BTG is pure Garbage!
Bitfinex is also pure garbage. I created a BTC Withdraw on 23rd. The Withdraw was processed on 25th. Guess what... No BTG!
Beside that, I had never a withdraw from finex beeing processed faster than 2 Day´s, although it gets confirmed Immediately.
And meanwhile the Price of BTG goes to Zeerooo!
Kind of difficult to believe you about any of this when you are seeming to engage in such exaggerations. Sure, I am not happy that I got kicked out of Bitfinex as a USA related person, and I am not happy that Bitfinex did not allow any adjustment of withdrawal fees; however, in the past weeks, I engaged in a large number of withdrawals from Bitfinex -both large quantity and also several transactions, and they did not diddly dally on any one of my withdrawals. My BTC were withdrawn in 8 parts, and I also withdrew (in one part each) Monero, LTC, Bcash, ETH and ETC. Each and every one of my withdrawal request were processed within an hour or so, and so now, I have zero value remaining on bitfinex...  |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, price is holding steady, ready for a pump into the $6,000s again. Decisively, this time. We have been building the biggest base ramp ever for a massive spike upwards in the medium term. I would not be surprised if it would hit $50k or even $100k in that spike.
HODL right now is key.
This is the best thing I've read all morning. I hope you are correct. We are gonna be: RICH!!!!!!!!!(that is if we had not already become rich!!!!)I thought that a little off-putting gayness was keeping with our recent thread theme. |
|
|
|
This is something which I've beleived for awhile, which is the prospect that if big governments and banks worked heavily together they'd be able to remove Bitcoin from the face of the earth. They wouldn't ban it, as that would be a tough thing to swallow for the American people as they wouldn't see a good reason to do that ( at least in my mind here) But they could just go ahead and regulate Bitcoin into oblivion, making it hard for Bitcoin businesses (buying and selling, trading, etc) to operate within their countries, or be subject to insane taxes, KYC AML and such.
Do you think Governments could kill Bitcoin?
It would be nearly impossible for Governments to kill Bitcoin, even though they could certainly cause a lot of havoc and even push bitcoin into the underground, which could cause bitcoin to become a bigger pain in the ass for them. So in that sense governments have a bit of a dilemma regarding how much to attempt to regulate bitcoin and how oppressive they can be towards bitcoin. There has even been a bit of cockiness from bitcoin advocates in recent years because there is a certain level of recognition that governments have already lost their opportunity to really shut bitcoin down and to nip it in the bud. So, in that sense, the longer bitcoin is out there and acceptable, the more resources it would take to suppress it. |
|
|
|
I rather be a Bitcoin millionair then converting it all back into fiat  you mean have a million bitcoins? Nobody is going to have a million bitcoin’s except maybe Satoshi & I’m not sure he even has that many. He means holding over 1 million USD in bitcoin. Yes, and these days it only takes a bit more than 167 bitcoins in order to have $1million. Remember back in the good ole days (well, 2016, no?), when bitcoin was $1k? Back in those "good ole days" you needed to have 1,000 bitcoins in order to have million dollar bitcoin stature. But btcbeliever has a point. One way for Bitcoin to really go up is for it to become more of a real currency. If I had 900 000 euros I wouldn't say I was an euro millionaire because that's worth more than 1 million USD ! The million dollars value is a frame of reference, but I think that the topic of "real currency" is different. I think that there has been considerable recognition in recent months that bitcoin can still have a whole hell of a lot of value, even if it does not reach currency status and only reaches store of value usage, at least in the short term. In any event, some folks like to poo poo the purported store of value use case - but it is not insignificant - and bitcoin can go a long fucking way, merely on storage of value - and NO need to worry, either because the more storage of value that bitcoin achieves, then the more that a lot of other use cases are going to evolve from that - whether level 1 use cases or level 2 or level 3. |
|
|
|
I rather be a Bitcoin millionair then converting it all back into fiat you mean have a million bitcoins? Nobody is going to have a million bitcoin’s except maybe Satoshi & I’m not sure he even has that many. He means holding over 1 million USD in bitcoin. Yes, and these days it only takes a bit more than 167 bitcoins in order to have $1million. Remember back in the good ole days (well, 2016, no?), when bitcoin was $1k? Back in those "good ole days" you needed to have 1,000 bitcoins in order to have million dollar bitcoin stature. |
|
|
|
I can only imagine what the price is going to be 3 years from now. Post halving.
Well even if you consider the really worst case of what it could be in late 2020, I think $10-15K/btc would be the bottom. Which by all measures would still be fkn phenomenal. Outside of some black swan, I cannot envision a scenario where it would be any lower than that. Which would of course make many of us rich AF. Personally I’ve always looked at around 2021 as my get out point (75% sell off maybe). Fingers crossed guys. To be honest, becoming a millionaire in pounds sterling by 2021 is not too far fetched. What a ride. I think I am passed the point where I could sell my stash. The thought of not owning btc is horrible. I think a 60-75% sell off is not too extreme. My real goal would be to be able to buy property etc with bitcoin in my area. Edit. I hope JJG sees this post as I have put in some percentages for him. Well, yeah. I agree that there could be some question about: 1) whether BTC has advanced itself into an actual bubble and is due for a significant correction, which could justify selling a large amount of holdings (perhaps?) or 2) whether there is some investment, such as real estate, that causes a BTC hodler to feel some kind of retention of value by extracting BTC value into that other asset. Even with the significant sell-off and correction scenario (1), there may be some intention to merely temporarily take out BTC value with the aim of putting back in at a lower price (even if it is only putting in 50% of the amount taken out). With the invest in other assets scenario (2), there may also be some kind of presumption that either diversification of assets is good or that bitcoin could be due for a correction (or a period of performance lower than the other asset, otherwise it could be better to just keep most of the value in bitcoin and only extract a small amount of value out of bitcoin for the diversification purposes. |
|
|
|
I am not trying to insult Bitcoin. You cannot deny that SegWit did not appear as it would become reality until miners signaled for NYA. Further, a significant portion of the community is fully behind S2X. See above. The box is yet to be opened.
Yeah? Spin all that you like jbreher.. that is not what happened. Bullshit. It is exactly what happened. Signaling support for segwit was anemic. It was not until the NYA agreement and signaling of S2X that segwit amassed any provable support. That is what occurred, and it is clearly within the record. Actually jbreher, initially, I was not going to respond to our reiteration of our difference of opinion, here; however, upon further reflection, this seems to be part of your problem and a part of the problems of the BIG blocker nutjobs like yourselves who are trying to suggest that somehow segwit does not have support. It does not fucking matter whether you and your small minority of nutjobs believe that segwit has support or not. Do you recall that segwit went through an actual consensus generating period and then a locking in and then an activation and now we are in the implementation. That is all water under the bridge... so stop fucking crying about it as if it were illegitimate, because it has passed through the process of adoption into bitcoin real tm Yes, yes, yes, I understand that you want to argue that 2x was part of that deal, but you are fucking 99.95% wrong about that.. 2x was not part of that deal. Sure, 2x was there in the background and 2x was in the simultaneous discussions, but nobody fucking passed 2x. 2x was always subject to testing, approval and consensus gathering, which it never achieved. The bullshit signaling that was part of the NYA bullshit not the same as actual gaining of actual consensus. So, in that regard, 2x never had any official implementation mechanism beyond a bunch of current whiners that are now planning to renegade hardfork it because they have not been able to get it accepted under the normal processes and procedures. Anyhow, the proof of the pudding is in the eating (that is the fact that segwit actually got passed through official processes) rather than your whining claim that it never had any kind of decent and meaningful support until after the NYA agreement... again the NYA only ended up as a kind of BIP91 facilitator.. that then caused a road forward for segwit to become adopted through official channels and without the baggage of 2x (except that 2x would be considered later) |
|
|
|
Besides, we've shown that bigger blocks are not a problem.
Yeah right....  The royal "we" have not shown shit about "bigger blocks are not a problem." You are just making up shit and trying to act like there is some kind of evidence to support your desired outcome for bigger blocks with no fucking evidence whatsoever beyond mere assertions and whining for more than 2 years. Actually the fact that the blocks have not gotten bigger during this period, and the price has gone up more than 20x including user base and adoption going up at decent levels should provide some evidence supporting the exact opposite - that bigger blocks are not needed. Furthermore largely since about July 2017, there has been a lot less spamming of the bitcoin network, and fees and transaction times have been pretty fucking reasonable (low and fast respectively). Why the obstinance on the part of Core? I think they're merely afraid of losing face.
Yeah.. paint core as obstinate and afraid of losing face is also a pure fabrication on your part. There is no need for larger blocks, and you expect that core needs to change its position merely because of ongoing and big blocker forking terrorist threats when the facts have not changed and only the sabotage threats have increased? |
|
|
|
I am not trying to insult Bitcoin. You cannot deny that SegWit did not appear as it would become reality until miners signaled for NYA. Further, a significant portion of the community is fully behind S2X. See above. The box is yet to be opened.
Yeah? Spin all that you like jbreher.. that is not what happened. Let me attempt to edumacate you (to any extent that it might actually be possible to edumacate a troll like you ) about what actually happened. The various bullshit segwit2x and NY agreement ended up facilitating an avenue in order to accomplish what the vast majority recognized to be to the benefit of bitcoin, and that was an avenue to lock-in, activate and subsequently implement segwit. Yeah, there were several of the fucking nutjob BIGBLOCKERS, other anti-bitcoin folks, corporate shills who did not like what had happened, and they both 1) embarked upon a spontaneous renegade hardfork (aka BCH) and 2) kept up with their stupid ass largely non-supported whining that 2x is needed.. blah, blah, blah in order to continue to attack bitcoin and to attempt by whatever means possible to get some kind of inroads in either undermining bitcoin's governance or otherwise weakening of bitcoin in order to pump their various alternative projects. Sure there might be some other stuff going on too, but the nutshell of what happened is how I outline above, and many folks who know about bitcoin know that my outline above is correct and even the vast majority of smart money likely understands these basic points, too.. and that is that hardforks have become attack vectors of the BIG blocker nutjobs rather than either legitimate criticisms or evidence of actual technical bitcoin flaws. |
|
|
|
One day, my dream is to come back to thread, and see absolutely no discussions of contentious shitcoin forks.... sigh.. It's true though isn't it..... The more forks that happen will prove that everything that's forked is bullshit compared to the real Bitcoin. It will strengthen bitcoin in the long run. ^^ Agree 100% but in my mind there are 2 types of forks - 1) people forking off the main chain and going their own way - to survive they will need a emergency difficulty adjustment. Hopeful most of these will die off asap which will reinforce Bitcoin over and over again and 2) forks of the main chain that everyone follows. I honestly think we need more of the second type of fork - it will progress the Bitcoin state of the art (even if the improvements are tiny and incremental), bring the community together and build confidence that we have our shit together. Right now we are lacking the leadership that can make it happen, which is a shame because it makes the core team look weak - technically sound, but politically weak and naive. I cringe when I see all the emotional No2X / UASF stuff. You can cringe all you want with your core denigration and pro-forking nonsense talk. |
|
|
|
Under all these assumptions
(whose plausibility could be debated, but we know better than to engage in that right now, or at least I do)
that's right, they wouldn't be.
Yes, given the assumptions. Which, I agree, are debatable. The point remains that any 'changing of the guard' would be an abdication*. And hence, would not be merely an effort to overthrow the current devs with ones more malleable. *Much as we all abdicated our consensus-determining (i.e., mining) power years ago.
A word from Jeff Bezos could nail S2X inside its coffin. If that be true, a differing word from Jeff Bezos could also nail S1X inside its coffin. Trying to insult bitcoin by calling it S1X isn't gonna change anything. These stupid assorted monikers are reserved for garbage alts and forkcoin attacks. Bitcoin is called bitcoin whether you like it or not. Actually, this is a good point orpington.. There is a frequent ongoing campaign from bitcoin deniers and bitcoin attackers to attempt to denigrate bitcoin and to attempt to cause their alt coin propaganda to be some kind of bitcoin equivalent by renaming bitcoin.. They do this over and over and over hoping that their nonsense nomenclature will sink in and either confuse people regarding the real bitcoin or to increase the stature of their attack (or alt coin) |
|
|
|
....
Edit.
One day I'll get the hang of trimming posts down. Fuck
I can assist.  |
|
|
|
A lot of advice, but i'm still not understand why people trust own money to bitcoin. Just invest in real product, hi-tech.
If you do not recognize the distinction of bitcoin, as compared with other kinds of investments, then you are missing some information that is vital. In essence, bitcoin is distinct from other kind of investments (such as tech) because it is decentralized and thus can serve as a hedge against other kinds of investments. Certainly, I agree with your point about not investing everything into bitcoin.. maybe up to 10% is o.k. but more than that can be very risky - even though some people may be willing to invest up to 50% and to fill o.k. When I first got into bitcoin in 2013, my goal was to invest up to 10% of my quasi-liquid investment money within my first year; however, since prices went down so much during 2014, I ended up investing around 13%, and then when price went up in 2016 and 2017, my allocation of bitcoin has become more than 50%, through price appreciation.. amazing performance... but past performance does not indicate future performance, so whatever strategy is employed should attempt to account for present circumstances and account for a person's timeline, finances, view of risk, cashflow and other pertinent particulars. |
|
|
|
As I said yesterday, a dip down to a price $500 higher than I paid less than a week ago isn't a deep enough dip for me to buy... yet. Maybe if we drop below $5.3k.
We almost got to a "buyable" dip - and I am starting to question whether this dip is over yet because we seem to be aiming back up. Sure, I am buying about every $200 down, so from $6180-ish, I have bought back in three stages, but I have not been able to buy in the $5300s for a while... so I am just buying when it bounces down and then back up and then down again.. but did not quite trigger my $5300-ish buys but surely we are still within reach.. so maybe we will go up and then down again and then up and then down and then up, up, up, and then down again, and then up, up, up again.... don't quote me on specifics because there could be a few additional UPs or a few additional DOWNs in there. |
|
|
|
My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders." Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons. Then you've either got a short memory or a screw loose: So, yeah, maybe there are going to be instances in which changes from the outside (by force) are successful - however, I am referring to systems, such as bitcoin, that have been maintaining.. and there are challenges from within and from without - however the hardfork that we are referring to is a challenge from without
This is you calling them outsiders. You draw a clear line of distinction between people who work within "the system" (or at least what your warped definition of "the system" is, but I'll come to that later) and those who develop their own clients or declare hashrate for alternative client forks. Hahahahaha Thanks for the reference DooMAD... Now I see from where you get some of your MADness. Merely because I am suggesting that people should attempt change from within the system, you then translate that into me calling them outsiders? You are fucking nutso. If you think about it, I am criticizing their action and not making any kind of claim about their existential status. You seem to be attempting to extract way too much technicalities from my words, which gives me the sense that you are being less than genuine in your attempts to interact with me on this topic. If you fucking blow up every comment that I make into some kind of self-selected reading, then how the fuck are we going to get anywhere in our discussion of this topic, when all you seem to want to do is spin.
These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space. You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.
Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT. Nope, we clearly saw you say that. Here it is again: I think that I have already sufficiently referred to the difference between trying to change matters from within or trying to change systems by attacking.
Anyone who doesn't play nice with your preferred gatekeepers are outsiders and attackers. Again.. I am talking about actions not persons... so get a fucking grip and stop trying to distract and to make more out of the situation than it is.
This is clearly how you see it. Why deny it when it's what you really think? You can't say it on two separate occasions and then deny saying it.
I am not going to deny saying anything that you quote me as saying..... but seems quite apparent that you want to read it within your own fantasy context... in order to attempt to make this some kind of argument about characters rather than actual substance and possible meaningful discussions. Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want
Whoops, make that three separate occasions. But sure, this is all just " a product of my own construction". Seems that you want to construct more meaning into something than it deserves in order to lose sight of the forest for the trees. My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it. It's not a thing. I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though. You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless. What happens when something isn't justified?
Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
Who decides when that's the case? What are the consequences? Who enforces that? It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.
Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.
If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things. That would be a weakness in my view.
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter. What's this clusterfuck of selective quoting? And I'm not " making shit up", I'm pointing out the sheer, abject futility of you asking for justification in a permissionless system. Yeah.. you also seem to be distracted in attempts to personalize matters that do not need to be personalized and to get into a broad array of irrelevance. Go figure. Maybe if you stopped deconstructing every paragraph and taking every single sentence out of context that might have made sense to you (but everyone watch as you do it again in your next post).
I am just responding within your comments, so anyone who wants to go back and read your full comment can do so. i am not changing the substance of what you said... just responding point by point... to the extent that you might possibly say something relevant somewhere along the way...   By the way, there does not really seem to be any reason for us to continue this discussion because we are either just repeating ourselves and not really talking about anything useful any more. Correct? In other words, we can agree to disagree and move on, no? I made my "good" points, and you made your "lame" points. and we don't agree.... so fine.. let's move on.
The only "justification" anything needs is the market itself. If there is a gap in the market, someone will naturally step in to fill that gap. Hence multiple competing clients. They don't all have to meet your lofty standards or have one particular dev team's approval to "justify" their existence.
Again, what power do I have regarding my supposed "lofty standards" besides stating my opinion in a bitcoin thread? I also think Bitcoin is great. I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism. And what "tactic"? They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful. And fair enough. So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing. There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork. It's the only option left open to them.
That's crazy if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy. Okay, let's see: Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected Step 2 - ... Help me out here? What's the next option? Fix the pull request and submit it again. provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic. Exactly. Keep asking for permission in a permissionless system. Could be that we are misunderstanding some parts. The system might be permissionless, but governance has some permissioned aspects, but that does not screw up the whole system. Anyhow, we seem to be talking past each other in terms of what we consider acceptable processes and procedures for proposing change within the system and the importance of such processes and procedures.
Get approval from that centralised GitHub in a decentralised system.
I think that there is a process and procedure and there are comments and folks in that system decide.. here are not one decider or even a small group of deciders, although some folks do have more credibility and weight within that participatory system (process)
It's only consensus when that one particular dev team say it is, right? Don't you get it?
You are coming off as some kind of patronizing goofball who supposedly sees the light better than anyone else. My understanding is that the bitcoin core hub is open to anyone to participate and to propose ideas, but of course, you could end up burning your bridges if you come in there attacking, acting like an asshole and threatening to burn the place down. If you do that, then others are not going to want to listen to your stupid-ass, non-factual, lacking in logic and emotional rants, right? Your warped definition of the Bitcoin "system" has a controlling central power that makes all the decisions.
I don't claim to know everything about bitcoin or the bitcoin system ? I am just trying to suggest that from my understanding there is a process in place. Apparently you know more about the whole process and why the whole process is supposedly broken in your own warped view attack of it..and your rationalization that all is fair in love and war... so let's blow the place up. YOU are the reason that we cannot have nice things.
Everyone who doesn't agree with those decisions is apparently an "outsider". That's not how this is supposed to work.
Again.. you are emphasizing points of your own wrong-headed extrapolation.
Fuck your "challenges from within and from without" idiocy. They are within the system.
Yeah, for you, nothing matters, and logic does not matter, and everything is fair. Good luck in your conceptual living like that.
You just don't understand the system. It's open source.
Yeah, let's mix and conflate all ideas together in order to make everything open source and chaos.. that makes sense.
There are no attackers and no outsiders. Only contributors.
Not everyone has to contribute to the same GitHub, though. It's one big open free-for-all. Anyone can do anything. Either accept it, or fork off and close your source.
Yeah.. let's throw out all definitions of anything and do whatever the fuck we want and don't prejudge anything. Everyone is a winner!!!!!! You are surely a free range thinker and not going to get caught in any boxes, right? LET'S do stream of consciousness on everything!!!!! By the way, you understand that at some point, we have to embrace some systems and get beyond the stream of consciousness bullshit? |
|
|
|
People need to be very careful, they may unwittingly be trading something that is NOT even their BTG. Any fork of Bitcoin could be used at this point, with no way to confirm what it even is... a name means nothing. Don't just blindly trust exchanges.
You're probably wasting your breath. It doesn't matter how often you tell trading addicts to keep their coins safely away from exchanges. That's one of the basic differences between Bitcoiners and traders. The very first paragraph of Satoshi's white paper points to trustlessness as the raison d'etre for Bitcoin. Traders are more than willing to trust exchanges and online wallet services. Wasn't MtGox enough of a lesson of what can happen when you give up your private keys? Whoaza, Jimbo... You seem to be in a good mood today, and seemingly wanting to jump into a "bitcoiners" versus "traders" whereby you are a bitcoiner in this battle, right? Nice to see you in such a rambunctious mood today. |
|
|
|
All this talk about people & Bitcoin...
Over the years I have dealt with so many people asking about Bitcoin. It's uncanny how exactly alike all their thought processes are:
2013: wtf is this shit, it's a bubble, nerd money, governments will destroy it, it doesn't have any value because it's not regulated/controlled. It's too late to buy now anyway.
2014: told you it was crap nobody cares
2015: *crickets*
2016: I wish I bought Bitcoin a year ago. You are so lucky!! Now it's too late for me.
2017: I wish I bought Bitcoin a year ago. You are so lucky. Now it's too expensive for me. I realize I can buy just a fraction but my ego doesn't allow me to be content with just a fraction of an arbitrary numerical division of the thing. But have you heard about Ethereum? Or Shitcoin xyz? Someone said it's the next Bitcoin and it has been going up and I can actually afford to buy one! *proceeds to not buy anything*
2018: I wish I bought Bitcoin a year ago...
I don't care. I don't preach. All I do is explain the technology and its implications for society to those who show genuine interest. Why should I wish unjust rewards on those who clearly don't deserve them? Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology with a promise of changing society to the better. Because it is a monetary technology, those of us with enough vision to see the potential, risk our own money and enough nerve to hold through the FUD, haters, bear markets, hacks and laughter get rewarded. Simple as that. The guy who laughed it off in 2014 and felt he "missed the boat" in 2017 will end up buying some in 2023 together with his gradma.
Your post is simply genius, ErisDiscordia. Thanks for that summary of what is likely a common experience of those of us who have been in since 2013/2014... |
|
|
|
http://astrohacker.com/ahc/bitcoin-is-the-economic-singularity/After reading this, the scale of black market and digital economies and the effect Bitcoin will have on them I am pretty certain we are going to be very wealthy men -- even with a sum as small as 10 Bitcoins. It's just so hard to believe. We are only in the beginning storms with these significant rallies from 10 to 20 dollars. I will not be surprised to see prices from hundreds to thousands in the coming months. The world just isn't going to be the same and we have been blessed as the pioneers. What are you going to do with your Bitcoin wealth once your coins hit upwards of $10,000 a pop? I do not measure my wealth by the amount of money or crypt or cars or similar. I measure my wealth by the quality of people around me, by happy moments, by good thoughts, deeds and times spent with your loved ones  hahahahaha... look a man without very many bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Guys I do not remember what I knew about Bitcoin in 2010, I drew attention to it in late 2014. But I remember etheereum for $ 0.9 and not too big investments would bring a big profit. I think this will be many more times.
You are here in a bitcoin thread, pumping ethereum, and trying to act like either ethereum is the same thing as bitcoin or bitcoin 2.0? Why do you need to come here for that? Why don't you go talk about all the wonders of various alts in some other thread? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Gold is only worth to dump. My forecast is 200$ at the end of this week. So 400 is pretty good price to dump imo I think BTG is a good choice for the moment. It is quite similar to BCH and BCC. When it comes to the floor it is quite expensive, then it is flushed down to very low prices and is bought more. BCH and BCC is the same thing... actually probably the preferred ticker is BCH since BCC is taken by another crypto asset (Bitconnect), which is a different "scam" alt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
