(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  I have "very-high-stakes" in bitcoin. The following ideas concern only-me. Take your own responsibility if you ever believed/followed them.

Fair enough.


I think you make a lot of decent points in your post, but from my viewpoint, I consider some of your predictions and descriptions of the BTC space to be a bit off, and largely, I respond to each of your various points, below.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - I believe bitcoin price right now is determined by miners selling pressure vs. demand. Miners probably sell 70-80% of their daily btc.

I think that the variance is much greater than you are making it out to be, and such variance may depend on the short-term projected price direction.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - Demand for bitcoin is very unstable. It rose lately -$500 peak- (which made people think it was a bubble). The reason it went back quickly is due to miners selling pressure. Miners need to sell quickly to pay electricity bills.

I think that it is too simplistic to attempt to place a large part of the explanation for the November 4th rise and fall at $500 on mining or miners. Bitcoin space is much more complicated than that, and in retrospect, we can recognize that the price had gone to $500 much too quickly; however this second time around of what appears to be an approach towards $500 appears to be much more stable, with a better base, and likely a bit more difficult to drive back down to $300 (surely we are not out of the woods, yet, in terms of a possible return to $300 prices).

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - I've talked with a mining guy (high hashing power) and he said they sell the bitcoins they mine as soon as they get them. They have no interest in speculating/investing. They are just here for business. I think most miners are like him.

You could be correct; however, without further explanation and/or evidence, it sounds like anecdotal evidence and not necessarily reflective of the behavior of all miners (furthermore, we should acknowledge that the "typical" bitcoin miner is an evolving creature, and s/he / it is not the same in 2016 as he was in 2015 or 2014 or 2013.

There may be some similarities, but the field is still developing and strategies may also vary depending upon how each of them views the short term or long term price of bitcoin... and believe it or not, some of them are speculators (at least for short and/or strategic periods of time). and they are also likely humans, so their strategies may change from time to time and what they say and what they do may vary, as well.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - The reason we went to $500 -> $350 -> $480 -> $420 (today) is the lack of market making. This is due to: Lack of investors/professional traders and fear and ignorance of bitcoin potential.

Again, it seems that you are oversimplifying. For example, there could be a lot of development in the bitcoin space, and increased adoption; however, since bitcoin's market cap is so small, it is not so difficult to manipulate the price, to some extent by strategically employing various exchange mechanisms. So, sometimes the price may be pushed around by some fairly small amounts of capital strategically placed and strategically employed - but don't get me wrong, because I am not arguing that manipulation is a total explanation, either because sometimes even the various whale traders have to go along with various short term or even longer term trends, depending on their own abilities to continue to employ resources and/or to signal others to follow to attempt to push the price in one direction or another - and some of the big manipulators may have relationships with either exchanges or with miners. We cannot always know each of the dynamics in any particular price move, if we are not specifically informed of the inside details.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - The halving is not priced in. The future is not priced in. Nothing in bitcoin is priced it. It's priced almost daily by supply/demand.

If you are describing the situation in absolutes, then you are likely going to get some of it wrong.

When investors are aware of future events, then some of that is going to influence their present actions, and I agree that future known events cannot be completely be priced in because investors will give different weight to the future known event, and sometimes, the importance or lack of importance of a known future event may not be realized until after the occurrence of another event, that was previously unknown.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - Most weak hands have already quit the game.

That's certainly not true. A lot of weak hands have been weeded out, but there are constantly people getting on and off the bitcoin train, and some of those people will get over eager, overinvest and turn out to be weak hands.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - $1.5million per day of new people getting in is required to keep the current prices. On one hand, it's not a lot of money. On the other hand, it's really a LOT if bitcoin is not getting serious traction. You'll need 10,000 guys daily put $150 into bitcoin to maintain the current prices.

This argument is made all the time, especially in the "bitcoin is a ponzi scheme circles," and so what? Bitcoin is becoming more and more a global phenomenon... and the network effect builds up over time...

The supply is not inflating at as great of a rate as you make it out to be, especially with evident increased adoption. you can review a variety of blockchain.info charts and see the frequently exponential increases for yourself.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - The halving will result in less supply and make the selling pressure weaker than ever. This will result in a strong bull market and might result in a huge bubble.

Agreed. And, is this a problem? Seems to me to be a factor that should cause more people to want to invest in bitcoin and get out before the post bubble crash.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - I don't think we are going to see a price bubble (except in the halving) unless a MAJOR event happens that draw dozens of millions to bitcoin.

You are entitled to your opinion, and time will tell. Invest according to your views and risk tolerance.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - price will stabilize around $500-$600 in the half of the next year. It'll double after halving and stay above $1,000.

First you seem to indicate that you cannot specifically predict the future, then you go ahead an predict specifics. go figure!!!

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - If price hit $1,000 I'll sell at least 50% of my holdings. If price hit $1,500 I'm very unlikely to remain in the game.

Have a nice day gentlemen!

Maybe you are correct, and I probably already stated my viewpoint several times, but in any event, I will repeat that it seems fairly likely that if BTC prices begin to approach the old all time high of around $1200, then prices are likely to shoot past such previous ath. At the moment, I think $3 to 5k is a fair approximation of an overshoot, but I suppose we need to see how it plays out and if it plays out.

You seem to be interested in this topic. So here we go.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Fair enough.

I think you make a lot of decent points in your post, but from my viewpoint, I consider some of your predictions and descriptions of the BTC space to be a bit off, and largely, I respond to each of your various points, below.

Okay.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that the variance is much greater than you are making it out to be, and such variance may depend on the short-term projected price direction.

The short-term is directed by traders and market sentiments. My point is, the market making community can't control prices for more than the short-term.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that it is too simplistic to attempt to place a large part of the explanation for the November 4th rise and fall at $500 on mining or miners. Bitcoin space is much more complicated than that, and in retrospect, we can recognize that the price had gone to $500 much too quickly; however this second time around of what appears to be an approach towards $500 appears to be much more stable, with a better base, and likely a bit more difficult to drive back down to $300 (surely we are not out of the woods, yet, in terms of a possible return to $300 prices).

That's not my point. The bitcoin economy is big and complicated (over 400 legitimate company on crunch base). It's also a "true" global economy. But my point is that new demand / miners supply is what drive price on the long term (currently) despite all the companies/actors/stuff going on.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  You could be correct; however, without further explanation and/or evidence, it sounds like anecdotal evidence and not necessarily reflective of the behavior of all miners (furthermore, we should acknowledge that the "typical" bitcoin miner is an evolving creature, and s/he / it is not the same in 2016 as he was in 2015 or 2014 or 2013.

There may be some similarities, but the field is still developing and strategies may also vary depending upon how each of them views the short term or long term price of bitcoin... and believe it or not, some of them are speculators (at least for short and/or strategic periods of time). and they are also likely humans, so their strategies may change from time to time and what they say and what they do may vary, as well.

Sure. It was just my sentiment and the vibe I got at the last scaling bitcoin conference. nothing more.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Again, it seems that you are oversimplifying. For example, there could be a lot of development in the bitcoin space, and increased adoption; however, since bitcoin's market cap is so small, it is not so difficult to manipulate the price, to some extent by strategically employing various exchange mechanisms. So, sometimes the price may be pushed around by some fairly small amounts of capital strategically placed and strategically employed - but don't get me wrong, because I am not arguing that manipulation is a total explanation, either because sometimes even the various whale traders have to go along with various short term or even longer term trends, depending on their own abilities to continue to employ resources and/or to signal others to follow to attempt to push the price in one direction or another - and some of the big manipulators may have relationships with either exchanges or with miners. We cannot always know each of the dynamics in any particular price move, if we are not specifically informed of the inside details.

I'm not sure you get my point. If there was strong market making, the manipulation would not happen. It'd not happen if the market makers were confident enough on their projections and put enough capital. In this last dump, the order book of bitstamp dropped from $7.5million to $4.5million in a few minutes. It means the market makers (if we call them so), were so afraid that they pulled their capital.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  If you are describing the situation in absolutes, then you are likely going to get some of it wrong.

When investors are aware of future events, then some of that is going to influence their present actions, and I agree that future known events cannot be completely be priced in because investors will give different weight to the future known event, and sometimes, the importance or lack of importance of a known future event may not be realized until after the occurrence of another event, that was previously unknown.

Sure. But my point is that there is not enough investors to "price in" bitcoin. At least from my opinion. By predicting $x,xxx for bitcoin in one year and holding all I possibly can, I'm contributing to the "price in" effect.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  That's certainly not true. A lot of weak hands have been weeded out, but there are constantly people getting on and off the bitcoin train, and some of those people will get over eager, overinvest and turn out to be weak hands.

I'm talking about the "old weak hands" from the 2013. Sure there are lots of guys getting in/out all the time.

(12-26-2015 03:40 PM)thisisright Wrote:  - The halving will result in less supply and make the selling pressure weaker than ever. This will result in a strong bull market and might result in a huge bubble.

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Agreed. And, is this a problem? Seems to me to be a factor that should cause more people to want to invest in bitcoin and get out before the post bubble crash.

No an observation of mine!

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  First you seem to indicate that you cannot specifically predict the future, then you go ahead an predict specifics. go figure!!!

I can't know the future of bitcoin. Nobody can. I'm just "predicting the price based on my own world view". If I was not here for "speculation", then I'd just buy 10bitcoin for the fun of it!

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Maybe you are correct, and I probably already stated my viewpoint several times, but in any event, I will repeat that it seems fairly likely that if BTC prices begin to approach the old all time high of around $1200, then prices are likely to shoot past such previous ath. At the moment, I think $3 to 5k is a fair approximation of an overshoot, but I suppose we need to see how it plays out and if it plays out.

That is your btc price then! Have a good day trading!

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that the variance is much greater than you are making it out to be, and such variance may depend on the short-term projected price direction.

The short-term is directed by traders and market sentiments. My point is, the market making community can't control prices for more than the short-term.

In my above quote, I was responding to your original point that on a daily basis miners are selling 70-80% of their coins, and I believe that variance to be greater than 70-80%, and really, it is a bit of a ridiculous statement for you to suggest some kind of narrow and range as if changes in the market, BTC price direction and views of the future price may not cause some miners to speculate and maybe hold their coins, sell strategically, rather than daily, as was your original assertion .

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I think that it is too simplistic to attempt to place a large part of the explanation for the November 4th rise and fall at $500 on mining or miners. Bitcoin space is much more complicated than that, and in retrospect, we can recognize that the price had gone to $500 much too quickly; however this second time around of what appears to be an approach towards $500 appears to be much more stable, with a better base, and likely a bit more difficult to drive back down to $300 (surely we are not out of the woods, yet, in terms of a possible return to $300 prices).

That's not my point. The bitcoin economy is big and complicated (over 400 legitimate company on crunch base). It's also a "true" global economy. But my point is that new demand / miners supply is what drive price on the long term (currently) despite all the companies/actors/stuff going on.

I still believe that you are oversimplifying what is driving price. Overall, you may be correct, but to me, you framing of the "what drives the price" matter seems too oversimplified, even if essentially true.

Surely, we can recognize that there are long term and short term BTC price dynamics; however, sometimes, short term price changes can affect the overall longer term price based on public sentiment that is caused by the price staying in a certain range or being forced into a certain range by manipulators (or attempted manipulators).

Accordingly, when bitcoin's market cap is so small, it can be manipulated by a fairly small amount of capital, and those kinds of short-term manipulations, to the extent they are taking place, can affect public sentiments, in spite of various other BTC fundamentals.

So, really I am suggesting that long term BTC prices are affected by fundamentals and manipulations and not simply "new demand / miners supply" as you reassert above.

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  You could be correct; however, without further explanation and/or evidence, it sounds like anecdotal evidence and not necessarily reflective of the behavior of all miners (furthermore, we should acknowledge that the "typical" bitcoin miner is an evolving creature, and s/he / it is not the same in 2016 as he was in 2015 or 2014 or 2013.

There may be some similarities, but the field is still developing and strategies may also vary depending upon how each of them views the short term or long term price of bitcoin... and believe it or not, some of them are speculators (at least for short and/or strategic periods of time). and they are also likely humans, so their strategies may change from time to time and what they say and what they do may vary, as well.

Sure. It was just my sentiment and the vibe I got at the last scaling bitcoin conference. nothing more.

This happens all the time, no? Don't we act based on information that we have, but as we learn, and maybe even participate in various kinds of additional conversations and research and thinking, we may revise our thoughts, but in essence, we need to go with our own hunches and invest (or not) accordingly. My personal opinion is that it is good to put some skin in the bitcoin game, and if we learn x, y or z, we can later adjust our position and/or risk to account for the newly acquired information.


For example, read back in the thread, and you will see that Satoshi got out at $250-ish, and he was correct for a while, and then price went up to $500, and he said he may get back in in the $200s, which seemed to be a pie in the sky assertion, but we were nearly in the $200s and then he said that he is not getting back in.

So in a short period of time, there can be a lot of potential to change one's mind or to adjust one's position to make or lose money, depending on whether total risks are sufficiently diversified and based on learning that in the end may or may not be correct... but we each make our investment decisions for ourselves and maybe tweak our investment (or betting ) strategies based our views and hopefully our learning.

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Again, it seems that you are oversimplifying. For example, there could be a lot of development in the bitcoin space, and increased adoption; however, since bitcoin's market cap is so small, it is not so difficult to manipulate the price, to some extent by strategically employing various exchange mechanisms. So, sometimes the price may be pushed around by some fairly small amounts of capital strategically placed and strategically employed - but don't get me wrong, because I am not arguing that manipulation is a total explanation, either because sometimes even the various whale traders have to go along with various short term or even longer term trends, depending on their own abilities to continue to employ resources and/or to signal others to follow to attempt to push the price in one direction or another - and some of the big manipulators may have relationships with either exchanges or with miners. We cannot always know each of the dynamics in any particular price move, if we are not specifically informed of the inside details.

I'm not sure you get my point. If there was strong market making, the manipulation would not happen. It'd not happen if the market makers were confident enough on their projections and put enough capital. In this last dump, the order book of bitstamp dropped from $7.5million to $4.5million in a few minutes. It means the market makers (if we call them so), were so afraid that they pulled their capital.

By definition, I believe that market makers do not get scared, because they have considerable control and are able to profit no matter the direction of the market.

Manipulation is going to continue to happen in BTC for a long time to come, but the dynamics of manipulation will change over time regarding how price is set in the future, and certainly market cap will make a considerable difference regarding who is able to manipulate and how much capital you need in order to be a manipulator.

For instance, if BTC's market cap is $60 billion, $600 billion or $6 trillion, the ability and the dynamics for ability to manipulate are going to be different in each of those scenarios.

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  If you are describing the situation in absolutes, then you are likely going to get some of it wrong.

When investors are aware of future events, then some of that is going to influence their present actions, and I agree that future known events cannot be completely be priced in because investors will give different weight to the future known event, and sometimes, the importance or lack of importance of a known future event may not be realized until after the occurrence of another event, that was previously unknown.

Sure. But my point is that there is not enough investors to "price in" bitcoin. At least from my opinion. By predicting $x,xxx for bitcoin in one year and holding all I possibly can, I'm contributing to the "price in" effect.

probably, I don't really disagree with you, except for your level of specifics (absolutes) raises red flags for me, and almost certainty that you are going to be wrong. O.k. fine, I get your various points about price direction and contributions, but sometimes it seems much more accurate to leave more wiggle room in predictions because even you seem to concede that we can have our predictions, but we do not really know for sure because we do not know all of the variables and even some of the variables might even be unknowable at the moment that we are attempting to plan for the future.

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  That's certainly not true. A lot of weak hands have been weeded out, but there are constantly people getting on and off the bitcoin train, and some of those people will get over eager, overinvest and turn out to be weak hands.

I'm talking about the "old weak hands" from the 2013. Sure there are lots of guys getting in/out all the time.

ok...

(12-27-2015 06:22 AM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 07:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Maybe you are correct, and I probably already stated my viewpoint several times, but in any event, I will repeat that it seems fairly likely that if BTC prices begin to approach the old all time high of around $1200, then prices are likely to shoot past such previous ath. At the moment, I think $3 to 5k is a fair approximation of an overshoot, but I suppose we need to see how it plays out and if it plays out.

That is your btc price then! Have a good day trading!

My main point to assert the $3-$5k is to suggest that if BTC prices start to skyrocket and overshoot as they historically have seemed to have such tendencies, then it could very well be the case that guys will be getting out way too early at $1k and $1.5k, so it could be safer to leave some skin in the game, even at those price points.

Nonetheless, each guy needs to find his own price points and to cash out to the extent that he feels comfortable with such cashing out.

@JayJuanGee

The thing is, nobody knows the future. Otherwise they had bought BTC at $1.

Anyway, if this isn't a personal question: How are you storing your bitcoins? Are you using a special Cold Storage method or something.

I'll start by answering: I use a split of: 1. Airgapped basic cold storage, 2. Coinbase/Circle and 3. Trezor (soon will add Ledger!)

(12-27-2015 12:43 PM)thisisright Wrote:   The thing is, nobody knows the future.

Yes we do. Here's the future:

1. More taxes.
2. We die.
3. Bitcoin ends.

The question is when. Just kidding; at one point, bitcoin was even cheaper than a dollar!

Informative post which may explain my earlier observation.

(12-27-2015 12:43 PM)thisisright Wrote:  @JayJuanGee

The thing is, nobody knows the future. Otherwise they had bought BTC at $1.

Even though I had heard the term / name bitcoin before November 2013, I did not know about it until that time.

Currently, there are a lot of people, probably more than 90% of the planet who don't really know about bitcoin, and of the potential 10% who kind of know about bitcoin, 90% of those are misinformed about it.

Also, even if a person knows about something and calculates a high expected future value for that something, that person, if thinking clearly should view the world in terms of probabilities, rather than absolutes, because you are correct we cannot know for sure about the future, but even if the person places a high expected future value on bitcoin, may not invest in accordance with his view of expected future value.

(12-27-2015 12:43 PM)thisisright Wrote:  Anyway, if this isn't a personal question: How are you storing your bitcoins? Are you using a special Cold Storage method or something.

I'll start by answering: I use a split of: 1. Airgapped basic cold storage, 2. Coinbase/Circle and 3. Trezor (soon will add Ledger!)

Currently, my BTC holdings are spread :

Coinbase vault
Coinbase regular
Coinbase exchange
Uphold
Circle
Blockchain wallet
localbitcoins
BTC-e
Gemini

likely in the future (that we cannot predict ) I will add other storage solutions.

What are your guy's opinions of the reclusiveness of the originator? This legendary Satoshi character supposedly hasn't sold any of the bitcoins he originally mined, which are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do you think this is? He's dead / he was unlucky enough to loose the coins / he's biding his time for the right moment?

(12-27-2015 12:52 PM)SunW Wrote:  Informative post which may explain my earlier observation.

Interesting discussion in the link, and sometimes we can get some price movement inclinations and/or explanations from these various macro-economic factors, but we also may consider that some of that could be correlation rather than causation or just part of the explanation, when we really do not know for sure.

(12-27-2015 01:51 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  What are your guy's opinions of the reclusiveness of the originator? This legendary Satoshi character supposedly hasn't sold any of the bitcoins he originally mined, which are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do you think this is? He's dead / he was unlucky enough to loose the coins / he's biding his time for the right moment?

I'm not sure if it matters exactly the reason for the coins being there and not moving, but based on current evidence and non movement of the coins previously, I am inclined to believe that the originally mined coins are not going to move or be used at any time in the near and/or relevant future... but surely time will tell, and if they do move, we may experience considerable instability in the bitcoin space, if we do not simultaneously receive a clear, convincing and plausible good explanation for any moving of the coins if such move were to take place.

@JayJuanGee If you are holding over $50k, you should look into Hardware and cold Storage.

Also remove your BTCs from blockchain, localbitcoins, BTC-e and Uphold. You are very likely to lose your BTCs with them. My long term strategy is to put all BTC on hardware/cold storage.

No need for any to worry it's not going to 3000 anytime soon I'd say many who were stuck from the previous spike will be dumping all the way up making appreciation tough. Best of luck I wouldn't park a penny in Bitcoin

(12-27-2015 01:51 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  What are your guy's opinions of the reclusiveness of the originator? This legendary Satoshi character supposedly hasn't sold any of the bitcoins he originally mined, which are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do you think this is? He's dead / he was unlucky enough to loose the coins / he's biding his time for the right moment?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're on RVF; otherwise, you sound very journalisty. Only journalists care about this shit and there's a reason why:

(12-15-2015 01:17 PM)SunW Wrote:  Craight Wright isn't Satoshi.

The real purpose of labeling Wright as Satoshi was as I put it:

Quote:The real reason for discovering the bitcoin founder is to smear the idea - that's what they really want. Look how many media stories now are writing "He invented bitcoin to avoid taxes" or "He created bitcoin because he's bankrupt." None of them realize the idea's value; these people are completely incapable of thought.

And you quote media saying, "See, even he knew it was a scam; he bought gold!" So let's review:

• Satoshi created bitcoin because he's bankrupt.
• Satoshi created bitcoin to avoid taxes.
• Satoshi created bitcoin to scam people.
• Satoshi created bitcoin because I don't know basic economics.
  

And I'm going to believe all of this cuz journalists said so!

If Craig Wright bought gold at the time that that article states, that means bitcoin was around $100ish while gold was in the $1500-1600 range. No wonder the stupid fuck is bankrupt.

Bitcoin is global and decentralized in nature. Bitcoin is a self-verifying currency. Bitcoin can earn more bitcoins. Why should I give a shit who created it?

For instance, in an alternative system (the retarded US Dollar):

(12-15-2015 07:08 AM)SunW Wrote:  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Quote:As recently as September 2014, the Fed pledged to eventually "hold no more securities than necessary," in its "normalization" plan, a level widely interpreted as close to its pre-crisis $900 billion size.

Today as the long-anticipated rate lift-off draws close, the central bank appears to be warming to the idea of a sizeable balance sheet.

"Look, we're not changing our mind about what we said we were going to do. We've just recently decided that we're not going to do what we said." LMAO!

My economist friends are beginning to realize I was right - the Fed can't do what it had said. They were "shocked" by this admission. I so so so agree with whateverfuckit, when you compare the integrity of the Federal Reserve and the US monetary system to bitcoin, obviously the Federal Reserve can be trusted to do the right thing.

We see a centralized authority who at one point says "We're not going to do that, don't worry" then five years later, "Heeeeyyyy guyyys, we lied. We're going to do that after all." If you want to put your faith in that system, let me know how that works out for you. Everyone doesn't lose faith in centralized currencies immediately, but as they go back on their word, more and more people do until it's over. Bitcoin will do very well in this world.

TL;TSTR (too long; too stupid to read) - there's a reason why after milleniums of existence humans say that "integrity matters." It will be funny how many of you learn the hard way that people who change their mind all the time cannot be trusted. Especially in finance. You think after thousands of years, humans would know this, but no ...

(12-27-2015 02:49 PM)thisisright Wrote:  @JayJuanGee If you are holding over $50k, you should look into Hardware and cold Storage.

Also remove your BTCs from blockchain, localbitcoins, BTC-e and Uphold. You are very likely to lose your BTCs with them. My long term strategy is to put all BTC on hardware/cold storage.

Even though bitcoin offers the ability to "be your own bank," I don't really trust myself sufficiently enough at this point in my bitcoin experiences to employ such personalized storage devices for myself.

Maybe sometime in the future I may change some of my thinking regarding this storage point, as I learn more, and/or if I begin to research more into adding some of those features into my life.

Yes, one of the downsides to NOT holding the private keys is that I am relying on the third party to give me my coins upon request and that they still have them when I request them.

I understand, for example, that if anytime, someone executes a government garnishment order or if some bullshit like occurred in Greece, were to happen with some of the USA bank-connected services, then I could be screwed out of some, if not all of my bitcoins, if I do not move my coins before such occurrences.

Yes, to some extent, I do understand and recognize 3rd party risk, and certainly, I am taking some chances with the integrity of various 3rd parties that hold my private keys in the various services that I use. Apparently, out of all of the services that I use, blockchain asserts that they do not in any way hold my private keys or have any ability to access my coins, if I were to lose my ability to access those cloud-accessible coins.

(12-27-2015 03:05 PM)RobbieRobNJ Wrote:  No need for any to worry it's not going to 3000 anytime soon I'd say many who were stuck from the previous spike will be dumping all the way up making appreciation tough. Best of luck I wouldn't park a penny in Bitcoin

Sure, it is fine for you to decide not to "park a penny" in Bitcoin, but really you may not understand or recognize what other people are going to do regarding bitcoin in the future, and probably that is part of the reason why you have chosen not to "park" any of your money in bitcoin.

Surely, I could assert and argue that you do not understand bitcoin sufficiently, but that would be too presumptuous on my part to make such an assertion without knowing more about you and/or more about your various investment decisions, if any.

(12-27-2015 03:19 PM)SunW Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 01:51 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  What are your guy's opinions of the reclusiveness of the originator? This legendary Satoshi character supposedly hasn't sold any of the bitcoins he originally mined, which are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do you think this is? He's dead / he was unlucky enough to loose the coins / he's biding his time for the right moment?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're on RVF; otherwise, you sound very journalisty. Only journalists care about this shit and there's a reason why:

(12-15-2015 01:17 PM)SunW Wrote:  Craight Wright isn't Satoshi.

The real purpose of labeling Wright as Satoshi was as I put it:

Quote:The real reason for discovering the bitcoin founder is to smear the idea - that's what they really want. Look how many media stories now are writing "He invented bitcoin to avoid taxes" or "He created bitcoin because he's bankrupt." None of them realize the idea's value; these people are completely incapable of thought.

And you quote media saying, "See, even he knew it was a scam; he bought gold!" So let's review:

• Satoshi created bitcoin because he's bankrupt.
• Satoshi created bitcoin to avoid taxes.
• Satoshi created bitcoin to scam people.
• Satoshi created bitcoin because I don't know basic economics.
  

And I'm going to believe all of this cuz journalists said so!

If Craig Wright bought gold at the time that that article states, that means bitcoin was around $100ish while gold was in the $1500-1600 range. No wonder the stupid fuck is bankrupt.

Bitcoin is global and decentralized in nature. Bitcoin is a self-verifying currency. Bitcoin can earn more bitcoins. Why should I give a shit who created it?

For instance, in an alternative system (the retarded US Dollar):

(12-15-2015 07:08 AM)SunW Wrote:  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Quote:As recently as September 2014, the Fed pledged to eventually "hold no more securities than necessary," in its "normalization" plan, a level widely interpreted as close to its pre-crisis $900 billion size.

Today as the long-anticipated rate lift-off draws close, the central bank appears to be warming to the idea of a sizeable balance sheet.

"Look, we're not changing our mind about what we said we were going to do. We've just recently decided that we're not going to do what we said." LMAO!

My economist friends are beginning to realize I was right - the Fed can't do what it had said. They were "shocked" by this admission. I so so so agree with whateverfuckit, when you compare the integrity of the Federal Reserve and the US monetary system to bitcoin, obviously the Federal Reserve can be trusted to do the right thing.

We see a centralized authority who at one point says "We're not going to do that, don't worry" then five years later, "Heeeeyyyy guyyys, we lied. We're going to do that after all." If you want to put your faith in that system, let me know how that works out for you. Everyone doesn't lose faith in centralized currencies immediately, but as they go back on their word, more and more people do until it's over. Bitcoin will do very well in this world.

TL;TSTR (too long; too stupid to read) - there's a reason why after milleniums of existence humans say that "integrity matters." It will be funny how many of you learn the hard way that people who change their mind all the time cannot be trusted. Especially in finance. You think after thousands of years, humans would know this, but no ...

hahahahahahaha

SunW: You are sounding rather bullish in your bitcoin perspective(s). After my attempting to absorb the substantive meaning of that above post, I would have calculated that you have been dollar cost averaging a bit more of your fiat into bitcoin, rather than waiting for some seemingly pie in the sky developments of $100-$200 bitcoins...

I must say!!!!!:

(12-27-2015 03:49 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 02:49 PM)thisisright Wrote:  @JayJuanGee If you are holding over $50k, you should look into Hardware and cold Storage.

Also remove your BTCs from blockchain, localbitcoins, BTC-e and Uphold. You are very likely to lose your BTCs with them. My long term strategy is to put all BTC on hardware/cold storage.

Even though bitcoin offers the ability to "be your own bank," I don't really trust myself sufficiently enough at this point in my bitcoin experiences to employ such personalized storage devices for myself.

Maybe sometime in the future I may change some of my thinking regarding this storage point, as I learn more, and/or if I begin to research more into adding some of those features into my life.

Yes, one of the downsides to NOT holding the private keys is that I am relying on the third party to give me my coins upon request and that they still have them when I request them.

I understand, for example, that if anytime, someone executes a government garnishment order or if some bullshit like occurred in Greece, were to happen with some of the USA bank-connected services, then I could be screwed out of some, if not all of my bitcoins, if I do not move my coins before such occurrences.

Yes, to some extent, I do understand and recognize 3rd party risk, and certainly, I am taking some chances with the integrity of various 3rd parties that hold my private keys in the various services that I use. Apparently, out of all of the services that I use, blockchain asserts that they do not in any way hold my private keys or have any ability to access my coins, if I were to lose my ability to access those cloud-accessible coins.

blockchain do not hold your keys. But their security track record is nothing but a shame. They have been a target of multiple security attacks and users lots money.

If you are holding a significant amount, it's reckless not to own the keys. You are "double" gambling. A good start is "Master Bitcoin" by Andreas A.M.

(12-27-2015 05:53 PM)thisisright Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 03:49 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 02:49 PM)thisisright Wrote:  @JayJuanGee If you are holding over $50k, you should look into Hardware and cold Storage.

Also remove your BTCs from blockchain, localbitcoins, BTC-e and Uphold. You are very likely to lose your BTCs with them. My long term strategy is to put all BTC on hardware/cold storage.

Even though bitcoin offers the ability to "be your own bank," I don't really trust myself sufficiently enough at this point in my bitcoin experiences to employ such personalized storage devices for myself.

Maybe sometime in the future I may change some of my thinking regarding this storage point, as I learn more, and/or if I begin to research more into adding some of those features into my life.

Yes, one of the downsides to NOT holding the private keys is that I am relying on the third party to give me my coins upon request and that they still have them when I request them.

I understand, for example, that if anytime, someone executes a government garnishment order or if some bullshit like occurred in Greece, were to happen with some of the USA bank-connected services, then I could be screwed out of some, if not all of my bitcoins, if I do not move my coins before such occurrences.

Yes, to some extent, I do understand and recognize 3rd party risk, and certainly, I am taking some chances with the integrity of various 3rd parties that hold my private keys in the various services that I use. Apparently, out of all of the services that I use, blockchain asserts that they do not in any way hold my private keys or have any ability to access my coins, if I were to lose my ability to access those cloud-accessible coins.

blockchain do not hold your keys. But their security track record is nothing but a shame. They have been a target of multiple security attacks and users lots money.

If you are holding a significant amount, it's reckless not to own the keys. You are "double" gambling. A good start is "Master Bitcoin" by Andreas A.M.

At this point, it is becoming less clear about whether to treat you seriously or to treat you as a troll.

I believe that I made it sufficiently clear regarding my understanding 3rd party risk with spreading my bitcoins through the already listed entities, but you continue in an apparently repetitive patronizing and lecturing tone.

Regarding your choice of the term gambling, that term is fairly laden with baggage and imprecision.

In that regard, you should hopefully acknowledge that there is a difference between gambling and various other kinds of informed risk-taking.. Accordingly, your choice of the expression " 'double' gambling" seems imprecise at best or a purposeful attempt to interject judgmental patronizing in a worse interpretation.

I recently read Nathaniel Popper's Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money, and I'm sold on the concept of bitcoin (the book itself was a great read, especially for anyone looking for an introduction to the ideas/history behind the cryptocurrency).

I want to start moving a bit of my cash savings into bitcoin, preferably by dollar cost averaging a few dollars (~$5) each day for the next year or so.

Would any of you guys be able to advise me on the best way to go about that?

I was thinking I'd maintain a "hot" wallet on an exchange like Circle for purchasing new bitcoins, and then transfer them once a month or so to a "cold" wallet for long-term storage, perhaps by downloading the private key to a thumb drive, or printing/laminating it on a piece of paper and storing that in my safe.

This will be purely for (most likely mid-to-long-term) investing purposes, not for purchasing goods/services, so I'm less concerned with anonymity, security, and merchant access, and more concerned with reducing my transaction fees as much as possible. That's why I'm looking at Circle, which (for now at least) doesn't charge to convert funds to or from bitcoin with a linked bank account, or to store bitcoins, or for bitcoin transactions.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

Isaac what you're doing is similar to what JayJuanGee is doing (dollar cost averaging), so he'll be more than happy to help you out.

Good point about the fees; might be worth posting all the different sites and the fees, though I'm sure it changes.

(12-28-2015 12:05 PM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  I recently read Nathaniel Popper's Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money, and I'm sold on the concept of bitcoin (the book itself was a great read, especially for anyone looking for an introduction to the ideas/history behind the cryptocurrency).

I want to start moving a bit of my cash savings into bitcoin, preferably by dollar cost averaging a few dollars (~$5) each day for the next year or so.

Would any of you guys be able to advise me on the best way to go about that?

I was thinking I'd maintain a "hot" wallet on an exchange like Circle for purchasing new bitcoins, and then transfer them once a month or so to a "cold" wallet for long-term storage, perhaps by downloading the private key to a thumb drive, or printing/laminating it on a piece of paper and storing that in my safe.

This will be purely for (most likely mid-to-long-term) investing purposes, not for purchasing goods/services, so I'm less concerned with anonymity, security, and merchant access, and more concerned with reducing my transaction fees as much as possible. That's why I'm looking at Circle, which (for now at least) doesn't charge to convert funds to or from bitcoin with a linked bank account, or to store bitcoins, or for bitcoin transactions.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

As SunW mentioned, I think that you are employing a similar method as I had been employing, since the beginning of my BTC investment. Surely, it sounds as if you have a lot of decent ideas already, and as you may have read earlier, I have never really gotten into private storage avenues, but it is not necessarily a bad idea and can be good in various ways to really store your coins privately and securely. One of the problems with long term solutions like those, though is that you do have to be responsible for remembering your access 5 or 10 years down the road, which could be a problem if you do not take some safeguarding methods.



Regarding low fees, circle is a pretty decent mechanism, but sometimes you may find other avenues with lower fees, for example sending funds to some exchange, and then once you buy the bitcoins, you can transfer them to where ever you like.

I think bitcoin is in a much better position as compared with when I got started, but when I got started, I first allocated $30 k for over 6 months, and then I reconsidered my investment at the end of that period, and allocated more at the end, and I kept investing for the past 2 years with reconsideration every few months about how to proceed.

Accordingly, you may want to consider for a bit further out. Of course, $5 per day can work, but you may want to consider some other lump sum methods.

So for example if you dedicated $150 for the month, then you may want to time it a bit better. Maybe divide the month into three? if you are at first not sure about the price movement, then you invest $50 and wait... then if the price drops you invest the other $50 and if it goes up you wait... and maybe it will come back down and you invest the last portion of the $50.

You could do both. Have one part of the money that you invest no matter what... $5 every other day, and then the other half of the investment fund, you attempt to be strategic about it and to invest on dips (dividing it how you like). Your budget is what it is, and if you feel comfortable with $150 a month, there are still a variety of ways to be strategic about it while you are building up your bitcoin holdings.

I personally, recall that I wanted to purposefully frontload my BTC investment, so I dedicated about 1/4 of my total 6month investment allocation towards the 1st month, and after that I spread the remaining over the remaining 5 months. Here it sounds as if you are working with a smaller amount than I was.. maybe $900 to $1000 over 6 months... that is not a lot, but it is something... and maybe you could consider $250 over each of the first two months and then spread the remaining $500 out over the remaining 4 months.....

Don't take anything that I say as investment advice, just a bit of brainstorming in order that you may want to think about other possible ways of dividing up your investment and maybe getting a bit more stake in the game... but ultimately it is up to you and your budget and your financial situation and overall comfort level.

(12-28-2015 05:21 PM)SunW Wrote:  Isaac what you're doing is similar to what JayJuanGee is doing (dollar cost averaging), so he'll be more than happy to help you out.

Good point about the fees; might be worth posting all the different sites and the fees, though I'm sure it changes.

Regarding fees, etc.. some of that does change over time, but earlier I did mention each of the various services that I have used, and guys should be able to research into any of those and to ask questions...

hahahahaha.. we haven't been having too much interactions regarding those kinds of details in recent times, so it may be a bit of a waste of time, if guys are not specifically interacting regarding possible avenues to obtain BTC or trade BTC or even to monitor various BTC news.

I suspect when price goes to $1,000

or even to my "pie in the sky" projections of $3,000 to $5,000, then interest is going to pick up...

hahahahaha

I found the below-linked article to be pretty interesting and showing the current ranking of bitcoin in the payment's processing arena and suggesting its future competitiveness in the payments processing space. One thing in order to assist bitcoin in its competitiveness will be to double or triple or even 10x its price(market cap) in order to have better liquidity for players who may want to quickly transfer $10-$100 million in value from one local to another but to have little to no slippage in the BTC price during such transactions whether they decided to cash in and out of bitcoin or not.

right now, it would be pretty easy to make a quick transaction of less than 1/4 million dollars with little slippage in the price (that's 500 BTC), but when you get to larger amounts of BTC, it gets harder and harder to get rid of them quickly without potentially causing some unwanted slippage.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/12/29/visa-b...e-anymore/

(12-27-2015 05:53 PM)thisisright Wrote:  blockchain do not hold your keys. But their security track record is nothing but a shame. They have been a target of multiple security attacks and users lots money.

If you are holding a significant amount, it's reckless not to own the keys. You are "double" gambling. A good start is "Master Bitcoin" by Andreas A.M.

Ah, I'm just going to appreciate the irony in Andreas once having been a head of security at blockchain.info

Seriously though I have trouble understanding the people who would rather Paypal their Bitcoin by putting it on websites instead of their own keys. Gotta wonder if they even run a full node.

(12-27-2015 08:25 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  At this point, it is becoming less clear about whether to treat you seriously or to treat you as a troll.

I believe that I made it sufficiently clear regarding my understanding 3rd party risk with spreading my bitcoins through the already listed entities, but you continue in an apparently repetitive patronizing and lecturing tone.

Regarding your choice of the term gambling, that term is fairly laden with baggage and imprecision.

In that regard, you should hopefully acknowledge that there is a difference between gambling and various other kinds of informed risk-taking.. Accordingly, your choice of the expression " 'double' gambling" seems imprecise at best or a purposeful attempt to interject judgmental patronizing in a worse interpretation.

He's not trolling. He likely just perceives the informed risk you are taking as being several orders of magnitude greater than you do. For the record I lean towards his interpretation of the risk.

It's like the two of you are at a bar and he's really concerned about the thing on the lip of that girl you're planning to stick it in.

Under some of SunW's previously proposed theories regarding bitcoin's price connection to macro-economic trends, the below article may explain a little potential upsurge in BTC prices in the near-term based on downgrading of the valuation of the Chinese Yuan


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-28...-june-2011