|
Centralized exchanges have been criticized for many years, and rightfully so, as they pose security, privacy and trust threats to their users, but what is the realistic alternative to them? Decentralized solutions like Bisq still rely on traditional fiat payment systems, so it would be simply impossible to have today's trading volume on a decentralized exchange because of fees and transaction times and transaction limits of fiat payment systems. Without quick price discovery and liquidity, Bitcoin would likely be much more volatile, which would hurt its endgame - becoming a widely used currency.
|
|
|
|
Will it resemble a bull run? Isn't it all just internal accounting if the coins are owned by Venmo?
Even if a lot of Venmo users decided to buy Bitcoin, it might not cause much effect on Bitcoin's price, because the company would be buying Bitcoins on OTC markets to avoid causing more volatility. But it's also unlikely that buying Bitcoin with Venmo will be popular, the fees are disgusting, and you just get an IOU, this is 1000 times worse than centralized exchanges, which are already pretty bad. No real Bitcoin enthusiast would agree to these terms. Most of these buyers would probably be people who only recently heard about Bitcoin and decided to throw $100 to see if they can profit in this bull run. |
|
|
|
But this just got me thinking, for anyone willing to share (just percentages, no raw numbers) where do your net worth crypto/fiat/anything-else percentages stand?  Anyone else gone full bore into crypto as I have? I'm currently 0.31% fiat, 98.11% Bitcoin, the rest is XMR and ETH. But I hope to enter the real estate market with my BTC gains after this bull market, becoming a landlord has always been my dream, and I hope to build a portfolio of stocks some day, though now stocks look kinda overpriced in my opinion. I think when you Bitcoin stash is start becoming worth a lot and when it's 90%+ of your portfolio, it's time to reduce the risk and move money out of crypto. The crash can come at any moment and will leave you with a fraction of your wealth; I didn't sell a single satoshi during the 2017 cycle and I regret it, I wish I sold high and bought back some, but no, I was too caught in the HODL meme. |
|
|
|
|
"Coins"? No, they said they only like coins that follow KYC, can freeze user's accounts, etc. They don't even want to deal with Bitcoin, the king of crypto. Mastercard want to keep everything centralized and regulated, they don't support the philosophy of coins like Bitcoin that people should have full control over their money.
|
|
|
|
|
Dogecoin is the only succesful meme cryptocurrency, it experiences its current bubble purely because of it. The same isn't going to repeat with "coins under 100 satoshi". This isn't the 2017 ICO craze when investors were throwing their money at every single ICO.
If you buy a bunch of coins that look undervalued, you'd need to get some crazy good performance from those that will go up to cover the losses on those coins that will decline further, and chances are, this isn't going to happen, because so few alts manage to go to the moon.
|
|
|
|
I see that as a healthy correction after reaching a new high.
When we first approached 60 thousand we also had a similar correction, then recovered and hit a new high. This correction is really bullish since we did not have a -50% correction followed by a dead cat bounce like in 2013 and 2018.
Like others said the main reason is profit taking and it coincided with some rumors of a bitcoin ban in Turkey which did not help with a swift recovery.
It was a correction and delevererging of the market, but it's also pretty bad that the new top is only $3,000 higher than the previous one: $61,000 -> 64,000. If you zoom out the chart, it's evident that the market slowed down by a lot, we're stuck near $60,000 for two months already. |
|
|
|
|
This rumor could have been the trigger, but I think reddit's explanation about overlevereged market makes more sense explaining why this drop occurred. FUD gets posted all the time, even actual confirmed news and not just rumors, and it doesn't crash the market by 15%, so clearly there was some other reason to why this happened.
|
|
|
|
|
This happens every time there's a correction. Part of it is legitimate newbies who feel scared and hopeless and need to rationalize their decision to exit Bitcoin market, perhaps even at a loss. Another part is trolls and Bitcoin haters who spread negativity about Bitcoin as a hobby. And the last group is hired shills who work for traders/market manipulators who want to see Bitcoin dive deeper so they can buy more coins before the market starts growing again.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has too many drawbacks to replace fiat in business as of today. High fees and at least 10 minute waiting time means it's not suitable for small purchases and physical stores, until Lightning Network arrives. Price volatility means you have to instantly convert it to fiat, which means additional fees and reintroduction of trusted third parties. Most people have poor security practices, so they could easily get their coins stolen from their phone or computer if they get some malware.
|
|
|
|
|
The "non-tangible" part isn't that important, after all we've had digital money for many years, and people had no trouble with money existing purely as a number on the Internet. Bitcoin is different because there's no intermediaries and confirmed transactions are final, but with banks it's also not always possible to reverse a transaction, and there's a lot of scammers who use bank cards to receive money from their victims, so when it comes to p2p trading, Bitcoin and fiat payment methods aren't that different. Reputation has always been the most important part of p2p trade.
|
|
|
|
|
When you say "support", are you referring to the recent statement that Bitcoin is an "investment alternative"? This is hardly news, China says things about Bitcoin from time to time, ranging from negative to positive, it doesn't mean much. They aren't going to make Bitcoin their reserve asset officially, or recognize it as a currency, so you can't really say that they support Bitcoin.
I think they made this statement to antagonize the US and hope that American investors would dump US dollar, stocks of US companies, US Treasury bonds for Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're in a situation when you need to sell some altcoin or token to meet ends, then you shouldn't have bought that coin in the first place, alts can lose their value in a instant when the team pulls an exit scam or it becomes clear they won't be working on the project seriously.
It makes sense to buyback Bitcoin, since it's the most reliable crypto investment, but anything else is not worth the long-term risk.
|
|
|
|
|
If that's a problem for you, then simply don't buy in the bull market, unless for short-term speculating, and accumulate coins during bear market. A lot of investors who joined in bull run are likely going to take profit during the run, instead of hodling for years and experience a crash like in the past. Risk and opportunity always go hand in hand, the point of investing is to find investments that have more opportunities than risks.
|
|
|
|
The last few months of solid growth have instilled confidence that Bitcoin is unstoppable. Each time Bitcoin updated its maximum and even managed to get close to the $60,000 mark. However, then its price fell sharply in a few days and for many investors it came as a shock… for some reason.
If you think that Bitcoin will go in one smooth line to $300,000, then you are sorely mistaken, bull runs always had corrections, it's a normal process - someone takes profits and the price crashes, but as long as there's more money willing to invest, the price will go up. At some point there indeed will be a true crash, assuming that this bull run will be the same as the previous ones, but you can't tell that this is it just by one day of data. |
|
|
|
|
People say "this time is different" every bull run. I don't think that a small number of companies investing in Bitcoin means that literally every possible institution will join in this bull run. The point of investing is to buy low and sell high, and buying a volatile asset prone to bubbles at ATH and in prolonged bull run doesn't sound like "buying low".
|
|
|
|
Redditor explains that the recent crash was caused by massive cascading liquidation on BinanceBasically, because Binance and some other exchanges allow x100 leverage or even higher, the price can become very fragile if it was pushed up by these longs, because the moment they start getting liquidated, it causes even more liquidations, as more BTC gets automatically sold, pushing the price down. To support this theory, reddit users show that during this crash there was enormous USDT volume, and the price of BTC on Binance was much lower, because this is where this action happened, and traders on exchange like Coinbase had to arbitrage.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks often view clients that deal with crypto as "high risk", and some banks just think it's not worth for them to verify that their clients are honest investors and not some money launderers, as it's easier to just not deal with people who do crypto transactions. Before using your bank account for buying/selling crypto, you should learn about your bank's stance by looking for reviews from other clients, or just asking the bank directly, though it can be risky if you already did such transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't really proclaim a bear market based on a single day dip. It could be it, but it could also be just a correction. There are no technical indicators that suggest that we are in bear market already - like the famous "death cross" pattern when 99d MA and 7d MA cross each other.
It's true that any dip could be the beginning of bear market, but it only becomes clear after at least a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
In a proof of work system, if your chain gets 51% attacked, what do you even do? So far, the only response in practice has been "wait it out until the attacker gets bored". But this misses the possibility of a much more dangerous kind of attack called a spawn camping attack, where the attacker attacks the chain over and over again with the explicit goal of rendering it useless.
In a GPU-based system, there is no defense, and a persistent attacker may quite easily render a chain permanently useless (or more realistically, switches to proof of stake or proof of authority). In fact, after the first few days, the attacker's costs may become very low, as honest miners will drop out since they have no way to get rewards while the attack is going on.
In an ASIC-based system, the community can respond to the first attack, but continuing the attack from there once again becomes trivial. The community would meet the first attack by hard-forking to change the PoW algorithm, thereby "bricking" all ASICs (the attacker's and honest miners'!). But if the attacker is willing to suffer that initial expense, after that point the situation reverts to the GPU case (as there is not enough time to build and distribute ASICs for the new algorithm), and so from there the attacker can cheaply continue the spawn camp inevitably. Vitalik is straight up being dishonest here, because he wants to shill for his PoS. Attacking PoW network costs hell a lot of money, and the argument that it gets cheaper is just rubbish, because if difficulty drops, then honest miners can mine again. It's actually more fitting to say that in PoS system the attacker can attack the network as much as they want, because it costs nothing to sustain the attack. I seriously doubt there will ever be a power in this world that will be truly capable and willing to 51% attack Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
How accurate is it. Is it true that a node that is not actually processing transactions, is of no help for the network?
"Processing transactions" is an incorrect term when speaking of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin does not work like centralized payment systems do. Every full node verifies all transactions on the blockchain, so they can know that the coins that they use are not fake. Lightweight wallets also do these verifications, but they have to get the data from full nodes. Because of that, even if a full node isn't making any transactions, it's still helping other nodes, because when there's too little nodes on the network, there are risks that some can attack other nodes by having their own malicious nodes connect to them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
