one thing it's true, if everyone will follow the OP advice, the price can not increase at all, so his statement, based on this, is utterly wrong
the best thing to do if you have a low amount is waiting, leave the big players to play their dirty game
what kind of broken logic is this? if everyone follows OP advice the price will go through the roof. ever heard of supply & demand? |
|
|
|
BitPay's news is bullish a fuck. Consider this: the less success they enjoy means the less people are turning BTC for fiat.  |
|
|
|
The CEO fucks up and the staff gets laid off... how typical... punish someone else for his incompetence and lack of a proper business procedures. They have to make up for the $ 2 000 000 they lost, and the easiest way is to trim the least important people in the business. Their main problem is not the $ 2 000 000 ...It's their reputation that is shattered and how this once again taints the Bitcoin community with another scandal.  This has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I thought we had moved away from such broken logic after Mt.Gox. Fiat businesses go bankrupt and squander money all the time, this is no an indictment on the form of money itself. Yea, the main difference being that fiat is a established currency and Bitcoin the new technology trying to disrupt it. Every time a MtGox or a BitPay happens, the shills and the media jump onto this like flees on a dog. This definitely has a impact on the community.. like it or not... it's a fact.  It's a fact that intelligent people who would consider Bitcoin as an investment can see this drama for what it is: market participants incompetence. If that scares a couple of Jims & Sallies on the street from buying Bitcoin that does not bother me one bit because they wouldn't be buying for the right reasons in the first place and it is likely the value they would bring to Bitcoin wouldn't move the needle one bit anyway. |
|
|
|
I am in the same boat as you are and IIRC got into the game at the same time as you did. Don't sweat it for a second and continue accumulating. I know you are sitting on a pretty stash right now and I'd kill for this amount of BTC. If there is one thing I have to thank the block size debate for is that I barely watch charts or the price anymore. I could care less if we drop to 100$ tomorrow. Bitcoin is the only prospect left on this side of the earth for monetary sovereignty and unless you are going to drop dead in the next 5 years you are going to need it as we venture into what's likely to be a very turbulent next decade or two. . I suggest you watch this excellent interview for a fresh perspective on where we are at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUkYes, it feels pretty good to have a decent stash of BTC, even though they are currently in the red.... I watched the youtube video, and I would suggest that Trace is a very smart guy, but he doesn't really come off as being very objective... and like he seems to be pushing an agenda that is so much money driven that sometimes he seems to be losing some necessary compassion for non-monetary considerations and some times the necessity for collaboration and consensus,... even if some of those practices may NOT always be the most efficient way to go. Non-monetary considerations are the reason hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted as we speak chasing pipe-dreams of mainstream retail adoption. What he advocates is a return to the basics. An introspection into what makes Bitcoin great in the first place and how far we have come into picking the low-hanging fruits that will drive real adoption and growth as an economy. People tend to forget that this is what Bitcoin is: an economy, and an economy is not built on BTC grocery bags, fancy "killer apps" and "science projects", it is built on capital investment. I remember a talk from him back in early 2014 about how Bitcoin is a storage tank, others often use the term a battery, for capital to pour in from other markets worldwide looking to be stored in & benefit from Bitcoin's unique monetary properties. Some people have seemingly lost track of these properties and are attempting to turn Bitcoin into a payment processing business in which it has no chance of competing with the existing industry incumbents. We'd all love for Bitcoin to be ubiquitous as a currency but until a majority of people get paid in BTC and hold a considerable amount of their wealth in it these promises can not be realized. For very understandable economic reasons fiat will continue to remain the dominant transactional currency for years to come. Gresham's law will make sure of that and if we are to sell Bitcoin to potential adopters it should be on its merits as a deflationary store-of-value. Leave all that commercial consumerism to inflationary fiat currencies. "Fiat runs, Bitcoin rests." |
|
|
|
|
seemingly the same amounts being sold & bought repeatedly
|
|
|
|
The CEO fucks up and the staff gets laid off... how typical... punish someone else for his incompetence and lack of a proper business procedures. They have to make up for the $ 2 000 000 they lost, and the easiest way is to trim the least important people in the business. Their main problem is not the $ 2 000 000 ...It's their reputation that is shattered and how this once again taints the Bitcoin community with another scandal. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I thought we had moved away from such broken logic after Mt.Gox. Fiat businesses go bankrupt and squander money all the time, this is no an indictment on the form of money itself. |
|
|
|
The fact that the technology is not protected by some kind of copyright or intellectual property rights. This has opened it up for every asshole with money and a few good copyright lawyers, to try to patent it, and call it their invention. If this is successful, Bitcoin and all other innovation from it, will be doomed. Time will tell, but I think this is where it's going.  You guys worry about the most stupid thing... |
|
|
|
NO and never,
Im sure bitcoin price can stable at $220 above
$200/bitcoin is very cheap if you compare with mining cost
mining is not profitable if the price still below $300, i think some trader try to make bitcoin price broken under $200 It's clear that mining is still very profitable at this price or else you'd see miners dropping out the network and hash rate falling which is absolutely not the case |
|
|
|
With coindesk covering we can be more than certain that this is no longer speculation. What's up with BitPay though? Did the 30m USD investment they received more than a year ago start running out? Just too much bad news for them lately.
The problem for them is a two years bear market. No one can be bothered spending Bitcoin right now hence they have no business. The more general concern is that it is pretty clear by now that mainstream consumers are not interested in Bitcoin and perfectly fine with their fiat and credit cards. well who wouldn't since fiat and credit cards are easier to use at the moment. bitcoin still has a long way to go form buying and selling instantly. Fortunately commercial retail adoption is a marginal aspect of what makes Bitcoin great and useful and is absolutely not necessary for it to succeed. Bitcoin doesn't need a "killer app". It will grow organically as it has since its inception. The greatest driver of adoption will be socioeconomic and geopolitical events. |
|
|
|
With coindesk covering we can be more than certain that this is no longer speculation. What's up with BitPay though? Did the 30m USD investment they received more than a year ago start running out? Just too much bad news for them lately.
The problem for them is a two years bear market. No one can be bothered spending Bitcoin right now hence they have no business. The more general concern is that it is pretty clear by now that mainstream consumers are not interested in Bitcoin and perfectly fine with their fiat and credit cards. |
|
|
|
this is the bottom
X
Nice pic but what does your broad think about you posting that? You're free to post and stuph and all. Did she realize your epic status on a world-wide forum dedicated to disruption? she has no idea what i post. and does not care to know. I do not talk about bitcoin at all with her, this is like my secret identity. Adam, I think that you kind of know my story... No? I have been pretty much continuing to buy BTC and hold and I never really sell any BTC (except if I do sell any, then I replace them within days). You have been in BTClandia longer than me, but you said that you had bought and sold and bought before the last bubble, but then as prices were going down in this latest downward from November 2013, I think that you continued to buy and hold, no? Are you accumulating a fairly decent stash of BTC over these last couple of years? I feel like I have been building a pretty decent stash, and probably I have a few times more than I ever thought that I would because I did NOT expect prices to go below $500 or to stay below for very extended periods of time (like what has been happening the past 9 months-ish). Recently, I have developed various plans to strategically sell at certain points (by conceptually dividing my stash into three parts), and then I trade with one of the portions (and only specifically triggered at certain points), until BTC prices go up to trigger me to move to the other portion of my stash... my model presumes BTC prices will go up at some point, but continue to have some volatility.... I think that my plan forward is pretty decent... and yes it kind of presumes that the bounce out of this $220 to $290 price will be upwards, likely less than a year? maybe?? ; however, in the mean time, I continue to buy BTC (at least while the price is below a certain point), and if prices continue to go down, my plan will be to continue to buy, rather than selling any.. my selling behavior is only going to be triggered if prices begin to go back up.. .. hopefully some day in less than 12 months-ish, no? I am in the same boat as you are and IIRC got into the game at the same time as you did. Don't sweat it for a second and continue accumulating. I know you are sitting on a pretty stash right now and I'd kill for this amount of BTC. If there is one thing I have to thank the block size debate for is that I barely watch charts or the price anymore. I could care less if we drop to 100$ tomorrow. Bitcoin is the only prospect left on this side of the earth for monetary sovereignty and unless you are going to drop dead in the next 5 years you are going to need it as we venture into what's likely to be a very turbulent next decade or two. . I suggest you watch this excellent interview for a fresh perspective on where we are at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk |
|
|
|
News like this again and again. And people wonder why there's no mass adoption...
It seems like there are no success stories.
Gloomy
There are no success stories in broken business plans indeed. The writing was on the wall as to BitPay's eventual demise. They could only ride to coattail of the 2013 bubble for so long until people realized there was no point to buying stuff with BTC and everyone with brains recognized that the whole retail mass adoption was never happening. Why you ask? Well obviously because Bitcoin has a piss poor value proposition from a mainstream consumer standpoint. |
|
|
|
Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.
You love going around in circles, don't you? As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?  The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small. The XT #REKT event should have made that clear. Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin |
|
|
|
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.
1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while. The question is whether or not we have a choice. My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning. The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens. Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.
Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period. I believe this will not happen in the future. But time will tell. Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make.... By protocol fork, I just mean increasing the block size limit to satisfy demand. I don't understand how that implies "bootstrapping a new economy." Can you explain? Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin. |
|
|
|
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.
1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while. The question is whether or not we have a choice. My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning. The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens. Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.
Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period. I believe this will not happen in the future. But time will tell. Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make.... |
|
|
|
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.
1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while. The question is whether or not we have a choice. My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning. The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens. Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not. The problem with your logic here is that the users responsible for the majority of Bitcoin's monetary base are not deterred by or concerned with transactions fees. Therefore what you are essentially suggesting is that those users who are not comfortable with paying for the security and the services of the network would essentially bootstrap their own altcoin. Seeing as they are necessarily less wealthy individuals who'd have a hard time supporting an economy with their own pockets I'm betting they will think twice before doing this. |
|
|
|
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.
Emphasis mine. 1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while. 2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting  ) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.
There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin. 1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees). 2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain). The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).
As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty. 1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money. 2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain. The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it! Well put. |
|
|
|
They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry). For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries). If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone. Is Abra using bitcoin? I see they are using a blockchain, but don't see Bitcoin on their site. They are. The fact that they barely mention it is intentional as every operation and money transfers are denominated in local currency. They use smart contracts w/ derivatives to avoid value fluctuations. |
|
|
|
of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!? In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining. How has that worked for the last 2 years and a half? Again you ignore reality and make arguments based on fantasies. Governments couldn't care less about file sharing, it has no impact on their ability to govern and only affects certain industries. If you really believe that more Bitcoin adoption and therefore more challenge to the monetary sovereignty will not bring about more attacks and incentive to destroy Bitcoin then you are quite simply utterly clueless. It is not a fantasy to think that when more people learn about Bitcoin that some of those people will start to run full nodes, I even know people where this has been the case recently. Furthermore the node count has actually increased recently, which is a positive effect that has been brought about because we now have multiple competing clients. I'm ignoring you btw. Any conversation you are involved in is the same old boring story all over again. I can't be bothered with you anymore |
|
|
|
They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry). For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries). If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone. They aren't your typical remittance company. They have money, they understand the importance of physical locations. The plan is to replicate the hugely successful M-Pesa model worldwide but in a decentralized fashion. Some quotes from the CEO: Barhydt: "The Abra footprint needs to be more in the order of 20 to 30 million locations. Our goal is to build massive liquidity whether you're receiving a remittance or getting off a cruise ship, you can find a teller." Barhydt says it is creating "master" network to deploy around the world. "This is a multi-year excercise. It took them years to have driver liquidity."
They've recently raised an additional 14M$ and seemingly have a great understanding of their target market: Arbor sees huge potential for the Abra business model globally, but especially in China and Southeast Asia, which are traditionally large cash economies but leapfrogging into mobile payments and bypassing traditional banking and card infrastructure at an accelerating rate. Making cash mobile will unlock a lot of opportunities in these markets and across the region. They are IMHO one of the most promising Bitcoin companies out there. One which serves a true purpose and offers immediate value to their users. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
