Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 830 posts

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#321

Post by Jedd »

pjc50 wrote: post #48
superbcarrot wrote: post #28

Does anyone else feel like: - they've missed an opportunity to get rich with minimal effort from crypto - still have absolutely no interest in jumping in at this point?

Yup. That reminds me, I need to sell the free Stellar Lumens I got from Keybase. If I can work out how to do that without a scam or a disaster, I might consider touching the rest of the ecosystem.

I'm in a similar position - though for various reasons I did a bit of a username landgrab early on, so I have about 10x what most people got 'for free'.

The price fluctuations are wild, and because we're not talking megabucks (a couple of thousand USD equiv) and I'm not actually out of pocket in any real sense, they're fascinating to watch, and incur no great temptation to do anything with.

While Lumens are extremely unlikely to go the way of BTC, watching what's going on with bitcoins the past decade does make me want to just sit on these.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#322

Post by disruptalot »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #259
tylerhou wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Econ 101: the value of ordinary goods are determined both by supply and demand. Bitcoin-fanatic-USD-bears claim that Bitcoin is a good store of value because it has constrained supply. But they miss the demand side of the equation. Similarly, they claim that the USD is a bad source of value because it has "unlimited" supply. That also misses the demand side. The demand for USD is robust because people need USD to pay…

Exactly. Bitcoin proponents tend to tell only half of the story, and pick and choose economic theory that fits the "buy more bitcoin" narrative. In economic terms, Bitcoin is inflating as an asset. Specifically, it's demand-pull inflation. Bitcoin isn't even uniquely positioned to protect against inflation, other than the mistaken public belief on that topic. Inflation is an increase in the price of assets, so invest…

When Bitcoiners talk about "inflation" they don't mean inflation of prices. They mean loss of purchasing power.

Demand-pull inflation in fact is exactly what is happening with Bitcoin and bitcoiners would agree. There's huge demand for bitcoin and an ever reduction of circulating supply. What that means is that it can maintain/increase purchasing power incredibly relative to other assets that have unconstrained and erratic supply (fiat).

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#323

Post by incrudible »

UncleMeat wrote: post #302
incrudible wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a flat fee. The $18 may be the average currently, but it's on the high end. You'll probably be fine with $5. It all depends on how much you want the transaction to be in the next block. If you're sending $50,000 in BTC then you don't care about $18. If you're transferring smaller amounts, why are you using Bitcoin? Use Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin or one of these newfangled proof-of-stake currencies. Then it'll be a…

In my entire life, the largest transfer of cash I have ever done between institutions was I think $30,000 and it was between a bank account I owned and my brokerage. I'd wager that the majority of people have never transmitted more than $5,000 in their life. Power to the people?

The majority of people will also never own a Berkshire A share. It doesn't really matter.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#324

Post by fwiwm2c »

choward wrote: post #308
fwiwm2c wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been in Bitcoin since 2016 and have enjoyed my riches. The next wave of new users will come from institutions. Hacker News audience is not what will pump the price further.

It sound like we're in agreement that it's a pump and dump scheme and not a true investment.

As they say - have fun staying poor.

Think about it - if you had invested at any point in Bitcoin before today, you would have made money. But keep on resisting.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#325

Post by tracedddd »

superbcarrot wrote: post #28

Does anyone else feel like: - they've missed an opportunity to get rich with minimal effort from crypto - still have absolutely no interest in jumping in at this point?

I won’t shill you on anything in particular.

But regardless of your opinion on crypto you haven’t missed your opportunities. Projects still 100x.

Next time it’s off everyone’s mind and not in the news, just pick 3 or 4 newer projects that have a decent sounding team, put $1000 in on each, and forget about it. Check back when everyone is manic again.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#326

Post by oraphalous »

tylerhou wrote: post #252
mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s terrible as a wide spread value store because it removes an important tool that governments have to handle the economy (dealt with debt via inflation aka printing money How does a static rather than unconstrained supply make something a LESS good store of value?

Econ 101: the value of ordinary goods are determined both by supply and demand. Bitcoin-fanatic-USD-bears claim that Bitcoin is a good store of value because it has constrained supply. But they miss the demand side of the equation. Similarly, they claim that the USD is a bad source of value because it has "unlimited" supply. That also misses the demand side. The demand for USD is robust because people need USD to pay…

"The demand for USD is robust because people need USD to pay taxes..."

You cite this a priori - but it's so much more complicated than this.

Demand is intimately connected with supply in many cases.

Soemtimes this can be because demand is latent. If production of food goes through the roof - and people were previously starving because the price of food was too high, then that latent demand will be released when supply improves and costs drop.

But currency is different - opposite even. If supply goes through the roof - then demand will respond inversely. People will rush to unload that currency for other assets as they watch their wealth evaporate. It may hit some sort of baseline determined by the daily needs of payroll and tax payments - but other than those moments everyone will try to store there wealth anywhere but that currency.

What is actually happening empirically is that people are coming to see Bitcoin as a reliable store of value over medium to long timeframes. You can continue to believe in your theory a priori, believing that in the even longer term, the lack of goverment mandate in Bitcoin will see its value evaporate... You can even continue to do this when everyone is vested in Bitcoin except you. At which point, you can claim, with 100% theoretical consistency that everyone is a stupid lemming.

But ultimately, it will be the case that the Bitcoin folks had a better explanation of supply and demand than you - and their prediction of reality will be the measure of this.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#327

Post by djschnei »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #229
abiogenesis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not your private key, it's not your money. So yes, if the exchange doesn't come back up you can pretty much write it off.

Yeah, one of the problems with the BTC model. You either get convenience or security but not both. I had a similar problem where bter disappeared with 137k of doge[0] in my account. [0] about $20 when I put it in IIRC.

That's nonsense. It's incredibly easy and convenient to move BTC out of an exchange account to something you control (hardware or software wallet). Hell, some hardware wallet GUIs even have the ability to buy crypto baked right into the app (trezor suite for example).

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#328

Post by doggosphere »

abiogenesis wrote: post #228
doggosphere wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would require transferring the renewable energy to the areas where non-renewable energy is consumed. Energy transmission is expensive, and this would only be economically feasible within certain geographic limits. Otherwise they are both independent economies; a rural hydroelectric dam that serves miners isn't taking anything away from population centers, given the appropriate distance.

Are you suggesting that all miners with renewable energy resources are located in the middle of a desert? Even then, we could have used the equipment (solar panels, wind turbines, etc) for something else. Unless the world is running on 100% renewable energy it doesn't make sense to say that something that requires energy doesn't cost (the world) anything because it's running on renewables.

Historically energy production has always been near population centers, because transmitting is across large distances in infeasible.

Mining and future energy production is not constrained by these needs. Miners can use satellite internet and be isolated in the Siberian tundra if they needed.

What I'm saying is renewable energy is both cheap and becoming abundant. There is no need to fear mining consumption of energy.

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#329

Post by robjan »

intev wrote: post #118
robjan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which models? The only thing I can find to support your claim is random people tweeting that they think it will be worth 1M. I guess when enough people say something it becomes a "fact"

Plan B's (in)famous model: https://digitalik.net/btc/ Notice how the trend is eerily aligned? Just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean you have to be snarky about it.

Please refrain from assuming that anyone asking a question is being "snarky"

Re: Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto

#330

Post by trident5000 »

rspeele wrote: post #306
trident5000 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because every transaction on layer 2 is not settled on the blockchain, its simply their cheap and fast ledger keeping track of frequent transactions. Rarely is there settlement. Many dont understand Bitcoin was designed this way on purpose. L1 is for infrequent important transaction settlement. If it wasnt the chain would grow to a point where it could not be decentralized because the chain would be too big for hard…

Can you point me to current "layer 1" solutions that you anticipate Bitcoin replacing? SWIFT and ACH don't seem to be it. Assuming a generous 3,000 transactions per block Bitcoin can do ~158M a year. ACH does ~25B a year. It's harder to find numbers on SWIFT but it looks like at least 10 million per day, so ~3-4B a year. Let's say I'm running a business. I have day-to-day transactions going through some higher layer…

I wouldnt even make that classification. SWIFT and ACH are not akin to L1 Bitcoin. Theres no way tech illiterate masses are going to physically move their btc on chain. For instance 95% of retail doesnt even move their btc off exchange. Their higher level "settlement" will be different from an institutional provider or exchange settlement where L1 is really used. SWIFT and ACH is used liberally (hence the high tx) because its used in many applications (like paychecks and high value purchases). That type of usage will never come to L1 btc. And that same system of SWIFT and ACH (or similar) will support BTC. Can think 3 layers if thats helpful.
Post reply on HN