Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,686
I'm just trying to get my head around the timing of the latest surge. Several things at play here.Before Christmas you said that the btc price should be so much higher if monetary expansion was a driver. Now its much higher and you're still not happy. Gold is much higher over the last 18 months and you figure that bitcoin shouldn't outperform it even though its a much younger asset that is coming of age. Also, there has been some limited move from gold directly to bitcoin in recent weeks.
What's at play is you're now saying the opposite of what you said previously in an attempt to maintain that negative narrative.I'm just trying to get my head around the timing of the latest surge. Several things at play here.
Absolute nonsense. 1 part in 3,000 is never significant.@dukey: That's supply that has to go on to the market to cover significant mining costs. You can try all you like to contrive it not to be significant when that supply is cut in half. It's simple math.
I disagree. You cut supply that has to go onto the market in half - of course it makes a difference.Absolute nonsense. 1 part in 3,000 is never significant.
How so called experts can argue that a halving of the new coin supply has any material impact on the supply/demand dynamic is really telling.
My current flip (or is it flop) is to try and understand why now this remarkable price action. Coindesk asked their experts the same question and one of them mentioned the halving. In fact my dear theo so did you.Duke, with respect , you are positively flip-flopping from one perspective to next.
The halving occurred last May.
BTW March or May? it is not important.theo answering my question about recent price action in #18 said:Also, there was the halving of the block reward in March this year.
Check my numbers, maybe I have the decimal point in the wrong place but Coindesk says trade in the last 24h was $90bn which I think is about 3,000 coins. Checking historically say over the last 2 years this is about double normal but even that is astonishingly high. By comparison:You seem to identify 1K new coins minted in out of a total 3m coins traded in last 24hrs.
I have to say 3m coins being traded in 24hrs, if accurate, is a phenomenal amount. As only 1k of these can be new coins, then it suggests heavy selling on the part of holders. This goes some way to explaining the 25%+ price pull back.
So that's less than 1 per mil for a normal stock. Admittedly that other mind blowing phenomenon Tesla has very high turnover though not quite in the same league as bitcoin.There are currently 1,127,467,028 Ryanair shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 641,279 shares.
In fact my dear theo so did you.
Good, we agree. Not @tecate.However, if there is a significant trading of 3m coins as of the last 24hrs, then, in that 24hr period, the newly mined 1k coins will be of little significance to the price in that 24hr period.
tecate addressing my statement that 1 in 3000 is insignificant said:I disagree.
You can rework the same tired arguments like your friend Nouriel, Duke - it will make no difference.Good, we agree. Not @tecate.
Good, we agree. Not @tecate.
theo I think we all understand how supply and demand works. In the last 24 hours 3 million bitcoins changed hands. Somewhere in there possibly all 930 shiny new bitcoins were sold. I thought we agreed that this had not one iota of contribution to the 25% fall in price. @tecate disagrees though s/he seems to think I am misrepresenting their use of the term "I disagree".Duke, with respect, if Irish housing stock is 1m, and there are 40,000 new units each year with 40,000 buyers all well and good.
Cut the supply to 20,000 and increase the demand to 70,000 buyers then we all know what happens.
If however, a wave of 250,000 units of the existing 1m stock comes onto the market for sale in a very short period, then supply of 20,000 new units will be of little significance in supporting the price, despite the presence of 70,000 buyers.
Yep, that tallies with the volume in the last 24 hours. That is a turnover of 1 in 6 bitcoins per 24h. Compare with Ryanair shares 1 in 1,000 turnover in 24h.Highly liquid supply: 3 million BTC
Let me help you out there your Dukeness. I'm correcting you on the bs you added (post =91). It should just read "tecate said" - not that other nonsense. I'm not getting dragged in to your cherry picking of current volume - taking NO heed of what were regular volumes pre halving. It's very simple. There was X amount that had to be sold every day - now there's half of that amount that has to be sold. That is before we look at ordinary every day volumes.@tecate disagrees though s/he seems to think I am misrepresenting their use of the term "I disagree".
See above.Yep, that tallies with the volume in the last 24 hours. That is a turnover of 1 in 6 bitcoins per 24h. Compare with Ryanair shares 1 in 1,000 turnover in 24h.
I think we all understand how supply and demand works.
Let's agree to disagree. In my book 1 in 3,000 is insignificant but I accept that is a subjective call.I'm not so sure Duke. Your question appears to be to try understand the bitcoin halving last May with regard to its
a) recent price surge over the last six months, and
b) its price fall over the last 24hrs
in both instances you appear to suggest that the halving is insignificant?
I would suggest, that in a) it is significant, and in b) not so significant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?