Your analysis makes absolutely no sense to me.
And the reason for that Brendan is that you are approaching consideration of the bitcoin halving all the while saying to yourself that bitcoin doesn't have one redeeming factor.
You seem to be distinguishing between newly mined BTC and existing ones? But are they not the same thing?
You seem to believe that every one of the 17 million bitcoin are available to you right now - they're not!
But I can buy any of the 17,000,864 and not just the freshly mined ones?
No, you can't. To suggest that every single bitcoin in existence is available to you right now is completely wrong. You're going to buy my BTC that's in cold storage? Good luck with that.
In any given day, when you look at the order books for leading exchanges and you aggregate the numbers, are you telling me that you have the opportunity to buy 17 million bitcoin?...because you don't.
There's 170,000 tonnes of gold in the world (above ground). Are you trying to tell me that if you go out onto the gold markets today, all 170,000 tonnes are available to you to buy? Are you trying to tell me that if its annual production supply - which averages out at 2,700 tonnes/year - increases or decreases, this has no effect on the price of gold?
I am not limited to the ones mined yesterday.
You are not limited to the ones that were minted yesterday BUT you do not have 17 million BTC available to you to buy....in the same way as there are not 170,000 tonnes of gold available for you to buy. On the bitcoin and gold markets, I'm sure there are average weekly volumes as people move in and out of the market. Now when it comes to newly mined coins, these are not going to be hoarded for any length of time. Bitcoin mining businesses have significant costs - those bitcoin will find their way onto the market - that's inevitable. Therefore, when you cut that production output, it's going to have an effect on the supply dynamic...and price (leaving the demand component aside...assuming equal demand rate pre and post halving).
What you are saying is the equivalent of "If you want to buy a house in Ireland, you can only buy a house built yesterday".
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying - and correcting you on - is that if the CSO tells us Ireland has a housing stock of 2 million, all 2 million are not available to you to buy when you present yourself as a buyer of irish property. In the same way, when you tell me that 17 million bitcoin are available to you when you present yourself at a bitcoin OTC or crypto exchange, that's incorrect.
What you are saying is the equivalent of "If you want to buy a house in Ireland, you can only buy a house built yesterday".
So there were 100 houses built yesterday and with 10,000 eager buyers, the price would be quite high.
If they announce that on May 12th, there will be only 50 houses built every day, the price should rise as the demand won't change.
But if we knew about that for the last ten years, then house prices should be very high today in anticipation of the reduced supply from 12th May.
This is a different point and it's been asked and answered. You're saying that the bitcoin supply halving should be priced in (and the next halving in four years time, and the next one after that, etc.). My position on that remains unchanged. It's intuitive to me that it *should* be. However, maybe it is or maybe it isn't. We'll see over the course of the next 12 months. Bear in mind that the conventional markets are not 100% efficient either. There's no way in the world that the markets as they stand today reflect the state of the world economy.
Try pressing the reset button. If you could look at your arguments as a third party with no preconceptions, you would see how bizarre they really are.
I've got the same proposal for yourself Brendan. Let's see how you react to the above - because I'm already expecting you to say that you talk of gold and you talk of bitcoin in the context of supply but that's irrational because it's gold! Tell me i'm wrong? Tell me that you are not approaching this specific consideration without putting aside your own overriding bias (which is that Brendan believes that bitcoin is hot air and has no value). In the context of this specific consideration, it doesn't matter your view - because there are enough of us out there that disagree.
If you want to make a list of my 'bizarre' beliefs surrounding bitcoin, by all means create another thread and lets go through them. I'm a believer in the contrarian view - so by all means, lets hear it.
Or at least, document your arguments in your diary. It will be very instructive for you to look back at them in a few years and you will wonder how you couldn't see through them.
It's all documented here on AAM if I'm to suppose you keep paying for hosting
I dare say that it will be very instructive to all of us. Duke mentioned the venerable Paul Krugman in support of his argument yesterday. I dare say it would be constructive for him to consider his view in 1999 that the fax machine would be the clear winner in terms of impact vs. the whole internet by 2005.
As regards what I 'can't see through' - I've identified shortcomings in crypto and bitcoin - that's all on record here. There are issues that it still has to overcome. However, as regards what you think I have not been able to 'see through', well that might be something for another thread.
I have looked for some independent analysis of this.
The Independent quotes only Bitcoin fanatics.
Again with the bias. How are the three people quoted 'fanatics'? Lets go through them:
Danny Scott - CEO of CoinCorner - a UK Crypto exchange. Scott has worked with CoinCorner - and thus in the industry - since 2014. He's a contributor to Bitcoin Core (i.e. he submits code for consideration as part of Bitcoin Improvement Processes (BIPs).
Don Wyper, COO of crypto ATM network, Digital Mint.
Raoul Pal - Former Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Manager; Founder of market research service, Global Macro Investor.
In the case of the first two, they work in the industry. It's fair to assume that they have some belief in that industry. However, you are the one that has added the prejudicial 'fanatics' tag. You may not agree with them but they are well placed to comment on the bitcoin halving.
As for Raoul Pal, his background is in the conventional markets. That's where he built his career - as a macro analyst - identifying seismic changes and innovations before the herd. He didn't come up with crypto - but over the course of the last year he has become a strong supporter of the potential of bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
Tecate - have you found any sceptical analysis of the price impact?
There is one main consideration with regard to speculation on the halving and its one that has been discussed here - is it priced in or not? There are differing views on that in the industry.
What you present with otherwise (see above) - that has not been mentioned by a soul - in the mainstream financial media's consideration of the halving or in the crypto media's reportage on the halving.
Your dukeness, technical analysis tools such as the
Fibonacci Retracement predate bitcoin and cryptocurrency. They are used by day and swing traders in the traditional markets. I don't have strong knowledge on their use and don't have strong opinions on technical analysis but if you want to have a go at that, then that's a separate discussion/argument - and one that I would suggest that would be equally if not more at home in the 'investments' sub-forum rather than 'alternative investments'.
