|
The sad and harsh truth may be that south korea can't afford to take anymore hits to its localized economy with lingering concerns over recession and economic slowdown hovering as dark clouds over the horizon. They may not be able to afford losing their crypto markets which, last I heard ranked as the 3rd largest crypto trading market in the world.
Naming private banks as overseers and regulators of crypto trading could represent a serious conflict of interest. Banks are one of the primary competitors to bitcoin. In a way, having banks regulate crypto markets is similar to AMD regulating intel or coke regulating pepsi. Would prefer a form of independent regulator, over one that is subject to conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
It might help to remember Berkshire Hathaway and bitcoin (crypto) are competitors in a sense like coke and pepsi.
If investors flock to bitcoin, they're likely to abandon stocks and Warren Buffett's investments could suffer as a result on decreased trading volume and demand. Its similar to the price shifts we see in crypto markets at the moment where bitcoin's value falls when investors flock to altcoins like bitcoin cash or litecoin. The opposite also occurs.
Buffett knows that money pouring into bitcoin is money that isn't likely to be invested in the stock market to maintain the value of his own holdings. And so I can't blame him for attacking his competition, its self preservation and he has no choice but to protect his own stake.
That said, I think we all know Buffett would never endorse anything that isn't tried and true by decades of consistency. His style has always been to play it safe and opt for long term investment strategies. Its ironic then that Buffett and bitcoin should be at odds considering they both represent the long term value of HODL planning.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO its all part and parcel of the paradigm shift of bitcoin transitioning from being mainly a store of value to being more an instrument of speculation. HODL is recognized for long term stability and lower volatility, being associated with lower risk than speculative markets, which are prone towards being leveraged and carrying greater risk in the hope of turning short term profit.
Speculative markets would seem to sacrifice long term planning for short term gain. This can contribute towards uncertainty, imbalance and other negative implications in markets and economies.
That's the base perspective as far as bitcoin's recent shift from being a store of long term value towards becoming more an instrument of speculation, afaik.
|
|
|
|
|
There could be two main facets to this.
#1 Banks want to shut down bitcoin and crypto as they don't want people to see the progress and innovation it represents.
#2 Nations are tightening measures to keep capital inside their borders. Possibly due to recession, economic slowdown and related concerns.
I know that students in school are taught that banks need to lend more money than they have to fuel innovation and economic growth.
This is an interesting angle to that concept and shows that banks may in fact restrict innovation and profit to maintain the status quo and prevent fat cats at the top of the food chain from being deposed by more innovative and progressive developments.
|
|
|
|
Does the shutting down of US government has effect on Bitcoin Market?
If yes, is there a way to prevent such effect on Bitcoin market in future.
Right now, there is a piece of legislation known as "Senate Bill 1241" making the rounds through lawmakers jurisdiction(easy to find info on this via search engine btw). Bill 1241 contained provisions for the US government seizing / confiscating crypto currencies without due process or just cause, if I'm remembering right. With the US government shut down, they should not be able to pass bill 1241. This could have a positive effect on bitcoin's price. The same could apply to net neutrality. It may not be implemented on a federal level with the shutdown. Individual states might be able to do it, however. There's a story in the news today about Montana being the 1st state to implement it. |
|
|
|
I've found out that it basically is being printed for the sole purpose of purchasing btc with this
newly printed "money" thus popping up the price of not only btc but all cryptos.
Marketcap:
June 1 2017 - Jan 7 2018 Tether started being printed in massive amounts - from 87 billion to 830 billion an increase of approx: 860% Interesting post, OP. I'm skeptical of your claims for 1 reason(think about what you're saying): June 1 2017 - Jan 7 2018 Tether started being printed in massive amounts - from 87 billion to 830 billion an increase of approx: 860% If tethers market cap is "830 billion" that's more than the total market cap of crypto currencies combined($498 billion):  Link to image in case it doesn't show: http://i65.tinypic.com/5mbwxv.jpgThis site lists tether's market cap @ $1.6 billion: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/I think people might be interested in knowing where you got a "830 billion" tether market cap from. |
|
|
|
NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than 10 percent of funds raised through “initial coin offerings” are lost or stolen in hacker attacks, according to new research by Ernst & Young that delves into the risks of investing in cryptocurrency projects online. The professional services firm analyzed more than 372 ICOs, in which new digital currencies are distributed to buyers, and found that roughly $400 million of the total $3.7 billion funds raised to date had been stolen, according to research published on Monday. Phishing was the most widely used hacking technique for ICOs, with hackers stealing up to $1.5 million in ICO proceeds per month, according to the report. The research also noted that the volume of ICOs has been slowing since late 2017. Less than 25 percent of ICOs reached their target in November, compared with 90 percent in June. The study comes amid a cryptocurrency investing craze, with young companies raising hundreds of millions of dollars online to fund their projects, with often little more than a handful of employees and a business plan outlined in a so-called “white paper”. The challenges faced by more recent ICOs in reaching their targets are partly attributable to the lower quality of projects, as well as issues that have emerged around earlier projects, said Paul Brody, global innovation leader for blockchain technology at Ernst & Young (EY). “The volume just exploded, people raised their fundraising goals and the quality just dropped,” Brody said in an interview. “We were shocked by the quality of some of the white papers, we see clear coding errors and we see conflicts of interest between the companies issuing tokens and the community of token holders.” In ICOs companies typically raise money to build new technology platforms or to fund businesses that use cryptocurrencies, also called tokens, and blockchain, the software that underpins them. Yet for many of these projects the need for blockchain and cryptocurrencies is often unjustified, according to EY. It also noted valuations of ICO tokens are often driven by “fear of missing out”, or “FOMO”, and have no connection to market fundamentals such as project development. EY said “FOMO” has led investors to pour money into ICOs at record speeds, with the 10 shortest lasting ICOs attracting $300,000 per second on average. The study also found several instances in which the underlying software code of a project contained hidden investment terms that had not been disclosed, or contradicted previous disclosures. For example, a whitepaper might state that there will be no further issuance of a cryptocurrency, while the code might leave that option open. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ico-ernst-young/more-than-10-percent-of-3-7-billion-raised-in-icos-has-been-stolen-ernst-young-idUSKBN1FB1MZIts hard to believe phishing is still a valid attack, much less the most successful attack vector utilized to steal money from ICO's. (I wonder if some of the more shady ICO's raise money, then steal it from themselves to generate income.  ) $400 million is a lot of money. Seems like it pays to be a hacker these days. I should have studied harder to be a hacker in school. |
|
|
|
I do not understand the usefulness of the blockchain techologies for a regular company or office. Any ideas?
I think that blockchain techologies are worthless for an ordinary company until operations in it are legally confirmed by a goverment.
Blockchains appear to have some advantages. They're better than backend databases at protecting data integrity. Data contained inside SQL tables can be edited on compromised systems. By contrast, its much more difficult to edit or change data contained inside a blockchain. In some industries like legalized marijuana, there can be a need for a ledger and shipping system where data is difficult to edit to prevent theft and provide a reliable data trail. Blockchains being a "trust-less" system, they might also reduce the number of middle men across supply and distribution networks, in terms of cutting the number of "trust" employees in the overall equation. With banks and banking, there need to be employees to enable the "trust based" system. In eliminating "trust" blockchains could reduce the amount of manpower required to achieve equivalent tasks. |
|
|
|
I am looking forward to hear your opinion. In case (and this is my expectation) BTC goes up first, it might be wise to allocate your funds in this way!
Whichever crypto currency is the easiest for speculators to manipulate into a profit, will likely be the next to shoot up in price("the path of least resistance"). I don't think BTC will be next. I would guess an alt like litecoin, dash or whatever is trading at low volume that is undervalued might have a shot. Could also be a fork coin if coinbase or another major exchange (or retailer) adds support for it. The alternative option is, there will be a big news story that will incite a price movement. Those profits typically go untapped by traders, unless one is privy to secret, insider, trading. For BTC, I think it'll take time for investor's to regain confidence. After a big price fall, that is a legit price correction rather than a dump, it can take awhile for people to forget and believe in something again. |
|
|
|
|
A "bubble" implies something is extremely overvalued in contrast to what fundamental metrics and statistics suggest it is worth.
The US real estate bubble occurred due to real estate being substantially overpriced in comparison to buying demand. There weren't enough buyers in the real estate market to maintain prices and so the massive price correction which occurred, and the lost of confidence in the market which followed it resulted in subprime mortgage derivatives taking a massive hit off their leveraged position.
I think bitcoin might be a bubble if its userbase weren't growing at a substantial rate. unlike the US real estate bubble (and other bubbles) bitcoin's fundamental metrics and stats look strong. The recent price decline could be described as representing normal bitcoin movement with the decline at the start of the new year.
The addition of crypto futures and paradigm shift towards a more speculative market could also be responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
Quick attempt @ summary:
#1 Wealthiest demographics wield the most powerful political influence.
#2 Wealthiest demographics generally do not want young, hungry, upstarts starting a business in their garage which turns out to be the next apple or google.
#3 Small businesses have the potential to upset the status quo and could dethrone giants in banking, finance and other sectors. This implies those living on the top of the mountain could make some effort to maintain their reign while preventing others from climbing up the mountain after them.
#4 To some extent its in the wealthiest demographics self interest to maintain thire status quo, which implies keeping things like bitcoin which have potential to overthrow banking cartels, in check.
|
|
|
|
I am in favour of marketing campaigns, but I am not in favour of harassing people at every corner. It seems that the marketers have become quite wild. Could decentralisation help with this?
A more decentralized government would be tougher for campaign contributors or special interest lobbyist groups to control. The more centralized power in a state the easier it is for said power to be exploited or abused. We see this in dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, the centralization of power leads to abuse. Republics like the united states where power is more decentralized between a President, joint chiefs of staff, a senate and other bodies typically makes exploitation and abuse of power more difficult. A more decentralized state, which was harder for special interests to influence, could lead to laws being passed which would do more to protect public privacy and regulate aggressive or invasive marketing. |
|
|
|
There is one way the shutdown could have a positive effect on btc price: with lawmakers shut down, they can't pass anti-bitcoin laws. I think most expected a beginning of year price drop. Its normal for the valuation of bitcoin to decline post holiday season when christmas shopping is over. It translates to decreased network volume. Lower volume could imply lower demand. Lower demand could imply the price must decrease. The government shutdown could also have nothing to do with the recent price hike. The price dropped as much as it could, traders noted high resistance to the price dropping further, called a bottom and bought in expecting a price increase. When the price can't go lower, it goes higher. When it can't go higher, it goes lower. Such may define the eddies and tides of fundamental market mechanics. |
|
|
|
While I believe Bitcoin was the creation of a single genius we cannot discard that some national agency was involved , after all the Internet was created by the US military and the Tor project as well, so it may be a case of something that they created and got out of control. Well, one might say the internet is an upgraded version of telegraph communication. And the telegraph is nothing but an upgraded version of smoke signals native american indians used to send each other to communicate over a distance. And smoke signals are nothing but an alternate to carrier pigeon communication networks. It can be difficult to say someone invented something, many inventions are variations on things which already existed. I think TOR started out as a legitimate project. But it may have been infiltrated by the state after they sent FBI and other intelligence to visit TOR developers(and possibly coerce them into installing backdoors in TOR for surveillance purposes). There are actual news stories about this, which aren't hard to find. The US government isn't really in the business of inventing or developing anything. They provide funding. Then they take all the credit. But I don't think they actually do anything. The way governments typically do things is very similar to how NASA does things. NASA spends billions of dollars which go to waste with nothing being done. Then someone like Elon Musk comes along and achieves a lot more than NASA does with 100 times smaller budget. The idea of governments being sources of innovation or problem solving is a myth. Most innovation and progress comes from independent invididuals. Looking at how governments treat bitcoin and crypto currencies, one might conclude that governments are barriers which oppose progress, innovation and change. |
|
|
|
|
I would guess bitcoin is more secure than credit cards which appear to have millions compromised on a regular basis without anyone batting an eyelash. Bitcoin would also appear to be more secure than banking, government and assorted financial systems, all of which have been critically compromised numerous times over the years.
Its strange that people question whether bitcoin is secure when the security of our banking, economic and financial institutions could have as many holes as a sponge. With only 2% of americans having used bitcoin or a crypto currency in polls, shouldn't we be focusing more on the security of electronic financial systems the other 98% of people use?
|
|
|
|
|
I think if bitcoin were a product of US intelligence, they would have made certain to install a figurehead puppet Satoshi with patents for blockchain technology that were undeniable. The lengths the establishment has taken to install Craig Wright as a false Satoshi and the strong efforts made by banks to patent the blockchain could be the best evidence of intelligence never being involved in the bitcoin development process.
Offhand, I can't think of a precedent for US intelligence developing anything like blockchain throughout their history. Certainly if they had the foresight to create something like blockchain, then they would also have had the vision to kill the project before it made any progress realizing the alternative it would provide users to centralized financial and economic networks.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin used to be defined as a store of value, HODL (buy and hold long term) investment.
With the introduction of futures markets, the rise of bitcoin cash and altcoin forks and platforms like coinbase engaging in insider trading by profiting off of their knowledge that they would introduce trading for fork coins beforehand... Bitcoin is slowly but surely becoming more an instrument of speculation than a store of long term value.
That fundamental shift is indicated by rising volatility and greater price swings.
Many trading exchanges are offering trades with no commissions. That also contributes towards higher volatility. The lack of a hard capital gains tax, which promotes HODL and cuts down on rampant speculation, also plays a role in volatility being higher than one might expect from say a stock market.
|
|
|
|
Today the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that it has filed a federal civil enforcement action against three virtual currency operators. The details of one case remain sealed, but the other two companies facing charges are CabbageTech and Entrepreneurs Headquarters Ltd. The charges include fraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation and more, and are the first enforcement actions since the CFTC allowed trading bitcoin futures. Bitcoin has been on a rollercoaster recently. Its value has been in a freefall; two days ago, it tumbled below $10,000, losing half of its peak value in less than one month. According to Coinbase, it's risen a bit as of this writing. Bitcoin's value is currently in the mid-$11,000s. There are also fears that bitcoin and other cryptocurrency could threaten the security of the global economy; as a result, the US isn't the only country taking action. China is moving toward an "orderly exit" from bitcoin mining because of its use of resources, as well as its affect on investors. Back in December, South Korea (which is the third largest market for cryptocurrency, after the US and Japan) banned all anonymous cryptocurrency accounts and enacted new regulations for monitoring exchanges. In a joint statement, the CTFC Enforcement Director and the Securities and Exchange Commision Enforcement Co-Directors made clear that the US government will be keeping a close eye on cryptocurrency action. "When market participants engage in fraud under the guise of offering digital instruments – whether characterized as virtual currencies, coins, tokens, or the like – the SEC and the CFTC will look beyond form, examine the substance of the activity and prosecute violations of the federal securities and commodities laws," they said in a joint statement. https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/19/cftc-charges-three-cryptocurrency-operators/.... This news story isn't particularly relevent within the grand scheme of things. The bolded portion above however is key and reveals how the united states and other countries plan to justify their proposed anti crypto legislation: There are also fears that bitcoin and other cryptocurrency could threaten the security of the global economy; as a result, the US isn't the only country taking action. China is moving toward an "orderly exit" from bitcoin mining because of its use of resources, as well as its affect on investors. Back in December, South Korea (which is the third largest market for cryptocurrency, after the US and Japan) banned all anonymous cryptocurrency accounts and enacted new regulations for monitoring exchanges Of course, we know the part about china banning crypto due to fears it threatens the security of the global economy is a lie. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of china, russia, venezuela and other nations dropping the petrodollar (us dollar exchange in their respective oil markets) due to fears the united states deficit (and its effect on the dollar) is a threat to the security of the global economy. If there's anyone here who supports what this article says, please respond and enlighten me as to why you think its accurate. I would be curious to know. |
|
|
|
I've started with a $10 or $20 bankroll to check how much I could gain or profit. The best I've done so far is gaining 16x what I started with. Of course, this doesn't mean anything as I had to fail many times before I got the successful result. Its easy to win and profit. What's difficult appears to be consistency over weeks and months. (Or maybe its just me, I lack the mental discipline to stay focused & stick to a gameplan?) Either way I've always thought there might be money to be made in sports gambling. In the year's I've been doing it I'm not certain if I've made more money than I've lost. I hope you better than I did.  |
|
|
|
but these two sides can be unstable.
because although supply is reduced, prices may not increase due to problems of cost constraints and other problems so demand does not increase.
and affect prices that will not increase
.... That's probably more of an issue with gold or precious metals whose supply is statically finite. It may be far less of an issue with bitcoin. In cases where supply becomes an issue and coins are confirmed out of circulation, those coins can be digitally locked and the supply algorithm might be tweaked to issue additional coins to reach 21 M. Technically, that may not be feasible. Even discussions revolving around minor things like blocksize can be subject to a massive amount of internal dispute and public debate. I think if it ever became a massive problem and everyone could agree more coins needed to be issued to increase supply, maybe something could be done. In which case being deflation wouldn't be as much of an issue as it would with gold or a precious metal standard. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
