This is the interesting part of your post. Your main omission is that weaker and stronger hands are a relative notion. I remember I have already mentioned it somewhere and maybe even in this very thread. In a nutshell, there will always be strong and weak hands, there cannot be only strong hands in the market. It's kind of a given. While weak hands leave, less stronger hands remain, but it takes even higher volatility to shake them out. In other words, it works in the opposite direction toward more volatility. Obviously, this is applicable only to speculative markets, but Bitcoin undoubtedly belongs to this category.
Yes, there cannot, but the ratio will change. The market never moves towards more volatility, except if it is in the adolescent phase or reaching its end. What you mention "it takes even higher volatility to shake them out" I take as a very valuable mention. You are completely right, as the market reaches the stability phase, what was in is mostly left in because the volatility should go in opposite ways in order to shake things out. I don't really believe we can measure crypto markets by the same yardstick as we do with, for example, stocks, or even just one stock. It could be said that volatility is built in with Bitcoin. There is no significant use for it outside speculation. That means that it can't be stable. When it moves toward more stability, people become bored and they start to withdraw their capital from Bitcoin, which, in turn, leads to volatility. In this fashion, crypto volatility is a self-sustaining process which can maintain itself on its own. Well, FIAT money market (and there are a lot of speculation markets connected to FIAT money) is usually measured in a similar way as stocks market while for FIAT money the same rule applies - it's value is made only by what we are willing to add. I like the rest of your comment, especially the statement about the boredom, I believe that is true. |
|
|
|
|
Ima li tih Ledgera u HR negdje, a da je pouzdano za kupiti?
|
|
|
|
|
A brilliant thread, I am bookmarking it. Maybe you could add CoinExchange.Io, I noticed that one starting to appear as a trade site for many smaller coins.
|
|
|
|
|
The ease of Messi winning such a high profile game almost by himself is still incredible.
Regarding Manchester United - Sevilla game, I was very surprised to see MAN UTD dropping out since the game came to Mourinho who is the best when he can decide how and in what conditions the game will be played. Who else thinks this is the biggest flop in his carries so far?
|
|
|
|
|
KYC seems a good idea from one perspective, but not so good on the other as scammers will have a more legit support to ask for our phone numbers, documents etc...... What do you think?
Money laundering is always a problem, it's not crypto-reserved.
|
|
|
|
I am a little bit weary of this decline. I know that the market will rise up again and will rise up hard. However, as a human nature usually is, I am largely impatient. Any experienced trades here who could tell us - when?  |
|
|
|
Well, opinions may vary but as far as my opinion is concerned, I think that a price fall as low as 30% of December highs pretty much counts as a crash. And we are still half the maximum price of $20k. We haven't seen a fall that massive since the Gox fiasco, so it is not something which can be called "normal" whatever yardstick you use. Anyway, right now it is definitely not about "market rising in steps".
We can agree to disagree Look at the Bitcoin, it had 4 of "crashes" like that so far. It even has a predictable trend through the year now. Check it out. But I do agree opinions may vary in this case. What Bitcoin needs is for the weaker hands (Poker expression is deliberate) to leave the market thus leaving only the strong holders - albeit corrections this actually stabilizes the market. You can consider the market mature only when it stabilizes and that would mean that generally only strong holders are left and the 1-5% percent of weak holders and daily speculators cannot hurt/destabilize the market. The current situation when you have the market reacting to almost every news out there shows us that Bitcoin is far from maturity and that is the ideal situation for experienced investors to take opportunities and take all the money from the fish (Poker expression is deliberate yet again). This is the interesting part of your post. Your main omission is that weaker and stronger hands are a relative notion. I remember I have already mentioned it somewhere and maybe even in this very thread. In a nutshell, there will always be strong and weak hands, there cannot be only strong hands in the market. It's kind of a given. While weak hands leave, less stronger hands remain, but it takes even higher volatility to shake them out. In other words, it works in the opposite direction toward more volatility. Obviously, this is applicable only to speculative markets, but Bitcoin undoubtedly belongs to this category. Yes, there cannot, but the ratio will change. The market never moves towards more volatility, except if it is in the adolescent phase or reaching its end. What you mention "it takes even higher volatility to shake them out" I take as a very valuable mention. You are completely right, as the market reaches the stability phase, what was in is mostly left in because the volatility should go in opposite ways in order to shake things out. |
|
|
|
Ok, za sada se nisu javili, ali vidjet ćemo. Ako su još uvijek ozbiljan tim javit će se, ovako ili onako, ako nisu - good luck and goodbye. |
|
|
|
I've been consistently staggered at the level of reading comprehension on display in places like this and elsewhere. It really appears to me that barely anyone reads beyond a headline, and more often than not they lack the mental firepower to interpret that correctly.
My guess is 80% read the first couple of words of a headline. The next 15% make it to the end of the headline. 5% actually bother to click through. 4.9% don't get beyond the first paragraph. 0.09% gets to the end. 0.01% actually takes the time to understand what they've read.
Gentlemand, I am quoting you separately because you touched a much wider subject here. The problem with reading these days is very apparent, at least in my country. It wasn't enough that most of the people don't have a capacity or will to read books, most of them being discouraged by the poor education system in which there was a constant obligation to read books not interesting and adequate for a target age, but now we also have a problem of rushed times where "nobody has time for anything" and a constant overflow of information potentiated with the accessibility of technology..... However, most reads are easy, unsubstantial and people got used to not reading more than two sentences. This also provided ground for click baits and similar news manipulations. This is of course also reflecting on the problem I mentioned in the OP. |
|
|
|
People does not know that our crypto community needs regulation in order to prevent some of the money laundering and also for protecting the investors. Many people will start to invest because it is now secured.
My thoughts exactly.
If it could be proven that regulation would, in fact, provide more security, then perhaps it would be a less contentious issue. But all the regulation in the world isn't going to prevent hacks and thefts. One could even argue it may have the opposite effect and create more security risks. If regulation means exchanges have to keep records of all their customers' personal details stored, this could lead to an increased threat of identity theft. It wouldn't just be the coins people will try to break into the exchanges for, it's also a potential cache of photo ID that could either be sold for profit or used to commit fraud. As with all things, it's never that clear cut. Regulation is a complicated and nuanced subject, so it will likely take some time before we manage to strike the right balance.
I agree that there should be some concerns, but not FUD, FUD is totally unnecessary. About identity, I am really not sure that Governments, because we are talking about Governmental regulations, will be selling proprietary information around. And regarding the usual privacy concerns, I really don't think I have anything to hide and hence I am never worried about those issues... I would mind someone putting a camera or a wormhole in my home, or peeking through the window, but this is also not what we are talking about when we are talking about Governments, except if we were some celebrity persons or politicians, but even they should have more concerns over the pushy news people then Governments. "Should", and you know what I mean by that. @All the others, not quoted - thank you for the support |
|
|
|
|
Payment received, as always - as promised, on time. Thank you, Lauda.
|
|
|
|
|
TUMAS, investigate a little bit on your own, but my speculative recommendation is to invest in NEO on the mid-term (2 years) and Cardano in long term.
I quite expect NEO to flourish this year, as there are many projects announced and NEP5 protocol should bring a boom of crypto projects similar to that of ERC20. Also, China will certainly look to fully embrace NEO instead of Ethereum or Bitcoin.
Cardano, on the other hand, has a lot of development, a great technical basis, but not a lot of thing announced for short-term, hence I see it as a long-term hold and quite a strong one too.
|
|
|
|
Good day to you all good people, I noticed that each time when a word "regulation" & stem "crypto" appear in the media together, a FUD starts to spread all over the crypto community. While that sometimes purely amuses me, as I like behavioral sciences and I like to observe the behavior of the masses, this is actually very harmful to the crypto society and I simply cannot believe that the majority of the people still haven't gotten on top of this. I can agree that the word "regulation" seems threatening as we all know what was the purpose of invention of Blockchain and Bitcoin - to fight against the current way the money is being created and distributed, and this basically means fighting the banking system, so each time a "regulation" comes up most of the people assume the worst - the Governments and bankers have finally found a way to stop it for (their) good. However, there is quite a difference between: a) regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation; b) prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(disambiguation). Please notice how in the title of this news article you have a word "regulate" and then "legalize" deliberately put in the parenthesizes to explain that the regulation means quite the opposite from prohibition in this case (and most of the cases): https://www.ccn.com/thailand-law-regulate-legalize-cryptocurrency-ico-markets-coming-april/Finally, it doesn't make any sense to cry over: a) poor security of crypto trading and b) regulation at the same time. Best regards |
|
|
|
|
Daily trading enforces a lot of work and this can count to addiction as well. Holding, on the other hand, can be more relaxing if you can keep your cool. But anyways, it is in our nature to grow addictions, and crypto trading is very similar to gambling, if done uncarefully,
|
|
|
|
|
Cardano could be the favorite. I don't believe Ehereum and Neo could do that, especially after Bitcoin adopts smart contracts. Ripple is also strong, but I see it in 5th place after two years.
Maybe some newcomer?
|
|
|
|
|
Are you planning on holding or day trading?
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you have two presumptions that are incorrect.
First one is that Karl Marx would have been happy with people earning profits while not working. That was not his ideal and that was not what socialism was about. Yes, in the end, people working less earned more money because the problem with the system was that it had an inherent mistake - human nature. Someone had to set the rules and those people treated the system like it was a traditional monarchy, despotism or whatever - they took what they had for their own benefit. Exceptions do exist and kudos to them. Same is with democracy and capitalism, they sell us those two systems as decentralization while they actually help make decentralization more enforced.
Second, what you describe at the end is not socialism, it is capitalism. Socialism is designed to give equal rights to everybody in the system, capitalism was designed to give people the possibility to work and create and keep the profit for that. However, there is another inherent problem and that is how the money is created, the money circulating in the system is never of enough value to cover all the profits, hence you have to take from somebody to earn for yourself - and that is completely opposite of socialism.
By the way, we need both systems to coexist in some way to make a better future. We need capitalism because it is driving the community forward and we need socialism in order to diminish the socal inequality.
What I propose, and where blockchain and smart contracts can help a great deal, is a system enforcing equal money, basic income and similar systems, fully capitalistic in every other way (hence rewarding those that bring higher values; as Bill Gates once said - it made him possible to create such an important empire out of the garage), but with so-called in-built interventionism (a completely free market inevitably leads to more social disparity). Something like what the great economist Keynes imagined, but automatic.
|
|
|
|
|
Canis, your thinking is valid and you got a point. You are thinking out of the box, I like that.
However, I think you got it just a little bit wrong. Yes, if speculators want big profits it is indeed beneficial to them for the market to correct (this should be the right term, not "a crash", a crash means that the market went past the possibilities of a quick recovery and it never happened with Bitcoin, at least not so far). It is also normal to see the market rise in steps, the market just rising up is an ideal that cannot be reached in the real world (although Bitcoin's run from the end of the last year was crazy.
What Bitcoin needs is for the weaker hands (Poker expression is deliberate) to leave the market thus leaving only the strong holders - albeit corrections this actually stabilizes the market. You can consider the market mature only when it stabilizes and that would mean that generally only strong holders are left and the 1-5% percent of weak holders and daily speculators cannot hurt/destabilize the market. The current situation when you have the market reacting to almost every news out there shows us that Bitcoin is far from maturity and that is the ideal situation for experienced investors to take opportunities and take all the money from the fish (Poker expression is deliberate yet again).
|
|
|
|
I think you should mention Charles Babbage, the man who originated the concept of a programmable computer. He is considered the "father of the computer". Most of the people you mentioned are all about software, but I think that hardware is equally important, and it started way back before mobile phones, it all started with Abacus |
|
|
|
No dobro, jel to ERC=20 token i kako se moze doci do developera?
Ako ti je to jako bitno i ako mi PM razloge, možda mogu doći do Lidije da je to pitam, mislim da me još pamti i da imam čak i broj od jednog od njenih suradnika obzirom da sam bio prvi kupac njenog albuma u Hrvatskoj. Da se odmah obranim, tada je pjevala Pop-Rock  . Naravno, ako netko ima bolje kontakte ovdje predlažem da ti se radije javi ona/on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
