"The crash" or "the cash"?You should edit your title,OP. This global market crash proves that bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies are not a safe heaven for the investors. I`m pretty sure that all the traders and investors will sell all the risky assets they have(like bitcoin and altcoins)and they will start buying gold.I`m wondering what factors influence this crash.The US economy is growing.There isn`t any major crysis in Europe or China.Maybe somebody will come up with a brand new conspiracy theory.  Everything isn't hunky-dory with the US economy. Some prominent economists have even declared that the US stock market is entering a multiyear bear market and concerns have been raised that the US might be set for its first recession since 2008 and its impact across the globe. As far as Bitcoin/cryptos/stocks are concerned, FUD is one of the main factors and the crypto market for more than a week is down under from FUD regarding Korea, India, China, and Bitfinex/Tether. Don't know if the stock market crash would have any impact on crypto market, not likely, but if the stock market situation worsens and crypto recovers from FUD, it probably would have an impact on the collapsing traditional market. |
|
|
|
|
Quite likely it will go below $6000, but don't think below $5000. After last year's China ban, the price picked up with a couple of forks and the frenzy reached a point with Bitcoin futures, all the FOMO investors without any understanding of the technology joined in and with the decline, dumping process began and on top of that FUD from everywhere, Korea, India, China yet again. This is good, Bitcoin's price increase from $7000 - $19000 was highly inflated.
|
|
|
|
|
Why stop at $1800 - $1500, why not a literal zero. There are approximately around 16,842,225 Bitcoins in circulation, now obviously with this number a lot of people should be holding on to their Bitcoin, and obviously from these there would be a good number of people who aren't bothered about price movements, corrections or about what experts say. Not saying Bitcoin couldn't fall to a level below $1500, but for something like that to happen there should be some big global realistic event, not temporary corrections or hypothetical assessments by so called experts.
|
|
|
|
Filecoin was such an ICO and there would be more ICOs tailor-made for the rich only, accredited investors. IMO such ICOs no matter how good their project and potential is, it would be a medium for the rich to get richer. Majority of the ICOs have no restrictions, works on the principles of free market, global participation, and decentralization. As far as you do your due diligence and invest into a sound project for either making a short-term profit or into the long-term development of the project, irrespective of wealthy or not, you will still make some profit. It's more like ICOs are making an average person rich. ICOs that are considered to be securities offerings that are not registered with the SEC can only be offered to accredited investors in the United States. However, some ICO providers opt to skirt this issue by not offering their ICO to American investors or to investors from countries with American-style securities regulations, like Hong Kong or Singapore. https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/ico-investment-strategy |
|
|
|
Blockchain technology is definitely groundbreaking, a revolutionary innovation which could almost be used for everything, but at this point in time there is more hype than disruption. The vast majority of ICOs/startups are not leading the cryptocurrency disruptive charge, but capitalizing on it. The Blockchain ecosystem is getting primarily used as a medium of trading and investing. Even with Bitcoin it was about an alternative currency, disrupting the financial/banking sector, now it wouldn't be wrong to admit that it has somewhat become a speculative trading tool. What do you think, would Blockchain’s first major use case would be as the stock market 2.0, cryptocurrency markets over traditional stock markets, cryptoassets over stocks? Most new blockchain tokens fail to adequately justify their existence. We’ve seen blockchain shoehorned into almost every type of business — from online marketplaces, to dating websites, to discount cards. The blockchain ecosystem is beginning to sound like a particularly bad startup pitch competition.
• ‘We’re airbnb but with blockchain!’ — beetoken
• ‘We’re grocery delivery with our own cryptocurrency!’ — ufoodo
• ‘We take a perfectly legitimate business and mangle it until we can somehow justify having our own token!’ — aeron
Disrupting the stock market is an ambitious but not unheard of goal. But could the cryptocurrency market be one of these challengers? It is clear that for many people crypto trading fulfills the same niche as investing in stocks.
Institutions dedicated to the stock market have started dealing with the cryptocurrency markets as well.
Banking heavyweight Morgan Stanley estimated that 2 billion dollars were poured into crypto from hedge funds over the last year.
TraderView, a social community and tools for stock traders, has listed many major cryptocurrency pairs on its site.
Weiss index, a company which assigns letter grades to stocks, posted it’s first cryptocurrency rankings.
And Robinhood, an app that has brought stock trading to a new generation of investors, announced plans to start offering ethereum and bitcoin on its platform.
2017 also saw major companies launch their own cryptocurrencies. Kik, a Canadian chat giant launched a 97 million dollar ICO in August.
Overstock followed suit in December raising 100 million dollars for its OSTK token. Their token is a security and registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Kodak, a household name in cameras and photography, announced it’s plans to hold an ICO.
The majority of new investors trade in cryptocurrency and nothing else. Stock markets around the world have begun to slide into obscurity.
Is this a moonshot speculation? Maybe. The stock market is a large and ancient institution. But disruption of the financial sector has long been a rallying cry of blockchain enthusiasts. Until recently we’ve been focussed on currency and banking. Maybe it’s time we look at stocks and investment? https://hackernoon.com/blockchains-first-major-use-case-is-as-the-stock-market-2-0-8d916ea0bc00 |
|
|
|
Call them what they truly are.
Merits= Ass Kissing Points
Nothing more, Nothing less.
Collusion has already begun by the same scummy default trust members to up their merits, by giving each other merits for worthless posts.
Same broken system new scam to proclaim superiority.
╥Aztek
Yo bud, you have to agree that it contributes to have less spam posts and more of a not quality, but a bit genuine posts. Have you last checked how many users does BCT have, it ain't about default trust members, who might/would give each other a good supply of merit, does it matter, it's further than that. Earlier it was more about posts, ranks were counted on posts, not quality, yes, no, mmmm, agree, bad, helpful, ICO...monolugue got me 6 posts with activity. Quoting a post from Meta on a response by Lutpin: Now my rank in the forum depends on others! If some one thinks my post is merit worthy then they will give me merit. My rank now has to look for the mercy of others!
~snip~
But this new 'Merit' system is a 'centralised' system which depends on the mercy of others and that is a BIG SLAP to the face of 'Decentralisation'
Let's sum up the two main points you have: - Your rank depends on ratings given by the general public/many other people.
- Your rank is given by a centralized source.
Don't you think those two stand in contrast to each other? It's just about a week since Merit system has been implemented. And I have seen a lot of users already encouraging newbies with merit having post quality. On top of spamming, it's an apt approach to get rid of account farming. |
|
|
|
|
ICO marketing is turning into an industry of its own, no matter how bad your idea is, how non-implementable your roadmap is, how economically unsustainable your model is, still marketing is worth to get a few thousands of dollars and get away with it, this is what the majority of ICO boom is turning into. There are definitely some awesome projects, but you can't stop the bad ones from bloating the cryptospace, majority of them would collapse sooner or later. ICOs are in its initial stages, there would be brilliant/good/average/bad/scam projects, but I think once the cryptospace has a steady flow of brilliant and good ICOs, no one would bother about the bad ones.
|
|
|
|
As far as cryptocurrencies are concerned, US already have enforced some regulations. Question is when is Uncle Sam going to come up with more stiffer regulations which could stifle innovations. The tax bill would restrict 1031 exchanges to real estate only, loopholes gets closed and then there is Senate Bill S.1241, more of an anti-Bitcoin bill which would criminalize anyone who is intentionally concealing ownership or control of a digital currency or digital exchange account, I guess which means you can't hide the accounts you have on centralized exchanges. I don't think this bill would get passed, but I guess after the upcoming G20 summit where Bitcoin is going to be a topic of debate, we might get a clear picture, not only US, but also how other countries are going to try to regulate Bitcoin. https://hackernoon.com/senate-bill-s-1241-a-threat-to-america-456873d4eccc |
|
|
|
|
By the end of last year, the price spiked because of all the hype and the launch of CME Bitcoin futures. We have seen there is a definitive correlation between Bitcoin price and the hype that it creates when major financial players/governments make some positive announcements regarding Bitcoin.
It's all about supply and demand, comes down to what factors are influencing them. Positive announcement, price spikes, but at the same time short-term investors jump in to make some quick bucks, and then FOMO investors extend the bull ride a bit and when the price reaches a point, obviously short-term investors cash in, FOMO investors panic and there is a correction. Supply/demand/utility/media/FUD/regulations/speculation/manipulation, a lot of factors triggers Bitcoin price to fall down.
|
|
|
|
|
A decentralized trustless currency relying on centralized exchanges, a bit ironic, but the Bitcoin ecosystem hasn't evolved to the point where decentralized exchanges are dominant. Agreeable that centralized platforms experience a lot of issues, from scam to hack to freezing accounts to technical difficulties/downtime. But again at the same time, there is liquidity, well-established platforms have credibility, and that's what most users prefer, but IMO there would be a greater need for decentralized exchanges in future, would be a necessity and there are already some exciting platforms, but with very low volume. We just have to wait and see how these projects would turn out.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite obvious, greed. People who simply want to earn some quick bucks without any effort fall for these scams, cloud mining, HYIP, Bitcoin generator, doubler. They do know they are investing into a scam, but still believe they would be lucky enough to double/ROI their investment and in the process drag other people into the scam, referrals. No need to own any equipment, making money on the cloud, that's the lure, simple common sense is more than enough to grasp why would someone lend their hardware when they are making enough profit.
Apart from greed, newbies fall for cloud mining scams, they don't do any research, someone recommends and they blindly accept it. There are a couple of posts every week on this section, newbies asking whether this cloud mining is legit/profitable, they simply want yes or no, rather than researching or understanding how the cloud mining model works.
|
|
|
|
I totaly agree with you.
People represents Lightning network as it is going to be the whole cure for the bitcoin problem, and every time someone complains about the fee or about the transactions speed, Lightning Network instantly comes out as " the cure".
The true fact about Lightning network that the whole bitcoin network has to be prepared for it, and it is going to take years until lightning network receives a massive adoption, we could see how segwit came out about a year ago, and still more then 90% of the network is using non-segwit addresses although segwit is much more cheaper.
Also, those people forget to mention that new users will have to open a new channel within the Lightning network, which means that they are going to pay a full transaction fee for that, so it doesn't prevent new users from paying the tx fee.
With Segwit, almost all major exchanges/wallets haven't implemented it yet. How many new Bitcoin users rely on wallets with access to private keys? A very small percentage, rest keep funds on centralized exchanges/custodial wallets, that's one of the main reasons behind lack of Segwit adoption. Secondary, Segwit was a temporary solution to implement further scaling solutions. Increasing the blocksize to 2 MB would have the same results within a year. With Lightening Network the argument is always about centralization and offchain transactions, again my above point, if a service like Coinbase has a payment channel, wouldn't a good number of their users use it, thus taking the load off Blockchain, and lowering on-chain fees. As far as I have seen, people don't have much issue using well-established centralized Bitcoin services/exchanges/wallets. Offchain transactions, although it's security is enforced by Blockchain, isn't? Well, according to Forbes, on-chain global Bitcoin transactions are around $2 Billion a day. A big number, yes, but off-chain transaction (exchanges, wallets, others) are roughly estimated at around $30 Billion a day, but the real number is probably much higher. This can all be done on the Lightning Network, eliminating exchange counter-party risk and even allowing near-instant and cheap inter-exchange deposit and withdrawal transactions.
LN isn't going to fix anything until it gets adopted at a large scale, the same Segwit scenario. The developers can roll out upgrades, but it's the ecosystem consisting of big services that have to implement it to deliver it to the user. https://decentralize.today/struck-by-lightning-bitcoins-true-killer-app-491092574cd8 |
|
|
|
No one wants to discuss the future of bitcoin and blockchain technology together? It disappoints me.
Don't exactly know what would be the ultimate goal of Blockchain would be, neither good with predictions, but with all the hype surrounding ICOs, majority of projects have adopted the theme "Blockchain for everything", while a few projects are quite brilliant, and the rest using Blockchain for all the wrong reasons and Blockchain is also getting due attention from governments/banksters/financial institutions where the theme is more on the lines of "Blockchain not Bitcoin." No denying the fact that Blockchain being a foundational technology would have a huge impact in future. Like the banks say, they might implement Blockchain for faster transactions, lower costs, and security. If I let my imagination run a bit, maybe a government or two might even try to create some system of control through Blockchain, but I think it's more of a ticket to a decentralized future and Bitcoin being Blockchain technology's first implementation it would have a big impact on how it evolves. |
|
|
|
|
When some economists attack Bitcoin with tulip mania, it's because they apply economic theories, empirical and theoretical studies, but Bitcoin is quite different from existing models, a combination of cryptography, economics, and game theory and they don't expect to see a paradigm shift through Bitcoin's economic model.
When some banksters attack Bitcoin with fraud, it's obviously their lack of control over Bitcoin makes them feel threatened.
When investors like Warren Buffet call Bitcoin a mirage, it's basically their lack of understanding of a new technology or their reluctance to accept something new.
And then there are attacks/FUD purposefully planned not because of any economic model, feeling threatened, or technology, but solely for monetary gains.
Leave aside banksters, but I wouldn't say negative statements against Bitcoin by economists are always meant to be an attack on Bitcoin, at times there is some constructive criticism.
|
|
|
|
The talks about FEDcoin has been doing the rounds since 2014. The purpose of FEDcoin would be quite simple, digital tokens of dollars, replace cash, enforce a complete centralized privacy-less cryptocurrency upon the masses. It's likely that the Federal Reserve might attempt to come up with something like FEDcoin, the last arrow in its money quiver, but for it to gain any mass acceptance, people would have to choose it because there isn't any other choice/no alternatives and precisely for something like that to happen the whole decentralized crypto market should be non-existent. Do you see something like that happening anytime soon? No. Bitcoin is an experiment at a separation of state and money and recently Nassim Taleb said, it might fail, but then it will be easily reinvented as we now know how it works. But its mere existence is an insurance policy that will remind governments that the last object establishment could control, namely, the currency, is no longer their monopoly. This gives us, the crowd, an insurance policy against an Orwellian future. https://medium.com/opacity/bitcoin-1537e616a074 |
|
|
|
|
Bubbles happen when something is overvalued and the current growth isn't sustainable. Rather than utility, speculators invest into an asset only taking the price into consideration and when an asset's growth is primarily-driven by speculation it is in a speculative bubble. We have already seen that at certain intervals Bitcoin behaves like a bubble, when speculators artificially inflate the price, there obviously comes a period of correction/decline to normalize/stabilize. Less than 1% of the world population uses Bitcoin, still in the price discovery process, volatility, speculation, but until Bitcoin's growth is primarily driven by its utility, there would be times where the valuation wouldn't be sustainable and people coming with analogies like tulip mania, bubble theory, no intrinsic value, just numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
It has just been a month since Bitcoin futures was launched by CME. Is the current variations in Bitcoin price a result of this? It's quite difficult to say. There are contradictory views, people who see Bitcoin futures as a mainstream approach and the others who believe it might have a negative impact on the Bitcoin market, manipulation/shorting. The dynamics of Bitcoin economics is different from other assets/derivatives, a new asset class, so IMO, maybe in short-term big Wall Street players might be able to influence the price, but in the long-term there are a lot of factors involved.
|
|
|
|
This report hasn't been officially confirmed yet. If the South Korean government applies this new taxation rates to cryptocurrency exchanges then they would have to pay 24.2 percent of corporate and local income taxes, don't see why this new tax policy would have any significant impact on individual traders. Under current laws, all corporations with income of over 20 billion won (US$18.7 million) are required to pay 22 percent and 2.2 percent of corporate and local income taxes on their income.
Bithumb, one of South Korea's major cryptocurrency exchanges, is expected to pay about 60 billion won in corporate and local income taxes as its estimated earnings reached 317.6 billion won last year, according to Yujin Investment & Securities.
Bithumb reported 49.23 billion won in earnings on 49.27 billion won of sales for the first seven months last year. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/01/22/0200000000AEN20180122002200320.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
