|
"Can bitcoin volatility be controlled" is just a subquestion of the larger "Can any volatility be controlled?" Short of fixed prices, the answer is no. The free market moves based on supply, demand, forward-looking expectations and many other facts. Further, whereas the government can "fix" prices through the use of force for some items in the real world (although, to limited effect), I don't see a technical way to enforce a set price on bitcoin. All the shortcomings of real world price fixing is amplified by the technical setup of a decentralized ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
What do you think of Bitcoin Cash?
Do you think it will have the same value as Bitcoin or it will be just another Alt. Coin in the crypto market?
The starting price is the very definition of speculation. I expect it to be highly volatile while people scramble to figure out if it will have any staying power. Some folks will rush to dump their newly acquired BCH trying to lock in the highest price they can. Others will be attempting to buy it as cheap as possible. I expect those groups, regardless of whether they think it will survive long term or not, to attempt to orchestrate a pump down the line. One thing for certain is all the uncertainty this scenario has created is not good for the ecosystem or the community, and I believe this is only going to increase the amount of acrimony between the two sides, because now they're competing against each other for legitimacy and there's literally billions of dollars on the line. If BCH dies off or stay irrelevant, no long term harm will be done. But I think the inevitable war between the two camps now is going to be very damaging for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Governments can't destroy cryptocurrencies in one swing, like it happened with private payment systems previously, but if major forces (the US, EU, China, Russia) would act together, they can make sure that cryptocurrencies adoption will never reach mainstream levels. The weakest link of cryptocurrencies is mining - if cryptocurrencies were completely outlawed globally, most large scale mines would be forced to close, meaning lower network hashrates, meaning it would be easier for governments to attack crypto networks with 51% attacks. But there are many reasons why it hasn't happened yet and unlikely to happen in the future.
I disagree with the emphasized part This is true only to a certain extent and (as it seems) only with regard to PoW coins. But even in the latter case, shutting down major mining operations won't change anything in particular over long times. Mining difficulty will readjust in a couple of weeks, and the efforts and resources spent to close down mining farms will be wasted for the most part. As to me, the weakest link is exchanges themselves since most people are there for profits alone, and shutting down them will have a by far more devastating and disastrous effect on cryptocurrencies than raiding mining facilities all over the world. That's why the introduction of decentralized exchanges (as well as some metaexchange embracing these exchanges) is so urgent nowadays PoS coins fall victim to the same problems as PoW coins without a robust and diversified mining base. In PoW everyone mines for their own profit and coins are awarded to those who solve the blocks, but in PoS everyone mines to keep the network functioning and coins are awarded based on proportional ownership of existing coins. In both cases, if you target the miners, the coin is in jeopardy. I fully agree with you that the weakest point is not mining though, it's the exchanges. If you cripple the point of exchange between fiat and crypto by targeting websites that allow for easy transfer, you can cripple the economy. It will stop new funds from coming in, and create price crash as people rush to get out fearing being stuck holding a worthless coin. Online exchanges more than anything have allowed crypto to grow to the point it has. |
|
|
|
I think that bitcoin can not compete with cash, because it's two different directions. They can exist in parallel complementing each other, but not destroying each other.
Are you discussing bitcoin cash or just regular cash? Because those are really two different, so different, things. If you are really talking about cash as in fiat, right now bitcoins can't surpass it. But just wait. Bitcoin cash on the other hand will never surpass bitcoins, I don't think it will ever be able to.I suppose this will come down to whether SegWit2x can handle the growing transaction volume. BCH's entire premise is that BTC won't be able to scale suitably, and that's why they split off, to enact changes the better handle growing transaction volume. It's far too early to tell if it will have staying power, but if BTC can't handle transaction volume growth, or the network becomes over congested like it was for a large portion of this year with sky high transaction fees, it's going to give BCH a large validation that the split was necessary and BTC didn't do enough to address the problem. Unfortunately, with the amount of money at stake in both chains, BCH is incentivized to try and sabotage the BTC blockchain at this point to make it unusable and drive people to BCH, thus increasing the value of the BCH tokens. I think it's more than likely that we're going to see attacks by both sides attempting to undermine the other, and that overall is going to be terrible for BTC/BCH and crypto generally. |
|
|
|
The federal government is no match for innovation. This is something lawmakers have always known, and it is the reason state and federal regulations exist. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations, resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade — which they will. This results in the over-regulation we see in America today. Nothing scares the government more than something it can’t control, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies — as well it should be. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Since cryptocurrencies allow people to keep all of their money, this is a big problem for the lawmakers. Soon, people may even start to realize they can buy, sell, and trade freely without any government intervention. The horror. ZerohedgeThis post is full of absurd premises. The government is no match for innovation. Government's role is not to obstruct innovation, your bias notwithstanding. If you view that as government's primary and intended function, you're not living in any type of reality that resembles the real world. But innovation, by its very nature, will always find a way around those regulations resulting in the implementation of more regulations for creative minds to learn to evade... The people actively attempting to skirt regulations are exactly the people regulations are designed to stop. Those people are the REASON regulations exist. It has nothing to do with "stopping innovation" and everything to do with stopping bad actors who harm others without regard or recompense. ... and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed this week that it is terrified of cryptocurrencies... Substantiation? Where does this come from? I bet wherever you're extrapolating from, the conclusion will prove as baseless as the rest of these ideas when you provide the context that brought you to this conclusion. See, all those lawmakers and bureaucrats sitting around regulating everything depend on taxpayer money to pay their salaries so they can keep writing regulations. Epic lol. Not only do you not understand the purpose of the SEC, the mandate of the SEC, or the historical reasons the public demanded the SEC exist, you seem to think their existence is predicated on writing regulations. Pro-tip: Congress creates financial regulation, and the SEC's mandate is to create rules to enforce the law that already exists. Your understanding of any of this is exactly what I'd expect for a reader of Zerohedge. |
|
|
|
If miners keeps support to BCC then for sure it will rise more then BTC.
Block size is larger then BTC and there are transaction problem occurs on BTC.
Lets wait and see whats going to happen but for sure i will buy on dips BCC
But the BTC chain which has segwit + 2MB blocksize (I know we have to wait a bit longer for those 2MB), and this results in a tx speed aproximatelly equal to a 8MB Blocksize without segwit. The increased blocksize harms decentralisation because nodes get more expensive, so increasing the blocksize is not the perfect way. Furthermore BCC has nearly no support and most people will dump it ASAP. Are you certain about this? It's a fairly important point, and if it's true, BCH's distinction about 8MB blocks is superficial and arbitrary and renders BCH pointless since there's no functional difference. But I don't know if that is actually true. I read that SegWit is supposed to clear up space for 60% more transactions, so if you're getting 60% more transactions per MB, it would only be a 3.2x improvement over the old non-SegWit 1MB blocks, whereas 8MB blocks are an 8x improvement. It seems that BCH does have more scaling power at the present by more than 2 times over SegWit 2MB blocks. Someone correct me if I've missed something. |
|
|
|
Any forecasts about BCC price right after split? Somewhere in future it may reach the point of 200$+ but not when most people just dumping this altcoin as a free money. We will se the good price only in some time (days? weeks? months? years?) only if it will be somehow tradable.
It's trading on Kraken, ViaBTC, HitBTC... Not sure about the major Chinese exchanges or Bitfinex yet. I'm on my phone now and can't find the ticker but it was trading at .08 (BCH/BTC) when I saw it earlier. But it seems no blocks have been mined on BCH yet. Anybody have a source for the current hash rate? Will difficulty retarget at some point? No blocks have been solved yet, so technically no BCH exists. Right now it's just a clone of the last BTC block that occurred before split and there's no divergence until there's a new block that differs from the BTC chain. All transactions on the BCH network are unconfirmed right now, and the trading you see on exchanges for BCH are futures, not actual tokens because none of those exist yet. Hashrate is unknowable until a block is solved as well, as I believe they can only estimate it based on the length of time it takes to solve the block at the known difficulty. |
|
|
|
As the saying goes, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater
But in this case this saying sort of works in reverse, i.e. instead of separating the baby from the water, you pour even more water unto it. Basically, you are equaling the world economic meltdown with the crash of the US dollar. While these two events are certainly intertwined (to a degree), I still wouldn't equal them. In other words, if the dollar slowly loses its grip on the world finances (just as it rose to prominence in the first place), it can ultimately disappear from the world economic arena altogether, and that would pass almost unnoticed. Obviously, no bitcoin will get hurt in the process
That's a fair distinction. If the dollar loses prominence over an extended period of time, it can disappear without much consequence at the end of the downward spiral. However, this would be a trend that plays out over decades. Any sudden fall would be too disruptive for bitcoin to survive. There has to be ample time for orderly transition in order for it not to be chaotic and disrupt the status quo. Any sudden fall would be disruptive for the whole world If we are to remain realists, there are not a lot of reasons why the dollar would crash all of a sudden, and most of these cases mean the meltdown of the American economy in the first place and the dollar going belly up due to that. Obviously, the collapse of the US economy will affect many countries, particularly those highly integrated with the US economy such as China and Japan. In short, Bitcoin's fate will be of no special interest to anyone if things start to develop this way Well that's been my whole point the whole time. And there's no one reason why the dollar would crash suddenly, but there are a lot of reasons why it could given the right circumstances, which are always unexpected, otherwise they could be planned for. There are plenty of powerful nations that have failed unexpectedly throughout history, that despite their enormous wealth and power, couldn't foresee or avoid their own decline. I don't see why America would be any different. The debt is a known issue, and it appears for now the most likely failure point. Default on the debt would tank the dollar, and despite this, nothing is done to address it. |
|
|
|
Like many powerful currencies in the past, USD may fall to ground too, my question is will that effect BTC value? Or is it independent of all other real world or non digital currencies of the world?
If USD falls, that would be good news to bitcoin. It means the price of bitcoin will become much bigger than the USD. If one exchanges BTC to USD, you will be receiving much more than when USD is very strong. It is not independent, the economic world affects each one factor playing in the field. If bitcoin is only rising because the USD is falling, that's a wash. You're not getting richer, you're just keeping the same wealth that you had. You may get more dollars back when you convert the btc back to USD, but since the dollars have depreciated and made everything more expensive due to decreased purchasing power, you've only stayed even. In order to actually get richer holding btc, the dollar has to stay stable while btc rises. |
|
|
|
that's true banks are already up with their huge empire which is spread over whole world. its still surprises me that many people still now didn't realized about it they where just helping those evil banks with their all properties and those loans. People nowadays can stand against us if they found that we hate banks. Its not that we hate banks in true sense we just love this new monetary system which gives us freedom to do anything
And yet more than 90% of all bitcoin purchases are made by using banking services. Kind of funny right? Would bitcoin survive in it's current state without banks? I doubt it. Just take a look at the price tanking when an exchange has problem with its bank accounts or deposits/withdraws. Take a look in the other threads where people are cheering a bitcoin bank. And they have cheered a lot in the past for a few so called "bitcoin banks" and we know how a few of them went... missing Right on. Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system. People think Bitcoin steals value from or competes with banks, but it's actually the reverse- the banking system allows Bitcoin to have value. When the next international financial crisis happens, people will flee Bitcoin for safer assets, and the price will crash hard. Nobody is going to run to a more speculative assets when money is disappearing from the international system. That expectation is crazy I strongly disagree with this point And you will have a hard time defending it. Since you will have to explain not some obscure theory but harsh reality. I've been always claiming myself that ideas that the banking system (or, more specifically, the US dollar as many here assert) somehow gives Bitcoin value is outright bullshit, but that was mostly all theory. Now we see this theory proved in practice. Namely, the largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex, has issues with USD deposits as well as withdrawals. In fact, you can neither deposit nor withdraw the US dollar altogether. According to your theory, Bitcoin should crash there since it is no longer supported by the US dollar, right? But we somehow see quite a different picture with Bitcoin steadily conquering new ATH's You take a small data point and try to extrapolate it to a macro-event and then claim your narrow view of things is proof of your point. In this case, you are trying to claim that one exchange with some technical issues should sink the value of Bitcoin under my theory, which either intentionally misunderstands my point or proves you're incapable of understanding it. See if you can spot the difference between your scenario, and the idea that a robust and stable economic system allows for speculative assets to have value. If you can't understand the difference, ask someone for help. When you understand the difference, maybe you won't post nonsense. Again, to recap, Bitfinex having issues is NOT a global financial crisis, which is the point you directly responded to by quoting it I guess you should rather try to defend your point Instead of claiming that I don't understand (or misunderstand) something and should ask for help. You basically claim that Bitcoin has value because there is a working banking system (wtf, I seem to have repeated you words one by one). As to me, this is the point you should specifically address first (before asking me to go for help or elsewhere), namely, how can Bitcoin get its value from an existing banking system if Bitcoin itself is a banking system in its own right? In other words, it can exist even if the fiat banking system dies one day, and this is exactly what happened at Bitfinex. Anyway, this exchange is the largest Bitcoin exchange out there so you can't possibly discard it as a "small data point" (in short, the gods are closer to you than you think). If it really were so (as you speculate), we wouldn't see the Bitcoin price rising half a thousand dollars in a matter of two weeks (and then consolidating there). This you can't discard either and have to address as well. To sum it up, you can't discard reality for your wild fantasies You didn't address anything of substance. You simply continued on without addressing the fact that you are claiming that trouble at bitfinex should tank bitcoin under my theory, which flat out isn't close to what I wrote. I said specifically, "when the next international financial crisis happens, people will flee bitcoin for safer assets, and the price will crash hard." You responded with 'but bitfiniex and price appreciation.' So would you like to continue propagating the delusion that bitfinex constitutes a global financial crisis so you can try to conclude me theory to be inaccurate, or would you like to let a little more reality color your views? It is not me who should address anything (in the first place) It is you who said that "Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system" (as can be seen above). This is what I disagree with and which I made clear in my reply. Now you flip-flop and start claiming that "when the next international financial crisis happens..." and so on. I don't think you can jump from your first claim to the other as easily as you do (since this is not what my point is about). For example, it is like claiming that stocks derive their value from fiat (while it should be clear that their value comes from the success of the companies behind these stocks) and then proceeding to claim that when a crisis happens, the stocks will plummet. They will certainly do (and Bitcoin will likely crash too), but this, first, doesn't in the least prove that their value all of a sudden depends on "a robust international banking system" (at least, not in any meaningful degree). Second, fiat itself will likely get heavily wasted in such circumstances (in terms of its purchasing power) with the "international banking system" disintegrating (in the extreme case). And, finally, this is not what I challenge. Anyway, stocks had existed long before there was any international banking system (or just banking system, for that matter), so there is no reason to claim that "Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system". This is what you should prove, not that Bitcoin will crash in case of an economic meltdown. Hope this helps As far as stocks go, since the market is a forward looking construct, stocks trade on anticipated future earnings. When a financial crisis hits and those future earnings are in doubt, stocks trade down towards their actual worth, and many times below book value. This is entirely different from bitcoin, the value of which is entirely made up of economic excess because there is no inherent value in bitcoin. The inherent value of the stock is the liquidation value. Trading above the liquidation value is speculative, which is why that excess disappears in a financial crisis. Bitcoin is entirely speculative. In a global financial crisis, the only people holding bitcoin will be those who can still afford to speculate, and stocks will trade near book/liquidation value, also with any excess by those who can still afford to speuclate on the recovery. |
|
|
|
that's true banks are already up with their huge empire which is spread over whole world. its still surprises me that many people still now didn't realized about it they where just helping those evil banks with their all properties and those loans. People nowadays can stand against us if they found that we hate banks. Its not that we hate banks in true sense we just love this new monetary system which gives us freedom to do anything
And yet more than 90% of all bitcoin purchases are made by using banking services. Kind of funny right? Would bitcoin survive in it's current state without banks? I doubt it. Just take a look at the price tanking when an exchange has problem with its bank accounts or deposits/withdraws. Take a look in the other threads where people are cheering a bitcoin bank. And they have cheered a lot in the past for a few so called "bitcoin banks" and we know how a few of them went... missing Right on. Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system. People think Bitcoin steals value from or competes with banks, but it's actually the reverse- the banking system allows Bitcoin to have value. When the next international financial crisis happens, people will flee Bitcoin for safer assets, and the price will crash hard. Nobody is going to run to a more speculative assets when money is disappearing from the international system. That expectation is crazy I strongly disagree with this point And you will have a hard time defending it. Since you will have to explain not some obscure theory but harsh reality. I've been always claiming myself that ideas that the banking system (or, more specifically, the US dollar as many here assert) somehow gives Bitcoin value is outright bullshit, but that was mostly all theory. Now we see this theory proved in practice. Namely, the largest Bitcoin exchange, Bitfinex, has issues with USD deposits as well as withdrawals. In fact, you can neither deposit nor withdraw the US dollar altogether. According to your theory, Bitcoin should crash there since it is no longer supported by the US dollar, right? But we somehow see quite a different picture with Bitcoin steadily conquering new ATH's You take a small data point and try to extrapolate it to a macro-event and then claim your narrow view of things is proof of your point. In this case, you are trying to claim that one exchange with some technical issues should sink the value of Bitcoin under my theory, which either intentionally misunderstands my point or proves you're incapable of understanding it. See if you can spot the difference between your scenario, and the idea that a robust and stable economic system allows for speculative assets to have value. If you can't understand the difference, ask someone for help. When you understand the difference, maybe you won't post nonsense. Again, to recap, Bitfinex having issues is NOT a global financial crisis, which is the point you directly responded to by quoting it I guess you should rather try to defend your point Instead of claiming that I don't understand (or misunderstand) something and should ask for help. You basically claim that Bitcoin has value because there is a working banking system (wtf, I seem to have repeated you words one by one). As to me, this is the point you should specifically address first (before asking me to go for help or elsewhere), namely, how can Bitcoin get its value from an existing banking system if Bitcoin itself is a banking system in its own right? In other words, it can exist even if the fiat banking system dies one day, and this is exactly what happened at Bitfinex. Anyway, this exchange is the largest Bitcoin exchange out there so you can't possibly discard it as a "small data point" (in short, the gods are closer to you than you think). If it really were so (as you speculate), we wouldn't see the Bitcoin price rising half a thousand dollars in a matter of two weeks (and then consolidating there). This you can't discard either and have to address as well. To sum it up, you can't discard reality for your wild fantasies You didn't address anything of substance. You simply continued on without addressing the fact that you are claiming that trouble at bitfinex should tank bitcoin under my theory, which flat out isn't close to what I wrote. I said specifically, "when the next international financial crisis happens, people will flee bitcoin for safer assets, and the price will crash hard." You responded with 'but bitfiniex and price appreciation.' So would you like to continue propagating the delusion that bitfinex constitutes a global financial crisis so you can try to conclude me theory to be inaccurate, or would you like to let a little more reality color your views? It is not me who should address anything (in the first place) It is you who said that "Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system" (as can be seen above). This is what I disagree with and which I made clear in my reply. Now you flip-flop and start claiming that "when the next international financial crisis happens..." and so on. I don't think you can jump from your first claim to the other as easily as you do (since this is not what my point is about). For example, it is like claiming that stocks derive their value from fiat (while it should be clear that their value comes from the success of the companies behind these stocks) and then proceeding to claim that when a crisis happens, the stocks will plummet. They will certainly do (and Bitcoin will likely crash too), but this, first, doesn't in the least prove that their value all of a sudden depends on "a robust international banking system" (at least, not in any meaningful degree). Second, fiat itself will likely get heavily wasted in such circumstances (in terms of its purchasing power) with the "international banking system" disintegrating (in the extreme case). And, finally, this is not what I challenge. Anyway, stocks had existed long before there was any international banking system (or just banking system, for that matter), so there is no reason to claim that "Bitcoin has value because there is already a robust international banking system". This is what you should prove, not that Bitcoin will crash in case of an economic meltdown. Hope this helps If you can't draw the line of reasoning between "a robust international banking system" giving bitcoin value, and an "international financial crisis" taking away bitcoin's value as being the same concept, then that's on you. You see, the lack of an international financial crisis and a robust international banking system are the in the same vein. These are consistent points in the same view. It's not a flip flop if it's the same view. I can only hold your hand so far along this intellectual journey you're floundering on, at some point you have to take responsibility for finishing it yourself. What you're currently in a tizzy about being a flip flop are mutually agreeable points of the same idea. |
|
|
|
The formula is very simple, do not put your eggs on one basket. In order to minimize future loss and maximize profit its the most effective way. Specially if you have large investments, good example for it is in altcoin trading do not just invest all your capital on one coin instead buy different potential altcoins. Even investing in different exchange is a good habit too.
Diversification helps when the correlation between the assets you invest in is low. This is not true of altcoins. Altcoins more or less constitute one asset class. When there is a blood bath in the markets (like today), all your coins fall in value. True, the people here think that "diversification" would mean to invest on different altcoins so when one goes down, there are others that might still be up. We're at a downward trend in bitcoin right now so all the coins have followed through. Diversification happens when your investments don't fall under the same category. So when you invest in X coin and Y coin, you still didn't diversify at all I essentially agree with what you said The point which I want to stress specifically is that it is of no particular advantage if you invest in more than 3-4 different classes of assets (which could be simplified to investing in just 3-4 different assets). If you try to go for more, you will be risking more simply because you won't be able to keep track of all your investments and thus you won't be able to follow the trends which these assets follow (read you will fail to jump the sinking ship in time). In this way, you will be effectively multiplying risks instead of profit opportunities (which is what diversification ultimately comes down to) I'm not sure who applicable stock investing translates to here, but many financial experts don't consider you properly diversified until you have 8-15 different stocks, across different industries as well. I wouldn't count alts as appropriate diversification. Crypto as a whole would be only one industry. As Bitcoin goes, the others tend to follow. |
|
|
|
my best investment strategy with Bitcoin is to store Bitcoin in a secret place. Remember storing Bitcoin is also and investment which can give you a much higher return then any other conventional investment. So instead of wasting your Bitcoin for mobile recharge or grocery billing you better store it.
I have tried p2p lending as well but most of the time people used to scam. So I am currently active in Bitcoin trading and storing which I believe will take my life style to a different level in future.
I don't quite agree that it is considered wasting your bitcoin if you use it as a currency, because that is what it is primarily created for. What I do is allot a portiin of my bitcoins for holding and a portion also for spending. If everyone just holds their bitcoins andcthere is nothing leftcin circulation, it would defeat the purpose of its creation. What it was created for and what it is used for has diverged. It was intended as a currency, but use and interest in bitcoin largely falls in the realm of speculative investing and profiting off price volatility. By volume, you could say that nobody seriously considers it as a currency. The business transactions it is legitimately used for are often to get around gambling restrictions placed on state-issued fiat currencies, or national anti-gambling laws. Most merchants who accept bitcoin only offer it to meet a niche demand, they do not hold or deal in bitcoins. They use third-party services to accept bitcoin on their behalf and instantly exchange it to fiat so they don't suffer any price volatility that plagues bitcoin I've been telling basically the same for years In reply to claims that Bitcoin adoption is "slowly but steadily increasing" between merchants. Nevertheless, having said that, I still keep to the opinion that the major cause for the lack of widescale and wildscale adoption is Bitcoin requirement to wait long minutes (sometimes even hours) before transaction confirmation. If Bitcoin would have been instant, that would help a lot in this aspect as well as help stabilize prices. Prices would be lower than now (for pretty simple reasons), but they would be more stable overall I would gladly trade the high volatility for a lower and more stable price. If I had the choice between bitcoin being trading between $2500 and $3000 and being between $1750 and $1755 dollars, I would take the lower price range. The difference is huge. I would be poorer in dollar terms by quite a lot, but the wild price swings in that scenario makes bitcoin relatively useless for commerce and business. Under the second scenario, the bitcoins are worth a lot less, but trade in a small enough range that they could be useful for both commerce and business by allowing people to have a reliable expectation of what their bitcoin holdings are worth. That's what I crave most from btc But the price stability is not possible without acceptance of Bitcoin by merchants and businesses So it is sort of vicious circle, i.e. Bitcoin won't be stable until truly accepted by merchants at a larger scale, but merchants are not going to massively accept it until it becomes stable on its own. That's why instant and low fee transactions are so important since they could, at least, theoretically, help break this self-feeding loop of instability. Though this is not guaranteed either. Businesses will go for Bitcoin only if it turns to be more usable, convenient and handy than fiat, not necessarily better than the US dollar (this is a tough task) but at least better than local currencies that businesses are mostly transacting with I definitely buy that t would help, but I don't know that it will ever be stable enough the grant large merchant adoption. Moves of a even 1% per mont would be too risky and hit margins. Retail especially is ultra competitive, and margins are so low that currency moves as big as a percent could sap all profitability. And I just never see Bitcoin being that stable. |
|
|
|
The inflation dude. The more you print dollar the less valuable it can be. Therefore, people do not want to print more and more money and if the government decide to do that, they are trying to against you
Exactly brother. As long as they print more money than the usual the more the money gets less valuable. The supply of paper bills goes high while the demand will be less because of the supply. The logic here even though they can print more paper bills, they will not do that because it just gets less valuable. In fact, all is not so simple. In many countries inflation is much higher and the local population uses the dollars to save their funds. This restrains inflation in America and so the American government can afford to print dollars in huge quantities without fear of inflation. Most of the money supply increases don't even come from the Federal Reserve but from fractional reserve banking. Banks take deposits and loan a fraction of it out, but the full amount is payable on demand to the depositor. There is now more money in the economy because of this, the physical currency exists that has been lent out, and the hypothetical currency the depositor can withdraw and counts as an asset. If the borrower uses his loan to increase the goods or services in the economy, the added growth pays back the loan and the money created in this system is warranted. If he defaults, that money disappears from the economy. When this happens on large scales, banks fail and we have a recession. |
|
|
|
this will be way worse than the ETH drama split.. just get your FIAT ready and buy the super cheap bitcoins, and wait for 6 months, and bam you are wealthy  Remember when everyone said that about houses? "Can't lose money buying house." "Houses never drop in value." "Just buy a house and wait for a couple years, then flip it and count your money all the way to the bank." It worked until it didn't. 2007/2008 was a rude awakening for folks trying to cash in with no work and little common sense. Don't be blind like those people. |
|
|
|
maybe Warren Buffet is secretly buying all the BTC.. watch out.. This will make our PnD altcoin whales look like little shrimp Warren Buffet regularly eschews buying any tech stocks because he says he doesn't understand technology and can't predict disruptions that could declare his holdings or make winners out of others. There may be others inside Berkshire who are willing to look at crypto, but I guarantee it's not Buffet and likely not Charlie Munger either. |
|
|
|
Hi All FreeBitco.in user, what is your highest continuous loss streak when playing "Auto Bet" Multiply BTC? Your Payout Rate is "2.0"? "2.1"? or what? Hope to get more findings.
Well, I lost 19 in a row today. Guess I'm just really really really REALLY unlucky. Wow... My current max streak loss is 15 in a row as in "clean" up all my BTC... Haha.. On a 3.0 multiplier I had a loss streak hit like 23 or 24 Interesting but not unheard of. The odds at 3x are 31.67%, so probability of failure on any roll is 68.33%. The odds of failing 23 times in a row then is .01571%, making the odds roughly 1 in 6,365. Slim odds for any one gambling session, but the longer you play, the more likely you are to eventually hit a streak like that. |
|
|
|
For me bitcoin has an intrinsic value because the sale price is definitely profitable for every user.
If anyone thinks bicoin has no interinsic value then why does one choose an investment against bicoin.?
Bitcoin is definitely not profitable for every buyer, and that notion is ridiculous. Anyone buying something and thinking there's no risk in it and only guaranteed profit is likely an investing simpleton, and large groups of people thinking such things is sign of a bubble. Tread lightly. |
|
|
|
Basically I do not know yet what it is bitcoin doubler, but it sounds will very profitable for us. But I wonder how it will work, whether it has a positive or negative impact on bitcoin for the future.
Splitting into two chains doesn't mean you're going to double your money. Each coin's price is going to be determined by market forces, and there's more of a chance that the confusion and loss of confidence associated with a split will cause an overall loss of value than it will for both currencies to continue to appreciate. |
|
|
|
Tom Lee was known as a permabull while at JP Morgan, and often criticized for overly bullish predictions. Now that he has his own firm, it seems his strategy is to grab headlines with an outlandish prediction guaranteed to get press. This should be viewed as nothing more than a publicity stunt to promote Fundstrat. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
