So after the fork happened and Bitcoin Cash was created, as of today on CoinMarketCap it shows:
Bitcoin
capital $118,038,167,261
price $6,962.42
circulating 16,953,612
volume last 24 hrs $4,671,340,000
Bitcoin Cash
capital $11,306,077,844
price $663.06
circulating 17,051,288
volume last 24 hrs $286,801,000
On every count Bitcoin beats Bitcoin Cash so the question arises, what was the point of creating Bitcoin Cash? Apart from making very rich bitcoin holding people even more wealthier by creating Bitcoin Cash and adding to their portfolio it seems that there was no need for it. I hear about transactions fees and groups of devs so on being better at Bitcoin Cash but in all honestly what was the point?
Did all those advocating the demise of Bitcoin actually exchange all their BTC for BCH? I doubt it.
To me it seems Bitcoin was always going to come out on top of that battle so why did those whales pushing for the fork really do it and create Bitcoin Cash?
The point, as far as I understand it, was to make a more functional version of Bitcoin. Remember, the community was paralyzed with unreasonable transaction fees for over a year and there was consistently a backlog of hundreds of thousands of unconfirmed transactions. The block size was increasingly being viewed as inadequate to scale Bitcoin to an expanding user base (and probably still isn't, btw), and the people behind the split were seeking to address this rather than continue in the malaise since it was becoming increasingly clear that Bitcoin's leadership was unwilling or unable (and same difference, really) to institute changes that would keep Bitcoin competitive in the crypto space. It very much felt like the first mover advantage was being squandered and that Bitcoin could eventually fade to irrelevance, and the splitters sought to take corrective action. Whether or not any of that was accomplished or the motives remained pure after the split is another discussion entirely, but at the point of the split, there were entirely logical reasons for it. What I find interesting is that the split parallels the religious split of the Lutherans from the Catholics (to use a somewhat obscure in this context but totally relevant historical analogy). The Lutherans believed the Catholic church was rife with corruption and special interests for selling indulgences to forgive sins, and believed that splitting from the church and creating their own version of the religion that was more pure and true to the original point of the church was the only way to save their own souls. Essentially, Bitcoin Cash was making the same argument- that splitting and adhering to Satoshi's original vision (which included increasing the block size) was the only way to save Bitcoin. To put it another way, Lutherans were the first hard fork. Great analogy mixing religious theology along with technological advances. Brilliant way to study the situation between the religious fork and the crypto fork  The more you think about it, the more appropriate it becomes as an analogy. Both sides are rather zealous in their representations that they and only they are the true adherents to the original vision of the idea (either Christianity in this example, or the concept of Bitcoin and Satoshi's original vision where Satoshi is practically a prophet), and both sides spend a great deal of time and energy trying to convert people to their side and vilifying the other side as heretics who are corrupting a pure idea for their own gain. In Christianity, it was the Catholic Church that lost its way and was corrupted and in crypto, it's Bitcoin's Board that refuses to address the block size. The spam attack on the BTC blockchain to try and make it unusable is practically a holy war to try and force people into converting to BCH. The way people behave in both religion and the crypto schism between BTC and BCH, from the self-righteous attitudes they take in regards to the other side to the vilifying or attempts to harm the other system, are strikingly similar. |
|
|
|
The former President of the United States was a statesman, and now President trump is a businessman!
The merchant has never made up for a lost business! The only purpose of the sino-us trade war is to reduce the trade deficit with China.
He's not a very good businessman. Many of his ventures have failed or been mismanaged into the ground. How many times has he declared bankruptcy? Being a "businessman" is not a mark of great distinction. Apparently we need a president who is an economist, and perhaps then we will have a politician who doesn't make short-sighted decisions and understands the economic implications of the trade agenda he's seeking to implement. Nobody wins a trade war, and the losers are consumers. People react to trade deficits like they're inherently a bad thing, but it's not like a budget deficit. There's no reason to expect that trade should or even can be balanced. If we have a trade "deficit" it means we're importing more thins than we're exporting, and that's happening because our consumers demand those things for some reason, usually because they're specialized and cannot be produced elsewhere or they're cheaper. To fight against that is to spite the American consumer. Tariffs are a tax paid by US consumers, and the increased efficiency will destroy more jobs than it creates by trying to protect certain industries. This is a pointless trade war. |
|
|
|
|
Utility is what creates value, and right now you could say that people are finding it useful because there are plenty of people buying it at the current price. What exactly it is useful though is a more important question, because it may inform future value. For example, if people are buying it right now because of its utility as a speculative asset they can gamble on, that's more problematic than people buying it because of its utility as a store of value or as a currency. I see quite a few people claiming the store of value motive, but I'm not convince they're not delusional because a lot of those same people talk about mooning or lambos. Utility as a speculative asset seems finite and fleeting to me, like a fad, while long term value can seemingly only come from utility as a currency. If Bitcoin can never fulfill its potential as a currency, it probably won't make it long term, and in order to be a useful currency, it's going to need to establish a significantly stable price over time.
|
|
|
|
There are numerous reasons why bitcoin's value rate is getting low, and a significant portion of the articles are incorrect if will break down it. In any case, for me, the primary motivation behind why bitcoin's value rate is dropping a result of the season and some issue that happen, similar to some national and substantial online networking destinations restricted bitcoin for reasons unknown.
Bitcoin analyst Tom Lee has theorized that the price weakness this year is related to people with tax liabilities from crypto transactions liquidating coins to create cash to settle their tax bills. Since Bitcoin is taxed as property, transactions and conversions from one coin to another create taxable events that must be claimed as income, in addition to capital gains taxes that must be paid on selling coins to fiat. His theory is that because many investors have tax bills that are due now related to transactions they've received or alts they converted Bitcoin into (or vice versa), the easiest way to generate the cash to make those payments is to sell the coins. He has also theorized that many exchanges denominate their profits in crypto because they're taking a percentage of transactions in those coins, and in order to pay their tax bills in USD, they must sell some of their own coins to generate the cash to do so. If this theory holds true, you would expect to see the pervasive selling pressure to lift after April 17, which is the last day to file taxes in the US. I'm taking the theory with a grain of salt though. It's interesting to think about, but I'm not sure it's not just correlated with this bear market and not necessarily the cause of it. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, individuals will state gold is better since gold is the most celebrated and most standard money in a long stretch. I realize that gold is a metal and bitcoin is digital currency. Truly, you can't utilize gold to purchase something in the market, and some foundation acknowledges bitcoin as installment. Be that as it may, gold has a standard sum, and numerous individuals like speculators and friends progress toward becoming riches as a result of it.
The analog people draw between gold and Bitcoin centers around its scarcity. Gold historically has been scarce and valuable, and people expect that Bitcoin because it is mathematically programmed to be finite will also be scarce and therefore valuable. This seems to take a couple of things for granted. The first is utility, and the second is a lack of substitutes. If Bitcoin has not utility as a currency or store of value, then there is little reason to expect it to be valuable no matter how scarce it is. Toxic waste for example is scarce but not valuable because it's not useful for anything (in fact, it is detrimental to things), therefore it does not have much if any value. Without utility, scarcity doesn't matter. Second, people assume Bitcoin will be valuable because it is scarce AND it will be highly sought after to do the types of things Bitcoin does: make fast, immutable and cheap transactions. But this assumes there will be no other cryptos (or other technology) that cannot also do these things, and we already see that there are very many substitutes in the form of hundreds of other cryptos that do exactly the same thing. So I'd be weary of my assumptions in assuming Bitcoin is destined to moon. |
|
|
|
So after the fork happened and Bitcoin Cash was created, as of today on CoinMarketCap it shows:
Bitcoin
capital $118,038,167,261
price $6,962.42
circulating 16,953,612
volume last 24 hrs $4,671,340,000
Bitcoin Cash
capital $11,306,077,844
price $663.06
circulating 17,051,288
volume last 24 hrs $286,801,000
On every count Bitcoin beats Bitcoin Cash so the question arises, what was the point of creating Bitcoin Cash? Apart from making very rich bitcoin holding people even more wealthier by creating Bitcoin Cash and adding to their portfolio it seems that there was no need for it. I hear about transactions fees and groups of devs so on being better at Bitcoin Cash but in all honestly what was the point?
Did all those advocating the demise of Bitcoin actually exchange all their BTC for BCH? I doubt it.
To me it seems Bitcoin was always going to come out on top of that battle so why did those whales pushing for the fork really do it and create Bitcoin Cash?
The point, as far as I understand it, was to make a more functional version of Bitcoin. Remember, the community was paralyzed with unreasonable transaction fees for over a year and there was consistently a backlog of hundreds of thousands of unconfirmed transactions. The block size was increasingly being viewed as inadequate to scale Bitcoin to an expanding user base (and probably still isn't, btw), and the people behind the split were seeking to address this rather than continue in the malaise since it was becoming increasingly clear that Bitcoin's leadership was unwilling or unable (and same difference, really) to institute changes that would keep Bitcoin competitive in the crypto space. It very much felt like the first mover advantage was being squandered and that Bitcoin could eventually fade to irrelevance, and the splitters sought to take corrective action. Whether or not any of that was accomplished or the motives remained pure after the split is another discussion entirely, but at the point of the split, there were entirely logical reasons for it. What I find interesting is that the split parallels the religious split of the Lutherans from the Catholics (to use a somewhat obscure in this context but totally relevant historical analogy). The Lutherans believed the Catholic church was rife with corruption and special interests for selling indulgences to forgive sins, and believed that splitting from the church and creating their own version of the religion that was more pure and true to the original point of the church was the only way to save their own souls. Essentially, Bitcoin Cash was making the same argument- that splitting and adhering to Satoshi's original vision (which included increasing the block size) was the only way to save Bitcoin. To put it another way, Lutherans were the first hard fork. |
|
|
|
Bitcoins will be pointless if the cost is steady because the primary motivation behind why individuals continue putting resources into digital currency is that. Imagine it if the bitcoin has been stable cost what is the different of it on the paper cash on the bank. It will all the same. I utilize the bitcoin because both nature of it and financial of profiting If we said nature it means the decentralize and the security gives to us.
Stability is the point. Nobody an use a currency they can't predict the value of. Right now Bitcoin isn't a currency, it's a speculative asset. People buy and sell based on what they think other people will think it's worth later. That's a pointless asset; it doesn't do anything useful. At this point, it's just gambling and Bitcoin's popularity is a testament to how much the world loves gambling. If Bitcoin were stable, it could be used as a currency, and this is what it was originally intended to be- a stable store of value that can't be manipulated by a government. |
|
|
|
This is actually an interesting idea. But I'm not aware of any stock broker who would stop trading stocks just because of tax laws.
I think the theory holds weight for amateur crypto gamblers trying to make it big by buying in without any trading or stock experience.
But to be honest the crypto tax implications are no different than wall street taxes. You pay per trade, and you pay for overall capital gains.
To be honest, if you made 100x from a $10,000 investment in some alt, then you really pay only 30 to 40% capital gains tax if you've only held onto it for less than a year. That's not really that bad.
Bitcoin is treated differently than stocks. It's taxed as property meaning every transaction with Bitcoin is a taxable event. If you bought Bitcoin and held it, then sold it for a gain, that would be the same as stocks. If you bought Bitcoin and converted to an alt, you would immediately owe tax on the value of the conversion. Then if you held the alt for a time and converted it back, you would owe tax again on the conversion. Then if you sold it for a gain, you would also owe capital gains tax. So all these transactions people have racked up in the last year have created a tax liability they have to pay now, even though they may not have sold any Bitcoin. So Lee's theory is we're seeing all these people liquidate Bitcoin holdings so they can pay their tax liabilities. |
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Bitcoin analyst Tom Lee has said he expects the market to stabilize after April 17 and begin growing again. He's probably the best known bitcoin analyst. His theory is that the current weakness has been people selling crypto holdings to satisfy tax liabilities that are due now, and so he expects this to end after the tax deadline passes which is April 17. He's also predicted that the price will reach $20,000 again by mid-year and $25,000 by year-end. Take that with a huge grain of salt. People are desperate to believe any good news right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Bank deposits are the safest in terms of capital preservation but offer virtually nothing in terms of return. To earn a return, you have to take on more risk. There's not many things riskier than crypto right now. I prefer assets that produce income, like stocks, bonds or real estate. Ownership of these things generally doesn't let you swing for the fences like Bitcoin, but it's also far safer than crypto.
|
|
|
|
According to a recent article on CNBC, Tom Lee is attributing the current price weakness to selling by American consumers and crypto exchanges to satisfy tax liabilities. At least this is an interesting theory, but keep in mind he's only speculating like everyone else. Key (speculative) points from Lee: - U.S. households likely owe $25 billion in capital gains taxes for their cryptocurrency holdings
- Additional selling pressure by crypto exchanges sitting on over a billion dollars in profit denominated in btc/eth and are converting to USD to satisfy tax obligations
- tax-related selling represents a massive outflow from crypto to USD and historical estimates are each $1 of USD outflow is $20-$25 impact on crypto market value
- Expects btc to find footing after April 17
- Expects btc to reach $20,000 by mid-year and $25,000 by year-end
Src: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/wall-streets-tom-lee-predicts-massive-outflow-from-cryptocurrencies-ahead-of-tax-day.htmlHe's got three essentially short term predictions that will be easy to track, which is the part I'm most interested in. |
|
|
|
You obviously fail to see my point. You don't see the forest for the trees. Microsoft's products were not shitty, they were so-so at best (in fact they quite were). There were more than enough competing products likely much better than Microsoft's but their developers didn't have their mothers on friendly terms with CEO's of biggest corporations. This is where luck comes to matter a lot, actually enough to make all the difference.
Market utility isn't superficial because it's the actual root cause of wealth. You couldn't turn that example around because simply reversing the words wouldn't make it true. Money isn't actual wealth, it's a representation of wealth you've accumulated through the efforts of what you offer the market, either through the products you make or the services you offer. The more utility those goods and services have, the more money you ultimately will acquire. But you don't get the money without the utility, that's how you know it's the cause of it. If so, why don't you address the point which I made? How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story. This has essentially devolved into a chicken and egg discussion. Because you couldn't win the point against the notion that market utility is what causes wealth (as opposed to some of your earlier assertions, like it's caused by luck or caused by money, which failed to recognize that money is just a representation of wealth and not the actual cause of wealth), you're now trying to undermine the market utility argument by claiming that the only way you can create market utility is through luck. It's a ridiculous argument to make. It completely ignores ingenuity as any kind of force in the market. You might as well be saying that there's no point in trying to do anything in the marketplace because it's completely random and winners and losers are determined by chance. When you take that argument to its logical conclusion, you realize what a ridiculous point it is. Now you are trying to deliberately distort and twist my point. I don't say that luck is the only way you can create market utility, yet it pretty quickly comes down to that in any saturated market which is divided by corporations with their huge budgets. To keep things real, can you name, for example, a startup which came up with a new processor recently? There is none. The only one that I can think of is Transmeta. But it still failed in the end by offering a subpar "market utility". Your realistic chances (besides some really impossible turn of luck) lie in new fields which haven't yet been taken over by the same big guns. No matter how many times you end a paragraph with "end of story," it doesn't make your points any stronger. It looks like an attempt to claim an authority your points are completely failing to establish.
Now that you don't want to talk about Microsoft success and Bill Gates being a genius any more, I safely conclude that we can finally call it a genuine end of story. How am I trying to deliberately distort your point when I repeat back to you what you say? Did you or did you not write exactly: "How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story." If you don't like arguing against yourself, be more careful in what you write. The answer to your question by the way is that you create products, not market utility. Market utility is an attribute of successful products, not something you create. And it's not luck. Market utility is what every product tries to capture, whether they do or not is not a function of luck but a function of how useful they are to the people buying in that particular market. The reason Transmeta failed - I'm assuming because I've never heard of it - is because it didn't do anything more useful than anything already on the market, either from a performance perspective or a price perspective. The market didn't want it apparently. You cite the fact that nobody has produced a better processor recently but don't recognize that makes my case. Nobody can create a more useful processor than what is already on the market (i.e. one with more market utility), so why would you expect consumers to buy a worse offering? Lower market utility, expected failure confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
Well, it's been a bit of time since the OP and it's playing out pretty much like I've been predicting it would in this thread and others related to this. China and the US are both now locked in a struggle and neither can afford to come to their senses because they'll lose face. Trump clearly started this. He's pulled out of free trade agreements, and is attempting to use the US's now involvement in them as a club to force other nations to bargain. I think we're seeing the logical conclusion of such a bad policy. China won't/can't afford to roll over and appear weak. We're now locked in a cycle where every time one country imposes tariffs, the other responds and the only people losing are American consumers as the prices of all the things they buy rise because of the tariffs. This is all so unnecessary that it boggles my mind this is the road we're taking.
|
|
|
|
Today, the Internet World is full of people who are called economists who say bitcoin is a "bubble." they seemed to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They say that the bitcoin high price rally will be a disaster. however, it looks like they just hate cryptocurrency. many of these experts do not fully understand bitcoin.
Bitcoin is special. This is not a company that can lose profitability and fail. This is certainly not a speculative real estate scam that could collapse due to government and bank fraud. Bitcoin is something else. Its value does not increase due to market lies. This is increasing because it is a life-changing financial discovery. This increases as more people adopt it.
Bitcoin also grows as a result of basic economy. Its supply is limited to 21 million units and this certainly makes assets scarce. If something is scarce and many people want it, then, its value will eventually increase.
So.. Bitcoin is not Bubble!!
First of all, you take as a given something that isn't a given. "If something is scarce and many people want it, then, its value will eventually increase." I don't see a reason many people will eventually want Bitcoin. You're just hoping more people in the future will want Bitcoin, but you don't know they will. Nobody knows this, nor can they even know this. The only thing we know for certain is that fewer people want Bitcoin right now than did in December when it was trading at over $19,000. If this wasn't true, you wouldn't have had a price collapse. Second, the bold text from your OP isn't very sound. Bitcoin is not special. There is nothing about Bitcoin that gives it the ability to defy the laws of economics, but this is what you have to mean when you say it's special. Bitcoin is not a company that can lose profitability; this is true because it's not a company that produces any profit. It's just an asset, and as only an asset it is only worth what everyone decides it is. While this is true for stocks as well, the difference is that stocks represent a legal ownership of a business that produces profit, and therefore has inherent value. Bitcoin doesn't. As you say, it's not a speculative real estate scam that could collapse, but it is a speculative asset that can collapse, and I would say in some respects, has collapsed or is collapsing. |
|
|
|
Dollars in not too volatile not like bitcoin, there's fluctuations but not that large like bitcoin. USD has a time to be stable at her price and other day there's a time that it changed a little.
Dollars as is being regulated by the government it cannot be too much volatile. It would mostly be a range bound. But it is not the case with btc as it is not being controlled and government it can freely rise or fall to any extent creating a highly volatile crypto currency. First, the dollar isn't exactly regulated by the government. The Fed, which controls the money supply, is a semi-autonomous non-governmental institution, although the lines are sometimes blurred. At least it is supposed to be independent from the government and therefore politics. Second, the government cannot control what everyone's opinion of what the dollar is worth. It's not a government dictate that determines the value of the dollar, but everyone's collective confidence in the dollar that keeps the value stable. This is why hyperinflation is so difficult to control, because once people lose confidence in the value of a currency, the government is powerless to stop the value from falling. It is only by pegging a hyperinflating currency to a stable one (and of course stop printing them) or doing away with it entirely and instituting a new one that hyperinflation can be stopped. |
|
|
|
I belive this is a cultural matter. There are people who just like the old shiny things. It is true that gold always represented an investment and it has his own history despite bitcoin.
Gold has served as a historical store of value. Store of value is a necessity for an economy as a whole and for people on an individual level. Without it, long term planning and saving are not possible, and economic activity is far lower and more uncertain. Because it's a fundamental necessity, it was inevitable that something was going to represent value and be widely acknowledged as such. Gold just happens to be that something. Now, it has a few millennia of tradition acknowledging its universal acceptance as a store of value - as something that is itself valuable and that other people will accept as valuable - and that is the type of thing that is not going to go away. As long as transactions are necessary and some people need to trust an instrument to exchange value, gold will be be considered valuable. Today though, we have fiat as well, and the USD is almost universally accepted for exchange of value as well. |
|
|
|
The main reason of why i don't use bitcoins to store my personal wealth, is because of the volatility. I wont put my money in here if the next day they could be worth the half, and this sounds pretty reasonable.I love bitcoins to be honest. For me personally I'm still gonna use bitcoin if ever the price become stable because it's very convenient to make a transaction and beside on that I can send bitcoin anytime anywhere but I think the interest of investors will decrease because bitcoin is becoming a regular currency and it's not attractive anymore.
To be honest bitcoin will be useless ,people really interested on bitcoin because of the fluctuation on its prices .The great prices on bitcoin has a big impact on people if prices will be stable probably no more great earnings and not anymore popular for investors. But I know still bitcoin upgrading more and develop things. These people only interested in the volatility as a vehicle to trade the price swings aren't actually using Bitcoin, they're just trading it. That's not he same thing. Utility will increase as volatility decreases, and ultimately you want more adoption which will lead to higher prices overall in the long term, so you want stable prices to bring those people who will actually use the coin in. You might lose the day traders in the short term, but so what? They're not using the coin anyway and not doing anything beneficial for adoption or the community. It'd be better that way. |
|
|
|
I feel unable to do daily trading in market bitcoin / cryptocurrency, I want to invest my money. please give me advise on what you think is good about:
1. bank deposits
2. Lending cryptocurrency
3. Mining
4. Gold assets
5. Property
6. other ideas ...
your response will be very useful for me, and maybe some visitors who read this thread. and thank you for your comments.
Own assets that actually produce income. Mining is too competitive and not a good investment. Gold doesn't produce income, it just sort of hedges against inflation and at times experiences fairly wild volatility that represents a risk to capital preservation. Property represents a good income generating asset but is generally more difficult to deal with due to expense and time of transacting. Stocks are a good mix of income generating assets and ease of acquisition/liquidity. |
|
|
|
what would you do if you had so much debt and that your income was not enough to repay your debt installment?
how will you deal with it?
how to solve it?
In my region we have best solution for this one. The financial support that we get from it is almost free but it works completely on the mutual understanding and trust. With that said people who are very very trusted will gather together. Fro example, close friend, family members etc. There will be at least 20 members in this scheme. The scheme started at first date of every month where the names of every member involved into the scheme are written on cheats and then one by one the names are explored. These are written down in the same manner as they were picked and explored. The terms are decided like this: Amount will be declared for the schemes: For example : $ 10,000 (USD is not my currency but for better understanding keeping it that way) Rules: Each member will pay monthly instalment as per the norms. If the scheme is in 20 member then it will run for 20 months. Each month every person will pay $500 as instalment. The owner of the scheme will collect this money and will give it to the person whose number is 1st in the list. Thus there will be no extra charge, no interest rate on this but you just get the money with mutual understanding. This way every 20 member get their turn one by one after each month for the next 20 months. What you have to pay is just 500 bucks and you can get the 10,000 USD right away and can reduce the debts and its interest immediately. This is great help for you. TRY IT IN YOUR LOCALITY YOU WILL SEE GOOD RESULTS. I've heard of people using these systems before, they're called a Cundina or Tanda depending on what part of the world you're from. I don't see the appeal of it personally. If you're able to pay the money into a Cundina every month in the first place, you're able to save for yourself just as easily and it removes the risk of someone else not paying their contribution back and you losing your money because of it. It's just an extra risk I'd rather avoid. |
|
|
|
Right, bitcoin is returning to normal currently following quite an whereas of low value. various people area unit sitting tight for this and at last seeing purpose strings can begin dynamic currently and that i ask for that it'll make sure once ensuing days. For quite an lasting, pessimism has hovered round the discussion creating it additional look sadder once the lowland began. Presently, I in addition begin to think what take a look at can return once this dump, new arrangement (legitimacy) and nations prohibiting bitcoin and bitcoin exchanges. Bitcoin is closing additional far-famed significantly once its value crest is increasing but the difficulties area unit in addition ending up all the saucier at any rate. I think what is going to occur straightaway.
Bitcoin is still facing crash but it is not going to remain this way. What is the use of making so much noise and complaints about something that is temporary and can end any time. We all know the nature of digital market. Bitcoin is the most volatile digital coin. It also changes price at unexpected times for unexpected duration. Instead of wasting time in such things, don’t you think it would be better for the investors to buy more coins? Buying at low rate is always preferred. People have been saying this crash can't keep going much longer for quite a long time now. When it was at $15,000 people said it was a great time to buy. When it was at $10,000 people called the bottom and said everyone selling was shortsighted and foolish and it was a great time to buy. When it was at $8,000 people said buy buy buy, you will soon be rich. Now that it's below $7,000, when are you guys going to admit you don't know what you're talking about and acknowledge that continuing to buy is risky? You don't know the price is ever going up again. There's no guarantee of it, and god help you all if you've been buying all this time and the economy enters a recession, because Bitcoin is likely to fall below $1000 when there are no buyers anymore due to everyone fleeing risky, speculative assets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
