Buffett has an impressive track record of successful investments throughout the years, but he has no to very little clue about what's happening in the world of tech, and this is where he misses out big time.

Sure, he is a multi billionaire and doesn't need the money anymore, but he has still shareholders to please, and they I am sure would love to generate higher returns they currently don't generate from tech companies.

On the other hand, Buffett not seeing the opportunity in tech companies or Bitcoin, means that we have an advantage over him and his fellow traditional dinosaurs. It's an opportunity, not a disadvantage.

By the time they do finally acknowledge the power of tech, they will buy in when most of the rest has already been in for years.

I agree that corrections are healthy, but you don't avoid a bull trap with it (if that's what you meant). It helps getting rid of selling pressure on the way up and directly increases the short term price floor.

Instead of having a lot of sub $4000-$5000 holders, you'll end up with more $6000-$7000 holders, which is what we have seen happen already. The higher you buy, the less likely it is that you sell at a loss unless you're a complete noob.

If we talk about traps anyway, the only people who trapped themselves are bears selling too soon. The trend clearly favors the bulls right now--cashing out some of your profits is fine, but going short with leverage is a huge risk.

I have always been a very conservative person when it comes to crypto because there is no way to determine the value of a coin here. In most cases crypto is extremely overvalued, but rarely reasonably priced.

I remember last year that even legendary members here were so confident in how miners needed $6000 to be maintained and that they wouldn't let it drop below that mark. We have seen that the market didn't care at all.

The price can always go lower or higher. I find it unlikely to see the price test last year's low, but I'm not discaring the possibility of this to happen. It may be an unpopular opinion, but that's not my problem.

This is quite a bullish development. I expect that in the coming 5-10 years that the devices needed to send offline transactions through satellites will be so small and cheap, that it might take off in third world countries.

IIRC, there was an article some time ago that pointed out that blockstream satellites also support LN transactions, which if so, that's incredible considering that LN is the way to go.

The sooner we push for LN adoption, the more comfortable people will get with it. Would be cool to see Core natively come with a LN integration so users no longer have to download and install additional software.

It looks easy, but in reality it's not that easy. Even if people invested below the $4000 mark, not many of them will be able to hodl through this rally. I'm sure that at least half of the buyers sold below the $5000 mark.

If you also add that a lot sell with the expectation of buying back lower, which certainly isn't impossible since we're still in a bear market, they will have even more incentive to cash out at every 5-10% increase.

At the end of the day, in hindsight you're either right or wrong, so some people will be happy seeing the price go up, and some will regret not having bought or sold too soon. That's life.

A little unfair? You and the rest responding here have a Bitcoin maximalist cap on and don't see how little of what you guys say makes sense. No wonder people strongly dislike Bitcoin maximalists....

Ethereum's ecosystem counts way more developers than Bitcoin's ecosystem. All this decentralization you guys praise yourself with does is make sure Bitcoin lags behind in development and doesn't scale at all.

Segwit hasn't done anything other than provide a tiny bit of more block space. Transaction batching has done more to reduce fees than Segwit, and we can't even break the 50% support mark.... Nice.

What do you mean with there not being enough security measures? That regulators haven't done much to combat bad actors in crypto? That may be, but regulations aren't going to stop scams at all. If you think they will, you're wrong.

At the end of the day, there is no way to prevent get rich quick noobs from investing their life savings in whatever shitty project--a fool with money is a fool with money, regardless of what the rules are that apply.

The only thing we can do is warn people against scams and explain why they are bad and what the most likely outcome is. Some times it feels like you're wasting your time, but preventing 1 person from losing money is already worth it to me.

If satoshi is still able to access his coins, he's probably not looking at what the current price is doing. If he didn't bother to care during the 2017 bull run with an all time high of $20k, why will he right now at a silly $7k?

It's more so that the "hodlers" here are enjoying the run up because they were almost losing it when we were bottoming out close to the $3000 mark. I'm sure a sub $3000 visit would have made a lot of them dump hard.

We can only look at what Bitcoin has done so far, and the fact of the matter is that the fees have gone up continuously, and people during the 2017 bull run were willing enough to pay up for the crazy $50 fees.

Admittedly, it were mostly speculators paying up for the fees, but miners don't care where the funds come from as long as they come in. It however sucks for the average user caring about even the slightest fee increase.

I'm glad that we have LN growing larger and larger as time goes by. This way the average user won't see the fees be pumped through the roof by speculators trying to front run others by using much higher fees.

It's not that hard to be honest. It just requires you to know what to look for. I always check the exchange's web ranking and the traffic it generates, then put that against the volumes they report.

Additionally you can look at the volume bars and put these against the volume bars of exchanges such as Coinbase and Bitstamp. If they follow a similar path, then it's most likely an exchange that doesn't inflate its volumes.

Coinbene for example, a notorious volume cheater, they consistently generate the same volume bars, even when exchanges such as Coinbase see their own volumes decrease without anything going on in the market.

That's perfectly fine. The less you mess with fiat currencies, therefore not form a threat to them, the less likely it is for them to ban Bitcoin. Governments just want their fiat currencies to be the main form of money.

That being said, Bitcoin won't likely scale to have the world or even hundreds of millions of people use it at the same time. Another thing is that doesn't have a fixed unit value, so why would people use Bitcoin over fiat?

Fiat works perfectly fine for me. No one has ever tried to prevent me from grocery shopping with my money, neither have my coffee payments been blocked. Bitcoin doesn't offer one single advantage in this specific field of use.

Gold is definitely a safe bet because it has proven itself for thousands of years already, and the general consensus is that it will remain that for another few thousand years. That's a very bullish degree of trust gold enjoys.

If you also add that governments keep stocking up on gold, you'll know that they have all the incentive to protect its value as much as they can. Bitcoin has a lot of catching up to do in that regard.

Gold shows that you only need to do one thing right to become extremely valuable, which directly also applies to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin offers way more utility than gold does, which in the long run will add even more value to it.

I have seen mostly Bitcoiners say the ICO thingy is done and over, but it isn't. As we speak there are still ICOs being initiated, but they just don't get much attention with how dumb money needs to see 500-1000% before they wake up.

Just wait for it, when the worst possible shit coins show these mad gains one after the other and that for months straight, people will be jumping in with their life savings. It's only a matter of time.

IEOs could have taken off massively if it wasn't so difficult to get in and people saw the price tank instantly. Binance knows how to take care of the marketing aspect, but they could have done a much better job with IEOs.

It's funny though. I remember on the way down to $3000 people said that we would go back up soon, while right now on the way up people try to talk the current rally down as if it's not a good development at all.  

Same with a lot of youtubers. Price down they show all kinds of scenarios why they think the price will go up again, and now they shifted to being bearish and show why they believe the price will go down again.

People really need to calm down and just enjoy whatever it is that the market subjects them to. It was awesome seeing the price tank for me, and now it's awesome seeing the price go up.

The people behind these ratings aren't those who are mining. Those handing out ratings are mostly nocoiners receiving payments from shitcoins for a higher rank, while miners are balls deep invested.

This industry is saturated with shitcoins pretending to rock the best technology and solve pressing world problems. The ideas are great, their actual product however sucks hard and doesn't enjoy any use.

EOS is such a mess, yet ranked so high. It's retarded because its governance model goes against that what crypto stands for and make it have value in the first place. Not worth even a quarter of its raised $4 billion.

SAFU fits in the category of Binance's own funds. They are not obligated to actually allocate them to hacks and whatnot, it's just what they promised, but we have seen many exchanges break their promises before.

I wonder how much Binance has sitting in its SAFU fund, and whether or not a part of it is sitting in altcoins that need to be converted to Bitcoin. Maybe they have already been selling alts to Bitcoin in the last few days.

If they want to recoup their $40 million loss they are better off launching a few more IEOs because these are the real money makers for them, or list some random shitcoins and tokens for an exorbitant fee.

If you want to turn yourself into a target for regulators, then this is definitely the path to follow. I find it quite shocking how much risk these exchanges expose themselves and their ignorant users to.

It's obviously a marketing stunt, but one that very likely will end bad for the exchange. Regulators might not be entirely up to date with everything related to the crypto world, but they do know how their legacy assets are regulated.

If it was a legal platform it would have offered a viable long term way to get coins off the spot markets, but not this way. We need less unregulated shit exchanges, not more....

It's refreshing to see someone that high ranked actually acknowledge the power of Bitcoin and crypto in general. I usually would say that he should f... offf, but I can't even blame him for being worried. I would be too in his position.

I am however of believe that the rest of the politicians do not see Bitcoin as a threat at all, mainly because of how it isn't a currency according to them, and it might eventually become worthless because it has no utility to utilize.

Politicians are more concerned about Bitcoin's energy consumption.

Binance is the overall leader in volume and users, but Huobi and OKEx are doing quite well too in the Asian part of the market. We here shit on these two exchanges but Chinese traders love them.

They provide Chinese customer support and seem to serve their traders well, which can't be said about their non Chinese traders. They barely speak English and it could take months to solve account problems.

At the end of the day, less exchange centralization is better, so I welcome new exchanges to compete with the aforementioned exchanges to have this ecosystem become healthy.

I am more surprised about the fact that it went back over $6000 sooner than I expected. The insane demand that came in the moment we broke $5000 was an absolute game changer for the short term window of the market.

Can we really consider $3100 to be a discount? Sure, now it definitely looks like a discount, but we hovered below $4000 for quite some time, which indicates that there wasn't enough demand at that point in time.

I tend to agree that it's very unlikely to see last year's low being retested, but I wouldn't mind being presented the opportunity to buy that level once again. I liked the accumulation below the $4000 mark a lot.