If we can just hit $319-327 I can load up the juiciest short & enjoy profit-taking as it dumps back to low-mid-$200's.
Why not sub-200? Well, because I'm afraid CBase+Gemini, as well as the gigantic funding round recently, have truly changed the landscape - this bullishness is now embedded at multiple deep layers, and it should take several months to even have a chance at bringing in another huge capitulation like we just had..
people that did not see this casual pump&dump pattern and thus did not take the opportunity to maximize their btc holdings are retards.
ps: shrot @314
ps: shrot @314
I just hope we didn't skin too many Greeks in the process. I imagine some were actually sold.
Bitcoin wont save Greece.
..So incredibly true.
Just as how Greece won't save Bitcoin
Nor will China's or the US/EU's stock market troubles ;
Nor would (for any lasting adoption and/or price gains) any further P&D's by large-scale Ponzi promoters like that LTC pump chinese guy ;
..the only thing that can save BTC is 1. Global apocalyptic event -or- 2a. Another 2008 Subprime-Style global fiat financial meltdown -&- 2b. The BitcoinCore & Blockchain Tech fundamental technical problems have been addressed & Bitcoin is vastly easier to use & features a more secure/stable blockchain network.
After all, just a few days ago, people like me were shaking our heads as the degenerates in this thread were howling for CCMF as if those fundamental human psychology & sociological factors were suddenly not applying anymore [General public(plebians) are lazy | Mediocrity-minded/Tolerate corrupt & inefficient fiat banking + traditional payments | Soft/Don't like change/Prefer Status Quo], & blockchain's core challenges were magically solved thus enabling global mass user adoption all of a sudden ~ Meanwhile I loaded shorts @ $315 (but I got scared & closed them at 300 ;p), because after all :
The bitcoin protocol is a great advance towards an old computer science problem, and was a very interesting experiment in payment technology. As a computer scientist, I could like that.
But I wrote "was" because that experiment has been turned into something that is not nice at all. Mainly, a huge pyramid scheme that is sucking millions of dollars every day from hundreds of thousands of ill-informed people, burning much of it in useless computations, and giving the rest to some smart and/or lucky people. That scheme has ruined the experiment, by pumping up its value to 1000x what it should have been, and centralizing mining into a handful (literally, 5) of companies.
Bitcoin could still go back to being a nice computing experiment, as it was in 2009, if the price crashed back to cents. It should do that eventually, because the investment pyramid cannot go on forever. But now there is a new unexpected threat: Blockstream has taken control of the reference implementation (BitcoinCore) and intends to turn it into a channel for settlements among big entities, drive all person-to-person traffic off the bitcoin network, to offchain solutions like Coinbase, Circle, or the hypothetical Lightning Network. To achieve that goal, they are refusing to make what should be a no-brainer maintenance fix (raising the block size limit), spreading FUD about centralization, and trying to descredit Gavin and Mike Hearn.
So I am taking side in this dispute because it is a technical computer science question, and I cannot avoud giving my technical opinion about it. Plus, I have this psychological problem about scammers and cheats -- and I feel that the Blockstream guys are getting pretty close to that...
Trying to put myself in place of the typical user, I would think that many who tried to use Bitcoin these days, and were not aware of the need to pay higher than normal fees, must have concluded that the system was broken, and did what any user of free software would do: gave up on it. Note that only a few thousand bitcoin users read the forums or the bitcoin "news" sites (an the latter tend to hide or minimize problems).
