin deposits? We cannot predict these variables; thus, we really can't predict any market.

I doubt the music is about to stop. The music might change from the frenetic EDM to the mellow Smooth Jazz but I don't think anyone is unplugging the jukebox anytime soon (although if Kenny G comes on, I wish they would!).

Yes, but there is no way to consistently predict when things are going up and when they are going down.

Okay.

Trading analysis is a bit like analyzing the behavior of people. The active traders have a set of rules, and there is some herd behavior. Often when there is some hidden fraud in a company it starts to show in the stock behavior before the fraud is exposed. People in the know start to sell. Some people think it is a good buying opportunity and the price bounces but goes down before a massive crash. Think Steinhoff. The trading analysis guy called it correctly - saying sell, although he never expected the massive drop.

It is a game as you point out. My view is that governments should ban short-term trades. Buy a stock and force people to hold for at least a week before being able to sell 50% then another two weeks before selling 25% and so on. Same with buying. If one has bought, then the buy should be priced at 50% of the order immediately, with 25% a week later and so on.

Stocks have a purpose - to support legitimate business. Currently the set-up transfers wealth from the middle class to the elite. And bitcoin will be adding to that. The portion of the elite who benefit will be rich and unethical business types.

 

[PartSkeptic]

For a friendly wager:

If you think Bitcoin will go below 1,000 this year, name the date when that first happens (never mind if it later climbs back above 1,000), or just state "It won't happen".

April 10th

April 1 (April Fools Day )

 

[xjx388]

Is there really a need though?

I think there is. Right now, most online purchases involve a credit card. The databases with all those credit cards gets hacked all the time. A secure crypto that was accepted everywhere could virtually eliminate that problem. That's one way there is a need.

I'm not dodging taxes, and I live in the Netherlands so I don't have to order weed from the SilkRoad. Why do we need an international peer-to-peer token?

So I can buy something from you in the Netherlands from here in the USA and not have to worry about currency conversions, credit card fees, risk of fraud, etc. The same applies for travel; it would replace credit cards and traveller's checks (OK, those are already in severe decline) and be more secure than either.

I'm no expert, but as I understand it:
Ethereum is mostly used to buy ICO's and other cryptos.

I am no expert either, but Ethereum is supposed to be used as way to drive their "smart contracts" platform which is apparently some kind of distributed computing platform.

Ripple is not distributed but a product of a company that hopes that can replace SWIFT codes used between banks for easy international transactions.

Right. It does this through RippleNet, which is a distributed computing network.

I'm starting to wonder if there's even a need at all beyond illegal activities. And we've been very capable of financing revolutions and trading drugs with good old fiat currency.

And even the blockchain. I have contracts at home in a folder, a copy in the cloud and a copy at my notary's office. Do I need it to be part of some ever-expanding ledger spread out over thousands of locations?

As the Roubini article mentioned. The blockchain has been around for a decade and all it's been used for creating cryptocurrencies. These could just turn out to be an unbelievably inefficient type of Airmiles.

I disagree. I think there will be great utility in both a stable token and the blockchain. The question of the moment is: What exactly will that be and when will it happen.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip).

Swift transactions involve a hash added to the bank number to stop errors.

This could be expanded to domestic transactions as well but the banks do not do it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think there is. Right now, most online purchases involve a credit card. The databases with all those credit cards gets hacked all the time. A secure crypto that was accepted everywhere could virtually eliminate that problem. That's one way there is a need.

So I can buy something from you in the Netherlands from here in the USA and not have to worry about currency conversions, credit card fees, risk of fraud, etc. The same applies for travel; it would replace credit cards and traveller's checks (OK, those are already in severe decline) and be more secure than either.

Would it be more secure from a consumer point of view though? If I am buying something on the other side of the world, and pay in bitcoin what am I do to if the seller is a scam artist and is not going to send me the item? With credit cards and other such things there is a way for me to get my money back. Bitcoin does not seem to have that kind of consumer protection.

 

[phiwum]

It depends which prediction you are talking about.
It is tiresome to have cherrypicking.

The last thing I said was sell at 8902 on the futures market and I would say when to take profit.

What you said before, with apparent confidence, didn't come to pass. That's not cherry picking.

I don't have faith in bitcoin, but you've obviously failed quite badly in that prediction. Yet we should believe you now?

 

[phiwum]

That one was obviously going to be wrong, given that it was for a 97% decline in a few weeks.
Don't take everything too seriously, you'll have a fit of old fashioned apoplexy.

Oh, so you didn't mean it. Why, that's alright then, because now you mean it.

Right?

 

[phiwum]

He pronounced on a loud voice that blockchain will go away. That makes him is an idiot.

Could be. We'll see when the time comes.

It would be nice to have a deadline. Whay do you propose?

 

[kayle]

I have bought 100 light bulbs (buying no more, I promise). I will have the light on in my WC all the time 24/7/365. For every bulb I will issue a bulbcoin. It is completely decentralised (sorry, no nice talks about blockchains or whatever, i will be simply burning electricity); look out for this -only 100!

 

[Samson]

What you said before, with apparent confidence, didn't come to pass. That's not cherry picking.

I don't have faith in bitcoin, but you've obviously failed quite badly in that prediction. Yet we should believe you now?

That is a clear case of cherry picking. You took one prediction of about 5.
Read the thread.

 

[Samson]

Oh, so you didn't mean it. Why, that's alright then, because now you mean it.

Right?

Correct, well spotted.