71–80 of 424 posts
Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?
Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?
You can try to prove your innocence but it doesn't really work in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a great look for the BitCoin market if you can buy in bulk at 75%.
Not really. Seized properties often sell for less than half of the market value... doesn't mean the property is worth half now... it means the government can't be bothered to take on the responsibility of selling the property at full retail -- ie. they just want to get rid of the assets and move on.
Aside from this, there's also a transaction cost component.. it takes time and some money to transact (think opportunity cost of the 200k deposit, lawyer fees, etc.) and this would be reflected. The sale price would reflect both of these.
Now, if the good was completely fungible, risk-free and totally liquid (think cash), there would be no expected discount because of risk.. just transaction cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Increasing supply always reduces the market price.
But the supply hasn't increased. These bitcoins existed prior to the offer of sale. The only thing that increased was the free float.
Which I think has a more significant effect on the market price than the total amount that exists.
Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?
The price has tanked today as a result of this. http://cryptowat.ch/btce/btcusd/1hr/ Market started going crazy earlier today when DPR's seized coins started to move. https://blockchain.info/address/1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN4... The downtrend is only accelerating.
Could someone explain the logic behind the price drop? Is that related to the fact that those 30k will be sold below the standard price? For some reason it seems counter-intuitive for me, since the money connected to those coins have been already paid once (whether for mining them or via exchange). So in practice it's more like they've been actually paid for ~twice now, so the effect "should" be opposite.
There is no logic. Searching for logic behind bitcoin's price is a fool's errand. You'll trick yourself into believing things that aren't true, because the price of bitcoin is determined by a small number of large players. Those large players enter or exit the market for any reason they feel like. It's gambling, plain and simple. News announcements serve as a trigger for the gamblers to initiate gambles (exit/enter t…
Before this announcement the balance was about $650. It means that greedy people think it will go higher than $650, and fearful people think it would go lower.
Now comes this announcement. About 30.000 bitcoins wil sometime in July come into the hands of someone who will have paid significantly below market rate for them.
Is this good news or bad news for the market? It's bad of course. In the most optimum case, the buyer will keep the bitcoin, and the market won't move at all. In the worst case, the buyer will sell all the bitcoin the second he receives the bitcoin.
Between these two extremes there is a range of possibilities, but you can see that the range is from 0 to negative something, so overall we predict a negative outcome for the market.
So, the fearful people will become a little stronger, and the balance will drop accordingly.
This seems insane. Shouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient to just sell them on an exchange or something? (Over time, even, rather than all at once, obviously.) "Let's sell them all in blocks of 3000 and require a deposit of $200k to bid" ... yeah ...
I imagine it's just official government procedure. ie. You seized an asset, this is how you sell assets, therefore this is how you sell bitcoins.
Could someone explain the logic behind the price drop? Is that related to the fact that those 30k will be sold below the standard price? For some reason it seems counter-intuitive for me, since the money connected to those coins have been already paid once (whether for mining them or via exchange). So in practice it's more like they've been actually paid for ~twice now, so the effect "should" be opposite.