pull down to refresh
37 sats \ 22 replies \ @Scoresby 20h \ parent \ on: Fama: Bitcoin is Dead (Promarket/Capitalisn't) econ
Wouldn't it be that the price has moved because people want less bitcoin than they previously held (or more of something else)?
When these holders of btc wanted to acquire something else they had to look longer/harder/offer more btc to find people who were willing to trade with them.
The trades themselves don't move the price. The change in people wanting bitcoin moves the price.
...but they display that wanting less/more by acting in the marketplace, ie making trades
reply
Right, but this is what gets me: supply and demand is really just demand then -- either not demanding as much as you once did (supply) or demanding more than you once did (demand).
reply
Imagine airdropping some forkcoin onto Darth. Before and after the airdrop, Darth has zero demand for the forkcoin, but the supply changed, because he's immediately going to buy some bitcoin with it (or beer, but bitcoin is better for this conversation).
Whatever bitcoin he bought was the cheapest currently available on the market, so the exchange rate of bitcoin to forkcoin is now lower, because the supply (willingness to part with) of forkcoin increased.
reply
Did the willingness to part with bitcoin also increase during this trade?
If no, then how does the act of Darth offering forkcoin for sale increase supply? (Isn't it rather the airdrop that increased supply?)
If yes, then why shouldn't the exchange rate of forkcoin to bitcoin also go lower because someone also was willing to part with bitcoin in the trade? (Obviously, they can't both decrease in this example).
Finally, I move that all future conversations about bitcoin should use @DarthCoin as the example.
reply
I don't understand why am I involved in this useless discussion.
Why am I related with a forkcoin?
reply
I don't see this as a pointless argument. My goal is to determine whether bitcoiners are able to exert more influence on the outcome of a fork via selling their fork coins than if they were to simply yell and scream about how evil the fork coin is.
It is a very widely held belief among bitcoiners that in the event of a fork all the hodlers will awake from their slumber and crash the side of the fork they don't like by selling their fork coins.
James O'Bierne made exactly this argument recently.
I think bitcoiners are deluding themselves in this belief.
I didn't tag you, because I figured you would have weighed in if you cared about the discussion, but I chose you as my example of someone who has no interest (zero demand) in forked bitcoin.
I like using Darth here, because we know his demand for Forkcoin is zero. Therefor, there is no corresponding increase in Forkcoin demand.
It's better to imagine this as something like an inheritance, rather than airdrop, so that the total stock remains unchanged. All that's happening is the willingness to exchange those Forkcoins increased.
The demand for Forkcoin is unchanged, because nothing changed amongst the holders of bitcoin: no one in this example became more willing to buy.
What's happening is that Darth is taking what was an unrealized offer. The offer was unrealized precisely because no one was as willing to part with their Forkcoin as Darth is. On the other end of the exchange is someone who was unwilling to part with their bitcoin for any of the available Forkcoin offers. It's only because Darth is offering more that the exchange happens.
Hopefully, that illustrates why an increased willingness to part with a fork coin will in fact lower it's price.
If not, I'll try to write up a whole parable and throw in some supply/demand schedules.
reply
It's only because Darth is offering more that the exchange happens.
If Darth's offer to sell forkcoins on the cheap represents an increased willingness to sell forkcoin, so does the fork coin enthusiast's acceptance of the offer represent an increased willingness to sell bitcoin. He wouldn't have sold his bitcoin unless Darth showed up.
At some point, the unrealized offer creator decided they wanted to hold forkcoin more than bitcoin. This was a change in the willingness to sell bitcoin. I don't see why it should be excluded from our analysis.
an increased willingness to part with a fork coin will in fact lower it's price.
Following this logic, if both coins have an increased willingness to sell, both coins will have lower prices ... which is illogical.