1000 is a nice mark but i wanna see 100k's BTC ATMs installed all over the world

of course it's the rest of the world. and there are several billion people who have to rent or steal the pot they piss in.

If you own one bitcoin you are in the top 68% richest people in the world.

If you have 100 bitcoins you are one of the top 8% richest people in the world.

600 bitcoins and you're a one percenter.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth

Back above $1K, and not a single Average Joe around me knows anything more about Bitcoin/blockchain than they did in 2013, or even seems to care.  This is amazing.

Now I know why they call them "late adopters".  I don't blame the really old, the really young or the unborn. I blame the older, middle-aged folks who have money to invest, but are just too plain ignorant to see the financial change tsunami that is coming.  By the time they finally look up, Bitcoin will be well north of $10K.

I remember my grandmother still writing physical checks for everything, 7-8 years after the rest of society had moved on to using the debit card. She finally used one a few years before she died, and I remember the look on her face.... she was blown away at the convenience. Priceless.

I remember me getting on dial-up on the PC in my bedroom, when my parents though I was in there "hacking" ala War Games style.  They thought the internet was and always would be just a toy for nerds.

I remember carrying around a clunky Treo smartphone (which was actually smaller than your average smartphone today), when literally *everyone* thought smartphones were for nerds.  Especially the women, lol.

I don't understand this argument at all. How exactly is Core a central authority and how do you solve this perceived problem of trust by instead trusting this other 'central authority' called BU? I don't need to trust Core at all, I don't worry they're going to break Bitcoin one day since the consensus rules are not easily changed and requires the entire ecosystem to pretty much agree. If BU was the main software that ran the network I would be very worried though, since with them I am not so sure the consensus rules wouldn't be changed on a whim. By the way Core is not a company or corporation and doesn't speak with one voice, anyone can contribute to it and a great number of developers with diverse opinions about many Bitcoin related issues do and peer review each other. Let's not throw away what we have here because we're impatient about scaling Bitcoin or disagree on how to do it exactly.


How does Core exactly engage in censorship and breaking promises? They have done none of these things, it's this kind of talk and theories that fuel the flames of division. Say it often enough and people start to believe it. I've seen a lot of open discussions about how to scale Bitcoin and in the end it all boils down to a simple thing. Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization. Onchain scaling therefore is limited and will never be able to support global adoption without sacrificing decentralization, so true scaling to meet global demand needs to come from 2nd layer solutions like lightning. I personally fully agree with this. There are people who disagree however and don't think it's a problem if nodes can only be run in big datacenters, and although I think that's very dangerous it's perfectly okay if someone has that opinion. However you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is a very contentious issue and there's no way that Bitcoin can just hardfork to satisfy these people. So why the need for all the strife and division? We can all just agree to disagree here, we've discussed this long and hard enough by now. Complaints about censorship on a Bitcoin subreddit does not change anything. I have pretty much seen and heard all the arguments for and against a hard fork for a simple increase to 2MB, Segwit as a soft fork or Segwit as a hard fork (+ increase). Segwit as a soft fork is the only viable option here that has any chance to be accepted any time soon, and then hopefully a hard fork later if enough people calmed down again to allow consensus to form for another increase. People just need to learn to not get caught up in the drama that's mostly instigated by those who see Bitcoin as a threat and want it to fail.

Yeah its a joke, for me ethereum lost his credibility when Vitalik Buterin was on Reddit crying about how people was panic selling, so he told exchanges to stop all ETH trades... it was so ridiculous. Imagine satoshi telling exchanges to stop trades? lol. I think smart contracts can run better as a bitcoin sidechain, because if something goes bad, the core of bitcoin still remains unaffected. Having a turing complete system is not something that gives me a peace of mind long term.

So let's stick to the plan: How to get rich in 10 years. And right now, no damn project looks like it's going to get the job done.

The first major drop this month was over exaggerated news on China cracking down on bitcoin, when all they did is tell BTC exchanges that they can't market bitcoin with depreciating yuan, and that they should also cut down fake volume and simply warn customers that bitcoin is volatile. Not only does this show China's understanding of bitcoin, but it seems they are also taking a balanced and prudent approach with the long-term view in sight.

This drop seems exaggerated as well, BTCC says everything is business as usual. It is pretty evident by now that China does not intend to ban bitcoin nor limit the exchanges in a meaningful way.

So given what you know you tell me if the drop from $1160 to $790 was justified over the China news alone. It seems like a combination of a much needed correction accelerated by exaggerated fears of China cracking down on bitcoin when they are not. You either believed that bitcoin had no business being at $1000 during the entire run-up or you believed that it was about time, that bitcoin actually deserves to be at $1000 and that it needs to start getting expensive relatively soon for it to be sustainable. If your sentiment turned 180 from the climb to $1000 to now then you're being played by emotions and have no idea what you're doing. If you invested with the long term vision in mind I don't see any reason to panic, this is a gross over exaggeration of China's stance on bitcoin.

Also, I'm not a trader but isn't this the perfect setup for cup and handle?

And also, my dad wants to put $30K into bitcoin, you're welcome. Actually I didn't even convince him, I showed him how much I'm up on bitcoin and he asked me why I'm not selling... you guys know why, I told him there's no limit to the BTC price and things are looking good especially when the rest of the world isn't, and he's been reading up on bitcoin since

The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.

If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.

Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.

FORK IT ALREADY.

If you're in the US have your dad purchase through itBit. I've found that anything over $5,000 is best to go through them. You have to pay for the wire transfer but the lower exchange percentage makes up for it over $5k.

4-5 months?  Trump goes in office in a few days.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of large scale economic events that affect price one way or another sooner.

Doesn't the glaring lack of volume set off alarm bells ringing for you?