|
I guess things like time of day matter sometimes, but not generally. If there truly is a consistent pattern and a person is a trader, then playing on these differences of the price can be rewarding (especially if you're operating a big budget). But if it's a purchase for a long-term hodling, I really don't think it's worth a second thought, and things like more long-term trends (such as the price this week compared to last week or this month compared to last month) matter more. After all, the difference of buying BTC for $40k and $20k is very singificant and can be a matter of a month or so.
|
|
|
|
|
12) Israel Adesanya
11) Max Holloway
10) Sean Strickland
9) Sean O’Malley
8 ) Brad Riddell
7) Robbie Lawler
6) Ian Garry
5) Jim Miller
4) Andre Muniz
3) Maycee Barber
2) Dricus Du Plessis
1) Jessica-Rose Clark
Total Strikes 108
|
|
|
|
|
Investing in Bitcoin during a dip market is good, and $6k could buy a decent part of BTC at its current price. Taking a loan to buy even more, and also borrowing money from a relative, and aside from the loaned amounts having to pay interest rates is.... risky. Congrats on 1 BTC, but how soon are you supposed to start making payments on that loan you got, and how soon does your uncle expect those $4k + interest?
I do agree that 2 years will probably be enough time for Bitcoin to recover and for you to get 3x-5x profits, but there's also a risk it'll take longer, and does your loan not require any payments for the full 2 years?
And as many pointed out, it's a very risky decision. This situation breaks the rule of only investing what you can afford to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
The question is pretty good, but I think so far miners are still getting a significant amount of rewards for mining, and for the fees as well because most transactions happen on-chain. Moreover, I agree with witcher_sense that it's reasonable that small payments would be made via an off-chain solution like the Lightning Network, and there are still plenty of transactions for miners to confirm. So I don't think it's anywhere near being a threat and discouraging miners who could've got more payments in transaction fees.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO the comparison of those who want low prices and those who want high prices with those who want rain and those who want sun is limited. While it's true that both categories exist and nothing can go on forever (although there are countries where there's little sunlight and those where there is little rain), the motivation can be very different. I believe that most of those who want the price to be low are those who want an opportunity to invest, and then they of course want the price to grow, so that they can profit from the investment. There can also be bitter anti-Bitcoin people who just want the price to drop and never go up because they don't believe in Bitcoin. As for rain and sun, I don't think the majority of those who want the rain actually want it so that then they can appreciate the sun more. I also don't think anyone wants the rain because of hating sun-lovers while not loving rain themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure this prediction of -30% by the end of the year is legit, to be honest, but it's good if it is. That being said, if exports are up by so much, why is the prediction so negative?
I think that the Western countries want to show and prove that their sanctions are serious and are working, while Ukraine is pressuring them for imposing much more because the idea is to help stop the war, and if Russia keeps going with the war, it means the current sanctions aren't enough. Also, while initially it looked like Russian economy was exploding, they managed to stabilize the ruble and 4 months into the war they can still afford it, although the consumer prices did grow significantly for Russians, so it's not like sanctions didn't do anything.
|
|
|
|
|
This war has many negative effects, and among them is indeed the choice of getting back to bad sources of energy (relying on them more heavily than before) instead of trying to take it as a sign that it's time to finally abandon oil, gas and coal for better sources, even if it gets more expensive initially. And I do agree that it's unfair to turn a blind eye to these events while blaming the crypto industry which isn't as bad for the environment as many believe. That's why I think that the environmental legislation must target high-end consumers that get energy from sources with high environmental impact, not on Bitcoiners or crypto miners.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the USD doesn't equal to US economy. After all, El Salvador has a pretty bad economy but their main currency is the USD. As for the idea of the strong dollar but weaker US economy, I don't think so. The US is still #1, whereas the USD is getting weaker from inflation. Overall, I think both will be saved by the power that US has over political world affairs and by the heavy reliance of many countries on the USD as a reserve currency. Also, while policies can change, US has strong institutions to maintain the fairly strong economy.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not easy, actually. While you seem to say that if fed stops printing money, the prices will go down, some believe that it's actually the negative effects of overprinting (among which is high inflation) that drove the prices down in the first place (if we're talking about the prices of cryptos, that is). In reality, both things are possible. In one scenario, inflation is rising, people are feeling unsure about the economy and engage in panic selling. In another, they turn to cryptos to save their wealth because cryptos aren't susceptible to hyperinflation. Moods can differ and cause different results for the overall market
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with a country investing in Bitcoin is that if it's doing very well and can afford a good investment, it doesn't really matter much, while if it's doing very poorly, it can only afford a small investment, which isn't going to be of high impact because it's pretty small on the scale of a country's budget. So conditions have to be just right to truly make a difference with an investment like this, and while it's relatively safe if it's for a few years, it's not safe if the investment has to be reassessed, say, every year because of annual budget planning.
|
|
|
|
|
A) Colorado
B) Over
C) Yes
D) Colorado
E) Tampa Bay
F) Colorado
G) Colorado
H) 10'
|
|
|
|
|
I think this propaganda might be ridiculous to us, but every country has a solid number of people who heavily rely and trust the state media, and I believe the number is higher for authoritarian regimes where access to other information and media freedom aren't really a thing. So China can do it for its own audience, to ensure they can keep their population under as much control as possible. Bitcoin is a way out of that system, of not being under state's control and monitoring, so of course China will do what it can to limit the spread and to use the timing of the bear market to scare people off.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good question, actually. I thought of it before, and I think I'd be okay with a stable reasonable price (say, $40k). That would be good for adoption and usage of Bitcoin as money, and it would make people less afraid of Bitcoin because it wouldn't be so volatile. But I also know a person whose well-being basically depends on the constant growth of Bitcoin and the ability to sell and high points and stay with reasonable savings for the future. And volatility is what attracts both traders and investors. Also, I can't say that I mind it when Bitcoin rises, it doesn't hurt to have more than you used to have. So I'm okay with it being volatile, but I guess it would be better if it didn't lose as much value and in return grew at a slower rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin fell lower than the mark set by the op because some time has passed, but it's indeed a great table that shows the seriousness of the drops and how bad it used to look. I think this should help people calm down, show them that in the past. $1k seemed at the top, and then the same happened with $20k. And both times it seemed Bitcoin would never reach its former might, while some people remained believers and were right.
No matter how low it gets, we'll get through it, Bitcoin will recover.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not thrilled with what's going on, but viewing it as a positive thing is IMO better than panic selling, so good job, op. As for the points you're making,
1. I don't think it'll clean the market from shitcoins, as previous bear market didn't succeed in that. While some will effectively die, many will probably rise again, especially if influencers like Elon Musk get involved.
2. Maybe it will sober people up, but then again I believe hype over some shitcoin is possible in the future, so I don't think everyone will learn the lesson.
3-4. Companies and traders don't care if it's a shitcoin or not, a bubble or not, as long as they can profit from it and jump off the train in time.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember the news of small businesses putting a lot of money into Bitcoin as their reserve funding when the price was above $50k. I thought it was way too risky, but for a while it went quite okay. Now, of course, if they need the funds and didn't take them our before the drop, they'll face great difficulties and probably won't be inclined to invest in Bitcoin anymore. Then again, they broke the rule of never investing what they can't afford to lose, so it can't really be blamed on Bitcoin. As for the peak, I think it'll indeed take time, either months or years, and that it won't be $420k because the multiplier tends to shrink with every next ATH. So I'd expect something around $100k.
|
|
|
|
|
So it's two Russian companies, helping each other out due to sanctions and other restrictions, huh. If Bitriver is registered in Switzerland, though, why won't Switzerland deal with it? It's an allegedly neutral state, but it's been implementing sanctions against Russia following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I wonder why they didn't follow US regarding Bitriver and didn't sanction it.
If it weren't a state-owned company and thus something that would help finance a terrible war, it makes sense to partner up like that, and it's potentially a positive thing if it truly helps utilize the methane that would otherwise just be waste, though. Then again, it creates a link between cryptos, which is something new, and oil, which is something old and something we should abandon in the long run, so I'm not sure it's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
a) 13 b) 2:01
a) 12 b) 1:53
|
|
|
|
|
Like others here, I perceive it with a smile, 'cause Chinese propagandist warnings and concerns are a joke. China is naturally hostile to Bitcoin because it's an authoritarian regime that wants to get even more control over the lives of people than it already does, and controlling the currency is a part of it. Bitcoin isn't and never will be under the control of Chinese government, and it can be disruptive if people there put more trust into it than into yuan or if people specifically start using cryptos when they don't want the government to know about some funds or purchases. But claiming Bitcoin is heading to 0 is simply ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
