Anybody know how many BTC from 19 million minted coin is in circulation and trading in almost three hundred exchanges?
Nobody knows the exact amount of Bitcoins in circulation. The numbers you see on the market are just a wild guess. That's because no one can tell whenever some coins have been completely lost or held in reserves for future reference. Considering that are lot of coins have been lost over time, there could be a lot less Bitcoins in circulation than we've thought they would be. Based on this assumption alone, Bitcoin could be undervalued as we speak. The more coins lost, the scarcer (and more valuable) Bitcoin will become. Ultimately, Bitcoin's all about utility. As long as it fulfills its promise of bringing banking to the unbanked, nothing else matters. Just my opinion  |
|
|
|
Was there ever a bad time to start accepting bitcoin? It's an extra payment method. This means there are more customers who'll be willing to buy your products. For example, me. Whenever I want to buy something via the internet, I check if it can accept bitcoin instead, and if it does, I choose to. Even if I don't for some reason, I will feel a preference to that store; accepting bitcoin shows you respect my privacy.
If you sell products that don't cost a lot ($1-$50), consider accepting Lightning payments as well.
If you don't care about BTC's price relative to Fiat, then it's the perfect time to start accepting it as payment method. But most merchants rely on Fiat to survive, so they would hesitate to accept BTC when prices are always unstable. After all, the whole world goes around Fiat. Things would've been different if we were living on the Bitcoin standard. Goods and services would be paid for using Bitcoin without ever needing to cash it out to Fiat ever again. That would only happen if Fiat collapses in its entirety (which you and I know this is very unlikely to happen anytime soon). As long as volatility exists, the number of merchants accepting BTC as payment method would be extremely limited. Crypto often behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so anything's possible in the future. Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
Man, I still remember when Bitcoin was down to 3-4k-ish in those years and I was like just "keep buying and don't press that cash out button, lol".
Also considering many crypto-related platforms that I got involved at including those web wallets I had registered for their services, it has been a lot of changes now. Bad thing is crypto wallets that are localized here in my country is getting stricter in KYC and I can't even blame them for doing it considering that there were some money laundering happening that involved digital money in here.
Crypto wallets which enforce KYC are nothing more than centralized. You should look for non-custodial (decentralized) wallets if you want true anonymity/privacy. Speaking of the crypto market, I'd say it's really 2018 all over again. Prices are going down, while hype has temporarily faded away. Back in the day when crypto was in its very beginnings, no one thought it would become as valuable as it is right now. The price for 1 Bitcoin was less than a cent in the very early days. Now, it's worth thousands of dollars due to ever-increasing demand on the market. Experts are predicting Bitcoin will reach $1m, so if that becomes a reality, other cryptocurrencies will become much more valuable in the future. Ultimately, it's all about buying coins during bear markets in order to sell them once everything goes back up again. As long as you play your cards right, you'll be on a road towards true financial freedom. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I think its inevitable with such case of terra ust. Their apy is really high compared to other stablecoin and thats make it more quite risky. Of course I hate to say it, that I am one of victim of it but other stablecoin too lack audit. Cant say that its a failed experiment but the lack of sufficient security measures were missed on this. Whales have managed to outrace them using their fund and thats the weakness they exploited. Decentralized or not once someone realize a flaw then it will literally be a bad result on the other end.
High percentage rates (APY) translates into higher inflation rates. The higher the inflation, the less valuable the currency you're holding into will be. What happened with UST is a result of complete mismanagement from the Terra team. If they would've done things right from the start, none of this would've happened in the first place. I'm afraid other algorithmic stablecoins will have the same fate as UST unless developers decide to improve them for the better. It seems to me that TRON's USDD algorithmic stablecoin is the next one on the list to lose its peg. There's a 30% interest rate given to USDD holders on the TRON blockchain. This is even higher than what the Anchor Protocol offered on the Terra blockchain. If things are done right, decentralized stablecoins hold promise to bring banking to the unbanked. Whenever they'll become a success or a failed experiment is yet to be seen. It's still too early to determine this, so I'd say we should give decentralized stablecoins some time to mature before rushing ourselves to any conclusions. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Although that CBDCs will have higher chances of global adoption, but they are fully centralized and we don’t have the full control of our funds there. As for the stablecoins despite that there are no proven backers there because of being prone to de-pegging like the UST and USDT, at least these stablecoins are not fully centralized. They’re a mixed of centralized, semi-decentralized or fully decentralized.
I haven’t tried using CBDCs yet because it was still under pilot testing here in the Philippines, but got no problem with stablecoins that I have in both in Binance, hardware and non-custodial mobile wallets.
Well, I'm almost certain that CBDCs will replace stablecoins simply because they're backed by mainstream governments. The LUNA/UST fiasco has brought up the attention of regulators worldwide. It should only be a matter of time before stricter regulations are implemented, greatly diminishing the growth of stablecoins in the mainstream world. Once CBDCs become a reality, it's possible governments will declare stablecoins illegal in order to force people to stay within the banking system. Only truly decentralized stablecoins and cryptocurrencies will survive because of the way they're designed. What the future holds for the entire crypto/Blockchain industry is a mystery. As long as governments and crypto industry leaders work together, mainstream adoption for crypto/Blockchain tech will reach new heights. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
There is an inverse relationship between the increase in US Fed discount rates (refinancing rates) and the price of bitcoin (expressed in USD).
The US Federal Reserve's discount rate is the rate at which the US Federal Reserve lends new money to commercial banks. Commercial banks (in turn) lend dollars to other organizations and individuals. Thus, the Fed's rate hike. leads to an increase in the value of the US dollar (and a fall in the price of Bitcoin).
At present, a further increase in rates by the US Federal Reserve has been announced.
Therefore, we do not observe an increase in the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
It seems this is what's preventing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from reaching new All-time-highs in price. The LUNA collapse also has something to do with this. Long-term speaking, crypto should be more valuable as mainstream adoption grows like crazy. There are some governments already embracing Bitcoin as legal tender, so crypto is here to stay. With every block reward halving, Bitcoin will become scarcer than ever. Since altcoins follow Bitcoin's footsteps, any positive reaction on Bitcoin's price will mirror itself on these other coins too. Ultimately, what matters is utility. As long as crypto is useful, nothing else matters. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
I don't think the Terra (LUNA) project will recover in the future. They have a plan for Luna 2.0 right now, as you know, but I don't think it will work. Many people suffered serious damage and the Luna team managed this process very badly.
If investors' confidence is lost, it'll be quite difficult to get things back on track. A re-branding would've been a much better choice, instead of creating a new blockchain with the same old name. Some people even recommended the LUNA team to burn existing tokens in order to restore the cryptocurrency's price on the market. This is all a disaster that will probably shift away people's attention from crypto into something else at least within a short amount of time. What will happen in the future with LUNA is only a mystery. I'll be a miracle if Terra rises from the ground up after all it's been through. If it does, then demand for crypto will soar towards new heights. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
new week's payment has been processed.
Well received. Thank you DogecoinMachine and Crypto.Games team! |
|
|
|
The idea is that if they do this, then they could make sure that they sell that bitcoin for ruble and gather all the ruble all around the world. Not just inside their nation, but get bitcoin from others, and this would earn them a ton of bitcoin, then sell it and get dollars, or euros, and then they could sell those and get ruble.
What this does is put a lot more dollars into the world since they are selling it, and taking more ruble out of the circulation because they are buying it. As we can see, that would work. However, they are already doing fine to be fair and I do not think that they would need something like that at this point.
With decentralized exchanges and P2P trading platforms, it may be possible to trade BTC for Ruble or vice versa even with economic sanctions in play. But Russia still has some allies willing to purchase its petroleum and natural gas reserves, so legalizing Bitcoin would not be a priority right now. Even if Bitcoin never gets the approval of Russia, government officials can still use it "behind the scenes". It's a decentralized and open source cryptocurrency after all. Adoption for BTC is growing worldwide, so it should only be a matter of time before "hyperbitcoinization" becomes a reality. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
I don't think that far because it looks like the government is looking to legalize crypto in several countries in the world, it's proven because some countries have taken taxes from cryptocurrency production. Even though there are some weaknesses of cryptocurrencies, the existence of a supportive government will cover these shortcomings so that it is possible for cryptocurrencies to last for a long time as a commodity investment asset.,
As long as there's a single country supporting crypto/Blockchain tech, centralized exchanges won't be going anywhere soon. I doubt all of the world's governments will turn against crypto since it brings huge taxation benefits in the long term. Decentralized exchanges are good, but they can't outmatch their centralized counterparts in terms of performance and ease-of-use. They'll only remain as an alternative than a replacement of traditional exchanges. Ultimately, people will get to decide which type of exchange to use for their own benefit. With how far crypto has gone so far, it seems that centralized exchanges will be here to stay for a long, long time. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
What happened with Luna has already damaged the confidence of market participants, money is flying away from crypto market which is evident from declining marketcap and certainly it will scare away investors in the short to medium term but in the long run people will forget because human memory is very short. All markets have seen crash, long bear cycles and recessions but after sometime process of recovery starts,
Depending on the severity of the crash, people might never forget about Terra/LUNA's scandal. There were billions of dollars on the line, which all went away in an instant due to the irresponsibility of the Terra team. Unless the UST peg is restored and LUNA's price goes back to normal, it's going to take a long time before confidence is regained on crypto/Blockchain tech. At least, Bitcoin and some other "blue chip" coins are standing strong. LUNA may fade into oblivion, but another cryptocurrency will take its place in the future. All in all, I think decentralization needs to win for crypto to last a long time. For now, let's focus on accumulating BTC and other prominent alts to achieve peace of mind in the future. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I think we should not only blame governments for not adopting bitcoin, there are many other factors as well. As you mentioned there are a lot of crypto scams, hacks & thefts which people are doing, not the governments. Due to these online hacks, there is a lot of fear in the people and they hesitate to put their money online.
The only way to increase the bitcoin adoption is to give more awareness to the people.
There are a lot of factors in play which limits Bitcoin's adoption worldwide. From government obstruction, to hacks and scams, Bitcoin won't be able to become Fiat's replacement anytime soon. It's been 13 years since Bitcoin's inception, but there are still a lot of people who don't know about Bitcoin yet. Not to mention, a small portion of them hate Bitcoin simply because they've been accustomed with the banking system for a long time. Of course, there are some governments adopting Bitcoin as legal tender. But that's still not enough for "hyperbitcoinization" to become a reality soon. At least, Bitcoin is working as intended. As long as decentralization wins, nothing else matters. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
To some degree it is a bit strange to have this thread that proclaims that El Salvador's bitcoin adoption failed.. which seems to rely upon some mainstream bullshit talking points bashing bitcoin and then another fuller El Salvador thread that pre-existed this thread.. so why two threads? Sure there have been some decent naysaying points brought up in this thread, yet the responsive posts that provided various reasons why such "failure" conclusion would be immature come off as way more convincing. I just provided a post of Peter McCormick's second interview with Bukele in the other El Salvador bitcoin thread ( here), which I would suggest any of the bitcoin and/or El Salvador naysayers should listen to that interview. It's still too early to determine whenever Bitcoin's adoption in El Salvador has been a widespread success or a total failure. We should give it some time to see how adoption will progress as Bitcoin reaches new All-time-highs. The crypto market is still in bearish mode, so it's going to take at least 2-3 years from now before we see Bitcoin flourishing within the region. It seems to me that developing countries are closely watching El Salvador in order to make a decision regarding Bitcoin's status as legal tender. With the Central African Republic also in the game, it should only be a matter of time before other countries follow suit. This is still Bitcoin's very beginnings, so I'd advise anyone to "hodl on tight" since the best is yet to come. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Luna is done. nothing happened with this token other than going even deeper from time to the another time. We have seen so many people have been loosing a lot of their money. UST holders are scammed. They are buying the stable coin with $1 for each and mostly of ust holders are loosing more than 94% their investment. This blockchain is done. Migrating into the new token will be only make the dead become even longer but the result will always be the same.
There's no possibility for terra luna to revive again. If do can have tens billions of money to repeg UST and this time luna may go up again.
If LUNA's reputation went all the way to the ground, then the best solution would be to do a re-branding of the project. Only then, investors' confidence will be restored giving us hopes to see a recovery in the future. A new chain dubbed "Terra 2.0" might not be enough to help restore LUNA's price close to its All-time-high. Times keeps going by, but we haven't seen any progress on the recovery plan whatsoever. Everything's been about talks and proposals, instead of concrete results. Prices for the original LUNA cryptocurrency are still less than a cent, so investing on the coin now would be nothing more than a gamble. If all else fails, LUNA might become the next "meme coin" that will join the ranks of Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, among others. I hope such disaster won't happen again or crypto will be done for good. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Just dont forget that in bank interest case you operate with fiat or lets say stable coins. What is the point of staking with 200% profit, when altcoins value has dropped by 300% ? When 1-3% in stable coins is always 1-3%. Doesnt bank interest gives more stability or feeling of safety? Chance that bank goes bankrupt is lower than altcoin going to a bottom.
What I like about banking interest is that it is totally passive. With staking, you still have to follow the market and follow project. Because you might miss moment when you should quickly close staking and sell.
The risks of staking coins are simply too high to bear. That's not the case with banks, as Fiat deposits are insured by the government (like in the US). The APR may be low, but the risk of loss is much lower than it's the case with PoS cryptocurrencies. You'd have to be quite agile to protect your purchasing power during high periods of volatility. If you play your cards right, staking may be a much more suitable option for reaching endless profits. It's all about balancing risks vs rewards. I'd do both staking and saving money at a bank to achieve complete peace of mind. Who knows if someday banks offer crypto staking services to customers in the future? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Finding when to buy is the biggest problem. People keep looking at the bottom and fear that it may drop even more and stay away from buying more. That is a big problem in our market, when it was 26k, that meant that people sold from 40k to 26k without much buying happening.
This should tell you that there were tons of people who sold at the prices that they should have bought. I mean that's bottom, and people were selling at the bottom. That causes many to lose money and price to go back. Right now anyone who sold between 30k to 26k ended up in a loss for example. This should be good enough reason to understand why it's hard to find the bottom for so many people.
When there's extremely volatility it's hard to find a bottom. You'd just need to take it slow and easy in order to avoid large losses in the long run. Just buy the "blue chip" coins on the market (usually the top 5 cryptocurrencies in market cap) and you'll do fine. Bitcoin is the "King of Crypto" so it should be on every crypto investor's portfolio. The same can be said about Ethereum. With bear markets, comes a huge buying opportunity for those who can afford it. If experts' predictions become a reality, then it's possible you'll become a wealthy person in the future if you start investing today. Ultimately, it's all about minimizing risks. As long as you don't put all of your eggs in one basket, you'll have nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Why should they be more expensive? Is the crypt somehow connected with the world of real money, economy, trade? Why, for example, does the photo in your phone, or the view outside the window, not rise in price? The crypt is now still an alternative reality. Therefore, processes in the real world and in the crypto world are weakly connected with each other. Yes, at times when the crypto was expensive and there was a trend for the price to rise, it entered into an alternative "haven" for the transfer of assets, in an unstable financial situation. Now the crisis is global, and the crypt does not have the status of a "money savior", especially after a 2-fold drop in its price, and ambiguous trends If Bitcoin is often viewed by many as "Gold's successor", then prices should go up the more Fiat loses its purchasing power through inflation. But somehow, nothing's happening as prices continue to sink like there's no tomorrow. I guess cryptocurrencies need more time to mature before they become a true alternative against the existing monetary system. Regardless of market prices, one can still use crypto directly for cross-border payments. But in a world where everything moves around Fiat, paying for thing directly using crypto regardless of its price makes no sense. Slowly but surely, countries are adopting crypto/Blockchain tech for their own benefit so it should only be a matter of time before we become the next crypto millionaires. I'm in no hurry to see this happen as long as crypto works as intended. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Being volatile is the attraction of bitcoin, but everyone won't be loving it. For now it won't stabilize, because the market needs to experience a massive change. Countries are continuing their process of regulating the usage of cryptocurrencies. This could make changes in the long term. The recent government to show full fledged effort on regulating cryptocurrency is Australia’s newly-elected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Same as him when more countries create regulatory framework the market will stabilize, but the network function like a centralized system.
You've said it yourself. Bitcoin needs a massive change for prices to stabilize in the long term. But there will still be some level of volatility because it's traded on the open market. Just like Gold, there will be ups and downs within certain periods of time. If you really want to avoid volatility, then I see no other choice than relying on centralized stablecoins for peace of mind. I'd steer clear from algorithmic stablecoins like UST and USDN because they're easily prone to lose their peg over time. What ultimately matters is Bitcoin's usefulness as a currency. So far, it's been doing well after all these years so prices are the least reason to worry about. As long as you don't invest more than what you can't afford to lose, you'd be on a road towards non-stop financial success. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
While I'm a supporter of Bitcoin who has gone through several difficult periods of bear market and also supports the principle of 1 BTC is equal to 1 BTC, the risk is always there. Despite that I'm accustomed with its ups and downs, Bitcoin is a volatile asset, among many others, thus, the factor of risk is always there.
I believe that the market will recover at some point throughout 2023, till then, we'll need to be patient enough to get through this phase.
The reason why BTC isn't a safe-haven is because its value is tied to Fiat. In Fiat terms, BTC's price is volatile. But in pure crypto terms, it is not. 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin, right? All it takes is for the world to ditch the Fiat standard in order to embrace the Bitcoin standard with open arms. Fiat currencies like the USD and EUR would no longer be relied upon as a standard unit of account, as they're replaced by Bitcoin itself. While this is unlikely to happen with the short term, it might happen in the future if Fiat continues to lose ground. Hyperinflation of Fiat currencies will lead us to "hyperbitcoinization" faster than you could've ever imagined. Bitcoin is working as intended as a decentralized cryptocurrency no one can stop. Who knows if the next 10 years, Bitcoin will relied upon as a safe-haven asset by everyday people? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
we were led to believe bitcoin was the best "safe haven" in times of economical uncertainty (like the current US recession) and war that eventually hit the world economy (russia-ukraine) because the market was yet to experience something of that magnitude, in a way we were gullible (?) and it was easy for some people to convince others that btc was going to go to the moon during a financial crisis, so the grand majority of the market set high expectations around btc if such turbulent events were to occur. Now we're going through those terrible events and it's ugly and obviously we weren't prepared to the punch in the face (financial crisis and a btc crash). Maybe those things about "btc safe haven" were true before the big investment firms, bankers and wall street entered the crypto market, but that ship sailed a long time ago and the btc price now mirrors traditional markets which are currently on a downtrend and you can be sure (sadly) that btc will follow that trend
That sucks real bad because it ties Bitcoin to the existing financial system (something that it was meant to avoid in the first place). How can Bitcoin become an alternative to Fiat if its price moves in relation to the stock market? That's what happens when big players (wall street, institutional investors) are in play. In the early years of Bitcoin, things were a lot different than what they are right now. People used to believe in BTC as a currency, not as an investment or speculative instrument. But greed took over, so BTC's price will be subject to heavy manipulation by whales and the likes. Let's see what'll happen within the next 2-3 years as the world's economic situation continues to deteriorate. The more countries adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, the higher the demand for the cryptocurrency will be. Hopefully, BTC will become much more valuable in the future with every block reward halving. Who knows if we become the next Bitcoin millionaires? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
