Eh, people were saying the same thing about silk road. Surprise: silk road got shut down and BTC's price didn't drop at all.

I believe BTC's price is inherently a weighted random walk driven by speculation rather than rational reasons. Not everyone shares this belief, and it's human nature to look for explanations when there aren't any.

(An unknowable explanation is still unknowable.)

> silk road got shut down and BTC's price didn't drop at all

Yes it did: (though I assume you mean over the longer term, but I don't think that's how most would read that comment)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/03/bitcoin-p...

It did not. I was there, and I watched specifically for this. These articles always get published in response to what people want to believe. If you look at the data, there was a temporary drop followed by an immediate recovery.

The article even says this:

On Wednesday afternoon the price of one Bitcoin (BTC) was $145.70 on Mt Gox, one of the largest exchanges for the currency.

After the news that Ross Ulbricht had been arrested and the Silk Road site seized, the exchange rate plummeted to a low of $109.76, before recovering to $124.00 late on Thursday.

Translation: "BTC went from $145 to $124 and then continued to go up."

I was there as well. People were freaking out on r/bitcoin and elsewhere. There was an immediate response. The price recovered, but a drop from $145 to $110 (a 25% drop) shouldn't be hand waved away.

It wasn't a 25% drop, it was a 15% drop which isn't uncommon. This is Bitcoin. It was followed by an immediate recovery.

Sure, if you pick the price point of $124. I agree, Bitcoin is filled with tons of swings and volatility. I was merely addressing your comment "silk road got shut down and BTC's price didn't drop at all" which is quite inaccurate. I'm a big Bitcoin proponent myself, and don't think we do anyone any favors by painting a false picture. (or to be more generous, keep moving the goal posts)

The price dropped for one day. That does not count as a drop. Pull up the data and show that it dropped longer than a day and then I'll agree that it dropped.

How far are we going to zoom in to say that BTC dropped? An hour? A minute? A day is not a useful time interval.

Using the lowest point of the day also isn't useful. Traders typically use a moving average. Neither the lowest nor the highest peak is a useful way to compute the price of bitcoin for the day.

If you're going to wag your finger and say "Nu uh" and trot out data saying that it went down to X price, well, yes, you're technically correct. But I think most people would agree that the price over the next week is a far more useful way to know whether the price truly dropped or not.

In other words, if China's ban results in BTC dropping for a day, who cares? No one.

The price didn't fully recover for about a week. (Not sure how to share it, but go to https://www.investing.com/currencies/btc-usd-historical-data and enter 10/1/2013 to 10/9/2013 - based on the prices, it looks like they use Bitstamp for pricing data). I assume they are using an interval similar to what you're desiring - perhaps start of day in UTC or the like

Here's a chart of the immediate drop and rebound, where you see it didn't recover to the price pre-announcement:

https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/blogs/wiredenterpri...

I think you'll agree there's a huge bias in Bitcoin dialog. Peaks are indelible truths, but dips always have asterisks. Let's flip your comments around:

"The price went over $5000 for one day. That does not count as a peak." "Using the hightest point of the day also isn't useful. Traders typically use a moving average. Neither the lowest nor the highest peak is a useful way to compute the price of bitcoin for the day." "If you're going to wag your finger and say "Nu uh" and trot out data saying that it went up to X price, well, yes, you're technically correct. But I think most people would agree that the price over the next week is a far more useful way to know whether the price truly went over $4900 or not." "In other words, if BTC went over $4900 for a day, who cares? No one."

Yet in any conversation of price, that $5000+ ATH is the watermark.

Peaks have never been a useful benchmark of Bitcoin health, and I don't know where you're getting that from. Your thoughts on Bitcoin are basically being driven by popular media, and popular media is a terrible way to judge anything.

I've already responded to your points, but let's rehash it again: Silk road closed, and everyone expected BTC to completely fucking fail. It did not. In fact, it barely went down. It also recovered swiftly.

If you want to call that a drop, go ahead! Personally, I'd save that classification for when BTC dropped from $1100 to $300, for example. But sure, a 15% decrease for one day followed by a recovery over the following week could count, I guess.

> Peaks have never been a useful benchmark of Bitcoin health, and I don't know where you're getting that from. Your thoughts on Bitcoin are basically being driven by popular media, and popular media is a terrible way to judge anything.

Most of my thoughts are driven by what passes for dialog at r/bitcoin and elsewhere in the community. To the moon! This is gentlemen! rollercoaster.gif! I would definitely agree that listening to hyperbole, wherever it comes from, is foolish.

All bubbles have money coming in from somewhere. The Keynsian "Animal Spirits" concept is almost as much B.S as Marxist "Productive Forces".

I didn't say there wasn't money coming in.

Recent growth has been coming more from South Korea and Japan. This news has already hurt the price, but it's likely priced in now, and there are plenty of other markets out there. Speculation will continue.