|
The reality of the situation is there is no "free" market. Every government has its own regulations that sets the rule of the game. We have regulations on taxes, monopolies, banking..etc. These regulations are meant to keep the market as free and as safe as possible. There will always be a trade off but with enough adjustments and trial and error a balance between "free" and "safe" is possible.
The same is possible and needed with bitcoin. We need regulations to keep it safe and "free".
|
|
|
|
|
It just shows how little of the population truly understands bitcoin and its economy. The 20k peak probably attracted lots of people who dont really know what they're doing and are just in it for the quick buck. They're obviously most susceptible to fuds. The reality of the situation is a sudden growth is never sustainable. Every time it would happened there will be a correction. Enjoy it while it lasts but dont panic when it ends.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think it's much of a factor as other world events. Recently, the stock market has also been crashing. Maybe that's a more relevant factor. BUT if it it did have any correlation, i agree with the other posters. Chinese new year would just encourage them to spend thus converting their BTC to fiat
|
|
|
|
some people believe hold and buy back, some people believe that the hold is not the best option and selling will prevent you in losses.
differences of opinion and confidence always occur in a discussion forum. the most important thing for me is the future of bitcoin and other crypto, not just about price, but its technology in the future and its useful evenly in real life.
we can all see and feel what's happening right now, the choice is in our hands and you should not regret the choice you have taken.
Well said. Addition to the future of crypto, id like to see blockchain applied everywhere. Regarding the discussion on bubble vs not bubble, really there are evidences that support both claims. It's logical to think either. But for me the most important evidence is its use. Right now its not yet widely accepted. There are only a few people using it. So really we're just at the beginning. IF it's a bubble, it's nowhere near bursting IF it's NOT a bubble then there's nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Almost all governors against crypto for tax and other reasons. they want control people.
Yes you are right, the only reason for cryptocurrency not to be accepted by the government is because they want to control people, if people will work at home to earn cryptocurrency then they will probably get wealthy in an easier way and the corporate world will lose its workers. Aside from control of the people, it's also want control of their financial institution. Bitcoin right now can be a wildcard. It has the power to change the economic tides or it could be very much be nothing. Their justifications are typical though. Terrorism, drugs, money laundering... etc. Since when did regulations stop those guys  |
|
|
|
|
It's too early for it to be over. Adoption isnt even mainstream yet. Be worried if 100% of the population is using it and yet the value is still dropping. That means something is wrong. Right now, there are a few people who are using it. The few cant simply assign value for it. I know it sounds like im talking about it like it's a pyramid scheme but what im talking about is, unlike a pyramid scheme, we dont know what bitcoin could be yet. It's simply too early to tell and thus too early to assign value to it. You'll be seeing the prices spike and drop. That's just it correcting its value.
|
|
|
|
That is the society in which we currently live: Power is in the hands of a few and where the social structure is based on depositing trust in guarantor and centralized organisms, outside of them, is unthinkable. Politics, laws, FREEDOM, communications, TRUST, INTEGRITY, HONESTY, BUSINESS, production and distribution, at the speed of electrons, in the hands of the people, and not only of authorities. Centralization is inefficient, bureaucratic, and concentrates power in a minority elite. However, an analogous society was required for our evolution, but it is no longer necessary in the digital world where cleverly used technology returns power to people, and generates trust and cohesion in a more agile and effective way.
Society 3.0 does not need oppressive entities that limit its action, by itself it regulates itself and discards what does not allow its development. This is blockchain.
In Switzerland, there is a government of course, but when they want to introduce a new law, regulation, etc, do you know what they do? A referendum and every citizen is welcome to give their vote on a particular proposal to say yes or no. They have a referendum on almost anything. So a society without a "Power is in the hands of a few" is possible, but if the citizens don't really care then there is not much to do BTW, I just finished to read the article on futurism.com posted in the OP, it's a very good article to read. Im not familiar with the process in Switzerland so i dont know how effective that is in practice. It sounds good though. In other countries, i think that system is somewhat implemented through democracy. People vote for politicians who they think would be a good representative for their interests. But that system is flawed. It reality policies still reflect the best interest of the top powerful people. Trump's new taxation is evident to this. A fair referundum might solve this. In such a way that each person's interest is equally represented. This might work in a rich country where the middle class is majority. If something like this is implemented in a poor country, extreme socialist laws might occur in favor of the poor majority. I know that sounds kind. In a perfect world, i want laws that favor them but the reality of the situation is money comes from the higher classes. If we implement policies that kill the high classes the whole system will collapse. There must be a balanced policies for both ends of the spectrum |
|
|
|
|
No. In my experience it's not even mainstream awareness yet. Most people i meet regularly have no idea what it is, but they may have heard of it. Other than my first hand experience, you could easily check its traffic. If it were mainstream we'd barely be able to transact. Additionally, I would say that the volatility of its price is an indication that it hasnt reached mainstream yet. If it were mainstream, the prices would be more stable as people would have already agreed upon its value.
|
|
|
|
|
Other than through the mentioned media, i guess one way to do it is to focus on the science and economy behind it. Since we're dealing with "currency" (or asset) it cant be helped that some people would think this whole system is a scam. It wont be easy to convince them that it isnt a scam just by talking about first hand experience but if you explain to them its technology and the problem its solving in soceity then maybe they'll realize it's a real solution to a problem and it's not a scam or a bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
If we "speak" of future, it's hard to tell. Currently they play a huge role, but i dont think that will last. Their very government threatens its existence on their territory, which disables them from competing against other emerging countries. I think you should look at power prices in different countries. Whichever country who offers the cheapest power will probably be a big influencer of crypto in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't blame them. Maybe they have a huge stake in them. The truth is the risk we have varies person to person. If circumstances dictates you panic sell, you should. It's not so bad though because misfortune of others is potentially opportunity of some. Those who have weak hands sell and those with strong hands hold. One of these days, if a true crash comes, those who sell will have the strong hands. Let's hope we'll always be the one with the strong hands!
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion its high volatility comes from the shroud of mystery behind it. What plays a role in volatility is its supply and demand. There are many factors that would affect that but ultimately what decides it is the value people would give it. Because it's a relatively new technology, it's hard to put a value to it. What it is and what it could be varies person to person. It could be the currency of the future, or not. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Other than selfishness and quick profit, i think one good reason is that high prices means it will attract more attention to the public. Now i do get that could be a double edged sword, as attention would either get it regulated but it could also potentially be the next step to society accepting crypto currencies. More people would accept it, more exchanges would open.. etc. And that would make our lives easier.
|
|
|
|
Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind.
That's probably a criticism most long-time students of social and economic science will acknowledge to some extent! They do not yet embark on "serious case studies" using the same lenghty rigours of their more hard science counterparts. Another shortfall of all economists is their predilection for the old, existing economic models which simply do not lead us to correct results because of the mistaken basis of rational theories... and we keep learning the lesson that humans are anything but rational. I like how you noticed this non-centralistic interventionism (oh my gosh, what an oxymoron, but I think it is indeed true) as something new. Yes, blockchain, liquid democracy, equal money, basic income - those are all instruments towards the better future.
All of us that want a better world have leanings toward socialist tendencies. It's pity that humans spoilt the term socialism for everyone as it is nowadays mostly seen in a negative light. I am not against capitalism neither. It was Bill Gates that said - capitalism is a great thing because without it he would never be able to start from the garage and become a billionaire. We need a hybrid, much like Keynes proposed, but the Keynes based his idea on old economic theories and we need new ones.
Yeah... it's 2018 but my government, for example, still considers socialism taboo, we still run state-made documentaries on TV about how dangerous it can be (generously, erroneously plastering the communist label of course). Then again the same documentaries feature a collection of burning portraits of Marx, Attaturk and Darwin, so I guess no one buys the message! I dont have much background in economy so forgive me if im making dangerous assumptions. I dont think intervention should come as something that would force people to abandon a system to adopt a new. I think intervention should come as policies that would excite competition. Because competition would naturally make people adopt a better system. For instance in the present, we dont want to make people abandon the current traditional banking model, let them realize its shortcomings then maybe they;ll switch to cryptos.
As for socialism and capitalism-- I do like the idea of socialism but no one has ever successfully implemented it. I dont think it will work in the real world because it doesn't give much incentive to innovate, unlike capitalism. But then again, capitalism is the source of centralized power and the uneven distribution of wealth. It's a system where the poor keeps getting poorer and the rich keeps getting richer. I do agree with you, a hybrid model is very much needed. We need capitalism to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation and socialism to give the less fortunate equal opportunities to be a competitor.
Like dado says, there is no black and white, and hybrid or mixed concepts are what is practical and in fact already in use all over the world. We can see outwardly capitalist regimes with strong socialist desires at heart (I point at West Europe and how since mid-200s all have come to embrace universal healthcare, for example). On the other side of the world, we see staunchly socialist goverments practise all out capitalism. One mention of China and everyone in the Speculation thread wrings their hands. True. I see socialism and capitalism as a spectrum. Extreme Capitalism widens the gap of the upper and lower classes while extreme socialism leads to stagnation of innovation. You really need both. |
|
|
|
|
As far as i know, nothing "new" happened that hasnt happened before. Regulators kept on regulating, china keeps on banning and so on... Sure all these events caused the prices to drop, as it had the first time it happened. So i think it's logical to assume that it wont fall forever as of now. Plus on the technological side, nothing has changed that i would consider alarming. The technology is as strong as it was.
|
|
|
|
I won't pretend to understand much of the deeper academic disciplines (even if am familiar with at least Keynes) but I guess this is the reason why some economists can't see blockchain as a mere disruptive tech but a foundational one, a building block (no pun intended) upon which emerging industries will establish themselves. Bitcoin was very ideological, but perhaps deliberately left out certain economic aspects of serious consideration. But I think decentralisation allows or in fact encourages diverse reactions to the free market - so even intervention and attempts to influence is a natural product of that, simply that anyone is free to do so and none represent a central authority. We can see this happening within Bitcoin itself, even though it is barely ten years old. We've got people like the Bitcoin Foundation advocating their views, we've got the Global Blockchain Council exerting their influence right now even within the EU parliament, we had the miners backing the NYA last year, and eventually abandoing it. All are interventions, but none of these actually representing a still very much decentralised network.
P.S. I'd guess I have a leaning towards socialist tendencies. Like Keynes, I think the survival of the fittest cannot be applied to our society because that simplistic nature does not extend to intelligent species, even if it governs basic sentience.
Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind. I like how you noticed this non-centralistic interventionism (oh my gosh, what an oxymoron, but I think it is indeed true) as something new. Yes, blockchain, liquid democracy, equal money, basic income - those are all instruments towards the better future. All of us that want a better world have leanings toward socialist tendencies. It's pity that humans spoilt the term socialism for everyone as it is nowadays mostly seen in a negative light. I am not against capitalism neither. It was Bill Gates that said - capitalism is a great thing because without it he would never be able to start from the garage and become a billionaire. We need a hybrid, much like Keynes proposed, but the Keynes based his idea on old economic theories and we need new ones. I dont have much background in economy so forgive me if im making dangerous assumptions. I dont think intervention should come as something that would force people to abandon a system to adopt a new. I think intervention should come as policies that would excite competition. Because competition would naturally make people adopt a better system. For instance in the present, we dont want to make people abandon the current traditional banking model, let them realize its shortcomings then maybe they;ll switch to cryptos. As for socialism and capitalism-- I do like the idea of socialism but no one has ever successfully implemented it. I dont think it will work in the real world because it doesn't give much incentive to innovate, unlike capitalism. But then again, capitalism is the source of centralized power and the uneven distribution of wealth. It's a system where the poor keeps getting poorer and the rich keeps getting richer. I do agree with you, a hybrid model is very much needed. We need capitalism to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation and socialism to give the less fortunate equal opportunities to be a competitor. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how he was able to go 27 countries. Seems like he struggled though In the near future i hope atleast one country in the world would adopt bitcoin. There are still a lot of problems that has to be addressed. If a country's going to adopt it, more likely than not there's going to be taxation. Plus the scalability problem that's bottle necking the transaction speeds must also be addressed. (go lighting network!). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin should be advertised across the world, not just the negativities about it but also the technology behind it, as well as the infinite potential of it to become tomorrow's money system. What's pulling bitcoin down is the fear being spread like a disease which most newbies in the market do not understand causing them to panic sell. We can help nurture bitcoin's growth by not letting this golden opportunity to buy BTC at a discounted price.
I completely agree. I think what would compel bright people the most is the understanding of the technology instead of get rich quick stories. One of the problems BTC is facing is that not many people appreciate the value of the problem it's trying to solve. BTC is trying to solve trust and eliminating 3rd parties. It's trying to decentralize power by giving anyone a piece of it. |
|
|
|
|
Currently it's in bad light because of recent events. But i dont see any reason why it would die anytime soon. Despite the drop it's still at a high value. It's still a strong technology and new features are expected to come out such as the lightning network. There are still so many things to be optimistic about. The 20k$ peak, recently brought in so many new investors who probably dont understand fully what they got into. Then the media came with a storm of bad news. Obviously these new investors who has no clue what they're doing would sell and flood the market with supply. Thus the drop. But there are still so many people willing to invest.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's safe to assume that not everyone who trades in bitcoin believes in it. You're right most people dont do their own reading. A lot of people are just in it for the easy bucks. They dont bother to understand what BTC is or its implication in society. It is possible those people who panic sell because of a single bad article are part of the population that are just in it for the short term run.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
