It's easy talking at current levels. If you bought the dip at $13k and the price jumped back up to $20k you would be called an expert, but now you're a dumbo, that's how things go here.

If you buy the market down dip by dip, you should stick to lower buys and increase the amount you buy in the lower the price goes. I have been buying between $6-$7k as well, but with fairly low amounts because I didn't believe the bottom was in.

To give you an example: at current levels the amount I dollar cost average with is almost 175% higher than what I used to dollar cost average with between $6-$7k. The amount will keep increasing the lower we go.

As long as Tom Lee still thinks the 'true' value of Bitcoin is over $10,000 we shouldn't expect anything to change.

I want to see him regret every bullish thing he said about Bitcoin, consider it a ponzi scheme, and go back to his stock--traditional market analysis. He's not doing himself a favor continuing to be called a Bitcoin bull.

I find it shocking that someone with his level of market understanding doesn't see how a bear market within the crypto world isn't much different from traditional bear markets. The only difference is that it bottoms out sooner.

Traders don't really care what it is that they trade, or if it has long term potential or not, the charts is all they need. People somehow think fundamentals matter, which they do in the long term, but not in the short term.

You can have the best fundamentals just like Bitcoin has, but the short term market has been trashing even Bitcoin, so you have to be very careful when it comes to basing your trades on instinct or believe.

Being neutral is what I consider one of the most important aspects of being a trader. Even if it concerns coins you dislike, you trade them because you see an opportunity, and there are plenty of opportunities with crypto.

In general, before the fundamentals were as strong as they are today, you are taking a risk by allocating a certain part of your net worth to something you think might take off, but on the other hand could also fail hard.

In most cases it's a fairly small (5-10%) allocation, which is a risk worth taking, so people get over it pretty quickly in case it's a complete flop. I'm glad to say that those who did invest back then, have been generously rewarded.

Investing in Bitcoin today is way easier than it was years ago, so my respect goes out to any early bird that held through bear and bull markets believing in Bitcoin despite all the hate and trash talk it went through.

There are always people ready to spend their coins, regardless of what the price is. If no one ever spent a satoshi there wouldn't be any revenue being generated by payment gateways.

BitPay, while not many people seem to like that service because of their political position, has generated over $1 billion in revenue last year, and that while the price continued to go down month after month.

I'm not aware of what Coinbase generated in revenue last year from its merchant side, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is a few hundred million in total considering their level of adoption.

Them using a gmail address instead of a domain tied email address shows that there probably weren't enough funds available to buy an email package when they registered--purchased that domain, which is pathetic.

It's more than likely a noob waiting for someone with a decent amount of coins to make a deposit so he can shut it down and disappear. If anyone actually uses that exchange thinking it's real you're asking to get scammed.

It's one thing to use Yobit-like exchanges, but this obvious trash? Come on....

People think banks will have a hard time catching up, which might look like so initially, but whenever they start offering merchant side services, Coinbase and BitPay will lose market share for sure.

Banks have the best possible position to launch these services due to all the licenses they already have. They can also close bank accounts of exchanges just to grant themselves an even bigger advantage.

It wouldn't even surprise me when banks start setting up LN nodes to generate hub fees, and why wouldn't they? Banks can adapt to crypto just as easily as people here can adapt to crypto.

States haven't yet pulled out their big guns because crypto in its entirety hasn't posed much of a risk with how people mainly use it for speculative purposes. Only the most paranoid states act in advance, but they do that with everything.

On the other hand, I'm actually glad that crypto as it is hasn't been the currency we want and expect it to be. I prefer to see it gain more adoption in the coming years and then explode in their face.

I legit expected the US to be more hostile towards Bitcoin, but it has been doing relatively well in terms of being open minded. They probably know that there is no point in attempting to stop something that can't be stopped.

People also believed the bottom was in at $6000 with how it was supported for months. Most of them were so confident that they were already speculating about the next bull run and insane prices levels before the end of the year.

The mass in most cases is a counter indicator. If they are bullish, you should not be, which we have seen last year with how the price went down around 50% in a short period of time.

Right now people seem to be overly concerned and expect the price to tank hard (they speculate about a $3000 bottom, $2500, $1500, $1300, etc), which is reason enough for me to hope for a bullish move up.

While there definitely are plenty of similarities, I prefer to remain conservative. It wouldn't even surprise me if the whole year of 2019 turns out to be similar to what we are subject to right now, which are tight range movements.

I want to see new local highs instead of continuous lower lows, and as long as that isn't the case, there is no reason to be optimistic about the market. 2017 was a crazy year, so there is always a possibility to see lower levels.

Positive aspect is that most people do expect the price to go down further, which means that they may have sold in order to buy back lower. Once these people realize they made the wrong decision they'll fomo in again to not miss out.

Governments have always been one or two steps behind everything in terms of technological advancements. I don't see that change, so it's not that we'll be controlled entirely by our governments.

Bitcoin is an extremely powerful tool allowing you to take care of your own finances. As long as that is the case, there isn't much to worry about, so be careful when it comes to storing your coins on exchanges.

Governments can't take your coins away from you when you control your own private keys, but they can force the exchange to hand them over your coins in case they don't like who you are or what you do.

And technically speaking, having an exchange store your coins means that they aren't your coins anymore....

What's the point of making fun of OP? He's obviously referring to its use as a form of money and value storage in the more 'recent' times. I think your comment is more indicative of ignorance than OPs post.

Gold doesn't move as much as Bitcoin does because it's in a league of its own as developed and super liquid asset. Bitcoin isn't a developed asset, nor does it provide the liquidity needed to satisfy large movers.

Bitcoin has a long way to go to be on the same level as gold, but the possibility is definitely there. Just keep in mind that it won't be easy to shift from +90% speculation to something that's more focused on use and utility.

They do. Let's be honest here, people can hate on altcoins as much as they want, but Bitcoin's main purpose within this industry is to function as reserve currency. Everything is paired/valued against Bitcoin.

People trade altcoins to gain more Bitcoin. People buy Bitcoin to buy altcoins. It's a very important utility most Bitcoin maximalists don't see, or intentionally try to ignore because they don't want to credit altcoins where due.

Bitcoin isn't the all in one coin, so we're rightfully having coins as Ethereum focus on smart contracts and Dapps, which might be used more for gambling and games right now, but use is use at the end of the day.

Maybe I have been too skeptical about Bakkt, purely because of how they present themselves. I'll give it a few more months once the government shutdown is over for real and not just for a couple of weeks.

If they don't manage to launch before the end of the year, I'm sure that regulators aren't keen on their platform, and then mainly the reach and mass appeal they have. If Bakkt takes off, we can be up for a massive boost.

As for Nasdaq futures, I looked into what their futures technically represent, but can't seem to find anything that points at physically or cash settled futures. They say these are 2.0 futures, but what makes it 2.0?

Reminds me of how noobs usually react afterwards.

After the peak: I sold near the top.
After the bottom: I bought back everything at the very bottom.

In reality they burned themselves hard. People's reactions are quite funny when things don't go their way. Everything better than looking like the fool who didn't sell or buy whenever the opportunity presented itself.

He was better off using his Bitcoins to open a massive short position around the peak and have himself earn way more coins on the way down. He is a true believer of the technology after all, right? Right?.... Lol.

Currently the general sentiment amongst people seem to be that they do expect the price to at least test the $3000 mark. Considering how much we went down already, that would be a welcome change in direction.

$6000 was all about a bull run before the end of the year, and of course with people like Tom Lee speculating about $20k to happen you know where things will likely go. I was literally waiting for it to happen but hoped to be wrong.

We haven't broken through any previous lower high in the last 13 months, so we'll see when the market finally turns bullish, but I remain conservative. Want to see $5k, preferably $6k to be bullish again.

DEXs need time to develop. It will be a long lasting process because of how it is not profitable to put all your time into development of something like this. It largely comes down to volunteers dedicating their spare time to it.

On the other hand, it's going to be interesting to see how Binance's DEX will be doing, because that's basically the only entity with enough financial resources to push development through in a timely fashion.

Binance CEO seems legit interested in making sure that it works, so we'll see where it goes from here. Without the crazy hype in the market there is more manpower to allocate to fundamental growth, and that's exactly what we need.

I don't like blockchain.com solely for the reason of them not supporting SegWit, but other than that, it has been doing its thing extremely well and continues to attract new users.

Most people here will prefer to use a different client, but newbies are very likely going to use blockchain's wallet. It looks good, supports numerous altcoins, and newbies aren't subjected to toxic politics within crypto.

Electrum's mobile wallet client isn't as good looking, but provides one of the safest and fastest ways to import private keys. Perfect combination when you are using ChipMixer frequently.

Everything that's subject to speculation is volatile (even fiat currencies), the only difference is the degree of volatility. Bitcoin happens to be an illiquid asset, but with more legacy players entering the volatility will decrease significantly.

If we look at gold's market, it is in the very top of the most liquid assets in the world, which directly explains why the price movements are peanuts compared to Bitcoin. Give Bitcoin a decade or two and it will be up there.

By the time Bitcoin is stable and very liquid, you can be sure that most of the upwards potential is gone just like gold. Gold won't miraculously double in value from here, people anticipate on single digit % movements and leverage them.

It doesn't matter how rich you are or how well a certain business is performing, you always have to look at every possible way to grow your revenue and profit streams, which Amazon has to do in order to please shareholders.

The reality however is that Bitcoin can't even handle 1% of their volumes, which explains why there is no point in giving it a shot. To add, the speculative nature of Bitcoin makes people hold their coins instead of spending them.

If Amazon or any other similarly large scale business gets to a point it is interested in Bitcoin, it will come down to how LN is handling high transaction volumes. In a year or two it might be capable of that, right now it definitely isn't.