Finally there is a journalist with critical thinking skills!


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-15/bitcoin-manipulation-study-is-less-than-it-seems

Neal Stephenson is also well known for the cyberpunk novel Snow Crash.

Why Illinois? That doesn't seem like a very good place for a solar energy project.

I'm not convinced. The Bitcoin futures market is small. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that it would cost more money to drive the price down 18% than would be gained by the investment in futures.

You don't have a feeling, you have a fear. People lose money when they get the two confused.

I believe that the price is going to behave similarly to what happened in the previous bubble. That is, the price will continue to slowly decline for a long time until the next big wave of adoption. That is my belief -- my feeling. I also believe that the price will continue rising in the long run, so I hold because I believe that trying to time the market is risky.

As you can see, I also have a feeling, but I have no fear.

The evidence is all circumstantial and it is simply not enough. It reminds me of Newsweek's claim that Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi.

When someone claims there is manipulation, they also need to show who is doing the manipulation, how they are doing the manipulation, and especially why they are doing the manipulation. They also need to show the results of the manipulation -- did the manipulator achieve their goal or not?.

Otherwise, it is all just unsupported conspiracy theory.

It is too risky and it takes too much time to do it properly, and I don't trust other people to invest my money for me.

1. Bitcoin has always been and will always be primarily a censorship-resistant medium of exchange. A person that says that Bitcoin's primary role is a store of value is short-sighted. If Bitcoin is a store of value, then what is the value that it stores? It is the value of being a censorship-resistant medium of exchange. There is no doubt that Bitcoin can be a store of value like any good money, but let's get the priorities right.

2. Some people have succeeded in making huge short-term gains in crypto, but most have not. Consider that most people bought most of their bitcoins when the price was much higher than it is now. That's what drove the price up in the first place. Now, they will have to wait a long time (years, maybe) before their investment will break even. In order to successfully invest in Bitcoin (or anything, really), you must have a long-term view.

3. Despite all the optimism and hype about Bitcoin, there are many good reasons for being pessimistic, and I believe that there is still a good chance that it will ultimately just fade away. I am a big believer, but I give it only a 70% chance of sustained low-level adoption, and only 10% chance of wide adoption. That has changed from my odds a few years ago: 50% chance of any long-term adoption at all.

I don't give merits to members of signature campaigns for exactly that reason. I know that there are at least a few other people that also do not give merits to members of signature campaigns, but I don't know how much of a difference it makes overall.

To be fair, Ripple is not a copycat. It's earliest incarnation precedes Bitcoin.

I think the idea is based on a misconception that rarer values are somehow worth more. I don't believe that is true because the amount of work expended to generate a hash is the same, regardless of the hash.

I believe that the result of such a system would simply make the actual difficulty higher than the stated difficulty, but by a varying amount. I can't think any benefit of adding a random factor to the difficulty that would outweigh the problems.

This is why I invested in Binance. If anyone is going to profit from the volatility, it will be Binance.

Crypto prices go up, Binance makes money.
Crypto prices go down, Binance makes money.
Crypto prices go up again, Binance makes money.

I'm not surprised. The single fact that Ethereum provides a great platform for an ICO is enough to motivate nearly all projects to use it.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical that the author can actually list 94 "successful" projects, unless "success" only indicates that the project was able to raise money.

This article seems to be part of a campaign of FUD orchestrated by Ripple. Over the last week, there have been a flurry of negative articles quoting Ripple executives.

You seem to believe that it is a factor. Perhaps you could explain why.

I agree. In a thread with over 300 "me too" relies, I offered 1 merit to anyone for simply disagreeing with the OP. I was hoping to get people to start thinking about what they were reading. So far, 100 more worthless replies and only 1 merit.

You must earn merit before you can give merit. You currently have earned 0, so you have none to give. For every two merits you earn, you can give someone 1 merit. When you have merit to give, you will see + Merit in the upper right corner of each post.

The act of moving a large number of bitcoins to an exchange won't affect the price any more than moving them anywhere else. However, some people may panic and sell because they believe that the "whale" is about to sell the entire amount, and that can drive the price down.


My understanding of manipulation is that it is the attempt to change the outcome of a future trade. As such, a "whale" simply buying or selling large numbers of bitcoins is not manipulation, regardless of the effect on the price. Every trade, no matter how large or small, has an effect on the price.

Manipulation can be done by spreading false or misleading information, or also by affecting the price in one market in order to affect the outcome of a trade in another market.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should move this to Economics > Speculation forum.

That has always been the assumption, but it just isn't always true.

Bitcoin Gold suffered a 51% attack in May and its price has not been affected.
ZenCash suffered a 51% attack last week and its price has not been affected.
Verge has suffered several attacks over the last couple months, and its price has not been affected.
Monacoin suffered a 51% attack last month and although the price dropped temporarily, it returned to normal.