211–220 of 371 posts
BTC is still above 10K. Think about that for a while. I remember 500 like it was yesterday. This drop is nothing. Except for those poor idiots who took at loans to buy at 19K
honest question: do you believe there's a price point where it's /not/ stupid to go into debt to invest in cryptocurrencies?
Time to buy. Down from what price since January? Cryptocurrency is a long term play from a software and financial engineering vantage. It also continues to irritate the hell out of banks (bank accounts are being closed and restricted from exchange transfers, including coinbase) and general investors. It's not liquid enough yet, creates no need for middle men and Bitcoin itself is now being manipulated by futures cont…
It irritates banks not, by the way, because they're oh so scared about this fantastic new competitor to "their" money and money related businesses, but because it's often used (when it's used) for illegal transactions.
The whole Tethers thing scares me the most: https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/953398351889944576 There's $5B worth.
Holy Shit, are they just trying to print out tethers out of thin air right now to pump Bitcoin? And it seems to be working, at least for now. This can't end up well.
That's the line I often see on Twitter / Reddit and usually gets a lot of upvotes, despite being irrational, with no proof to back it up.
As bitcoin falls, the demand for Tethers goes up. To keep Tethers pegged to, say, $1 USD, they need issue more to meet the demand, which would be a more rational explanation why more were issued.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the circulation limit/deflationary part is pretty key to that. How many dollars/yen/what-have-you are printed every year leaving your existing dollars/yen/what-have-you with less buying power? Thinking the world will flock to a fixed pool of frictionless digital exchange does not seem insane to me. I'm talking about the ones you can transact for less than a penny (BCH), not the old guard (BTC).
But what makes you think BCH is the one? You might like my soon to be released coin Bitcoin Cash Cash. Fees will be 0!
Blocksize and fees are a tradeoff.
1 cent fees are a significant advantage over 20$ fees.
But 0.0001 cent fees aren't really that much more useful for your coffee transactions.
Sure, maybe someone will come up with another chain that is used for true micro transactions.
But what we are saying is, that each of these fee levels are good for different use cases.
Bitcoin's high fees and high security are great for a digital gold product that isn't traded much.
Bitcoin Cash made a different tradeoff in the attempt to go after the daily spending market.
Pros and cons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is whether people have invested a significant amount of their life savings in bitcoin, not whether they own a significant amount of bitcoin proportional to the total market. For people who have, they may be panicking about how they'll support themselves in their later years, they may have invested in a lifestyle with the expectation that they can pay for it with Bitcoin's growth, and so on and so forth.…
The stats were not just people I know. One of the coin sites pulled them together. If 3k is a significant amount of someone's life savings, then they should not have put in BTC. Proportional to the total market is important because it puts into perspective how few people will really be impacted, and if it is something that could spread into the economy as a whole. Found the stats: https://coinspectator.com/news/12799…
No, they shouldn't have. But many people don't actually understand what a high-risk market is, and especially not one as volatile as Bitcoin. They've heard their cousin/friend/waiter made a couple thousand bucks off it, done some googling, and found several thousand people saying this is the next big thing, with fancy graphs and miracle use cases and so on and so forth to prove it. Big well-known news sources like Bloomberg talking about it, and how big well-known investment banks are interested in it. This is the end result of what lack of regulation looks like.
People get bamboozled - similar to many scams, you might get tricked into losing a couple of hundred bucks and calling it a life lesson, or you might get scammed into losing your life savings and winding up in severe debt.
A few people (and it's more than a few) being impacted enough to cause them to be extremely worried about how they'll pay their bills, how they'll afford to keep a roof over their head in their later years, is important. It's maybe not as important to you as widespread economic collapse, but it's nothing to pretend isn't an issue. The comment you were originally replying to wasn't talking about economic collapse - it was talking about the impact on individual people.
I have been trying to figure out eventual equilibrium price of BitCoin and here is one approach: Due to wealth inequality, we assume that majority of the crypto investment would be from ultra-rich. It might become quite normal for them to invest 1% of their wealth in crypto for uncorrelated diversification. In a way this is very similar to buying art which probably doesn't have much utility except among other wealthy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What matters is the ratio: 1 to 10 only thinking about the closest ones.
Sure, but a 1000% higher likelihood is close to meaningless if we’re talking about extremely tiny fractions in absolute terms. For example, a substance that increases your baseline risk of some type of cancer from 0.000003% to 0.00003% is basically imperceptible in a population of 300M people. That’s 90 incidents instead of 9 incidents out of the entire United States. You don’t have to tell me exact figures for how m…
I have been trying to figure out eventual equilibrium price of BitCoin and here is one approach: Due to wealth inequality, we assume that majority of the crypto investment would be from ultra-rich. It might become quite normal for them to invest 1% of their wealth in crypto for uncorrelated diversification. In a way this is very similar to buying art which probably doesn't have much utility except among other wealthy…
Could you clarify something for me that has been bothering me every time I see someone make an argument along these lines? Why does BTC === crypto? I see it over and over that people make arguments about the potential value of the cryptocurrency 'market' and then immediately use that to put a value on bitcoin . Aren't there hundreds of other cryptocurrencies already?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any successful Lightning Network (at scale) would require a dramatic block size increase. The last (Lightning Network tech) I saw suggested it would need a 133MB blocksize. Blockstream struck down a modest increase to 2MB in November. They have devs who want to reduce the blocksize. I'm not sure where you're finding hope in LN. Bitcoin Cash forked off to get back to scaling, and it's doing great. Check out how well t…
And Bitcoin Cash will need GB or even TB sized blocks to scale to the size of Visa. If scaling the network was as easy as changing 1 variable it wouldn't be that hard to get consensus on a scaling solution.
Current prevailing theory in BCH land is the block size is an unnecessary hinderance, and will likely be gone in the next 18 months.
Exciting times!
I have been trying to figure out eventual equilibrium price of BitCoin and here is one approach: Due to wealth inequality, we assume that majority of the crypto investment would be from ultra-rich. It might become quite normal for them to invest 1% of their wealth in crypto for uncorrelated diversification. In a way this is very similar to buying art which probably doesn't have much utility except among other wealthy…
Art may not have "utility", but it does have value, so the analogy here doesn't quite work.
Also, 1% of 10T is 100B, not 1T.