I love the passion that Michael Saylor shows for Bitcoin. I love the way that he helps drive this community as well as how he has helped Bitcoin shine during times of never-ending FUD. However, I recently watched an interview with him where he discusses why he does not like to invest in ALT coins. While I understand this is a Bitcoin forum and ALT coins in general are not very well received here, I do think that his comments are a bit "narrow minded" in nature. I do not think he is giving ALT coins enough credit for what they have actually become. These ALT coins are just that, alternate coins. They are meant to complement the crypto space by providing options to people who want or need them. It seems to me that MS only believes in Bitcoin. While I (and I can't emphasize this enough) FIRMLY believe Bitcoin will always be around and remain one of the top cryptocurrencies, I think it is foolish to think that ALT coins are a bad investment. While some are garbage, there are way too many good projects out there to ignore. Here is the link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVYuuOw4zi4Let me know what you guys think. |
|
|
|
Charles Darwin is famous for his observation of "survival of the fittest" leading to a healthier eco system. Under his narrative organisms compete. Those best suited to thrive under existing conditions pass on their genes. Could this type of darwinism be applied to finance and money. Is a competitive environment for currencies and assets under markets favorable to society. If it is true that nature abhors a vacuum. Could aspects of finance and economies revolve around the opposite spectrum. Propping up vacuums due to an anti competitive slant whereby they seek to consolidate and monopolize markets to prevent any form of real competition from existing. It is common for many today to accuse american tech giants like google as being monopolies which exist in a vacuum where perhaps no real competition exists. Might it be fair to say, that competition carries a potential to make monopolistic giants like microsoft and google better. Competition can produce incentive and necessity for self improvement. Which drives industry advancement and progress. Elevating standard of living. In the absence of such can humanity, business or anything truly thrive? .... Food for thought: Conditions of degeneration in the organic world are approximately known. These conditions are often of two distinct kinds, deprivation of food, light, etc. so leading to imperfect nutrition and enervation; the other, a life of repose, with abundant supply of food and decreased exposure to the dangers of the environment. It is noteworthy that while the former only depresses, or at most distinguishes the specific type, the latter, through the disuse of the nervous and other structures etc. which such a simplification of life involves, brings about that far more insidious and through degeneration seen in the life history of myriads of parasites.
--Patrick Geddes Bad money drives out good money. |
|
|
|
We should also prepare ourselves for a long bear market because the bull this year was so strong so I also believe that we will go back from where we started, it could be deeper.
Completely disagree. This bull cycle has been the result of increased adoption. Particularly institutionally. I don't think we will see a prolonged bear market because of the success we are seeing in this bull market. |
|
|
|
I don't know what exact size of Marathon pool is but I guess their share percentage is below 0.1% of total hashrate and it is more like statistical error,
but it's dangerous thing if they become bigger and if other North American pools start to follow their example.
Funny thing happened few days ago and random people started to send Bitcoins to their address to make it ''dirty'', and Iran is doing something similar because they only allow transactions for Bitcoin that is mined in Iran.
I have no idea how they could control something like this but analytics and tracking is getting better every day so we need to think about this and find some solution for this.
Real problem here is the question of Bitcoin fungibility, because if one pool or one country or some dictator can censor and blacklist any address than it would mean that not all Bitcoin is the same for them.
Horror scenario would be that each country has it's own Bitcoin and cross border transactions are not allowed.
Horror scenario is a huge understatement. However, this made me laugh. |
|
|
|
I tend to think that this cycle, that is primarily due to halving mechanism, would be massively impacted by the research on the Stock to Flow, ratio. Its always something to do with the halving mechanism so far but this time it seems to be different ( my own perspective ). I wonder if we will ever get this huge bull run if it wasnt for the covid-19 pandemic. The 10 years US treasury bonds hits below their average return which is why alot of those big guys 'gamble' into cryptocurrencies in general To me, it's only stock to flow. Yes, the demand driven by the pandemic, the FED brrr and the wealth effect of stick market played a role, but the main driving force hasn't changed since 2010: Stock2Flow explains 95% of the price of bitcoin: I wouldn't be too concerned by the residual 5%. How strongly do you rely on S2F? |
|
|
|
It has been said that Bitcoin is more volatile on weekends usually because there is low volume which can be easily manipulated by the whales.
Also it is observed that bitcoin usually dump on weekends and not pump.
When the volume is low, why don't whales interested in pumping the coins ?
Big players who pumps coin are having there day-off during weekends since they are closing all there positions before weekends and just open again during Monday which weekly opening that's why pump always happened at the start of the week. If you have a thorough fundamentals on TA. You will know this trading flow. But I feel as though I have been observing opposite trends. The start of the week has not been very profitable for some time it feels. |
|
|
|
So one of the most popular narratives I see is that the utilization of Bitcoin would help put an end to the illegal funding of wars overseas. How do you figure this?
This is probably the first time I've read such narrative so I don't know how that became popular. The usual narrative was actually the opposite. BTC is used by crooks to launder money, drugs, dark market, and anything that's deemed illegal. I don't see how funding of wars would be any good since it can be used by warring nations. Maybe I was a bit exaggeratory. I have seen it loosely thrown around on this forum a couple of times as well as reddit. |
|
|
|
|
So one of the most popular narratives I see is that the utilization of Bitcoin would help put an end to the illegal funding of wars overseas. How do you figure this?
If one entity needs to get currency to another entity they will be able to do so. The way that I am seeing it, it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as they are getting the money in the first place. In fact, wouldn't Bitcoin make this type of funding more difficult to detect?
Then again, maybe I am looking at this the wrong way.
Could someone help shed some light on this narrative?
|
|
|
|
However, I have always been perplexed by this notion given the near perfect track record of the blockchain itself. Why would you need to do a test transaction when you know if you are sending to the correct address, the funds will get there safely?
The protocol itself might be working fine, totally understandable but you can't say the same for the wallet client. The address has a checksum and can be valid. However, the problem lies if the client somehow generates a nonstandard address. For example, if your wallet client uses a non-compressed public key to generate a Bech32 address, the network considers it nonstandard. You need a miner to be willing to manually include it in a block that they mine. Or, worse off, if the transaction is valid but the developers accidentally makes the transaction reuse the r value. The latter is quite unavoidable and can happen after several iterations of the wallet but it is a good way to tell if the wallet is suitable from your first try. It should not happen with most wallets, provided that the developers are competent at the very least. Excellent point! |
|
|
|
|
So I am well aware of why people do test transactions as they like to verify the address. Nobody wants to lose their funds.
However, I have always been perplexed by this notion given the near perfect track record of the blockchain itself. Why would you need to do a test transaction when you know if you are sending to the correct address, the funds will get there safely?
Give me your 2cents.
|
|
|
|
search. You can find some indexed in search engines that got stolen already by other people, that doesn't mean it won't happen again in the future.
Please explain what you mean. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
