Aren't you lucky that there is someone in this thread whom you can vent your frustration on when you see your investment do in 1 year what the dollar did in 100 years?

Glad to oblige.

PS. Only idiots keep their savings as currency.  I wonder if it is genetic?

OK, so you are Brazilian, that explains some things.

Now, how exactly you "didn't follow" my CS101 class? Did you drop out after the first lecture?  Were you a Drama or Philosophy student?  Did you apply to this university, but did not get in?  Did you flunk high school?

I started using the internet in 1979.

Does the word "reality" mean anything to you? 

Why do you think that Microsoft, Newegg, Dell, and many others have adopted the dollar last year?

And yet the dollar has been one of the best currencies in the world all through that time, much better at the job than bitcoin has been so far.

So perhaps a "deflationary currency" (which actually has 10%/year inflation rate) was not such a good idea after all?

PS. By the way, I wonder why you so obsessed with my person that you even changed your signature in my honor.  Are you Brazilian, perchance?  Were you my student?  Did I flunk you in CS 101 or something?

Can one burst a price bubble with a pointed question?

Would a question with a point be a sharp question?

No, in the documents they say that the initial offering will be 1 million shares, each representing 0.2 BTC. That is the hard data.

The initial price of each share will be 0.2 of the BTC price at the time of the offer.

In the filed documents, they give an example, assuming an arbitrary BTC price of 100.45 $/BTC (that was the price on Jun 27, 2013; may be the date when they filed the first version of the document).

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312514457552/d721187ds1a.htm

They are believed to own ~200'000 BTC, which is consistent with those hard numbers.  So, most likely, the ETF managers would sell 1 million shares to the public, and then use the money to buy 200'000 BTC from the Winkles.

That would be a way for the Winkles to sell their 200'000 BTC at market price, without crashing the market. 

That picture may be comforting if you believe that the future price will be magically determined by what it did over the past year and in 2011.

I would rather believe that each "bubble" in the bitcoin price history was caused by the opening of a new "consumer market" (a new set of people, or a new application). 

That is why they all had similar shape: an exponential rise as adoption spreads through that consumer market, by "contagion" and media reports, amplified by speclative buying;  a crash when the market saturates and the speculative buyers dump; oscillations while the speculators over-react and then over-correct.

When the oscillations end, in most cases we see a plateau: the price remains relatively constant, at some level higher than the pre-bubble price.  The plateau implies that the buyers keep holding the coins that they acquired during the rally, and the miners' outputs are somehow being bought too.

In some cases, however, instead of a plateau we see a slow exponential decay towards the pre-bubble price.  Presumably that happens when the consumers in that market gradually give up bitcoin and return their holdings to the exchanges.

The exponential decay was observed in the bubbles that atarted around Apr/2011 and Nov/2013.  In the tail of the 2011 bubble, the price would probably have dropped to the pre-bubble level, 0.75 $/BTC; but then on Nov/2011 another bubble started, that lifted the price to ~5 $/BTC.

The Nov/2013 bubble seems to be on its way to deflating too.  If no new "market" opens, the price probably will continue decaying towards the pre-bubble level, around 120--150 $/BTC.  It is not certain, but the two smaller bubbles that started at the end of May/2014 and in early Nov/2014 may be deflating too.

This analysis is not useful for prediciting the price, since there is no way of telling whether or when the next consumer market will open up, nor how big it will be.  On the contrary, this analysis claims that the recovery that started on Nov/2011 was probably unrelated to the Apr/2011 bubble and its decay.  Therefore, that fact that the Nov/2013 bubble is nearly undone, like the Apr/2011 one, does not imply that a new bubble is about to start, as happened in 2011.

Actually you bought at Newegg with dollars.  It may well be that drugs and other illegal stuff are still the largest class of purchases that are really paid with biotcoin (excluding online gambling and conversion to other currencies).

Could it be that all possible bullshit has already been posted somewhere on the internet?

Not sure I understand that, but just in case:

1. Stocks and bonds are not 'fiat'

2. Bitcoin is totally 'fiat'.

The North American Bitcoin Conference

Dread Pirate Roberts is actually Keyser Winklevoss, the third of the Winklevoss twins.

Proof: no one has ever seen all four together.

A miner Joe who keeps some of his bitcoins can be seen as two persons in one.  During the day he is Joe the Hasher, who mines bitcoins and sells all of them, pays the bills, and pockets the profit in dollars.  When he gets home he becomes Joe the Investor, who may buy  back some of the coins with some of the profit that the Hasher made.

The point is that Joe the Investor is just like any other investor.  He will buy, hold, or sell by the same reasons that motivate any other investor.  He has no more moral obligation to buy than any other investor. 

So it does not make sense to demand that miners keep their coins, or to curse them for selling them.  It is their right to seek their profit according to their estimates of the future price, like any other person on the planet.

Pleased to meet you.   (Are you a relative of fonsie, by any chance?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZDzndjrDWM

The depth graphs are shown only for intervals of 30m or less, could that be it?

Whatever happens in the FOREX market, it is always a good idea to fasten your seatbelts while you drive. It may save your life, or prevent severe injury, in case of a collision.

Experts cautiously agree, however, that you need not fasten your seatbelts if you are not driving, e.g. while you are reading this forum. (Unless you are reading it while driving; although, in that case it may still be better for the human gene pool if you keep your seatbelts unfastened.)  

Note that, in many cars, each seat has only one seatbelt, with a single lock, that holds both the waist and the chest.  While driving such a car alone, you are not legally required to fasten more than one seatbelt.

I hope this explanation is sufficient to remove your doubts on the matter.  

Bah.  If a hacker can install malicious software in the offline computer where you generate keys and sign transactions, it can steal your coins in several ways.  That was well known (although many bitcoiners, and makers of hardware wallets in particular, will call you paranoid or worse if you dare to point that out.)

Ross's defense may be able to exploit it, I won't guess on that.

But the proposition seems nonsense to me.

As often happens in these cases, for a while the detectives were amassing information about DPR but did not know who he was.  They had some suspects, including Mark, and tried hard to fit them to that information, with not much success.  Then finally they "discovered", Ross, and suddenly everything fit together.