Does the recent price dip confirm....

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, sixgun said:

Did that post get removed? i can't see it. Oh wait a minute i blocked goldking so i won't see his posts. The first person i ever blocked here, i did it after being contacted by a member who said they had blocked him and i was being trolled.
You are right Roy, those videos Mike Maloney made are very good - even if you believe he is a pumper, those videos are very informative.

Come on, unblock him. It's childish and doesn't become you. To do so on the word of another member talking rubbish about trolling is even worse. Make your own mind up.

It isn't possible for someone to really troll you to the point of unsetting or offending you without the mods taking action.

Unless you are truly convinced anything he has to say isn't worth reading about, you shouldn't block imho😉

[sixgun]

1 minute ago, sovereignsteve said:

If silver is the second most versatile commodity as you put it, it just shows that the current price is fine to suit it's supply and demand. In fact you tell us there is a huge stockpile somewhere. So to say it's price as an electrical component should be a lot higher is illogical to the point of nonsense.

The situation is better than it was but when silver was a few dollars cheaper, other than when it was a byproduct, the miners couldn't make money - had the price not improved the pure silver miners would have had to give up or go bust. They certainly didn't have the resources to explore and develop to meet future demand as should have happened. There has been a mined supply deficit for years - so gradually the stockpile wherever it is has been depleted. When it runs out there will be a real shortage and with the lag time between discovery and a production mine being years, that shortage for a vital material could be 'serious'. So the current prices aren't fine b/c they don't reflect the true cost of getting silver out of the ground and the risks involved in mining at all. 

[sovereignsteve]

6 minutes ago, sixgun said:

The situation is better than it was but when silver was a few dollars cheaper, other than when it was a byproduct, the miners couldn't make money - had the price not improved the pure silver miners would have had to give up or go bust. They certainly didn't have the resources to explore and develop to meet future demand as should have happened. There has been a mined supply deficit for years - so gradually the stockpile wherever it is has been depleted. When it runs out there will be a real shortage and with the lag time between discovery and a production mine being years, that shortage for a vital material could be 'serious'. So the current prices aren't fine b/c they don't reflect the true cost of getting silver out of the ground and the risks involved in mining at all. 

If the suppliers went bust, the supply would dry up and the price would rise to the point that new supply would come to he market. It's called supply and demand and a true market.

No different to anything else.

[sixgun]

11 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

If the suppliers went bust, the supply would dry up and the price would rise to the point that new supply would come to he market. It's called supply and demand and a true market.

No different to anything else.

Well the price would have to rise if mines closed and the stockpile were exhausted - but does it seem sensible for a large portion of the mining industry not to develop mines and some of them to close their mines. In the short term you would get cheaper silver - then the price would rocket up. You would get a palladium situation.  As i understand it, it is only a few dollars to make the difference between the stable system and one that isn't. It doesn't need silver to go to the Moon - unless the investment world started buying into silver - then there is an issue b/c manufacturers need that silver and are often only using tiny amounts.

[sovereignsteve]

3 minutes ago, sixgun said:

manufacturers need that silver and are often only using tiny amounts.

this is the point. even if prices rocketed, it wouldn't have a major effect to these in the grand scheme of things.

 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

5 minutes ago, sixgun said:

As i understand it, it is only a few dollars to make the difference between the stable system and one that isn't.

if it were allowed to float, you would soon reach this situation

[sixgun]

23 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Come on, unblock him. It's childish and doesn't become you. To do so on the word of another member talking rubbish about trolling is even worse. Make your own mind up.

It isn't possible for someone to really troll you to the point of unsetting or offending you without the mods taking action.

Unless you are truly convinced anything he has to say isn't worth reading about, you shouldn't block imho😉

The reason i blocked was i knew i would be tempted to reply - so then i reply and he replies and i reply and the thread gets clogged up. The response became personal attacks - it was me being attacked rather than the content of the discussion point. i wasn't bothered by the personal attacks per say just it seemed a waste of my time and anyone else who might be reading the threads. Another member also got blocked by me - same issue. It doesn't harm anyone else, indeed they have the benefit of not having to look at my posts so much.

[sovereignsteve]

1 minute ago, sixgun said:

, indeed they have the benefit of not having to look at my posts so much.

come on how can that be? not everyone will agree with everything you say but you are still informative and interesting to read.

[sixgun]

2 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

this is the point. even if prices rocketed, it wouldn't have a major effect to these in the grand scheme of things.

 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

if it were allowed to float, you would soon reach this situation

Well as it is the silver price is suppressed - i think there is more than enough evidence for this. The price is what it is and there isn't anything anyone here can do about it. It is above our pay grade.
My feeling is silver will only do its thing when China reprices gold and that will happens when the Western cabal no longer has gold to sell to China. There would be no point hammering silver when gold is no longer getting priced by the Western paper markets - at that point prices would likely be set at the SGE. What i heard the other day the Shanghai Gold Exchange is doing more and more business and has put the Comex in the shade - so that day could well be a lot nearer than most of us think.

[Roy]

Old news:

Donald Trump: “We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard,” he told WMUR television in New Hampshire in March last year. But he said it would be tough to bring it back because “we don’t have the gold. Other places have the gold.”

Trying to remember the source 🤔

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2017/02/25/president-trump-replace-the-dollar-with-gold-as-the-global-currency-to-make-america-great-again/#24eb4bb74d54

I kept the quote because the author said Trump had been misled 😀

[Seth]

11 minutes ago, Roy said:

Old news:

Donald Trump: “We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard,” he told WMUR television in New Hampshire in March last year. But he said it would be tough to bring it back because “we don’t have the gold. Other places have the gold.”

Trying to remember the source 🤔

Yeh I remember him saying that, didn't he say it around about the time he got elected, either shortly before, or just after, or was it in an interview with Forbes?  Quite a few countries have talked about doing it and have even commissioned sudies into doing it, the pros and cons and so forth

[Roy]

Spot on

[sixgun]

24 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

come on how can that be? not everyone will agree with everything you say but you are still informative and interesting to read.

i have no issue with a debate - @HawkHybrid and i disagree about a number of things - he cannot understand how i can think what i do and the feeling is mutual - but we stick to the topic and argue it out - i don't attack the man nor does he personally attack me with silly nonsense. So i have a lot of time for him - i must have b/c i spend so much writing the posts in reply. But when it is a case study in psychological projection and ad hominem, then it becomes a bit tiresome.  

[Martlet]

3 hours ago, Seth said:

You haven't been into it for that long, or have looked at it's history far back enough - Bitcoin double spend, if you go to the actual Bitcoin community website/forum, you will see that it was a well known about and exploited problem before 2013, the link I posted was just one example that was caught.

If you dont wait for a confirmation as refered in the link, thats not an exploit of the system.

2 hours ago, Seth said:

The ''rules'' have changed a lot since I left the Bitcoin bandwagon, you could buy 1 Bitcoin for around US25.00 when I left, which was when the whole double spend and exchanges being hacked were almost happening on a daily basis,

Ah, so you get burnt years ago and pass on your experience as reflective of today.  Its unfortunate that you lost on Mt Gox (isnt there some recovery and distribution of seized assets?) but that does not mean all exchanges and service since then have been hacked. 

 

[Martlet]

2 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

If you had PM backed digital currency, why would you need silver? Gold could back as much circulating digital currency as you could ever need. Just the exchange rate would need to be sufficiently high.

Good points.  The real question is why go to a PM backed digital currency.  The entire point of crypto is to create a trust-less model, where you dont need to trust other actors, only the cryptography.  Introducing a link to physical assets is simply returning to original banking model, with no guarantee against a bad actor.  Governments will accept crypto as long as people abide by the basic taxation, and banks will still have a place for lending, i believe all can co-exist. 

[sovereignsteve]

7 minutes ago, Martlet said:

The real question is why go to a PM backed digital currency.  The entire point of crypto is to create a trust-less model, where you dont need to trust other actors, only the cryptography.  Introducing a link to physical assets is simply returning to original banking model, with no guarantee against a bad actor.

Dunno, ask Sixgun. I think it more likely we will have a return to some kind of gold standard, what the circulating currency will be, if there is one, I have no idea.

[Seth]

1 hour ago, Martlet said:

If you dont wait for a confirmation as refered in the link, thats not an exploit of the system.

Ah, so you get burnt years ago and pass on your experience as reflective of today.  Its unfortunate that you lost on Mt Gox (isnt there some recovery and distribution of seized assets?) but that does not mean all exchanges and service since then have been hacked. 

 

I'm by no means anti cryptocurrency, I just think it's not there/ready yet. .It's still an unfinished idea/project that is still a good few years away from being viable, there is still quite a few minor and some major details that need to be solved, and the proof of that is since Bitcoin was touted as an idea, before you could actually mine for them, people where saying it was going to replace if not revolutionize the financial and banking system, they've been saying that now for over ten years, and guess what, it hasn't, the financial and banking system has barely changed since the development and numerious refinements made to the blockchain concept.

And I got burnt as you put it on MT. Gox before it was sold off to the dodgey bugger in Japan so there was no recovery and distribution of seized assets, people back then thought the whole cryptocurrency was either a ponzi scam set up by compuer geeks, a joke, or anarchists trying to interfere with the banking/financial system, nobody took it seriously except for those involved in the community, and even a lot of then didn't think it would last, they thought it would either never take off or be shut down by governments

[HawkHybrid]

2 hours ago, sixgun said:

The reason i blocked was i knew i would be tempted to reply - so then i reply and he replies and i reply and the thread gets clogged up. The response became personal attacks - it was me being attacked rather than the content of the discussion point. i wasn't bothered by the personal attacks per say just it seemed a waste of my time and anyone else who might be reading the threads. Another member also got blocked by me - same issue. It doesn't harm anyone else, indeed they have the benefit of not having to look at my posts so much.

 

I think he(assumption) made a quite reasonable point.

how can you expect to time to get into silver just before

a major rise? (if you have a crystal ball you don't seem

to be sharing  ). put another way, who managed to get

into silver for the 2011 rise and are confident to be able

to pull it off again?

(admittedly his maths is slightly off, but that does not

change the point)

 

one of the biggest reasons why I vote newer members

start with gold is because silver is truly difficult to time.

you could be holding for decade+, miss the boat by months

(maybe by circumstance) and then have to deal with what

is the best choice to make from there on.

 

HH

[sixgun]

3 minutes ago, HawkHybrid said:

....put another way, who managed to get into silver for the 2011 rise and are confident to be able to pull it off again?

HH

Well i'm not going to start raking over what this member put and the context of it. It wasn't about timing purchases in the silver market anyway.
Interesting i got into silver in 2010. i don't remember how - i think i opened a spread betting account and was drawn to the metals - but i cannot remember why i opened the spread betting account in the first place. i became convinced silver was going to rise sharply - really strongly convinced - the price of silver at the time was in the $16 - 17 range  - i seriously considered selling a property and buying physical. As it was i decided to renovated the property first - it took a lot longer than expected and the silver bubble had burst by then. Now if i had actually managed to get in when i was seized by this premonition, would i have then sold or would i have clung on? Probably i would have clung on.

[HawkHybrid]

4 hours ago, goldking said:

The disciple-like following of an irrelevant 170 year old gold to silver ratio is a perfect example.  People are up to their necks in silver which hasn't done anything price wise for over a century so they've gone and binge watched a hundred Mike Maloney videos to confirm their belief that it's a 'thing' and the price will soon go to the moon.  Confirmation bias.

 

it's how you use the gsr that's important.

igold is not saying gsr is high therefore buy silver.

(he recognises that it's in an uptrend so high can

quite possibly get a lot higher)

 

what igold said was the last historic time that the

gsr rose significantly(break out) on rising gold

prices outperforming silver was in the 1980's.

the prices of both gold and silver in that case was

not sustainable and both fell over the years that

followed. the gsr in this case is to highlight the safe

haven buying of gold and not silver. the number the

gsr is at is not important(contrary to what silver

pumpers say) it's the rapid change in the number that

is signalling a concern.

 

HH

[goldking]

5 minutes ago, HawkHybrid said:

HH

Those 2 paragraphs were unconnected.  The one you quoted was mainly referring to the silver fans on here, not the igold video.

[HawkHybrid]

I thought you meant igold was using the gsr inappropriately

similar to how silver pumpers use it.

 

HH

[goldking]

Nope.  As I said in my earlier post, I went off on a bit of a tangent there .  It was your bit about bias which I was responding to primarily but that's old news now.  I think we are mostly on the same page with regards opinion on GSR, silver and gold.