I believe that smart contracts is a strong trend but were accompanied with the misconception that they were unbreakable and once this misconception became undeniable the bubble bust.
Feedback loops work in both directions but downtrends have a tendency towards equilibrium and this means that if developments remain insignificant then no new bubble will begin as smart contracts are still the prevailing crypto trend despite market movements.
However, bearish conceptions and misconceptions about HFs with ETH/C dominates the market participants perceptions which means it will get much worse as it becomes reinforced by new HFs.
The first ETH HF showed how vulnerable investors are to developers of altcoin projects as they are insignificant to the process of HF despite being the owners.
Developers apply their technological perspective to markets and blame speculators for movements, but speculators see a perceived misconception they can profit off in either direction.
The way the ETH/C downtrend ends is by “regulation” of its HFs otherwise the very core propositions of smart contracts and altcoin projects remain susceptible to confidence games thus unstable markets.
And with developers of ETH/C applying their technological perspective that a HF is always for the good of everybody to markets and the market is wrong when they think so, a short position in ETH/C prior to HFs are sound as long as this remains true and the aforementioned conditions remain unchanged.
The ‘prior’-to-HFs makes this trade idiot-proof with the exception if Bitcoin declines during which the short position is taken so when to take the position should relate to risk appetite and understanding of Bitcoin markets.
A “stable" Bitcoin market would reveal if my hypothesis is true or false when applied to ETH/C markets but a surging or declining Bitcoin market would not.
Rumours on a HF because of the Geth consensus flaw caused ETH/C to drop double digits in percentages the same day it occured. False positive? Possible and we'll see when a HF occurs. There will be different paces by planned vs unplanned HFs but under current conditions of HFs both are predicted bad for price by this hypothesis. Interestingly if ETH were to become the number one cryptocurrency the accepted fundamentals of cryptocurrency would change. Did you think about that? A lot of investment into ETH would alter the perception of totalitarian HFs into being regarded as 'true'. |
|
|
|
I believe that smart contracts is a strong trend but were accompanied with the misconception that they were unbreakable and once this misconception became undeniable the bubble bust.
Feedback loops work in both directions but downtrends have a tendency towards equilibrium and this means that if developments remain insignificant then no new bubble will begin as smart contracts are still the prevailing crypto trend despite market movements.
However, bearish conceptions and misconceptions about HFs with ETH/C dominates the market participants perceptions which means it will get much worse as it becomes reinforced by new HFs.
The first ETH HF showed how vulnerable investors are to developers of altcoin projects as they are insignificant to the process of HF despite being the owners.
Developers apply their technological perspective to markets and blame speculators for movements, but speculators see a perceived misconception they can profit off in either direction.
The way the ETH/C downtrend ends is by “regulation” of its HFs otherwise the very core propositions of smart contracts and altcoin projects remain susceptible to confidence games thus unstable markets.
And with developers of ETH/C applying their technological perspective that a HF is always for the good of everybody to markets and the market is wrong when they think so, a short position in ETH/C prior to HFs are sound as long as this remains true and the aforementioned conditions remain unchanged.
The ‘prior’-to-HFs makes this trade idiot-proof with the exception if Bitcoin declines during which the short position is taken so when to take the position should relate to risk appetite and understanding of Bitcoin markets.
A “stable" Bitcoin market would reveal if my hypothesis is true or false when applied to ETH/C markets but a surging or declining Bitcoin market would not.
Rumours on a HF because of the Geth consensus flaw caused ETH/C to drop double digits in percentages the same day it occured. False positive? Possible and we'll see when a HF occurs. There will be different paces by planned vs unplanned HFs but under current conditions of HFs both are predicted bad for price by this hypothesis. Interestingly if ETH were to become the number one cryptocurrency the accepted fundamentals of cryptocurrency would change. Did you think about that? A lot of investment into ETH would alter the perception of totalitarian HFs into being regarded as 'true'. |
|
|
|
|
I believe that smart contracts is a strong trend but were accompanied with the misconception that they were unbreakable and once this misconception became undeniable the bubble bust.
Feedback loops work in both directions but downtrends have a tendency towards equilibrium and this means that if developments remain insignificant then no new bubble will begin as smart contracts are still the prevailing crypto trend despite market movements.
However, bearish conceptions and misconceptions about HFs with ETH/C dominates the market participants perceptions which means it will get much worse as it becomes reinforced by new HFs.
The first ETH HF showed how vulnerable investors are to developers of altcoin projects as they are insignificant to the process of HF despite being the owners.
Developers apply their technological perspective to markets and blame speculators for movements, but speculators see a perceived misconception they can profit off in either direction.
The way the ETH/C downtrend ends is by “regulation” of its HFs otherwise the very core propositions of smart contracts and altcoin projects remain susceptible to confidence games thus unstable markets.
And with developers of ETH/C applying their technological perspective that a HF is always for the good of everybody to markets and the market is wrong when they think so, a short position in ETH/C prior to HFs are sound as long as this remains true and the aforementioned conditions remain unchanged.
The ‘prior’-to-HFs makes this trade idiot-proof with the exception if Bitcoin declines during which the short position is taken so when to take the position should relate to risk appetite and understanding of Bitcoin markets.
A “stable" Bitcoin market would reveal if my hypothesis is true or false when applied to ETH/C markets but a surging or declining Bitcoin market would not.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that smart contracts is a strong trend but were accompanied with the misconception that they were unbreakable and once this misconception became undeniable the bubble bust.
Feedback loops work in both directions but downtrends have a tendency towards equilibrium and this means that if developments remain insignificant then no new bubble will begin as smart contracts are still the prevailing crypto trend despite market movements.
However, bearish conceptions and misconceptions about HFs with ETH/C dominates the market participants perceptions which means it will get much worse as it becomes reinforced by new HFs.
The first ETH HF showed how vulnerable investors are to developers of altcoin projects as they are insignificant to the process of HF despite being the owners.
Developers apply their technological perspective to markets and blame speculators for movements, but speculators see a perceived misconception they can profit off in either direction.
The way the ETH/C downtrend ends is by “regulation” of its HFs otherwise the very core propositions of smart contracts and altcoin projects remain susceptible to confidence games thus unstable markets.
And with developers of ETH/C applying their technological perspective that a HF is always for the good of everybody to markets and the market is wrong when they think so, a short position in ETH/C prior to HFs are sound as long as this remains true and the aforementioned conditions remain unchanged.
The ‘prior’-to-HFs makes this trade idiot-proof with the exception if Bitcoin declines during which the short position is taken so when to take the position should relate to risk appetite and understanding of Bitcoin markets.
A “stable" Bitcoin market would reveal if my hypothesis is true or false when applied to ETH/C markets but a surging or declining Bitcoin market would not.
|
|
|
|
When you start introducing or excluding stuff to improve your argument ... you actually win the argument for me because you destroy your claim in the process.
Improve = destroy. Amazing logic. Bitcointalk is full of foul-mouthed goobers and disgruntled attackers. A few days spent reading posts there was enough for me.
"money only has value because of public confidence" I do understand your arrogant misunderstanding is you do not understand what money is. You seem to confuse money with other things such as investments and speculations (which don't necessarily require ubiquitous public confidence). Very few people correctly and fully wrap their mind around what money is. So you'll likely find a lot of sympathy/support for your blissful ignorance. I do realize that it appears to you that you are correct and smart, and illusions are often much more gratifying than education and admissions of ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effectP.S. What you admitted you refused to read, is a summary of the historical evidence from beginning of the history record of human civilizations, backing the fact which I stated. I hope you can stop wasting my precious time on this silly argument you have created and dragged out over many posts. I don't have available time to waste on you. Insults, twisting words and even lying about who started the argument is a lame attempt to steal more of my time. |
|
|
|
"Money only has value because of public confidence." This disregards economics and money is imperfect by nature. Now I've repeated it 3 times. Do you still not get it?
Bitcoin isn't 'larger scale' in terms of money and look where you are. In the altcoin section of a Bitcoin forum. Wakey wakey.
Shelby Moore III. Value of currency has historically been public confidence in it as a reliable unit-of-exchange. Bitcointalk.org, “Precious metals are not useful in a collapse scenario!” thread, post #62, Nov 2, 2016. Bitcoin is primarily a speculation, not a currency. My statement is intended to say nothing about speculations and investments. A currency is by definition not (and MUST NOT BE) an investment, when it is your unit-of-account. Do you still not get it? I resent your implication that I am the neophyte, when in fact it appears to be you who is. (I hope you understand the definition of unit-of-account, it is the ruler employed to measure gains and losses) Yea I'm not reading that. When you start introducing or excluding stuff to improve your argument that "money only has value because of public confidence" you actually win the argument for me because you destroy your claim in the process. |
|
|
|
|
Seems like people have a genuine interest in it. I am waiting a bit to speculate on it though.
|
|
|
|
The majority of IPOs are confidence games.
Money only has value because of public confidence. This is just a silly statement! You expect money to be something perfect but math and economies are created by man so it is imperfect by nature. But majority of alts and IPOs are not currencies.. they're not.. I don't care about some textbook definition of it only XMR and ETH succeeded so far and they only differentiated from BTC not fiat. I am talking about the larger scheme of things and $trillion market caps, which we won't reach without a currency with widespread public confidence. Don't waste my time with some minuscule $100 million market cap $2m of daily volume circle-jerk. This is just a silly statement! You expect money to be something perfect but math and economies are created by man so it is imperfect by nature. And you disregard economics so why do you want to talk about economics? XMR/ETH as alternatives to BTC are exciting from a economic perspective and if you know how trade and currency work you'll know what I mean! Nothing I wrote implied I expected perfection. You are assigning your misintepretation. I didn't discard economics. I stated that I am not interested in the small time pinksheets speculation markets and am rather interested in larger scale. That isn't a rejection of economics. Please stop forcing me to be responsible to correct your silly, erroneous misinterpretations of what I have written, because of your outlandish ad hominem attacks. "Money only has value because of public confidence." This disregards economics and money is imperfect by nature. Now I've repeated it 3 times. Do you still not get it? Bitcoin isn't 'larger scale' in terms of money and look where you are. In the altcoin section of a Bitcoin forum. Wakey wakey. |
|
|
|
The majority of IPOs are confidence games.
Money only has value because of public confidence. This is just a silly statement! You expect money to be something perfect but math and economies are created by man so it is imperfect by nature. But majority of alts and IPOs are not currencies.. they're not.. I don't care about some textbook definition of it only XMR and ETH succeeded so far and they only differentiated from BTC not fiat. I am talking about the larger scheme of things and $trillion market caps, which we won't reach without a currency with widespread public confidence. Don't waste my time with some minuscule $100 million market cap $2m of daily volume circle-jerk. This is just a silly statement! You expect money to be something perfect but math and economies are created by man so it is imperfect by nature. And you disregard economics so why do you want to talk about economics? XMR/ETH as alternatives to BTC are exciting from a economic perspective and if you know how trade and currency work you'll know what I mean! |
|
|
|
Maybe in a few months when some decent price discovery is possible. Still too early to tell.
I believe that the pump will only come when there is some good usage of the ZCash or you can use the Z address. Sorry I read the title as Zcash. Didn't realize it said "ZCash Classic". I have no interest in this, only in Zcash. |
|
|
|
The majority of IPOs are confidence games.
Money only has value because of public confidence. This is just a silly statement! You expect money to be something perfect but math and economies are created by man so it is imperfect by nature. But majority of alts and IPOs are not currencies.. they're not.. I don't care about some textbook definition of it only XMR and ETH succeeded so far and they only differentiated from BTC not fiat. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe in a few months when some decent price discovery is possible. Still too early to tell.
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I want to short-sell some alt coins.
Is there any place to do this?
Thanks!
Poloniex or Kraken. And IMO it is not worth it 9/10 times. Markets are very young but sometimes an opportunity comes along that is too good to pass up on. |
|
|
|
|
People who engage in the IPO market only have themselves to blame. They give money to scammers and actively promote these dubious schemes and only complain when things go south but if they can sell their bag to someone else it is OK. If you want to trade then hit up Poloniex: The majority of IPOs are confidence games.
|
|
|
|
They got a big pair to even consider launching something after the DAO disaster..
I wouldn't touch anything by that team with even a penny.. You are simply going to get rolled over and taken a few times again.
If we all gave up when we failed nothing would ever get built |
|
|
|
So far I think its only people or organizations that are trying to create a new crypto currency to just be out there and maybe one day compete with bitcoin. But what if a government decides to create a country's own and legit altcoin? How would that affect the whole scenario? Will it be an instant success, especially if the country is big enough in population or has decent enough international trading going on.
just imagine yourself explaining what is cryptocurrency to a 80 years old lady. It's a currency like the USD. naah. many people are just sceptic with stuff they dont have physically in their hand Sure, everyone uses cash for everything..... |
|
|
|
|
Not right now but in the future I believe it might. Price discovery is impossible right now.
|
|
|
|
|
A good way to combat this would be to implement protocol taxes like mining taxes. I believe the case of double taxation might lead to favourable outcomes for cryptocurrency in other ways government lift or ease the taxation of gains derived from crypto to allow innovation.
Right now the tax situation is ridiculous and complex. I don't see how ordinary people will bother with an accountant which is bad since one of Bitcoins goal was micropayments
|
|
|
|
|
Central banks will adress the legitimate needs of people using cryptocurrency and leave the coins to fight over breadcrumbs. Which in the grand scheme of things is quite a lot anyway..
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
