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

Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#63

Post by tim333 »

dauertewigkeit wrote: post #10
webdevver wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i reckon this time it will touch $30k before hitting new high of $200k

Could be, but we don't know what is driving this meme magic. Could be totally organic. Could be not.

We have a pretty good idea. Bitcoin holders and miners promote it. Punters buy because it's going up until it peaks and then they sell because it's going down.

The a value is approx x /

It goes up over the cycles as the number of people in it goes 1 mil, 10, 100, 1000 etc.

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#64

Post by tim333 »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #2

The myth that bitcoin is an effective store of value (aka "digital gold") has just died. The proof is available in your crypto wallet. Real gold bullion has now been fully "digitized". You can buy and hold real bullion without taking delivery, without transactions fees and without dealing with tbe schenanigans of unregulated markets and manipulators. Over the past year of unprecedented marketplace turmoil and upheava…

Over the last ten years gold is up about 5x and bitcoin up about 200x. The fact it's has a wobble doesn't prove it's all over. See Bitcoin Obituaries for the other 400 odd times people have claimed that, the first being when it was 23 cents.

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#65

Post by D13Fd »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #55

Remember that bitcoin miners have to pay for electricity with real currencies, so they have to sell bitcoin regularly. Most other bitcoin uses are balanced -- ie user buys bitcoin gives to dealer who sells it. When the number of transactions per day is going up this is slight buy pressure because of the time lag between buy & sell, but in a steady state system this is neutral. IOW, the natural direction of bitcoin pr…

What is the volume of those real-world uses vs. the speculators/investors, I wonder?

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#66

Post by zug_zug »

browningstreet wrote: post #6

Hasn’t bitcoin repeatedly dropped 70%+ from record highs and then surged over that high again within a year?

Yes, technically.

But terms of amount-of-money that needed to be reinvested to bring it back to prior highs (let alone ever go like even 50% past its prior high) is significantly more this time.

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#67

Post by npoc »

iamnothere wrote: post #59

XMR has dropped about 50%, which means it’s back to November prices. (If you ignore the unusual January spike, it’s not even down that much, price is usually rising slowly over time.) Since the maturation of XMR, I really don’t understand the popularity of Bitcoin except as a speculative asset. XMR is everything that BTC promised and failed to be, with real anonymity baked in. I’m not big on crypto, but it’s strange…

Too difficult to audit the total supply, and tail emission. Bitcoin is anonymous enough while remaining fully auditable (nobody secretly printing it out of thin air) and perfectly scarce.

If you think it's one of the least interesting technologies, then I suggest you don't understand the power of ideal scarcity in a liquid, digital asset

Re: Bitcoin tumbles below $70K, heavy losses in cryptocurrencies in last three weeks

#69

Post by benj111 »

webdevver wrote: post #13
benj111 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't tell if genuine or sarcasm ...

very broad extrapolation of the previous two 'cycles'. after a peak, it tends to crash to 20-30% of previous peak value, goes sideways for a year or two, then goes up to 2x its previous peak. the 'four year cycle' is perhaps moreso the 'US presidential cycle'.

So you were being serious. You know the quoted figures are based on nothing...
Post reply on HN