/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>554266
I have been calling this for a while now. It is going to go below $200 for sure. I would say closer to $150.

>>554266

Hey look everyone it's PND shills

>$400 to $295 then back to $400 again

>>554278

>mfw he think BTC will be $150
>mfw PND shills in the IRC have been trying to undermine BTC because their strategy of pumping PND based on it's features has completely failed
>mfw massive sell off at 11 satoshi

You PND faggots need to stop shitting up this board. People who bought BTC as a good investment are holding long.

>>554292
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I think PND is about to drop hard too. I think it has less of a future than even BTC does.

So you really don't think an auction of 50,000 coins is going to affect the bitcoin market at all? It must be nice to walk through life with blinders on.

>>554292
>that strawman
>PND
>any reasonable person buying that shitcoin ever
You're silly. I like you.

>>554304

ofc the price will be effected. Why would I care though? I'm not worried about bitcoin jumping around for a few weeks. I'm targeting to sell in 2017-2018

>>554292
Did you just use BTC and "good investment" in the same sentence? Topkek

>>554325

I know. Bitcoiners never seem to worry about anything. Even if the price went to 1 penny there would be a bunch of diehards screaming "That's ok! We are holding long term so price fluctuations don't matter!". When do you start taking what everyone else is saying about Bitcoin being an unsustainable bubble seriously? Or are you already so indoctrinated you actually think that a $10,000 bitcoin is really a thing? I just don't understand your unwavering certainty in Bitcoins longevity.

>>554292
> $400 to $295 then back to $400 again
To be honest it was around $450 before the bear whale sold then went to $295 and now settled around $380. It never fully recovered even after the huge rally to "slay the bear whale". There will not be as much of a rally this time since the last one wasn't very effective.

Bitcoin will end not with a bang but a whimper. In the short term it'll keep being volatile nonsense and in the long term it'll just keep slipping its way back towards zero. Eventually it'll just be forgotten, remembered only by the endless number of articles and videos created about it.

>>554436
It's not bitcoins fault though. It's crashing because the US government is currently trying to undermine all currencies that could be used to replace the dollar as the reserve currency.

It's a result of Russia and China pulling the shit they did and ISIS attempting to back itself with gold. Bitcoin and every alt-coin is fucked while this current operation is ongoing.

>>554452
Even if what you say is true, in a way it is Bitcoin's fault. What many see as its greatest strengths, being decentralized and unregulated, are also its greatest weaknesses. It has no defense.

>>554452
>peopleactuallybelievethis.jpg

>>554341

personally I think there will be enough bitcoin supporters and users to keep it around for awhile, but investing any sort of money in it is dumb because the price will always fluctuate

bitcoin exists as an anonymous means of money transfer over the internet, and nothing more

>>554452
You come across as being an intelligent and clued-in poster - how long do you think the Federal Reserve can continue this campaign, and, do you think the greater resources of the Internet Community will eventually win the battle for hearts, minds and wallets?

>>554471

>You come across as being an intelligent and clued-in poster

he's not

>and, do you think the greater resources of the Internet Community will eventually win the battle for hearts, minds and wallets?

the "internet community" is a handful of delusional idiots with mining rigs and false senses of grandeur. Compare this to even a small, local bank which has real money and is backed by the FDIC, which is backed by the largest navy and military in the world. Which do you think most people will chose to store their money in?

>>554506
Wasn't >>554471 just joking? If the U.S. wanted Bitcoin dead, it'd be dead already. There's nothing Bitcoin supporters could do to stop it.

>>554436
>>554455

>predicts the future
>provides no evidence for this prediction

ok negrodamus

Besides a mild price fall, no one here has provided any real explanation of why bitcoin will fail. It's simply conjecture about your "personal" feelings about the coin and the community. IDGAF about the community and never was part of it.

Yet, people sit here saying things are happen with complete certainty. If you actually knew that, we wouldn't be having this discussion and bitcoin would not be where it is.

>tfw people on 4chan somehow know the truth about a highly speculative investment

Daily reminder that only members of the Fed's anti-Bitcoin task force will know the pleasure of Janet Yellen showing up at your house and baking you cookies to thank you for your tireless efforts to support fiat currency and statism.

feelsgoodman.jpg

>>554568
>Yet, people sit here saying things are happen with complete certainty
How are what they are saying any different from all the shills on here who keep saying Bitcoin will reach $10,000? Double standards dude.

>>554575

I didn't say it was any different. Both sides are going to have their closed minded extremists and hardcore advocates. Both those groups are the most likely to be blinded by their own personal opinions rather then what is actually happening.

Saying BTC will hit 10k and saying BTC will fail are both incomplete answers to a very complex thing. No one really knows for sure what will happen, but I bet it will not be either of those things.

>mfw I bought at the floor ($320) so I'm not trippin

>>554582
>mfw I bought at the floor ($320) so I'm not trippin
How can you be so sure that was the floor? It's dropped below $300 already this year so what makes you so sure it won't again?

>>554568
It's based on everything from adoption statistics to inflation rates to market pressures to the nature of the technology itself. I don't see Bitcoin surviving long term in any meaningful way.

>>554583

I dunno, I feel like the previous drop below $300 was pretty reactionary. It was also a very short amount of time. That drop was also months ago, and bitcoin has had a bit of positive signs since then, well besides the ever declining price.

To me, it doesn't really matter. The price volatility is going to frighten some people and it should. I'm in BTC long because I think regardless of whether people in the west take it up, it will be useful to people with shit currencies, as a tool in ecommerce, and wire transfers. Those things alone in the long run allow for gains. I'm also encouraged by the amount of 3rd party devs working on stuff, and the cobwebs being sorted out. That's usually a good sign. 2014 was never going to be a good year for BTC. Too many growing pains and uncertainty.

My 10 BTC is just locked up in a paper wallet. I'm actually just gonna try to forget about. I have phone alerts in case the price hits certain points.

>>554592
>I dunno, I feel like the previous drop below $300 was pretty reactionary.
I feel like everything about Bitcoin is reactionary, including the hype that caused the price to go to $1100 last year. This auction of 50,000 Bitcoin will also cause a reaction and definitely not a good one. There was a lot of good news this year as well (new merchants, more venture capitalists, Winlevoss ETF, etc.) yet none of this really moved the price in a positive direction. So the real question is... What will move the price up that hasn't already tried? It seems like no matter what happens the price continues on its downward trend.

>>554582
stop sucking heraclitus's dick and pick a stance

>>554341
>>554304
>>554266
The fact that the price -literally- doesn't matter to the user is what is great about it.

The price could be $1000 dollars each and I would need 1btc to buy something worth $1000

The price could be $100 dollars each and I would need 10btc to buy something worth $1000

The price could be $0.01 and I would need 100000btc to buy something worth $1000.

As a means of exchange it's still 100% sound, just as an investment (holding) does it have risk.

But if you don't like this risk you can just buy close to when you spend.

It inherently doesn't effect it's value as an instant and open means of exchange.

>>554328
>implying BTC hasn't been a good investment for any holder >1 year

Look, there are fortune 500 companies everywhere accepting bitcoin, and they're just going to run it into the ground to spend BTC because the commission is 0%, as opposed to 3.5% for a credit card processor. Even if that wasn't the case, VC's that annoying hackernews readers drool over are pumping hundreds of millions of $, and that shows no sign of stopping. Also I'm not sure what'll happen with the Winklevoss ETF.

>tfw no money to invest in bitcoins

money call money is the mojo.

>>554292


>bitcoin

>good investment
plz go back to the echo chamber that is /r/bitcoin.

To those of you who think Bitcoin lacks longevity, what is the reasoning behind that?

>>554848

if i owned the world with usd, why would i let bitcoin step in?

>>554883
So you think Bitcoin will fail to stick around due to regulation and such? Bitcoin is a people's currency - its strength lies in people actually using it. It can succeed regardless of third party intervention if it is used by enough people.

>>554887
If.
Personally not investing in it because it is so speculative, but if it sticks around it's gonna be revolutionary. I liked the freakonomics podcast on it, explained the potential pretty well.
Sorry for not adding to the discussion, haha. :P I can't decide where I stand in the debate.

>>554266
>properly fucked
Really? Did protocol break or something?

>>554436
What's your technical and fundamental analysis behind this statement?

>>554543

>Wasn't >>554471 just joking?

I'd like to think so but I'm willing to admit that I went through a brief bitcoin phase, and there are plenty of dumb people that think it will be the next big thing.

This all being said, while bitcoin is a shit investment it's pretty good for anonymously buying things on the Internet. From that end, it'll probably stick around for a long time until in 2598 or whatever some bank manages to offer the same service but with real money.

>>554889
Bitcoin, and some alt-coins are being used more and more. Growth is taking place - people are adopting and using these currencies for purchases, exchanging and as a payment system. My opinion, is the technology is too valuable to fail.

>>554887

peoples currency is a great idea. now make it so it isn't so hard for the average person to accumulate it, spend it or gain credit. No credit in BTC. in USD there is about 50 trillion credit, only about 3 trillion dollars. Lacking credit in BTC is a major design flaw for the way our economy is and has been working.

I think BTC and DOGE have great potential, but I don't think it's easy enough for the average joe yet. I started mining right when LTC bubble happened. it was hard to set up and difficult to learn about. Now simple multi is around and it is much easier. But still we do not have simple enough paying and selling or accumulating. People are getting paychecks in USD not BTC.

Shibapay, previously satoshi pay is coming out soon, this technology should help us see some more buyers and sellers. It's like instant QR code transactions faster then you can take money out of your wallet and receive change from a cashier.

>>554848
Because of what is it and what's been happening to it.
>>554887
False. An entity with enough money could kill Bitcoin at any time from predatory trading if it wanted to.
>>554897
Technical analysis is for short term trading. As for fundamental analysis, the intrinsic value is ultimately zero.

>>554781
You say price doesn't matter but in the very next post...

>>554782
... you imply that it is a good investment as long as you held it longer than a year. You totally bypass the fact that BTC dropped around 65% in value this year which, if it were a stock, it would be the worst performing S&P 500 stock by a landslide (Coach only dropped 39% YTD). If a stock did the same thing that BTC did, the CEO would have been fired immediately and the entire board of directors would have been ousted as well. You can't say "BTC always goes up" and then totally overlook this entire last year.

>>554891
>proper fucked
>Before Zee Germans get here.

>>554901
>My opinion, is the technology is too valuable to fail
Valuable implies that there is anything about the tech that is proprietary.

>>554950
Good thing BTC isn't a stock.

And you still don't understand that price doesn't matter on it's strength as a cheap, instant and 'open' way to send money

>>554951
>Good thing BTC isn't a stock
Yea good thing. Good thing it's not real estate either because the performance is akin to the housing bubble collapsing. Good thing it is not a small business because it would have already gone bankrupt. Good thing it is not a mutual fund because the manager would have been lynched. Good thing it is not a government bond because that would have indicated the whole government collapsed. Good thing we don't have to compare it to any real investment in 2014 because it wouldn't look too good for BTC. As long as we treat Bitcoin as some ethereal, otherworldly, nebulous concept it doesn't have to be accountable for its terrible performance, right?

>>554951
>And you still don't understand that price doesn't matter on it's strength as a cheap, instant and 'open' way to send money
I do understand, I just don't think that Bitcoin will flourish on those laurels alone. Fintech is ever evolving, the only thing that has ever been holding it back has been regulation. I think Bitcoin has less of a chance to hurdle these regulatory obstacles than those already occupying the space. Plus, being "free" and open-source there is nothing proprietary about the technology. Any company that has the $$$ to comply with FinCEN regulations will do so, but the services will come out on the back end as fees to customers. My guess is that services like Apple Pay will come out ahead, and ideological, libertarian technologies like Bitcoin will be stifled.

>>554973
Yeah good thing it's none of those.

The free market is a beautiful beast isn't it?

Something I've noticed from this bear market is the lack of "tulip bulbs" and "ponzi scheme" comments.

Did those guys give up when we went into the last rally?

>>554975
Yes, and it wants to tell you something.
>>554980
Those comments are still around, though I would say it's more tulip bulbs than an actual ponzi scheme.

>>554975
No, the free market is not. Which is why there are so many scams and frauds already associated with Bitcoin. Lack of regulation ultimately screws over the average person. Bitcoin is supposed to be a "trustless" system but ultimately in any financial system there needs to be some amount of trust. Bitcoin itself may be decentralized but the exchanges, merchants, services, escrow accounts, all are very much centralized. When they have the incentive to have enormous gains by frauding people without any backlash, you can be assured that ultimately they will.

>>554980
The last rally wasn't much of a rally to be honest.

>>554984
>Yes, and it wants to tell you something
Yeah it sure does
>pic related
>>554985
>Which is why there are so many scams and frauds already associated with Bitcoin.
Such as?
Most of them have been un-audited exchanges or badly run enterprises. Which, from the glory of capitalism, have been weeded out in a survival of the fittest fashion.
>Lack of regulation ultimately screws over the average person
No it doesn't.
Regulation, on the other hand, inhibits growth and sets constraints on venture.
> Bitcoin is supposed to be a "trustless" system but ultimately in any financial system there needs to be some amount of trust.
No it doesn't.
I need no trust that my ounce of gold is worth something.
I know it is worth something because I know it's gold and I know someone will pay good money for it, that is real money.
Not trust that a third party will promise the bearer on demand shekels.
>Bitcoin itself may be decentralized but the exchanges, merchants, services, escrow accounts, all are very much centralized. When they have the incentive to have enormous gains by frauding people without any backlash, you can be assured that ultimately they will.
And those third parties are detached from bitcoin the same way the original lenders of gold backed dollars 'frauded' people with fractional reserve banking. Which led from one step to another into the debt driven society we are chained to today. And one which bitcoin, or something like it, may potentially save us from.

>>554987
Yes, the last rally was nothing.
Just 1000% value increase in a few months.

Wasn't really that much at all to be honest.

>>554292
Where in the fuck did he mention PND? Dumbass.

>>555006
>pic related
Even the log chart is starting to look sad.
>Such as?
MtGox, BitInstant, Butterfly Labs, Bitcoin Savings and Trust, MyBitcoin, Silk Road, Mintpal, Moopay, etc...
>Most of them have been un-audited exchanges or badly run enterprises. Which, from the glory of capitalism, have been weeded out in a survival of the fittest fashion.
Audited? What is the point of an audit when Bitcoin itself is unregulated (at this point). The problem with so many companies and individuals involved in scams and frauds is that by the time they get weeded out another one springs up. This undermines the entire system as a whole, not just individual companies. People are going to start realizing that the easiest way not to get scammed by Bitcoin companies is to not use Bitcoin at all.
>I need no trust that my ounce of gold is worth something.
Even with online transactions with gold, you have to trust the exchange that handles the transaction for you. Regulation makes this trust much easier as they are criminally and financially responsible if they are involved in fraud.
>>555008
>Just 1000% value increase in a few months
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Lmao

>>555006
>>555008
Put down the kool-aid and pick up some books not written by people who sell kool-aid.

>>555008
Also you tried to slip that picture in thinking nobody would notice. You talk about a 1000% value increase and post a pic of transactions which has nothing to do with value. Nice try.

>>555016
>Even the log chart is starting to look sad.
Do you need a new set of eyes?
Just because it's had a bad year to date doesn't mean long term trends still aren't holding.
We had a bear market that lasted over a year back in 2011 where we didn't see new highs for almost 2 years.
>MtGox, BitInstant, Butterfly Labs, Bitcoin Savings and Trust, MyBitcoin, Silk Road, Mintpal, Moopay, etc...
Most of these weren't even scams, but granted there is malicious people on the internet.
A better question is can you name me a currency that has never been used in a scam?
>People are going to start realizing that the easiest way not to get scammed by Bitcoin companies is to not use Bitcoin at all.
No.. People are going to realize the best way to avoid scams, like in ALL walks of life, are to not trust your money with a third party that is too good to be true. Or better yet, don't even trust one at all! This is the whole point of bitcoin. All of those third parties you mention are exactly that. Third parties.
>Even with online transactions with gold, you have to trust the exchange that handles the transaction for you.
You have completely missed my examples point.
With bitcoin and with gold you don't NEED to trust any third party, it's completely the users choice.
>">Just 1000% value increase in a few months
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Lmao"
Pic related (2 months)

>>555018
>>555020
What is this kool-aid meme I'm missing out on?

Is /biz/ creating it's own epic maymays now?!

>>555029
It's pre-biz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

>>555020
>>555016
Okay the last rally wasn't -that- epic with 1000% growth in 2 months.

How was last january-april with ~1500%?

I never placed my bet o bitcoin because of how westerners were going to perceive it. Everyone keeps talking about the dollar, yet so many people don't have access to the dollar. Yet they have access to smartphones...

BTC is going to be more a success in the developing world. Africa, the middle east, central America and India

>>555034
Or how about 2011 with ~5000% in 2 and a bit months?

>remember
"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Lmao"

>>555027
I don't think he was talking about last year when he was referring to the recent rally.

>Just because it's had a bad year to date doesn't mean long term trends still aren't holding.
You're right. It is the fact that long term trends still aren't holding that mean long term trends still aren't holding.

>A better question is can you name me a currency that has never been used in a scam?
The difference is that regulation covers currencies backed by governments. If there was no regulation there would be no prosecution for those involved in financial crimes.

>Or better yet, don't even trust one at all! This is the whole point of bitcoin
I don't think you understand how financial systems work. Unless you want to be relegated to just using BTC in a local sense you are going to have to trust a 3rd party. There is no way getting around this.

>With bitcoin and with gold you don't NEED to trust any third party, it's completely the users choice
Again, that is true only in an extremely local sense, meaning that you found someone local to trade gold for currency or goods and did the transaction in person. I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be an online technology?

>>555029
>>555034
>>555037
All more than a year ago. Why do you guys always want to discount the performance of the entire last year?

>>555040
Basically the same reason conspiracy theorists ignore facts that contradict their theory.

>>555038
>It is the fact that long term trends still aren't holding that mean long term trends still aren't holding.
Where do you get this bullshit from?
>pic again related
>>555040
From a November2013-November2014 we are still +ve on growth.

>tfw people keep saying you need regulation
>tfw people keep saying why not use the dollar

Tell that to everyone not in the US and Western Europe. The only people skittish about bitcoin seem to be people in the west who don't trust the idea. Unfortunately, most of them have also never left their own backyard.

>>555040
We don't.

We just recognise this has happened many times before.

Bear markets happen.

I'm not denying it has been a shitty year to date but I'm smart enough to look past this only piece of evidence on how bitcoin has performed to base my claims.

>>555044
>The only people skittish about bitcoin seem to be people in the west who don't trust the idea.

This 100%

http://fiatleak.com/

I don't know why but the West is being unusually slow in picking up emerging tech recently.

China is taking off and we're just letting them

>>555043
You can manipulate a log chart in any way you want but you can't get around the fact that Bitcoin lost 65% of its value this last year. Comparatively speaking the amount of financial capital it takes to move the price of Bitcoin from $40 to $238 is only a small fraction of the financial capital it takes to move it from $200 to $1100 and even less so from $9 to $35 in 2011. That is why the standard log chart does not apply because the smaller rallies are exponentially smaller in terms of total money pumped into the market. Also, if you knew anything about markets in general you would know that past performance is rarely indicative of future results especially with something as volatile and speculative as Bitcoin. The fact is that the majority of people who bought in 2014 (when you could argue it reached the height of popularity) and held for any amount of time, lost value in their investment.

>>555052

>when you could argue it reached the height of it's popularity

But this is wrong...

>>555049
>I don't know why but the West is being unusually slow in picking up emerging tech recently.
Implying that the West does not lead the rest of the world in FinTech and that the majority of financial innovation and technology comes out of the US and London. Also implying Apple does not lead the charge in 2014.

>http://www.fintechinnovationlab.com/

>>555055
Prove it.

>>555052
>when you could argue it reached the height of it's popularity

>more people than ever transacting bitcoins

Also;

>That is why the standard log chart does not apply because the smaller rallies are exponentially smaller in terms of total money pumped into the market.

So what should you use?
Double exponentials?

Or do you suppose we just throw out all old data as it doesn't fit your agenda that bitcoin is doomed?

>Also, if you knew anything about markets in general you would know that past performance is rarely indicative of future results especially with something as volatile and speculative as Bitcoin.

Actually, markets driven my speculation tend to be highly influenced by past market data. But you're right we can't predict anything because all past data is irrelevant.

>>555059


>>555060
>>555029
>>555008

I've already posted several graphs indicating that popularity is still increasing but whatever, you'll probably dismiss this too because it doesn't fit your mold.

>>555059

How could you say that bitcoin has reached it's popularity? Because of google search index in the us in 2014?

I'm not a BTC fanboy, I don't think the average joe in the west has a need for it, but in other countries yes. People in the west often overlook how good our central banking is here. We have piss poor fiscal policy and we still have a lot of stability. Bitcoin is already making grounds in 3rd world countries. They have the tech to use it as well. I don't think bitcoin's 2014 performance is reflective of it's global possibility.

>prove it
>>555044
see the graph. trough of disillusionment. pretty much sums up most people's feelings about BTC right now.

>Bitcoin need regulations
>It will disappear into nothingness

Prove it. It's like all you're saying is people are speculating. No shit we are speculating. That's how you make money sometimes. OFC their is risk.

>>555058

Just because it's made here doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere. That argument is silly.

>>555060
>more people than ever transacting bitcoins
Isn't that what I just said? That Bitcoin reached the height of its popularity in 2014?

>So what should you use?
A standard linear scale works fine.

>Actually, markets driven my speculation tend to be highly influenced by past market data.
This is not the case. Markets driven by speculation are mostly influenced by rumors, news (bad and good), recent developments, etc. Past performance plays a smaller role than lets say stocks, for example, which are backed by profit and loss statements, quarterly earnings reports and other financial statements. At least these can be quantified and forecasted somewhat due to contracts, projected units sold, sales productivity and market conditions. The value of Bitcoin is entirely subject to the whims of the people that hold it and how much they are willing to sell for. Because of mining, Bitcoin will eventually settle to how much it costs to mine one on average + a tiny profit. China is obviously willing to mine cheaper than everyone else so this number is getting smaller as time goes on.

>>555067
>How could you say that bitcoin has reached it's popularity?
My whole point is that most people that bought Bitcoin in 2014 (where there is the highest number of wallets) have lost value. It's not to say that Bitcoin is capped in how many people will use it, just that it was not a good investment for anyone who bought this year.

>I don't think bitcoin's 2014 performance is reflective of it's global possibility.
I don't think Bitcoin's global possibility is all that great. It is not the only financial innovation around now and certainly will be less so in the future as giants like Apple scoop up the remittance market and other existing platforms adapt.

>It will disappear into nothingness
I never said that Bitcoin will disappear. I think that it will always have a place with Libertarians and diehards, but will have to move underground or change its tune due to new regulations coming down the pipeline in the next couple years.

>>555076
>Isn't that what I just said? That Bitcoin reached the height of its popularity in 2014?
lol

>A standard linear scale works fine.
Do you even know how the log scale works m8?

>China is obviously willing to mine cheaper than everyone else so this number is getting smaller as time goes on.

lol x2

You're obviously just talking out your ass and have no idea of what's driving bitcoin

>>555087
I guess you're out of counterarguments. It's been fun, bro. Come back to the thread when you have something worthwhile to post.

>>555091
There is nothing to counter.

You're points have been bullshit and aren't even worth a rebutal.

Bitcoin isn't driven by any of

>Past performance plays a smaller role than lets say stocks, for example, which are backed by profit and loss statements, quarterly earnings reports and other financial statements. At least these can be quantified and forecasted somewhat due to contracts, projected units sold, sales productivity and market conditions. The value of Bitcoin is entirely subject to the whims of the people that hold it and how much they are willing to sell for. Because of mining, Bitcoin will eventually settle to how much it costs to mine one on average + a tiny profit.

this shit.

By your logic gold is only worth what it costs to mine out the ground.

and

>China is obviously willing to mine cheaper than everyone else so this number is getting smaller as time goes on.

Literally makes no sense it's hurting my head trying to figure out what you are trying to construct.

You must have no idea how bitcoin is mined, How can china "be willing to mine cheaper"?

I'm willing to mine for free, I can't just magically create bitcoins by being Chinese.

You're only legitimate point is

>This is not the case. Markets driven by speculation are mostly influenced by rumors, news (bad and good)

And yes, you have a point

speculators are driven by speculation

want a medal?

>mfw arguing about bitcoin when I really just want the riots to start

>>555091
And regarding the log scale, do you even know how it works?

If bitcoin is keeping to a trend on the log scale it means it is keeping to an exponential scale on the scalar.

I'm assuming you didn't know this as it's blatantly obvious you've never encountered it.

>>555091
Oh and I almost missed out your hilarious point on popularity.

So because it's at a peak THIS YEAR it's therefor a peak? because you know, it's never been this high....

So is the number of people connected to the internet

Or the number of people with a phone

Or the number of people on the planet

I think I'm losing brain cells just trying to comprehend your stupidity

>>555096
>You're points have been bullshit and aren't even worth a rebutal
I think you're frustrated because someone is posting a reasonable argument that doesn't mean sunshine and flowers for Bitcoin. Maybe you need to take a step away from the computer for a bit, take a breath, and relax. This isn't the end of the world, just a friendly discussion.

>By your logic gold is only worth what it costs to mine out the ground.
The price of gold absolutely affects the costs of mining. Before even considering exploration and extraction miners have to account for profitability after calculating out all the costs (which is a lot similar to mining crypto-currencies).

>You must have no idea how bitcoin is mined, How can china "be willing to mine cheaper"?
Easily. Energy subsidies and free electricity provided by the government to the industrial sector. Lower cost mining rigs because of cheap labor. Also, the willingness of the Chinese to sell BTC for less profit.
>http://www.thecoinsman.com/2014/08/bitcoin/inside-chinese-bitcoin-mine/

>>555102
I don't have a problem with the log scale, just how it is being manipulated to try to create a trend out of very little data. The other rallies were insignificant compared to when the bubble burst late last year.

>>555105
I never even implied that it had peaked just that it is more popular this year than previous years. The whole point I was trying to make is that a lot of people bought in 2014, yet you guys want to dismiss that they lost value.

Your whole post is a strawman. I think anyone reading the thread can see that.

>>555097
what riots? a bunch of neckbeards lose their money, and who is going to riot? no one. it'll sink back in to quiet obscurity..

>>555121
Sorry bud

>The price of gold absolutely affects the costs of mining. Before even considering exploration and extraction miners have to account for profitability after calculating out all the costs (which is a lot similar to mining crypto-currencies).

Okay, fair enough.

But what you are saying is that the mining is open to change.

So if the cost of mining follows the price per unit
>>555076
>Because of mining, Bitcoin will eventually settle to how much it costs to mine one on average + a tiny profit.
And you say the price will settle on how much it will cost to mine, do you see how your logic takes you in circles?

The cost of mining is a -lagging- indicator. Meaning the reason hashing and difficulty is going up is because (directly) people are wanting to mine more than ever.

And your point about China mining cheaper. Yes, granted, places where electricity is cheap/free (pretty sure I heard about a solar farm powering one somewhere) will advantage a miner, it won't necessarily advantage a whole country in the same way due to the fact this is global. It's not like precious (tangible) metals where if it's cheaper to mine in Nigeria, the country of Nigeria will get rich off profits/cuts.

>I don't have a problem with the log scale, just how it is being manipulated to try to create a trend out of very little data. The other rallies were insignificant compared to when the bubble burst late last year.

Okay then, I'll put it in a linear graph for you.

>>555124
>The whole point I was trying to make is that a lot of people bought in 2014, yet you guys want to dismiss that they lost value.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and every bear market and capitulation people always say "if you had bought at date x you would be selling it at a loss selling at date y"

Yes, this logic holds TODAY, but the people who bought this year did so knowing there was risk.

They should have bought knowing previous bubble cycles and the very high likelyhood that when you buy just after a bubble and pre-capitulation you will get burned in the bear market.

This is just market cycles, it happens -everywhere- not just bitcoin.

How do I know it's not a permanent bear market?

Because when markets do go into perma-decline it's because of a change in market sentiment or a change in fundementals.

The fundementals of bitcoin have remained unchanged for years and there is no reason for them to have suddenly reversed. This years bear market has been a cool off from the gigantic overshoot of a bubble we had at the end of last year.

What I'm trying to say is you can't base your claims that bitcoin is in a permanent downward spiral based on the opinion from data of less than a year. Data which is heavily skewed due to the bubble we had.

>>555126

ferguson you dumbass

god i hate that stupid face

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-21-million-seed-capital/

Bitcoin just got an all-star R&D department, the federal government can try to sabotage the price, it'll end up just another bump in the road.

>>555142
>And you say the price will settle on how much it will cost to mine, do you see how your logic takes you in circles?
I think it is cyclical with the price affecting costs of mining and costs of mining affecting price. If you took out speculation entirely, the price of gold would be like any other good or commodity and retract to the normal algorithm of supply and demand. The fact that it is being used as a hedge against inflation makes the price more complicated and volatile. I just never though gold was that great of a hedge against inflation because the price doesn't have a stable backing.

Chinese Bitcoin mining consortiums cause a strong downward presence on the price because of the reasons mentioned previously. In order to counteract that downward movement people would have to start using Bitcoin as a hedge to inflationary fiat currency on a grand scale. I don't see why they would when most everything is pegged to USD, being the world reserve currency. I would wager that if USD ever faltered, every other currency would take a hit too, as well as Bitcoin which is also pegged to the dollar.

>>555150
You seem upset. Perhaps it's time for some chillbro.

>>555149
>Because when markets do go into perma-decline it's because of a change in market sentiment or a change in fundementals
Or because they are retreating to normal pre-bubble values.

>What I'm trying to say is you can't base your claims that bitcoin is in a permanent downward spiral based on the opinion from data of less than a year
I don't claim that the downward spiral is permanent, just that there is going to be even more downward momentum caused by the 50,000 BTC auction coming up. I make no predictions based on the data of the last year except to make the statement that BTC is not a good investment. We really only have 2 years where Bitcoin could be even considered an entity. Last year was a year of growth and this year was a year of decline. Following up to and including 2012, Bitcoin marketcap was only a tiny fraction of what it is now. I don't know how those years are even germane when you compare them.

>>555154
Just to clarify, the rate of mining is somewhat fixed, in that if China adds a million new miners, the difficulty will adjust, and the -exact- same number of bitcoins will be mined in -roughly- the same period of time.

It's not like gold where companies can invest in mining more gold linearly, there will always be a set number of bitcoins being mined in any specific block, and the difficulty is there to ensure that each block is mined -roughly- every 10 or so minutes.

All that would happen with a million new miners in China is an increase in difficulty, reflecting in a decrease of bitcoins generated per miner, resulting in an increase in scarcity of bitcoins between miners.

Do you understand this and it's implications?

More miners =/= downward presure

>Chinese Bitcoin mining consortiums cause a strong downward presence on the price because of the reasons mentioned previously

Rather, precisely the opposite.


And if you're saying if the USD ever faltered bitcoin would take a hit, again I would whole heartedly disagree with you.

Remember that Eurozone crisis a couple of years ago?
It was known by the market as being the -direct- cause of the bitcoin bubble of mid 2013.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100597242

Bitcoin would prosper in another global financial crisis.

Well, everybody's read the article and the price is still $375


Where is your God now?

>>555173
Because those bubbles were based on the exact same market trends that this latest one was, the only difference is scale.

There is literally -nothing- different apart from scale, and if the total number of users/businesses/startups/literallyeverything has only increased since then what makes you think it would recede to pre-bubble levels?

>>555174
Here's a graph for the hash rate, if we were seeing a consortium in the chinese mining, you would see rigs being switched off because they've been out competed and pushed out the market, the exact opposite, again, is true.

>>555174
>More miners =/= downward presure
I am not saying that more miners = more downward pressure. Just that more chinese miners = downward pressure because they replace the other miners who are not willing to mine for less profit.

>It was known by the market as being the -direct- cause of the bitcoin bubble of mid 2013.
I feel like that was caused by the moon and the suns aligning with the tides. In other words, Bitcoin was just coming to light as Cyrpus was failing and the ensuing hype caused everyone else to jump on board. If you remember it peaked at $266 then dropped to $55 within a matter of hours. If it was really caused by people converting euros to Bitcoin to protect their bank accounts then people wouldn't have converted it back so soon. Most of the bubble was people speculating off of fear-mongering and cashing out immediately after. This is not the same as a long term hedge.

>>555178
>if you're wondering where I'm getting these fancy graphs from

https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate
https://blockchain.info/charts/
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/bitstamp/btcusd
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg60ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

>>555177
Nobody said the article would cause a drop, although it could. What is going to cause the drop is when the 50,000 BTC hits the free market.

>the only difference is scale
Scale is a huge difference. If this were the case then you could take any company in its fledgling years and create a case that it will continue on the same trend it did when it had no marketcap.

>you would see rigs being switched off because they've been out competed and pushed out the market, the exact opposite, again, is true
Not if the mining rigs are being phased out for ones with more hashing power as the difficulty increases.

>>555196

Meant to tag >>555178
with the 2nd and 3rd responses

>>555187
>I am not saying that more miners = more downward pressure. Just that more chinese miners = downward pressure because they replace the other miners who are not willing to mine for less profit.

Then we would see an increase of Chinese pools, which we haven't

They are still not a significant enough portion of the hash rate to get concerned about.

And I'd argue that even if they were it's still not even a concern unless they were planning a 51% attack, which they are -nowhere- near having the slightest pittance chance of in even the mid term future.

> In other words, Bitcoin was just coming to light as Cyrpus was failing and the ensuing hype caused everyone else to jump on board.

Then we would have seen it back in 2011 when it was first gaining media attention, we wouldn't have had nearly 2 years of a declining bear market for it to suddenly "come to light" just coincidentally as Cyprus was failing.

Yes it had numerous factors but Cyprus was the largest contributory, almost everyone in the media and on the forums were on a consensus about this. I know because I was there.

>This is not the same as a long term hedge.

This is what a majority of bitcoin holders are doing and it's why it is now in a multi-Billion dollar market cap, people believe in it's long term premise as a hedge against inflation/stock markets and the potential for another global financial catastrophe (which some think is coming soon).

>>555204
>Then we would see an increase of Chinese pools, which we haven't
You wouldn't need to see an increase in pools, although there have been some. Mostly it is an increase in individual miners in those pools.

>we wouldn't have had nearly 2 years of a declining bear market for it to suddenly "come to light" just coincidentally as Cyprus was failing
Oh my argument isn't that Cyprus didn't cause the initial surge. My argument is that the bubble was caused by the hype caused by the news, which is why it retreated back so quickly. If it was a real thing, it wouldn't have been a bubble. It would have sustained that price.

>This is what a majority of bitcoin holders are doing
It's also why the majority of bitcoin holders got burned this year. If you are going to use something to hedge against inflation, the hope is that it actually is able to outperform inflation.

>>555196
Those 50'000 bitcoins are being sold to Auction, like the last Silk road ones were.

It improves market confidence than single buyers are splashing many millions of $ in single bids.

True it puts the 50'000 back into circulation but when you compare this to the already millions mined it's nothing of great concern.

Something similar happened earlier on in the year and the market price went up
(bitcoin is crazy..)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/us-auction-seized-silk-road-bitcoins

>>555211
>You wouldn't need to see an increase in pools, although there have been some. Mostly it is an increase in individual miners in those pools.

So what is the problem?

Is there something inherently wrong with Chinese wanting to mine bitcoin that I'm missing out on?

All I'm aware of is a 51% attack from a large enough portion of the hashing power but the Chinese miners do not seem malicious imho.

>Oh my argument isn't that Cyprus didn't cause the initial surge. My argument is that the bubble was caused by the hype caused by the news, which is why it retreated back so quickly. If it was a real thing, it wouldn't have been a bubble. It would have sustained that price.
Bitcoin has bubbles, this isn't something new and I wouldn't expect it to go away over night.
Volatility will still be in this market until (if) it finds a true market price, which could literally be anywhere (people have predicted from cents to millions so who knows)

>It's also why the majority of bitcoin holders got burned this year. If you are going to use something to hedge against inflation, the hope is that it actually is able to outperform inflation.
Holders only get burned if they sell, when it has proven over a longer period of time to be a sound investment it's wise to hold.

If weak hands sell it only leaves the stronger hands left

You have to ask yourself why they would buy bitcoin as an investment and resell out within a year (I doubt even a small fraction will, as they haven't before)

>>555212
It is OTC coins that were not in circulation, that will be added to circulation and all sold at some point.

> compare this to the already millions mined it's nothing of great concern.
Considering that a bearwhale with 16,000 BTC dumping on the open market was able to move the price from $450 to $295 I would say that a larger amount of 50,000 BTC is a huge concern.

>Something similar happened earlier on in the year and the market price went up
That doesn't mean anything except that Tim Draper hasn't dumped yet. Considering he bought at $600, he has lost about $9 million in value so far. Not a great buy, in my opinion.

>>555215
>Is there something inherently wrong with Chinese wanting to mine bitcoin that I'm missing out on?
Nothing wrong except the downward pressure on the price due to mining moving to countries that can mine more cheaply and are willing to sell at lower prices.

>You have to ask yourself why they would buy bitcoin as an investment and resell out within a year
I couldn't tell you because I don't understand the motivation of buying Bitcoin at all.

>>554782
holy shit are you FUCKING RETARDED?
Everything before that peak, is thanks to market manipulation by MtGox.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/report-mtgox-fraud-led-to-1200-bitcoin-price/

>>555225
>I don't understand the motivation of buying Bitcoin at all.
There isn't any. That's why the hashrate is down, that's why the price has been slowly tanking into nothing. People keep squealing about fundamentals when the fundamental fact is that people just don't need bitcoin. The only ones still howling over it are a small group of libertarian true-believers and scammers who see a profit in bilking over the bagholders.

>>555219

>$405 to $295

I keep hearing this in this thread, yet I don't recall bitcoin sitting below $300 very long at all.

>Tim Draper hasn't dumped yet
he bought 6 months ago...

>>555234
>I keep hearing this in this thread, yet I don't recall bitcoin sitting below $300 very long at all.
It didn't. There was a huge rally by Bitcoin holders to buy up the sell wall. If that rally didn't happen the price would have sat at $295. I don't know if that type of rally will happen again considering the last one didn't bring a full recovery to pre-sell off levels.

>he bought 6 months ago...
I'm not really too sure what he is doing with the BTC but he stated he didn't buy them to dump on the market for short term gains.

>>555233
>The only ones still howling over it are a small group of libertarian true-believers and scammers who see a profit in bilking over the bagholders.

Yeah.
I remember seeing ALL these here graphs posted in /biz/ a few days ago, in a different bitcoin thread (which has since dropped off the board)
>>554782
>>555008
>>555029
>>555060
>>555063

>>555232
>Everything before that peak, is thanks to market manipulation by MtGox.
No it wasn't, gox was 1 exchange. The fact volume, users, and startups have all increased since gox going down is testament to how resilient bitcoin is and how irrelevant gox was.

>>555219
"mr bear whale" was the guy who put a 16000btc wall up at $300 dollars that got eaten up in a few hours.
Which resulted in many claiming a trend reversal and a "slaying of the bear whale".
By the looks of it whoever it was putting that 16000btc sell at $300 has so far been a catastrophe for a trade.
>>555225
>mining cheaper=downward pressure
By that logic with the introduction of ASICS we should have seen the price plummet
???
>I couldn't tell you because I don't understand the motivation of buying bitcoin at all.
Do you never feel you've missed an opportunity?
Either way, do you not feel with this many years, through this many bubbles, and this strong a userbase there is at least some legitimacy in bitcoin as a means of exchange?
>>555233
>when the fundamental fact is that people just don't need bitcoin.
How naive a statement.
People "just don't need gold"
People "just don't need investments"
People "just don't need hobbies"
People "just don't need [insert anything that isn't food/water/a breeding partner]"

How can you people be so close minded yet still frequent the "business" subforum?

Skepticism is a great thing but don't let it blind you to the real opportunities your short time on this rock brings.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/okcoin-confirms-new-three-billion-euro-hedge-fund-trading-exchange/

And in other news...

>>555233

>autism

https://time.com/3529759/bitcoin-best-money/

>time

>>555253
>The fact volume... increased since gox going down...

Do you see those 1000's of millions of mBTC being traded?
How much trade volume do you see going on thesedays?

>>555253
>No it wasn't, gox was 1 exchange.
Gox wasn't 1 exchange, it was THE exchange back then. It made up for 80% of all Bitcoin trades.

>By that logic with the introduction of ASICS we should have seen the price plummet
ASICS are expensive. I wouldn't consider that cheap mining.

>Do you never feel you've missed an opportunity?
I think most people wish they had bought Bitcoin before late 2013. We all had missed an opportunity. The difference between us and you is that you think that opportunity to become rich off of Bitcoin is still there.

>at least some legitimacy in bitcoin as a means of exchange?
I think Bitcoin (the technology) is useful. I think bitcoin (the currency) is overrated and inflated. The technology will probably have future uses if it can shed its libertarian leanings and comply with regulations. Otherwise, I think it will be swallowed up by other fintech advances that are more corporate and bank friendly.

>Skepticism is a great thing but don't let it blind you
I can say the same thing about over-optimism.

>>555256
lol

>>555262
Well, we don't know how long a timescale that "1000's of millions of mBTC is being traded"

We do know that around

600'000 bitcoin was traded on okcoin
550'000 bitcoin on BtcChina
227'000 bitcoin on Huobi
143'000 bitcoin on bitfinex

+ 10's/100's of thousands on other exchanges

In a single day (Nov 12th)

https://bitcoinwisdom.com

So yes, this blows mtgox
OUT
THE
FUCKING
WATER

>>555265
>80% in 2012

Around 50%~ for the first half of 2013

Figures for 2nd half of 2013 are innacurate as people were trading with bitcoins that didn't even exist.

>ASICS are expensive. I wouldn't consider that cheap mining.
Price per hash it blows GPU mining to pieces (by a factor of more than 1:20 in -most- rigs)

>The difference between us and you is that you think that opportunity to become rich off of Bitcoin is still there.
There is always opportunity to become rich if you look hard enough, people wouldn't be putting Millions into startups if there was no hope.

>I think Bitcoin (the technology) is useful
Yay, we got somewhere.

>>555276
>people were trading with bitcoins that didn't even exist.
That makes even more of an argument for market manipulation. Yet people complain about fractional reserve banking...

>Price per hash it blows GPU mining to pieces (by a factor of more than 1:20 in -most- rigs)
They were also available to everyone. My argument isn't that more hashrate drives the price down but mining moving over to people who are willing to part with BTC for less profit.

>people wouldn't be putting Millions into startups if there was no hope
The majority of the Bitcoin startups do not make their money off Bitcoin price increases. They make money off of charging fees for Bitcoin services. If Bitcoin dropped to $10 and people were still transacting the same volume, the startups would still make the same amount of money.

>>555262
>>555273
Okay, here's bitstamp
Even this beats gox and it struggles to stay in the top 5 now...

>>555285
whoops

>>555283
>That makes even more of an argument for market manipulation. Yet people complain about fractional reserve banking...
Yup, which is why gox dieing was ultimately good for bitcoin
Bad exchanges are left to burn in the free market rather than bailed out to let more money burn.

>mining moving over to people who are willing to part with BTC for less profit.
You're implying miners are selling coins as they mine them.
Do you have any proof of this or are you just speculating because you think 'why would they hold?!?!'

>The majority of the Bitcoin startups do not make their money off Bitcoin price increases. They make money off of charging fees for Bitcoin services. If Bitcoin dropped to $10 and people were still transacting the same volume, the startups would still make the same amount of money.

Yup

And that's how the economy works!

It's a good cycle where investment in businesses indirectly benefits everyone involved in the economy due to more trading and etc

>more of something must be bad

>>555262
Here's the sight if you want to have a look around.

Most of the bigger exchanges tie with gox's (fake) volume

http://bitcoinity.org/markets

Besides, you still need to prove the only driver in the bubbles was gox, which it most certainly wasn't.

>>555292
>Bad exchanges are left to burn in the free market rather than bailed out to let more money burn.
That's why a true free market is terrible. Do you think the people that got scammed out of incredible amounts of money when MtGox went defunct will say "oh well! lets go buy some more!". Probably not. The majority will probably never buy Bitcoin again. As long as there is lack of regulation over Bitcoin these types of frauds will happen over and over. It doesn't matter if new exchanges replace them because those exchanges are flawed with the same vulnerability that caused the previous ones to cash out and run. It is just a flawed system in general.

>You're implying miners are selling coins as they mine them.
They have to sell some time. At least if they sell immediately they have guaranteed returns.

>It's a good cycle where investment in businesses indirectly benefits everyone involved in the economy due to more trading and etc
I think you missed my point. It was that venture capitalists dumping money into Bitcoin startups does not mean that they feel Bitcoin price will increase, just that they can make money on current Bitcoin users.

>>555299
>an exchange goes bust with bitcoin
>bitcoin must be at fault
No, people are setting up audited exchanges with proof of liquidity (okcoin for example) which is the next evolutionary step for bitcoin exchanges, mtgox was unfortunate in that it took the hit with so many peoples money.

But it can't be changed now and no amount of regulation would have saved it, Mark Karpeles ran that company into the ground.

The flawed system is believing the state should interfere with the free market.

People get burned in capitalism, we don't need a nanny state telling us what or where we should put our money, it is your wealth after all, take it back.

>At least if they sell immediately they have guaranteed returns.

True, and if -all- the mined coins were sold at market price it would equal (at todays $400 prices) a total of around $1.6 million dollars.

So as long as more than $1.6 million dollars comes into bitcoin per day (assuming every mined coin is sold to those buyers) the price would be stable.

>venture capitalists dumping money into Bitcoin startups does not mean that they feel Bitcoin price will increase, just that they can make money on current Bitcoin users.

Take away the word bitcoin and you have venture capitalists in general, I don't see how this can be a negative thing if all it does is increase the economy?

Besides, you must inherently admit those venture capitalists see bitcoin users as a real market with real trade going on to profit from.

>>555317

You say that as if well over a half-billion in annual inflows required just to SUPPORT the current price is some kind of trivial thing. That's a fuckton of money and even big "whale" investors like Fortress have barely committed $10mm in one-off deals, most of which are totally unrelated to straight-up buying BTC.

>>555321
Yeah this is a valid criticism, I don't know exactly how much is flowing into bitcoin but I do know we're -somewhat- stable over at least $2 billion market cap (somewhere around $5 billion currently) and this is over mainly the growth of last year.

So I don't know if we have enough to maintain these prices with the current influx of users/investors.

But what I do know is the bitcoin inflation is fixed and it's set to half roughly every 4 years, meaning that although we have a shitload ($1.6 million per day) to maintain current prices, in 10/15 years time instead of mining 4000 bitcoins a day, it will be more like 500 bitcoins per day.

So if current prices are the same in 10/15 years it will be more like $200'000 per day, so who knows where we will be then.

>>555317
>Bitcoin must be at fault
Not really. Just the lack of regulation over Bitcoin.

>No, people are setting up audited exchanges with proof of liquidity
That doesn't mean a thing really. Applying Murphy's Law to Bitcoin exchanges means that any time people can get away with fraud, they will get away with fraud. It doesn't matter if exchanges are audited because an audit can only detect, not prevent.

>The flawed system is believing the state should interfere with the free market.
So you really think that financial crimes should go unchecked and unpunished? Enron didn't just affect select stockholders, it undermined the stability of the whole system. Also, look at all the damage the housing bubble did, and it was mostly due to deregulation and relaxed standards for mortgage loans. A free market does not work because of the trust required for businesses to do the right thing. History has proven that when companies can sacrifice ethics to achieve high short term gains by defrauding the system, they will.

>So as long as more than $1.6 million dollars comes into bitcoin per day (assuming every mined coin is sold to those buyers) the price would be stable.
That is a big "if". That is also assuming that even a minority of sellers can not negatively affect the price.

>I don't see how this can be a negative thing if all it does is increase the economy?
I don't think its a negative thing, I just don't think it affects the price one way or another.

>>555336
>So you really think that financial crimes should go unchecked and unpunished?
In emerging markets yes,

Regulation hinders initial growth and can ultimately be the downfall for many startups and emerging markets.

For large plc's there should be open and fair accounting on behalf of the shareholders but for private companies the state should let them get on with it.

The housing bubble was, and is, caused by market greed.

It's arguable that if housing prices increased at the rate of inflation since the 70s houses today would be a fraction of what they are.

Bubbles have catastrophic downsides when they pop but over the course from start to finish can be an overall positive to the market in many ways, to say we would benefit from having houses kept in line with inflation would hamper most of the growth the west has seen these past few decades.

A true free market is great in that it doesn't favor multinational corporations, laissez faires economics alows small businesses to compete.

In order to have a free market we need to see big businesses topple from time to time.

Yes it sounds hard but it's the natural evolution of everything.

Progression through reform is a darn sight harder than building from scratch.

>>555359
>Regulation hinders initial growth and can ultimately be the downfall for many startups and emerging markets.
Necessary evil. Especially in financial companies that are handling NPI (nonpublic personal information) which includes phone numbers, addresses, credit history, bank account numbers, credit cards, etc. If there were not rules to govern how businesses collect, store, and protect information then there would be major vulnerabilities and opportunities for fraud and theft. Regulations are costly, but end the end are necessary and for the public good.

>It's arguable that if housing prices increased at the rate of inflation since the 70s houses today would be a fraction of what they are.
Not really a fraction. Housing prices have outperformed inflation, true, but right now by only like 18% on average. If anything I would say an investment that can out perform inflation for 50 years is a solid one. The housing bubble of 2008 would have been kept in check if regulations had not been loosened to allow for adjustable rate mortgages for people who couldn't afford them.

>Bubbles have catastrophic downsides when they pop but over the course from start to finish can be an overall positive to the market in many ways
Come on. You really don't think bubbles are healthy for an economy do you? The people that prospered from the housing bubble the most were the banks who gave out the risky loans and then made money on the back end by selling the bad mortgages. The bailout was egregious but it was the lack of oversight over the mortgage and banking industries that caused the fallout.

>In order to have a free market we need to see big businesses topple from time to time
I don't mind seeing big businesses topple for poor decisions. I also don't want to see fraudulent companies get away with impunity and then the CEO and executives just setting up shop somewhere else. Free market does not work. It has been proven over and over.

>>555378
> phone numbers, addresses, credit history, bank account numbers, credit cards, etc
All things the users have obligations to protect.
And businesses (if they want to maintain the consumers business) have obligations to protect.

There doesn't need to be a nanny state looking out for my rights or the businesses rights.
Markets are mature enough they can handle themselves, and if they aren't then they don't deserve to be in business.
The state can't look after you forever, and one day if it all comes crashing down you've left a nation of inept sheep.

> for adjustable rate mortgages for people who couldn't afford them.
Which, under the free market, would have meant said banks would have gone extinct.
But through your state's 'obligations' we've bailed them, only slowing their demise.

> You really don't think bubbles are healthy for an economy do you?
Yes.
Boom and bust cycles are natural in -every- civilization that has ever existed.
Nature has a tendency to overreach in search of the highest ground, it's natural and shouldn't frighten you.

>Free market does not work. It has been proven over and over.
The free market was the beginning of trade itself, it functions at the very heart of supply and demand, connecting and exchanging since time time immemorial, your unnatural regulation has stifled our progress to the point where new venture looks elsewhere.

>>555378
I'm going to bed dude, it's been fun.

Just as a final point I realize that my dreams of a world with weakened states are just that, dreams.

We're past the tipping point and without a major revolution (maybe China?) States are only getting stronger, maybe that's a trend post statism where civil liberties are tarnished for state imposed "models", but it's not one I want.

I know suddenly adopting bitcoin won't give us this but it's a step in the right direction.

>>555406
>And businesses (if they want to maintain the consumers business) have obligations to protect.
You use the word obligation like it has meaning in a free market. Businesses have no obligation to do anything but make money. If it costs too much to securely store sensitive information.. guess what? They won't. You won't even know they don't either because there will be no regulation to force them to prove they have proper security protocols. All you as a user will know is that out of the hundred online businesses you used this year, one of them must not have been careful because your credit card information was hacked.

>There doesn't need to be a nanny state looking out for my rights
You have no rights in a true free market. There is no consumer protections and if you ever are the victim of fraud? Tough luck.

>But through your state's 'obligations' we've bailed them, only slowing their demise.
That had nothing to do with regulations. The bailout was because of corrupt politicians which is an entirely new discussion in of itself.

>Nature has a tendency to overreach in search of the highest ground, it's natural and shouldn't frighten you.
This is probably the biggest amount of rubbish you have posted in this whole thread.

>The free market was the beginning of trade itself, it functions at the very heart of supply and demand
Yea the free market was great when everything was localized. You rarely had to trust 3rd parties and the world itself wasn't so connected. Every transaction was done in person or through a trusted liaison. Now with systems of global trade, commercial banking, complicated financial investments and the advent of the internet, things have changed. To say that Bitcoin is a technology that doesn't require 3rd party trust, you strip all its usefulness in online commerce and detract from the innovation that could possibly make it a good payments platform.

>>555433
I agree that too much control in the hands of the government is a bad thing, its just that I think no regulations or rules to govern business practices is even worse. The government bailouts were deplorable but laissez faires is just as injurious. The real point is that if Bitcoin remains unregulated it will suffer for it, and it will be at its own hands. I think your dreams are noble but they are naive. The only way Bitcoin survives long term is if it adapts and sheds its ideological proponents.

anyone remember when BTC was like $13?

>>555477
I remember when it was around $40. I bought like 5 of them then sold at $700. Good thing too I would have suffered a stroke if I held long term and saw all these price drops.

>>555495
nice, it used to flux between like $12 and $26 before silkroad became mainstream, then after the feds shut SR down i figured BTC would die off with them but i was mistaken

i never purchased any BTC because it was always under $30 so i couldnt see it rising much higher than that especially without SR

then it went mainstream and the price skyrocketed, i was always mad at myself for not cashing in like everyone else but i made the best decision i could with the information i had

>>555503
If it makes you feel any better very few people actually got rich and most people that did buy didn't buy very much. I only bought 5 because I thought it was a huge gamble too. It could have easily gone the opposite way.

>>555503

i remember when they were around 100 i wanted to buy one but never did. I was pretty bummed when they hit 1K

some random anon gave me 10 bucks worth of bitcoin a year ago, its probably worth 6 now

>>555504
>>555514
yeah i guess the point is youve gotta have the vision to see when something has real potential to grow like google, apple, etc

>>555515
For sure. People usually wait until they peak and then its too late. Same reason I wouldn't buy Bitcoin now because its already too well known. I do hold a little Ripple though in case that takes off like Bitcoin did.

>price is high
bitcoin is too expensive

>price is low
look it's crashing, no point in buying now

kek

>>556190

Kek, more like

>price is high

FIAT IS DYING NEW WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY BUY BUY BUY

>price is low

ARTIFICIAL MANIPULATION BUY THE DIP HOLD STRONG BUY BUY BUY

Funnily enough that's also the thought process of goldfags. Either way it's dumb- holding an investment with no exit strategy is a great way to get blindsided and lose everything.

>>556204
>Either way it's dumb- holding an investment

Bitcoin isn't just an 'investment' to a lot of people, unless you consider your fiat an 'investment'

>>556190
> price is high
Bitcoin is too expensive.

> price is low
Bitcoin is still too expensive.

It's almost 2015 and people still dont realize Bitcoin is overhyped and overpriced. If it ever falls to a dollar each I will think about getting some.

>>556222
Do you honestly think the market cap for bitcoin will ever be less than or equal to $21 million?

I think that has the same chance now as going to a million each

>>556226
Eventually yea

>>556245
Like gold will be worth a dollar an ounce too right?

>>556247
no not gold just bitcoin

>>556323
okay

Want to put money on it and do a short sell then?

You could make a fortune

:^)

https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/features

>>556328
>https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/features
I'd be glad to short bitcoin, but there's no way I'm trusting a random wallet site that could run off tomorrow.

>>556338
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092214/no-faith-bitcoin-profit-shorting-it.asp

It's the largest exchange outside China

If you don't trust bitfinex there are several others

BTC-e is another huge exchange that has the feature.

>>556344
I would rather leave my money in a bank where it suffers from inflation rather than trust one of those dodgy exchanges