discuss Bitcoin above $16,000. Where is it headed?

[Arpit131]

Bitcoin is already trading at $16,300+

Where do you think it will cap out?

 

[shorterwinters]

well, that's the first time I heard about 40% being horded by 1000 people but giving it some thought that wouldn't surprise me from how I understand it.
It's all been mined? There's a finite amount of Bitcoin available and roughly 3/4 of them have been mined?
That would mean that only the miners sell the initial/original coin? Is that how it would go or is that just my twisted head spinning? Did I connect the dots right?
If that's how it goes then it would be very likely a huge amount is held by a few original miners.
I am not sure about the overall demand for it as much as the interest and curiosity tho if you are in the twitter world it sure seems as if that is the only thing happening in the world.

 

[urlurl]

but you still haven't given any valid reason for why anyone should own bitcoins - other than it may go up in price

and yes, i have provided valid information supporting my claim that a handful of owners own the majority of coins.

the chart is updated and current from the stats provided.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

 

[Domainscoop.com]

anyone sitting on the sidelines didnt get in on time, will have time to speculate and base their opinions on things that has no base.

Ofcourse what goes up must come down, thats the rule of thumb. Even stock markets goes up and down and crash etc.

so now relax and enjoy the ride, you should not invest what you can not afford to loose. enough said.

 

[urlurl]

anyone sitting on the sidelines didnt get in on time, will have time to speculate and base their opinions on things that has no base.

Ofcourse what goes up must come down, thats the rule of thumb. Even stock markets goes up and down and crash etc.

so now relax and enjoy the ride, you should not invest what you can not afford to loose. enough said.

but that's the scary thing - its full of people chancing it with what little they have and can afford

endless stories of people getting mortgages to buy, liquidating their assets and taking all their life savings and making a crazy bet.

 

[xynames]

UrlUrl, as I posted above, given that wallets are anonymous, and that one person might hold multiple wallets, we can't know whether this is true. I myself have more than one wallet, and every time I receive BTC I create a special new wallet for the sender so that I may keep track, and because I don't like giving out my main wallet ID. I have created many many of these unique wallets to receive BTC over the past 4 - 5 years. So, if you add all those wallets up I have a great deal, but if you look at them individually I fall into the category of those who have little.

I'm just saying it is not an exact science - we can't know.

And even if a few people did or do own a lot, like that example I gave above of where Icahn crashed NFLX for a day from 700 to 620 (settled at 650) by dumping all his stock at once NFLX still is at an adjusted 1300 or so now, and Icahn never bought back in.

Buffett owns 700 million shares of BAC. I own a gang of BAC, still microscopic compared to what he owns, but, I'm not worried about his great share.

 

[SirDrago]

but you still haven't given any valid reason for why anyone should own bitcoins - other than it may go up in price

and yes, i have provided valid information supporting my claim that a handful of owners own the majority of coins.

Show attachment 75070

the chart is updated and current from the stats provided.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1EnJHhq8Jq8vDuZA5ahVh6H4t6jh1mB4rq

Check that account.
Guess who it belongs to.

 

[urlurl]

who?

they did buy a lot Dec 6th -

Oh, just about the time that site was hacked...

figured it out

 

[shorterwinters]

but that's the scary thing - its full of people chancing it with what little they have and can afford

endless stories of people getting mortgages to buy, liquidating their assets and taking all their life savings and making a crazy bet.

Very similar to whatt happened in the twenties leading up to the crash in 29. Frank down on the corner and Bob the farmer were getting into the stock market for the first time ever. Even Aunt Edna. It was never something for the everyday person until then. The mass public wasn't involved in it until the years leading up to 1929, kind of like now. Thinking about that, probably a good chance then that a small percentage of people owned 40 percent of the stocks.

 

[xynames]

Very similar to whatt happened in the twenties leading up to the crash in 29. Frank down on the corner and Bob the farmer were getting into the stock market for the first time ever. Even Aunt Edna. It was never something for the everyday person until then. The mass public wasn't involved in it until the years leading up to 1929, kind of like now.

True, but we haven't even had the run up yet. We're still in

could we please get there first?

Just getting started! It's not December 1999. It's December 1998!

 

[SirDrago]

who?

they did buy a lot Dec 6th -

Oh, just about the time that site was hacked...

figured it out

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/07/technology/nicehash-bitcoin-theft-hacking/index.html

 

[urlurl]

bitcoin is a crooks dream - where else can you steal hundreds of millions of dollars and hide it in your palm of your hands...

this is only the beginning, there will be more and more and more heist and ransomware schemes

until its not worth the risk or hassle anymore to own or use coins

 

[Domainscoop.com]

but that's the scary thing - its full of people chancing it with what little they have and can afford

endless stories of people getting mortgages to buy, liquidating their assets and taking all their life savings and making a crazy bet.

are you a investor? if not, sit down, honestly. Were you able to stop people from buying 600k homes when they could not afford it?

 

[urlurl]

nope, but we all saw how that turned out

 

[Domainscoop.com]

nope, but we all saw how that turned out

were you able to stop dot com boom 1999 - 2000?

if you are not investor, then speculate as much as want. Its human nature, do you think people be selling names here, sometimes they buy for 100k, but they cant afford to sell, so they have to sell for 20k, what to do?

just relax buddy.

 

[xynames]

nope, but we all saw how that turned out

HOWEVER, all those 600K homes...are now 800K homes!

 

[urlurl]

were you able to stop dot com boom 1999 - 2000?

if you are not investor, then speculate as much as want. Its human nature, do you think people be selling names here, sometimes they buy for 100k, but they cant afford to sell, so they have to sell for 20k, what to do?

just relax buddy.

im not getting excited at all, this is just a friendly discussion - and a debate on both sides.

 

[Asfas1000]

UrlUrl, as I posted above, given that wallets are anonymous, and that one person might hold multiple wallets, we can't know whether this is true.

The fact that some people own multiple wallets is not an argument you can use. Infact it's a counter-argument. I can't see the logic, please explain if I am missing something here.

 

[urlurl]

The fact that some people own multiple wallets is not an argument you can use. Infact it's a counter-argument. I can't see the logic, please explain if I am missing something here.

i thought the same thing - if a person owns more than one wallet (most likely) than that means even less people own more. good catch Asfas1000

 

[SirDrago]

nope, but we all saw how that turned out

Ever watched the movie "The big short"?

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref=m_nv_sr_3
Check what those homes are worth.
Great movie!

 

[urlurl]

no, but i've heard of it - maybe i should check it out.

 

[xynames]

If A. has 100 tiny wallets he gets lumped into the category of the ones who own little, when actually he's in the category of the ones who own a lot. If there are in fact very few who own little, then the ones who own a lot are greater in number, and then that 40% figure drops.

Let's say there are 1000 bitcoins total. So you claim that 1000 people own 400 of them. Each wallet of theirs will have .4 bitcoin.

So the assumption is that the other 600 bitcoin are spread among far more than 1000 people, correct?

But if the 600 bitcoin are not spread among thousands of people but among far less, let's say that in reality 600 people have 1 bitcoin each. So now you have a much different division.

You may play with the statistics however you like, but it's like the difference between a farm of 1000 acres that you thought 40% was owned by one guy and the rest by a thousand sharecroppers, only to find out that the 60% actually belonged to only 10 people. An extreme example but you see how it goes.

lol if it weren't so late at night I'd give an exact statistical breakdown with exact examples.

Basically if EVERYONE has a lot, then you may not say that the wealth is divided among only a few.... The more people who have a lot, the less it matters statistically about the few who don't.

A kingdom of competing barons is more equally divided than a kingdom with just a few barons and mostly peasants. The more barons there are, the less any one baron may be able to overpower the other.

So yes, it makes a difference.

 

[Domainscoop.com]

unsubscribed from thread, carry on..

 

[urlurl]

and for the record - i'm not here to bash the coin - the technology its based on may have some merit in future developments - i'm just providing my opinion just like anyone else. I am not making any personal attacks and neither should anyone else here.

I am not advising anyone either way - you make your own decisions based on the information that is brought forward by everyone.

 

[urlurl]

If A. has 100 tiny wallets he gets lumped into the category of the ones who own little, when actually he's in the category of the ones who own a lot. If there are in fact very few who own little, then the ones who own a lot are greater in number, and then that 40% figure drops.

Let's say there are 1000 bitcoins total. So you claim that 1000 people own 400 of them. Each wallet of theirs will have .4 bitcoin.

So the assumption is that the other 600 bitcoin are spread among far more than 1000 people, correct?

But if the 600 bitcoin are not spread among thousands of people but among far less, let's say that in reality 600 people have 1 bitcoin each. So now you have a much different division.

You may play with the statistics however you like, but it's like the difference between a farm of 1000 acres that you thought 40% was owned by one guy and the rest by a thousand sharecroppers, only to find out that the 60% actually belonged to only 10 people. An extreme example but you see how it goes.

lol if it weren't so late at night I'd give an exact statistical breakdown with exact examples.

Basically if EVERYONE has a lot, then you may not say that the wealth is divided among only a few.... The more people who have a lot, the less it matters statistically about the few who don't.

A kingdom of competing barons is more equally divided than a kingdom with just a few barons and mostly peasants. The more barons there are, the less any one baron may be able to overpower the other.

but that just means fewer people own more coins each

 

[xynames]

Or, it means that almost nobody owns very few coins. If taken to extremes. It would mean, if taken to extremes, that 97% of the coins are owned by 90% of the bitcoiners, for example.

The point is that you may not calculate a percentage with unknown or missing data.