I agree and following that reasoning a 50% upward trend should be very alarming because it screams manipulation.

When an event like that occurs you should very much expect a correction, and when that correction occurs it should be expected and not a surprise.

What baffles me is that everyone involved in BTC accepted the 50% upward fluctuation. When the obvious correction occurred they were all surprised and started saying just what you did, that currencies aren't suppose to fluctuate by 50% in a month.

How didn't you see this coming and why do you still consider BTC a currency in light of this event?

I saw it coming from a mile away. I've thought bitcoin is basically stupid back when it was under $0.01.

Why do you consider it a currency?

Is Bitcoin a currency?

Apparently it is a better value store than gold. There goes -50% of that stored value I guess.

Only if you stored that value at the peak. If you stored that value a few years ago, it's not that big of a deal to be back to the price it was in November (which itself was pretty incredible)

So you're saying Bitcoin is only good for early adopters and it's dangerous for new users to use Bitcoin because they could lose all their stored value when early adopters cash out?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

What does that have to do with bitcoin?