the way i see it

2016 the price did not drop below $300
2017 the price did not drop below $900
2018 the price hasnt droped below $6000

i personally never care for or check for the buzz of ATH (all time highs) as they are just temporary events lasting only seconds or minutes before correcting themselves. in most cases hardly anyone is ready for the event to actually take advantage of it.

most are not logged into an exchange at that exact second to be quick enough to type in an order and press submit.. and so 99% of the community never benefit from it ..
so why should we care. why should we highlight it. why should people hype $20k as if its (foolishly) an expected normal amount to then treat anything below it as a "drop"... it was not a drop. it was a correction

as long as the long term growth continues and there shows good support of continuing rise of THE LOWS compared to previous years. thats all that matters.

january, febuary and march. was a correction. then based on lows and support lines. april and may have seen prices break under previous support lines. which is where the "dip" is.

not so much an insurance company(government regulated). but a public body that can display they as a multisig co-signer have morals and rules to not spend funds themselves  and are not in cahoots with the exchange. usually this would be an pre-established entity who has experience and would happily register their location details to be handed court orders should anything nasty happen.

im not saying regulated registration insurance.. im saying public consumer protection insurance. which there is a difference.

regulated insured establishments are allowed to break the law, pretend they are bankrupt to not pay out and then go money grabbing
consumer protections keeps businesses ethical or suffer repercussions

after all. how many bankers went to jail due to the crises. and on the flip side how many bankers got more richer
where as if a business with consumer protection certification, would get court orders and bailiffs at their doors in a crisis

bitcoin insurance is a hard thing to achieve. many home insurers do not automatically pay out at request. they investigate and do accounting on the chance/risk that the insured person has not simply hidden the posessions to pretend they were stolen. which is harder to prove because a investigator cannot simply ask neighbours if they seen a removal van at the persons home. so i do not see insurance companies offering a personal insurance. as there are too many ways to fake a claim to get out mor then the person put in.

however
exchanges could decide to put their trade fee's into a trust (multisig) that is co-signed by an insurance company. where by to keep trade fee's down and keep the exchange profitable. can only access the fee's after 12 months of the trade.

EG
imagine in one day trade fee's totaled 7.45btc(Gdax example), over a year totals ~2,700btc
at the 366th day the exchange will get their 7.45btc. but could lose ~2,700btc if they do anything to harm thier customers

its kind of how silk road reportedly operated, by having a reserve/collateral. how how some fiat institutions are set up. though fiat institutions do not get their premiums back after a year, which is why trading fee's can be higher in those cases

do you support theymos's actions using bitcoin.org to confuse the users by manipulating the wording on the site and make them believe that bitcoin core is bitcoin

go check it out
https://bitcoin.org/en/development

check out the readme it asks you to read
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/README.md


have a proper read of it.. everything is pointing to core as
"Bitcoin Core is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency."
"Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers."

go on chck out that page. here is the link again
https://bitcoin.org/en/development
show me anywhere on that page that talks about alternate clients being the "security" of the network. then show me what that page considers as "security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers."
WITHOUT it sounding like that they are "other projects"(subtly hinting they are not part of the bitcoin protocol improvement, security, upgrade project)


and also go check what developers are told to do.
are they told to launch their own software and let consensus play out.. or sumbit code to core..



BLOQ, ive told you this before. i have even mentioned a couple names jgarzic and gavin A.. i have even questioned why your pointing fingers at ver when he hasnt even coded cash, and why your not even mentioning jgarzics name even after i have told you on many topics now exactly who is behind bitcoin cash, i even told you who paid BLOQ to create bitcoin cash. and why it was created.


its all drama. like the kardashians. everything ver has done theymos has done too. but dont you think theymos should stop his propaganda??


honestly. since 2013 core has lost its ideolisms. and i have not even bothered to shift my coins to give me any bitcoin cash though i know they pre-exist already. but i will say that in 10 months bitcoin cash has been accepted by many merchants and also priced itself higher than a few cents a coin so, if i was to base my opinion on the politics, they both have flaws and both dont have the ideolisms of pre 2013,

on other aspects like imagine in 10 years if a mining pools needed 2btc in tx fee's to cover costs once the reward:fee ratio flips. then
core would be 0.0005btc per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize)
cash would be 0.00003bch per tx on a full block (based on current proposed blocksize)

you are so amusing
ver didnt even create cash

you are well and truly stuck reading the propaganda scripts and just copy/pasting junk

BLOQ made bitcoin cash
atleast do some research.

oh and research is not reading reddit.

anyway you love scripts so much and you make people laugh with all the trip-ups you make. im guessing your day job is a comedian
anyways. have a nice time on the comedy stage. but in no way will you ever star in a documentary.

just a social drama face used to provoke debate and distract people from the real critical things happening. he didnt code any node is just part of a finger pointing campaign to reverse psych people into wanting to hand core and thus barry silbert the control they want

lol
you are just repeating the reddit drama script. you cant even see the wider picture.
the bitcoin cash deception instigated by barry silbert paid individuals is all ust social drama of illsion and finger pointing to try getting the community to say dont let X have it because it should belong to Y

lete me explain this to you in terms you might understand

when you were born. your parents did not sign a birth certificate for you. so technically you had no parents and no one was a guardian/custodian of you. you had no surname. you could live in anyones house..

later on you decided to live in the core household that was being financed by the barry silber family. although you had visits with other houses many people started calling certain people your mum and dad

your parents later on didnt want you to be a free person with no one controlling you. you were a rebel and knew the people you called mum and dad couldnt do anything
your mum and dad will still share a bed, and both will still get the same income and live in the same house. but they decide to do some fake drama campaign by dividing the house

where your mummy and daddy decided one day to split up. so that the courts would be forced to decide on a parent to become your responsibility. and you would finally be registered to someone as your custodian/guardian

they knew that neither by default gets custody of you via an amicable divorse. they are both equal divisions of you. but then your still not registered to a single custodian. you would still be free with no surname

so everyone, neighbours, friends and others around hoped things can be amicable and doesnt cause chaos for you and that when people want to talk to your family. they simply ask mummies side or daddies side.

but instead. mummy and daddy secretly agreed before the divorse to play some drama and be hypocrits and play games to point fingers in one direction so atleast daddy gets custody of you.

so mummy decides to act nuts and shouts out that your her child and only hers. she even says that she gave birth to you and has a trust that was set up of a large sum of money that proves ownership of you.

daddy pretends that he wa always around and as you turned into a teen he took over bringing you up and so he deserves the responsibility...


mummy =cash
daddy= core
your future surname=barry-silbert
you=bitcoin

you have no original thought you are just copy and pasting the same words. but fail to answer the questions

you do know what a bilateral split is.
and why its different to a unilateral split

you can try to deny the bilateral split. but thats just you. because the devs of both cash and core have publicly admitted a bilateral split occured

as of august both core and cash differ to the protocol rules, differ to the block structure, differ to the transaction types available, differ to the network typology of what was bitcoin 2009-2016

now try and answer with a post that does not contain any content that has been copy and pasted. go on try having an original thought and some research which you have then processed and can mention in your own words

thats the hyposcrisy though.. ver says there is no bitcoin cash there is only bitcoin
YOU say there is no bitcoin core there is only bitcoin

and who maintains what you call "bitcoin"..

hopefully you wont say that core maintains it
hopefully you wont say that core is the reference client
hopefully you wont say that core are literally the core/engine of the network

but if you think that core are the maiintainers then you like theymos are declaring that core is bitcoin... which is the same hypocrisy

describe what "bitcoin" is at a protocol level. EG what features and who coded those features. i bet you cant say its the random community of multiple different node client teams if you were brutally honest with yourself

maybe you should look into the handshaking preferences of Fibre and the DNS seeds.
do you know why core demanded other nodes to change their versionbits and their id.. ill leave you to investigate

also ask yourself with only 35% of the network running cores most up to dat version.. how did core start rejecting 65% of the rest
ill leave you to investigate

and yes trying to run a node by spoofing as a core client just to get acceptance, core treat as an attack. yet its core that have put up the barrier to stop other nodes just joining in


the thing is. reverse psychology your own statement
can theymos say that bitcoin core protocol is "bitcoin"

the truth is that theymos promoting core is the exact same argument as ver promoting cash.
to me its jsut far easier to avoid any debate, argument, misinterpretation and issues by saying when someone asks for bitcoin. you reply cash or core
much like when someone asks for dollar you ask US or canadian

but your article about the FM adoption is not how it really happened.
plus it does not relate to bitcoin...

but i do find it funny how you then use the article to pump your empty seatstead project which after 2 years has not even learned half the lessons needed to be learned 2 years ago.

your topic is actually not about FM or bitcoin. but a subtle advert for your cash grab. atleast be real about it

P.S if the seastead project had an ounce of real soul, moral and ethics of actually achieving something that could help the wider world. i would have actually been part of it and given the project many idea's to actually become a reality. but, nah. all i see is a money grab and no real existance of real plans beyond some glossy images and buzzwords. (even the images have flaws of basic concept design, thats how bad your ploy is)

imagine LN as DAB
and thats why segwit has the new address format of BC1q.. because LN is not a feature to make bitcoin great. LN is a new network where other currencies will use
litecoin=LC1q..
USD FIAT=USD1q..
GBP FIAT =GBP1q..

so dont think the devs are trying to strengthen bitcoin.. they are already stifling bitcoin by removin the fee priority formulae and causing fee wars
they stifled legacy blocksize by not allowing people to transact more than 1mb of tx's using true legacy bitcoin addresses
they are stifling efficient blockhashing speeds by not letting bitcoin use asicboost

thats right a new currency funded by the bankers behind cores paid devs will use miners that are 30% more efficient(secure) than bitcoin and allow more transactions than bitcoin

i BELIEVED that too based on the 2009-2013 network..  as consensus was one of the great things about satoshi's features he added into bitcoin
my belief then dwindled in 2013 once the rebrand to CORE occured and power plays started happening and core started wanting control


it would have be easy to follow any client. IF it was not for cores REKT, "fork off" bilateral split campaigns that literally treat core opponents as "network attackers".
yes anyone can run a sheep client to cores protocol. but dare anyone to start their own version with their own OPEN and UNMODERATED bips proposal. that tried to defy cores closed and modered BIPS.. you would soon see that consensus would be avoided by core and new REKT, "fork off" and bilateral split campaigns occur again. even if core only had 35% vote in its favour before their fake election trigger day

no they did not want to take over.
they wanted to use consensus and hope the other teams ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD included nw features so that EVERYONE on the network was on the same level.

it has only been core that refuse to be on an even playing field.
core literally called themselves core because they want to be at the centre. they want to be the engine that drives the protocol. its why they chose the name
core wanted any other dev team that wanted different features to fork off
core and core partners then instigated a contentious bilateral split to then say.. opposers.. you to to the left by using bloqs new fork while core go to the right with blockstreams new fork

xt, classic, unlimited wanted to keep a united single network.. but wanted features on that single network that core devs didnt want as it would cause issues for the cor devs sponsors who wanted bitcoins blockchain to stagnate to drive desires for LN to rise.
LN will be a corporate network worth billions. hense why silbert set out to pay blockstream/bloq devs hundreds of millions upfront to pave th way for it.

but im still laughing at how your trying to sway the attention back towards it all being about ver. even though the bitcoin cash code is BLOQ written and barry silber funded.
why are you so afraid to even mention BLOQ/barry silbert/blockstream

the answer to the why the AM/FM flippening occured.

AM was more wideband that was used to broadcast over large distances. FM was more localised. for instance here in the UK if your at the southrn english beaches you can listen to french AM radio stations. where as for FM if you drive just 20 miles out of town you may not hear your towns radio station any longer (unless they set up radio masts along your route)

many countries could only licence certain frequencies. and so if each town wanted their own frequency, on AM if a town wanted xxx frequency.. then that radio station would be heard hundreds of miles away. meaning a town just 100 miles away could not also use that same frequency because it would be cluttered by the other town. so allowing local towns to have their own radio stations were limited due to the clutter

so FM started to be more common for "local" radio stations and AM was used for "national" radio stations because the signal range(strength) of FM was less than AM.
back in the days before cellular phones. people used to talk to each other wirelessly via C.B radios. FM was used to talk to people locally and AM was for those who wanted to talk long distance

anyway. not sure why the FM/AM analgy applies to bitcoin. as i can think of better analogies

for us millenials wanting a comparison of FM/AM signals
FM=Wi-FI
AM=5G

.... and then i clicked the link and realised it was elwar trying to pump their FLAWED seastead campaign.... elwar. please please please tell m you learned something from the previous 2 years of you trying to promote the seastead money grab.

MEGA note to newbies.. we are NOT in the era of mining using PC's.. so its now based on ASICS equipment

the figure of venezuela's 'cost' is just the electricity price. and does not consider the cost of the ASIC's needed.
also its not really a geography lessoon its a math lesson

(note anyone that was following my asic cost/btc maths a few months back... ASICS were $3k a unit last batch)

for those that love math
get the network hashrate(30,616,246) based on recent stat on
https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate

get the price of a S9 ($3000)  - - previous batch
get the price of a S9i +PSU ($938)  - - next batch delivered June
https://shop.bitmain.com/?lang=en

then basing it on a 1 year longevity of the s9 before upgrading
knowing bitcoin makes ~1800btc a day *365days
=657000btc/year

30,616,246 /14 = amount of asics running the network
=2186875 asics

cost of all asics
previous batch=2186874.714285714*3000
=$6,560,624,143

next months batch=2186874.714285714*938
=$2,051,288,482

then cost per 1btc can be worked out
$6,560,624,143/657000= cost per 1btc previous batch
=$9985

$2,051,288,482/657000= cost per 1btc next months batch
=$3122

excel
cell A1=hashrate in terra hashs
cell A2=cost of s9
cell A3=(((A1/14)*A2)/657000)

...
i based my costs/btc to estimate bitcoins base level value support on the previous batch, which in the last 3 months of hashrate variance. put the value between $6523 (excel A1=20000000 A2=3000) and $9784 (excel A1=30000000 A2=3000)
which seemed to be the area that bitcoin was trading at $6523-$9787 (so i was happy with that). because of course miners would be stupid to sell for less, so yes they would have a support line at their cost

without knowing the future hashrate for when the june batch arrives. i wont attempt to estimate the 'cost'/btc in the future. ill leave that for speculators

 i can see some pools who already might have received privelidged access to the new batch are reaping the benefits which explains why the exchange price supports are going down below last batches 'cost'/btc

.. but i will say as ASIC farms update thier equipment as old equipment fails/farms expand and re-acess their costs. if the whole network was to do a complete swap out in june(not gonna happen that quick so relax) then by time they are all running, then.
the hashrate would need to be about 60exahash(60m terrahash) to keep a mining support above $6k/coin
the hashrate would need to be about 90exahash(90m terrahash) to keep a mining support above $9k/coin

but again. without knowing how many asic farms will switch in june. and what the actual hashrate would be.. ill leave the future price support lines to speculators to estimate

trolling against buffet. saying he is wrong is the worse strategy ever.

first of all it was the interviewer that brought up the word "rat poison". by quoting charlie munger from 5 years ago

fox news interviewer: "about 5 years ago we asked charli munger who was sitting right there when talking bitcoin, and he sais 'rat poison' back then it was about $100+, now its sitting at $9000, is it still rat poison?"
buffet "well probably rat poison squared"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mldCPQ4ypYM

firstly
100*100 = (X²) = $10k .. so his maths is near, if like him you like to round up

secondly
bitcoin is rat poison. if you know who the rats are.

thirdly. buffets maths proves he love poison..  Roundup^(R) is a weed poison


..
later on buffet explains that bitcoin is an asset. but is not a productive asset like a farm. where you can hold X(farm) and each year it also produces Y(corn) meaning you can sell Y and still hold X and profit even more when you finally sell X
bitcoin is like a gold asset where you hold X(gold/bitcoin) and while holding X it does not produce Y, but you can profit if you can sell X(gold/bitcoin) for more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtITDtZPYEw
the interviewer mentions charlie mungers updated thoughts on bitcoin. whereby charlie munger calls bitcoin a turd.

which. in crypto. there are many turds(crapcoins) which have no purpose or desire and just get excreted out in the hopes someone else will be left holding a bag of turd(crapcoins).

so this is why bitcoin needs to keep its original ideolisms, purpose, function. which is to be a open barrierless option to oppose fiat.. not to simply become fiat. because if bitcoin becomes fiat, why would people use it.

lets take gold.
ys gold has purpose EG jewellery, curcuit boards.

but do you know why gold ounces cost $1k instead of $1. because on average it costs $1k+ to mine anounce of gold.

if gold could be mined for $1. gold miners would sell it for $1-$2 and be mining happily all day long. knowing people are there to tak gold off their hands to pay for the labour of extracting gold

same goes for bitcoin.
it costs many thousands to mine one btc. and bitcoin miners wont sell thor coins for much less than it cost them to mine it. infact most pools hoard coins and wait it out for the price rise until its worth selling. and thus the price averages out to be around the cost of mining +/- some speculation

though bitcoin also had alot of purpos ideolism and function in 2009-2013 which has reduced since that period. it still does have some function.
thus bitcoin does have intrinsic value thats made up rcently more so based on cost of production and a bit based on function.

but with that said its important to ensure bitcoin has purpose/function and not be treated as just a "store of value" as its sole purpose because "store of value because store of value because store of value" is not a sustainable sole purpose.. so not only thinking about the cost of mining and store of value we need to kick the devs ass to concentrate on bitcoins mainnetblockchain function. and less on the side services that will eventually also be used for other currencies and thus not be something unique to bitcoin

anything can be currency

cigarettes in prisons is a currency. bers for doing  a friend a favour is a currncy. even sex is a form of currency.
what th OP does not understand is that currency is an umbrella term.

below th umbrella term are subcategories. such as bonds/stocks..  shares.. FIAT.. commodity.. assets

what the OP should have said is bitcoin is not legal tender(a countries fiat) or that bitcoin is not 'money'
money is a subcategory of currency.

but by the OP arguing about "currency" means he has not grasped the basic concept. infact it seems the OP just grabbed from test from another source and didnt even vet it or even think about it.

spoofing is illegal if it involves putting in FAKE orders where the account holder(s) never deposited that much currency to be able to honour the orders they put

however
putting in orders that are backed by the account holder actually having the funds to cover the order is not illegal and is not spoofing.

so as long as those that set up large walls to cause a bit of psychological change of trading decision. then thats just part of trading

what your mistaking is that the regulations have not actually changed. government regulations are just ensuring that businesses handling fiat as part of their business get registered as money businesses.

this is rules that have been around for decades.

as for any new changes like the bitlicence.. this has not been a removal of a barrier. it has been creating a barrier not by government but by local area agencies. i guess you dont want to talk about or reveal the number of bitcoin businesses that have stopped serving american/NY customers due to it.

also regulations are not good for users. a regulation is not really a consumer protection.. its not where government polices a business. a rgulation is allowiing a business to operate if the business writes its own policy on how that business will police its own customers. and then charge that business a huge fee for the right to operate and police its customers.

yea yea, you are going to spew nonsense and alot of hype that being "regulated" is like being given a nice shiny gold star that says "we professionals" but in reality its not really worth the paper its printed on

if the government actually cared and were super positive and wanted to do something to help reduce crime and reduce corruption. they would make new consumer protection laws. and then a business with consumer protection insurance and meeting certain consumer quality care standards would get a badge that meant something.

but yea. you will just say anything to hyp something just to try getting the price up.. but not care about the infrustructure, utility/purposes of bitcoin.

again .. if people stopped thinking of the greed of a price rise. and thought about the sustainability and utility/function/purpose. which would then make for a maore stable and healthy long term investment. things would be different.

but all im readiing is hype, hiding flaws hoping it will cause just one more ATH so those already invested can exit with more FIAT than they entered with.
if your only measure of success is hiding flaws in the hopes of hyping a price. then you have the mind of the greedy. which is not sustainable