CAPITULATION now even the beartrolls think we are there  |
|
|
|
|
would be interested in OPs opinion about market now - were you collecting?
pretty much agree with the 2.0 projects - however they will not become bigger as the reserve currency
|
|
|
|
Tony Gallippi is just desperately trying to hype.
I wanna remind y'all that Barry Silbert said the same exact thing all throughout 2014. "I know that Wall Street is coming into bitcoin in a big way".
Guess naht lel
Hence the prolonged bear market and recent shakeouts. That is how Wall Street buys. this is the sad part of the story... what do the bears expect once btc has a proper regulation? they will hype the shit out of bitcoin and they are already slowly preparing. see the last posts of some well respected financial journals. |
|
|
|
|
today is the day when van saberhagen is talking about his whitepaper isn't it? anyone there?
|
|
|
|
|
your project is great but please do yourself a favor and overthink the distribution model.
there was this mini blockchain model which was also quite a good idea which was also years of work and was solely killed by the wrong distribution model.
I understand your sentiments regarding pump and dump but if your project is valueable the market does not really care for pump and dump, what it cares for is riks/reward and the core principles of these wonderful technology: they are decentralization, neutrality and innovation.
with a distribution model in which you control 98% of the coin you at least fail with the first and probably also with the second.
|
|
|
|
Daniel A. Nagy 3:00 PM on Nick Szabo's blog at blogspot called Unenumerated in May 2011, this snippet lifted from a conversation with Nick.
"It's not just deflation against which BitCoin is defenseless. Given the lack of feedback, it is just as susceptible to inflation:
Suppose that mining costs catch up with market price. Then, for some reason, market price falls as people sell off their BitCoins. Some miners stop. Some may even sell their equipment and quit the network altogether. This will not reduce the supply of BitCoin, just makes the system a bit more fragile. Those who stay in the mining business will see their rate of mining increase, and rationally anticipating further fall in prices, will also increase the rate at which they sell BitCoin, fulfilling their expectation.
People with BitCoin savings liquidate, some businesses stop accepting BitCoin.
BitCoin's market price falls further. The limit is zero. No feedback to stop the ensuing inflation caused by the general shrinking of BitCoin economy. More and more BitCoin chasing fewer goods and services (and currencies).
This is what I actually expect to happen after the current bubble bursts."
Damn. And he was totally right, the bubble burst in 2011, and that was the last year that Bitcoin sold for more than zero. well there is a feedback to stop it and that is the limited supply. the economics of bitcoin technology are sound especially when the price drops imagine an entity would set a buy wall of 4,2 billion dollar on an exchange - the price could never be lower than 200$ again. the same obviously holds true on every price level given |
|
|
|
|
the problem with valueation of btc is especially critical in this part of the forum.
every person spending a day researching bitcoin and its potential understands that it has fundamentals - it will just in one case be worthless, and that is the very unlikely case that it is dethroned as the cryptocurrency #1.
spending the second day using and grasping the concept, you will very likely understand that we are far away from mass adoption. - gavin put it the best way: he said it is an experiment and he will not tell the general public to use or to buy it at this point of time. this might change, but I think for the time being it is an experiment for geeks speculators and people trying to innovate the financial industry.
|
|
|
|
Anyone did in-depth research about:
1.) BitShares
2.) Stellar (Improvements/Changes) vs. Ripple
?
Thanks in advance for good answers.
1.) yes I think almost use the same system to reach consensus as ripple does. bitshares are a collateral - it can be used to back some other commodity/currency etc pp, which are basically lend into existence and are oversecured at (200 or 300%). the mechanism is from an economists perspective relatively sound and clever, while still having some flaws, which are well described here (a little uberbearish): http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/ until now the system did not have a black swan event (I think it is almost rediculous to call that event black swan because it is much more likely). I am not as bearish as prestonbyrne regarding the project, but it suffers from one big flaw: for me it was a reason to sell (almost at ath ). the mechanism failed (at that point of time) to incentivesize to use or hold bitUSD over bitshares as well as over normal USD. While the last seems relatively clear, bitUSD are not as worthless as it seems compared to normal USD, having advantages regarding holding, sending etc. pp. . the additional condition to the first one was that the system in order to be successful needs to offer a high level of liquidity, which I could and can not see at this point of time, given that it is a kickstarter as well as poor risk/reward and little incentivisation. overall the idea is brilliant, the mechanism is not bad and I will keep an eye on it (I would love to see a similar mechanism on top of bitcoin, which basically solves some of the problems bitcoin has as well as some of the problems bitshares has). it is definetely not the crappiest buy you can make, but I do not hold some. I think we will have time to see if it gets used, which basically offers a much better risk reward. 2) no but I would be really interested in that, given that one can assume that ripple (not ripples) at least partially starts networking |
|
|
|
6300 to 220 @ Finex  Cmon finex traders, show you balls and push china higher this time. Enough of their bear games The plan is to creep sideways and slightly down so that short sellers will take positions and then we're gonna pump 'til we squeeze 'em. I would say it is quite the opposite. we are waiting for more longs to open and then we will squeeze them like bugs on our way to 120 $. I wouldn't dare to open a long position (leveraged) in the current market. Doing so screams for an accident waiting to happen. Going in now is fine, but for the love of Satoshi, please not on leverage! This has been exploited by malicious actor's back when btc was worth $6 to $9 since when is the market driven by this leveraged trade? any specific point of time? |
|
|
|
|
when all 100m coins are created in the genesis block - what will happen with the ~98% that will not be released in the ipo?
|
|
|
|
this weirdo idea of some experts that bitcoin will be replaced by something better which we should wait for is so brutally flawed that I really wonder what they get their money for.
I see two spaces which will be filled by something other than bitcoin. The 2.0 smart contracts etc system (counterparty? etherium? nxt?) and privacy. Market-pegged crypto assets are another very cool niche as well. I love the idea that I can short the S&P 500 using cryptographically secure collateral in a trustless, low-risk environment. Or hold crypto-rubles or crypto-Chinese yuan. Market-pegged assets are just as interesting a niche as smart contracts. We just have to see which system can do it best. look - I hold even one of this smart contract tokens in quite a decent amount and had even a few projects more - the nearer to bitcoin the better. but if you really really break it down you have to ask - why use bitshares as a collateral, when it would be much easier to use btc as a collateral? - if it works they will clone it and use it as a sidechain, same holds true for obvious all other 2.0 projects. my argumentation for still holding especially the one I am closest to is that the incentive for btc to clone is low as well as it takes serious manpower to do it. if they fail to clone these projects early theymay have time to enter the space and embed into the industry. the core difference with monero or the technology is that bitcoin will have serious political problems to embed it into a sidechain once it is regulated. do you really think that any authority will accept an (almost) bulletproof private ledger, where blockchain analysis is (close to) impossible? as told before - there will probably be one big decentralised transparent ledger, which is very likely bitcoin. there will additionally be one big private decentralised ledger - this one still has to be found - I think monero is at this point of time the most likely. |
|
|
|
we can discuss shit about charts etc. pp. - this is maybe important for the liquidity providers but for the rest it is dust in the wind.
the outcome for monero will be binary. in 2-3 years it will either be currency [not neccessarily token] number 2 or it will be a-like-vertcoin forgotten coin in the history of crypto-evolution.
if it fails it will be interesting and long discussed why. Until that time I happily take the risk, as I did from the very beginning of the project.
Vertcoin and Groestlcoin = 99% identical to BTC except the POW algo Monero = 99% different including the POW algo Monero is a completly different being, it can only be replace by something better both in the initial distribution and in features, not an easy feat. exactly. the simple explanation for building a long term project in this strange environment with one dominant player is: a) finding a niche b) having developers which are capable of building the software properly c) evolution of an acitve community which is capable of building the first services d) having users (if a,b and c are fullfilled d is simply a consequence) monero is somewhere between b and c. but let me get this clear, once the niche is filled, the coin will not be replaced any more no matter how much technical superior the following projects are. - this weirdo idea of some experts that bitcoin will be replaced by something better which we should wait for is so brutally flawed that I really wonder what they get their money for. |
|
|
|
Regarding smart mining, I like to quote smooth; The vision here is a wallet that asks you when you want to install: "Do you want to devote some of you CPU power to help secure the network. You will be eligible to receive free coins as a reward (recommended) [check box]." Get millions of users doing that and it will drive down the value of mining to where neither botnets nor professional/industrial miners will bother, and Satoshi's original vision of a true p2p currency will be realized. Yeah, I've always liked this concept. I'm curious what the thought is on this smart mining though regarding nodes. In this vision, is this client mining towards the clients individual node? Or is the client mining towards a pool? Because in the second, we're asking a user to choose a pool... unless of course the program just automatically pings all available pool nodes and finds the lowest latency. Individual node, but we will have to see how that works out in terms of resources and practicality. We want to not only encourage people to run nodes, but also make it easy and inexpensive to do. There are pretty significant advantages in terms of privacy if you are running your own node, and if you are using this coin at all that's probably something you care about. is this actively developed or a long-term idea? |
|
|
|
|
we can discuss shit about charts etc. pp. - this is maybe important for the liquidity providers but for the rest it is dust in the wind.
the outcome for monero will be binary. in 2-3 years it will either be currency [not neccessarily token] number 2 or it will be a-like-vertcoin forgotten coin in the history of crypto-evolution.
if it fails it will be interesting and long discussed why. Until that time I happily take the risk, as I did from the very beginning of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
is it still planned to release the gui for desktop this month?
|
|
|
|
I think the comment section on those articles clearly show there is no going up for the value of bitcoin.
exactly complete saturation - every person got the concept |
|
|
|
|
the comments below the articles are pure gold.
the most challenging thing will be to explain the very concept to the masses
|
|
|
|
There should have been a thread like this for a long while.
Btw - what is happening with Darkcoin - I just changed one of my pots to DRK. I guess this thread is for me because I only own BCN and DRK. The website says it forked from BTC 0.9.3 but what further developments are planned?
DRK 'plans to' implement ring signatures, so it will finally have real privacy and possibly be able to catch up with Monero's advanced crypto technology. But that will require a very hard fork. can you provide a link? |
|
|
|
|
even though this is the trollbox
the difference between coinbases regulated exchange and the other smaller (do not want to be disrespectul) exchanges will be that it is embedded in a financial industry climate. it also does not need to be kicked off as gemini due to having a huge customer base.
but anyway
|
|
|
|
so the pump is over?
no it is starting after the kids finished their sheeping |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
