So I can't find anything in the comments: what's the cause for this sudden crash?
This could be it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8885075
Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
291–300 of 348 posts
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#292Yeah, as much as I like the concept of bitcoin (and the blockchain), I don't see adoption becoming anything more than anecdotal. No interest rate, and you have to secure it yourself? No thanks. My "big bad bank" guarantees me at least a small interest in saving money, and if my card is stolen, I get a new one in 24 hours and all transactions are cancelled. I'm happy to pay some transaction fees ("extortion!") to get…
I think if bitcoin dies out, we'll be like that civilization that discovered the wheel but only used it in childrens toys.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
And in the mean-time crush US-based companies investing in fracking and oil stands? We agree on the price going down to $20 per barrel, but disagree that this is some sort of additional sanction on Russia when it's clearly an anti-competitive move by the Saudis to maintain dominance during a time of political transition.
I don't think this is anti-competitive at all ! I think that they are competing really hard! The Saudis can open the taps at any time (for the next 20 years) they are just reminding everyone (especially the banks and equity markets) of this fact and ensuring that it is part of everyone's calculations in the future.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I find the problem of stashing gold very tricky. A bank vault seems like a bad idea because of the history when the government seized the gold and people weren't allowed to open their bank safes without a policeman. Hiding it at home seems risky because of burglaries. I haven't found a solution yet, that's why I don't own any gold. With bitcoin, at least I can spread the risk, like putting a part of the "sec…
Unless you had a virus on your computer when you generated the keys, in which case it doesn't matter.
No that is relatively easy to circumvent by creating the keys offline. The cold storage key never needs to get in contact with the internet.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I find the problem of stashing gold very tricky. A bank vault seems like a bad idea because of the history when the government seized the gold and people weren't allowed to open their bank safes without a policeman. Hiding it at home seems risky because of burglaries. I haven't found a solution yet, that's why I don't own any gold. With bitcoin, at least I can spread the risk, like putting a part of the "sec…
People are still upset about 1933, I see. It's an interesting case as both a huge widespread human rights violation (leaning very heavily on the concept of "public interest") while being part of a set of measures which greatly improved the productive (rather than hoarding) side of the economy.
I would buy gold as an insurance against an economic crisis. In an economic crisis, drastic measurements by the government seem likely.
For example recently in Greece the exact thing happened that people always worry about: home ownership was suddenly being heavily taxed, because those house owners have little way to hide their assets.
In general governments try to prevent the population from using alternative currencies (usually it is illegal). So if in an economic crisis gold would become too much of a live currency, countermeasures by the government seem very likely.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I find the problem of stashing gold very tricky. A bank vault seems like a bad idea because of the history when the government seized the gold and people weren't allowed to open their bank safes without a policeman. Hiding it at home seems risky because of burglaries. I haven't found a solution yet, that's why I don't own any gold. With bitcoin, at least I can spread the risk, like putting a part of the "sec…
You buy shares in GLD ETF which holds physical gold for you. The risk is that SPDR collapses or get their assets stolen. You can also buy gold futures on the futures/commodity exchange which is a contract that specifies the other party has to deliver gold to you in the future. The risk is that the financial system collapses and the broker/clearing broker cannot uphold the contract anymore. So it depends on your inten…
Not sure how practical canned tuna would be - seems to me you would need a lot of storage?
In general I agree. Only storing guns seems even more difficult than gold. I live in a country where it is not a normal thing, and statistics seem to point out that gun ownership increases risk of being shot. But in a doomsday scenario, I suppose having a gun would be a good idea :-/
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and exponentially worse as time goes on (by design). Only for people who don't understand the design. Google "bitcoin difficulty".
I didn't mention "difficulty." I should never have commented on a Bitcoin post. Discussions about Bitcoin always land up exactly the same way. It's impossible to have sensible discussion about it. > Only for people who don't understand the design. Personal attacks all the way because your pet golden hammer was attacked. Always the same result.
Personal attacks all the way because your pet golden hammer was attacked
Neither is Bitcoin my pet golden hammer (I don't even know that metaphor), nor is my statement a personal attack.
It's merely pointing out that your claim is so fundamentally wrong that you can't have a good understanding of the design.
If you don't want to learn the protocol then maybe think about it this way: Energy consumption is not an exponential factor in bitcoin simply because miners have to pay for their energy, too. And the number of miners does not grow exponentially.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Most" is hardly a vague term, as it definitely means "more than 50%". Some would say it means more than 75%. So you're boldly claiming that the company has lost over 50% of its community support. That's an incredibly damaging statement. And you're basing it on shamefully weak evidence. If you really wanted to be vague, then the appropriate word might have been "some". So you could have said "Some people in the commu…
You seem fixated on my choice of wording. I've explained my meaning. I could have also said "many" and been factually correct and with the same impressiveness. I've apologized for confusing you but if you're just going to keep going on about it there is really no point in us continuing to discuss things. >Frankly, after this discussion, absolutely all of them, because you seem to be prone to exaggeration, to put it m…
>Well go ahead and copy any paste any of the ones you are unsure of here and I'll reply.
I said "all of them", but who has time for that? Just take another statement of yours as an example:
>"2014 Was meant to be the year of Bitcoin" based on the claims of all the leading people in the bitcoin world outside of Gavin.[1]
"All" the leading figures in the Bitcoin world, except one, said 2014 would be the year of Bitcoin? Really?
I'm sure "some" of them said that, or some kind of bullish statement of that sort, but even if you'd claimed that, you'd still run into an argument about who are "the leading figures" anyway.
It's the way you frequently employ these sweeping generalizations and broad exaggerations to support your arguments that makes me more and more inclined to discount any statement you make.
Probably some of what you say is true. But basically you seem to spew out assertions without checking them. You have a terrible habit of stating your opinions as facts. I suspect you may even be twisting the facts to better support your claims, in the heat of an argument. So how can I trust you? I don't have time to sort out the truth from the half-truths and exaggerations.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I find the problem of stashing gold very tricky. A bank vault seems like a bad idea because of the history when the government seized the gold and people weren't allowed to open their bank safes without a policeman. Hiding it at home seems risky because of burglaries. I haven't found a solution yet, that's why I don't own any gold. With bitcoin, at least I can spread the risk, like putting a part of the "sec…
You can do exactly the same thing with gold, i.e. holding it in different banks in different regulatory districts. If your friend's house is burgled or burned down. The one advantage of Bitcoin in this respect is that you can back it up in case of disk failure, house burning down, etc.
You can at most hedge against losing everything at once.
It also seems weird to hide a piece of gold at a friends house. Now you expose them to the risk of burglary, as well as to the temptation (in a crisis).
Bitcoin keys are much easier to hide, too.
Re: Bitcoin crashes over 25% in 24 hours, under $180
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem fixated on my choice of wording. I've explained my meaning. I could have also said "many" and been factually correct and with the same impressiveness. I've apologized for confusing you but if you're just going to keep going on about it there is really no point in us continuing to discuss things. >Frankly, after this discussion, absolutely all of them, because you seem to be prone to exaggeration, to put it m…
>Well go ahead and copy any paste any of the ones you are unsure of here and I'll reply. I said "all of them", but who has time for that? Just take another statement of yours as an example: >"2014 Was meant to be the year of Bitcoin" based on the claims of all the leading people in the bitcoin world outside of Gavin. [1] "All" the leading figures in the Bitcoin world, except one, said 2014 would be the year of Bitcoi…
The leading figures in an industry are pretty easy to pick out. They are the most influential/well known figures. My list would be Silbert, Gavin, Andreas, Shrem, Ver, Garzik, Voorhees, the Winklevoss brothers, and Tony Galappi(In the order I thought of them not of influence).
All of who except for Gavin(and almost never Garzik) have at points claimed it would be the big break out year. That it was going to the moon this year, $XX,XXX coins, that big investors were arriving any day now, etc.
The problem you seem to have is that you are a literalist and are unable to understand when someone uses broad words in conversational English to imply meaning instead of specifics.
I'm confident most people can understand that when I say "all the leading people" that I mean "the majority of the most well known influencers".
>So how can I trust you? I don't have time to sort out the truth from the half-truths and exaggerations.
How can you trust me? I think its clear that you cannot as you seem to want to take everything I say literally.