Bitcoin price reaches a record high for the first time since April
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
http://www.coindesk.com/price/
Among other factors, for inclusion in the index, money must be liquid within 7 days.
The matter of the fact is that, some people are doing arbitrage between Gox and other exchanges. And this arbitrage keeps prices somewhat in line. If the arbitrage would not exist, then the prices would be all over the place and not correlate at all.
The question then is, if the Gox$ are all fake and nobody can get any, how come the arbitrageurs can keep in business? And the answer is: they couldn't. Some people get to convert their Gox$ to US$ and then use them to buy bitcoin on other exchanges to sell them on Gox.
But, not all people, for whatever reason, get to do that. And the process might be lengthy, and there's a risk that it might fail for you.
So the spread between Gox and other exchanges is the arbitrageurs estimate of the risk of selling BTC to Gox$ and be able to convert them in a suitable timeframe to US$.
I have heard this before, "Mt.Gox is not a bad company to do business with if you're in Japan." They are not a sham company by any means, they are just hamstrung by US government intervention.
I guess as good becomes more liquid (like USD and gold) then the gap gets reduced.
If you consider the 4 largest exchanges (together about 90% of the volume), then you can look at the price as this fuzzy zone somewhere between the highest and lowest tick.
If you want to know when a specific price has been surprassed comprehensively, it's when all of the top exchanges have gone over it (not just one).
But if you want to know if it's somewhat likely a specific price will be surpassed by all exchanges, then just one going over carries a lot of meaning.
https://support.mtgox.com/entries/21649594-Withdrawals-and-D...
This is interesting because bitcoin is presented as a reliable store of value, but I bet a lot of people who trade on exchanges leave their coins with the exchange for convenience.
So - what if some operators hold less coins than they claim to have, and are shuffling around from a fractional reserve, as you describe?
There would be more coins in the system than actually exist. I get lost in the M1/M3 representation of volumes of money, but that starts to reintroduce some of the confidence problems with paper money.
But - if this problem exists - it will be temporary, and is not inherent to bitcoins. Either the ecosystem will evolve so people stop holding coins at the exchange, or there'll be a couple of run events causing a loss of confidence in exchanges for storage.
It is because US government poached their money.
I usually check rates daily and today is the first day I saw MtGox not offering the highest bid(!)
A better point of comparison would be exchanges that were around at the previous peak, such as Bitstamp or BTC-E.
I think it's pretty likely that 1 Bitcoin will be worth $1,000 within the next year and $10,000 within the next 3 years.
So even under the ridiculously unlikely assumption that computational power halves in cost every 18 months for the indefinite future: 50 years from now, the entire current global GDP still won't be enough to buy a processor that can crack a Bitcoin key in less than a decade.
(Of course, this is assuming there are no other unknown flaws in the protocol, and that no better algorithms are found to find discrete logarithms over elliptic curves. But if a vulnerability is found, it won't be thanks to Moore's law.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_logarithm_records#Elli...
As for ECDSA, it can only be broken by quantum computers, but still most balances are protected by sha256*ripemd160 hash, so they are safe in the face of sudden QC attack or a weakness in ECC. People will want to protect their wealth and thus will change the protocol for other algorithms.
But do you think it would actually be viable to make a protocol algorithm transition?
After all, with any currency the only value it has is the ability to later exchange the currency back to services or material goods.
Even if a currency is backed by gold like in old times there can only be faith in that gold will actually buy you goods in the future, too.
USD is valuable not only because people trust you'll always be able to buy things with USD, but also because the US. government collects USD-denominated tax. As long as the government continues to have the firepower to enforce the tax code, there will always be a demand for USD, irrespective of how confident people are in its viability.
The USD has had zero intrinsic value since the end of the gold standard. That's why, by definition, it is called a fiat currency.
The USD has value solely because it is demanded (and the biggest demander is the US government, via taxes) and because people believe it will remain demanded.
The USD, or any fiat currency, has no value beyond this "belief". And this is not inherently wrong. Most of the world economies run on fiat currencies. Even Bitcoin is, technically, fiat.
The definition of "fiat money" depends on who defines it, but in my eyes the most correct definition is "any money declared by a government to be legal tender". Fiat literally means "let it be done", as in a declaration. The U.S. dollar is fiat because the U.S. government says it is money, and it was fiat under the gold standard as well.
Even under the gold standard, U.S. dollars did not have "intrinsic value" the way I understand it, which is to say value that comes from the physical properties of the object in question. There is a very tiny intrinsic value because you can burn U.S. bank notes for heat and things like that, but nothing else - gold standard or not. Gold may have some intrinsic value because it can aid industrial processes and fill teeth and make jewelry, but that is probably far away from explaining gold's market price today.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is not fiat, because no legal authority has declared that it shall be money.
By law, the USD used to be convertible to gold at a legally defined USD-per-ounces rate. This legal rate is what gave it intrinsic value. All economist will agree with this statement. Any literature about the USD explains clearly that "the USD transitioned from the gold standard to a fiat currency".
That's not entirely true. As long as it is the only legal tender in the US and taxes are paid in USD, it has intrinsic value.
"Fiat money, such as paper dollars, is money without intrinsic value: It would be worthless if it were not used as money." -- from Principles of Economics, Volume 1, http://books.google.com/books?id=oRgQ2goeFzwC&pg=PA659&q=fia...
I don't mean to be rude, but I am always surprised by discussions about money. They reveal that people have no idea what money is and what gives it value.
Bitcoin will only grow slow and steady when it becomes world money. Before that happens, we'll see quick land grab hysteria, huge corrections, consolidation period and then again the same cycle.
The FBI total seizure from Silk Road is 173,991 Bitcoins [1] -- which is about 1.45% of the Total BTC (11,954,825 [2])
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2013/manhattan-u.s...
That said, Bitcoin could conceivably go for $10,000 (200B market cap while there is 1.2T USD in circulation) if/when it gains widespread acceptance. There are still some issues though. From what I understand there is a limit on maximum transactions that can be included in a block.
Yesterday, I got out @ $220 / BTC.
I suck at this.
2011: From $1 to $30 and then down to $5. 500% total gain. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg5zigDailyzczsg201... (Slow decrease in price was probably due to huge mining inflation rate at that time: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130619.0)
Summer 2012: From $5 to $15 to $11. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg5zigDailyzczsg201...
Spring 2013: From $14 to $266 to around $100-120. http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg5zigDailyzczsg201...
If this time it crashes from $2000 to $1000, it'd be pretty spectacular and profitable. Those traders who will have bought too high will have to patiently wait another year or two for their profits.