|
China shutting down exchanges is not without historical precedent.
I can't remember exactly what the scenario was, but there was a historical case where investors pulled money out of asian nations in past eras with disastrous consequences. It makes sense for china to keep funding inside its borders where its needed to fuel their economic rise. Capital being leaked outside china's borders is not unlike a balloon with a small hole, which deflates.
All in all, shutting down exchanges is a form of damage control. Preventive measures tend to be superior to reactionary ones. Its much easier said than done to prevent the circumstances which lead to people pulling billions out of a nation's economy, but perhaps still a goal worthy of pursuing. It might be said that many of these heavy handed policies are preventable.
|
|
|
|
How does a country raise funds for her budget. I have heard a lot of countries talked about trillions of dollars for budget and at the same time, they keep telling the people that they are indebted to IMF, World Bank and some other neighbouring countries.
How does a country raise money to fund her budget?
This is an old issue & not necessarily related to budget funding. During the 2008 global economic crisis, many nations desperately needed loans to counter economic slowdown. These nations became indebted to organizations like the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and other entities. Hungary, Iceland and others paid off their debt. They then cut ties with organizations like the IMF and World Bank to prevent the meddling which occurred in their politics as a result of them being in debt to bankers. Others were not so lucky and still live in the shadow of the IMF and World Bank who appear to be humanitarian oriented by in reality may be part of a shadow puppet network orchestrating secret agendas across the globe. |
|
|
|
My assumption is usually that we might have a systemic crisis or collapse, but not an apocalyptic scenario. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. (That is, property and contractual rights are still enforced, but confidence is lost in fiat money.) In fact, here I'm assuming we either won't reach crisis point for now, or the elites are engineering a preventive inflation (using cryptos) so we'll never get there for the foreseeable future.
As Jim Rickards always says, the elites can always have a gold standard that's stable (and indeed prosperous IMO); it's just a matter of what price of gold. (All of the gold-as-deflationary-monster talk from economists are based on cases of trying to maintain an old price of gold that is too low for the new circumstances.)
If I walked around trying to sell 1 ounce gold coins for $50, I doubt anyone would trust me.
But I agree that you never know when society will simply 'forget' a money. Money is just a standard, even if certain basic properties are required before something can become money. I don't however think we're at that point with gold and silver, especially since they're the only monies secured by physics.
A lot of what you would think of as supply and demand based on what people want is actually heavily manipulated by the elites, over the long term. For example, when it suited the global imperial elites to promote gold and demote silver, starting in the 1870s, silver has been outshone by gold ever since. This, knowing that silver is actually a better form of money (since gold would have to move around in tiny quantities for everyday use.)
That's a good assessment. I think that if modern markets supported gold as a legal method of buying/selling goods and services, its price would rise. The value of precious metals would increase if they had additional utility and greater support. What might be cool is if someone started a service where gold could be deposited at a physical location in exchange for something similar to a debit card. I think the value of precious metals might skyrocket if they had that type of modern infrastructure which made them functional and a valid means of executing transactions. The overall practice of identifying precious metals, purifying them, weighing them and chipping bits away to get a precise amount required to make a transaction could all be digitized and standardized which would allow them to be more competitive against fiat/crypto. It may not be viable in a large country like the united states but a small island nation like vanatu might be able to implement the practice. In a way I'm surprised no one has done this before (that I know of) it seems like a logical area to tap. |
|
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't have bought in @ $10k. Maybe that shows my skill as a trader sucks. I play things conservative and don't take big risks if potential gains don't appear to be worthwhile via risk versus reward.
Btc's price is around $12k now. Up around 20% from $10k. I have a tough time quantifying how much risk a 20% gain is worth. At a certain saturation point, risk exceeds potential gains. The safe play is to look for investments with the potential to pay better than 20% ROI(return on investment).
I think bitcoin could reach $15k by year's end. That would put it around 10 times its all time high prior to 2016? Some people could buy bitcoin and make money off it. For me, though, its not worth it in terms of risk versus reward.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything OP said accurately describes every price increase that ever happened in the stock market. Is it fair to say amazon, microsoft or apple stocks are ponzi schemes due to a band wagon effect, where an increasing number of supporters invest in the stocks of those companies until they gradually become the giants they are today?
When posing the question: "is bitcoin a bubble" it is not the mechanics of price increase which should be questioned imo. It may be natural behavior for people to flock to winning sports teams, winning stocks and things they believe will offer them a boost in life. The bandwagon effect doesn't imply ponzi scheme or overvaluation. The tendency people have to hop on winning trends says nothing about whether bitcoin is a bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone who trades gold or precious metals might best be equipped to answer this. Crypto trading is more similar to trading precious metals than trading stocks or bonds. With crypto and precious metals, there is no P/E (price earnings) metric which can make it more difficult to quantify if something is overvalued or undervalued. The best opportunity for shorting bitcoin is probably under circumstances where it is significantly overvalued or if someone has insider knowledge and knows when a massive sell off is coming.
As bitcoin expands and is accepted in more countries, its price could stabilize similar to gold/silver. Volatility could fall off sharply in the face of no earnings projections, conference calls, quarterly profits and other tenets which define volatile price movements in the stock market. Gradually unknowns associated with volatile crypto phenomena such as forks will better known, and their effect on crypto's price will become less pronounced.
All in all, I think bitcoin trading will come to resemble gold/precious metals low volatility as time passes, especially if it becomes more officially endorsed with things like ETF's having a green light.
|
|
|
|
That illustrates well how protections and guarantees on fiat currencies like the dollar and euro are being eroded or dropped around the globe. Spokespersons in the media continue to label bitcoin a "ponzi scam" and "bubble". Evidence to the contrary suggests the dollar and euro are the real bubbles as we see banks limiting withdrawals, eliminating insurance protections on accounts while china, russia and even venezuela eliminate the "petro dollar" in their shift to denominate oil transactions in every currency in the world except the US dollar. If banks fail again as they did in 2008, the "too big to fail" ideology may be unsustainable due to the US deficit being too massive. It would seem that preparing for global economic meltdown fueled by crashing dollars and euros is the new normal. Everywhere you look its becoming an industry standard. |
|
|
|
|
I would be interested to know if bitcoin users able to afford these luxury items would be interested in purchasing them. I've seen small islands selling as low as $400,000. For an island $5.3 million could be a bit steep. Not being connected to a land mass, there are additional shipping costs for construction materials, water, food, energy, etc which increase upkeep. It is possible bitcoin and crypto billionaires are more pragmatic than idealistic and a $5.3 million dollar island wouldn't appeal to them.
More crypto support for frozen and fresh food could be a better area to focus on for retailers, at least there is real demand and utility there. Too much of our financial and economic systems cater to the rich and wealthy. Low end, entry level, opportunities for average folks could be a better business strategy. In ways crypto's success could be attributed to it lowering the bar to entry for many living in poverty who couldn't afford a normal bank account or electronic transactions. Crypto start ups pursuing business models which are symmetrical to this could represent a natural progression.
|
|
|
|
is bitcoin feasible for the end of the world?
I'll go with: no currency is feasible under apocalyptic conditions. When governments fall, organized crime usually takes over. No one wants to cede their money supply to another authority. Those in charge of a nation typically issue their own distinct currency which grants them control. Over the long term, this could mean that things like gold, silver, dollars, euros and bitcoin will not be viable in a post apocalyptic economy. Whatever remnants of humanity remain could resemble the movie Mad Max Fury Road. It is possible that the knowledge of things like currencies in a post apocalyptic economy will fade fast. It might only take 5-10 years before people entirely forget what precious metals, fiat or bitcoin is. For any currency system to function requires a surviving infrastructure or collectively held knowledge and consensus on how money functions. Without those things, it may be easier to establish newer currencies and systems of exchange than to hold on to old ones that are unsupported. |
|
|
|
I like this.  Its nice to see stories in the media about bitcoin that illustrate it as something other than a safe haven for tax evaders, illicit drug users, terrorists and criminals. Crypto needs more success stories like this to show its potential to humanity and the innovation it can offer over traditional assets such as precious metals or fiat. Bitcoin has a lot to offer the world, stories like this which grasp peoples imagination and illustrate some of its potential are great for crypto. The Winklevoss Twins seem like decent celebrities. In the future they could become "ambassadors of bitcoin". Maybe two of the better poster boys for crypto we've seen thus far. |
|
|
|
|
I think it is clear by now the communists who run venezuela have no intention of fixing any of the major problems they themselves caused. Maybe Maduro fears rebellion and so he announces this in the hope of stalling a revolution. Napoleon once said: "a leader is a dealer in hope". I think this announcement is intended to give people false hope that things will change, that circumstances will improve, as a stalling tactic.
Those in charge of venezuela have waged a war against capitalism and the private sector for years. They went so far as to try and nationalise all toyota operations in the country which drove investment in venezuela's economy into a steep decline. Their anti capitalist war killed the private sector which greatly reduced jobs and eventually destroyed their own economy.
There are events similar to venezuela occurring in many nations in the world now, where politicians who are secretly communist are seizing power. Brazil is one country that comes to mind. What happens after communists seize power? North korea may be a decent example.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the general consensus is people will continue to fork altcoin spinoffs of BTC as long as it remains profitable. There could be upsides to this in terms of the public making an effort to educate themselves on the implications of forks. The more informed and knowledgeable crypto's userbase is, the better able we'll be to support the right policies and decisions in the future as a community.
The block size debate is a good example. In order for the crypto community to support the right stance on block sizes, people must be informed and knowledgeable on the topic. Perhaps forks and details relating to crypto should be encouraged to elevate the learning curve and entice people into making a better effort to learn the basics. It might also help prevent scams if people were better informed and cut down on some of the negative aspects of crypto.
|
|
|
|
Only serp posting picks. A lot of people used to post picks here. Where did they all go?  I haven't paid much attention to this card. Usually I do research and sometimes I'll watch tape of previous fights to break things down better. This time, I did none of those things and so my picks may not be reliable. Still, if I had to choose it would look something like this. Max Holloway > José Aldo
Alistair Overeem < Francis Ngannou
Henry Cejudo > Sergio Pettis
Eddie Alvarez < Justin Gaethje
Tecia Torres < Michelle Waterson
Charles Oliveira < Paul Felder
Alex Oliveira > Yancy Medeiros
David Teymur > Drakkar Klose
Felice Herrig < Cortney Casey
Abdul Razak Alhassan > Sabah Homasi
Jeremy Kimball > Dominick Reyes
Justin Willis > Allen Crowder
Amanda Cooper > Angela Magaña 8-5 on the night ^. Maybe 9-4 if judges made a mistake awarding Felice Herrig a decision over Cortney Casey. Not a bad night for me. Very happy to be wrong about Eddie Alvarez and Yancy Medeiros losing their fights, I like both of those guys. I normally don't post my picks, I don't like people tailing my plays in case I make a mistake. Yancy Medeiros vs Alex Oliveira and Eddie Alvarez vs Justin Gaethje were both crazy fights. Its ridiculous to see how much cardio and toughness MMA fighters have when they have good diets, healthy lifestyles, don't do drugs and train properly. It was almost like watching superheros fight in a movie. |
|
|
|
On November 28, 2017, the US Senate, Committee of the Judiciary held a hearing regarding bill S.1241: Modernizing AML Laws to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. Despite little attention being given to digital currencies during the hearing, bill S.1241 itself would amend the definition of ‘financial institution’ in the United States Code to include digital currencies and digital exchanges. This could have alarming consequences for users of cryptocurrencies both in the US and abroad. Bill S.1241 would amend the definition of ‘financial institution,’ in Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, to include “an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of prepaid access devices, digital currency, or any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency.” Currently, the definition of ‘financial institution’ includes banks, trust companies, credit unions, currency exchanges, etc. In her introduction, Mrs. Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, said (31:35), “The bill criminalizes intentionally concealing ownership or control of a bank account.” Although, during the hearing, no further clarifications were given as to the effects this would have on the cryptocurrency community, based on the amended definition of ‘financial institution’, it seems clear enough that the bill would “criminalize [those] intentionally concealing ownership or control of a [digital currency or digital exchange] account.” Wow. Let this sink in for a minute… The US senate is proposing a bill to make criminals out of anyone intentionally concealing ownership or control of a digital currency or digital exchange account. What’s more, according to the hearing’s prolonged discussion of US law enforcement’s handling of foreign banks and financial institutions, this bill is certain to have far-reaching effects on not only US citizens but the global community as a whole. If the above statement describes you, it is strongly recommended that you watch the hearing with this new definition of ‘financial institution’ in mind. If you’ve already watched the hearing, watch it again, but this time replace all mentions of ‘banks and financial institutions’ with ‘digital currencies and digital exchanges.’ The implications are really rather alarming. Interestingly enough, Ms. Kathryn Haun Rodriguez, a Coinbase Board of Directors Member, made absolutely no mention of digital currencies or digital exchanges in her testimony; nor was she asked any questions pertaining to these topics. Conversely, in her July 2017 written testimony to the US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services and Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance, she stated that some users of digital currencies use them “to conceal and move illicit proceeds because of the perception that virtual currency is untraceable.” Also in her prior written testimony, she stated that “the FinTech industry could be a very helpful partner to the government in addressing national security concerns;” that “investigators like digital footprints and that is exactly what digital currencies provide;” and that “of course, we can only follow the money to an individual or group if they used a Regulated exchange, one that follows basic AML/KYC laws.” Contrary to the bill itself, the hearing was noticeably lacking in references to cryptocurrencies; although there was some limited mention of such. Ms. Klobuchar (2:16:58): “Is this transition we’re seeing from cash to digital going to make it easier or harder for law enforcement to track these money laundering cases, and you think these drug cartels are gonna start going cash free, and what do you do about it?” Mr. John A. Cassara (2:17:15): “Senator, I’m just glad I had my career when I did because I don’t know what I’d do trying to follow the money when it comes to digital currencies, it’s extremely, extremely challenging…I think if you look at the metrics, the metrics suggest today [that] digital currencies are a small fraction of the threat that we face. That’s not to say it’s gonna be the case in 5-10 years from now. We’re right at a crossroads, and it’s going to be very, very interesting to see what goes forward.” Due to the probable negative implications for the global cryptocurrency community, hopefully the interpretation of bill S.1241 in this article is proven incorrect; however, at this point, it seems fairly clear (at least to me, the author) that this is the intent behind the bill. If this is indeed the case, it will be the most recent attack on a growing list of State-backed attacks against the crypto-community. Furthermore, from the noticeable lack of references made to digital currencies during the hearing, it would appear this bill is yet another underhanded attempt of the US Government to further erode global freedoms and civil liberties, which markedly began with the introduction of the Patriot Act, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. As Tone Vayes mentioned, it would have been nice if Andreas Antonopoulos was there to impart some of the wisdom he shared with the Canadian Senate, on October 8, 2014. Tone Vayes’ summation*: “It’s bad…I think it’s gonna end in a very confrontational way between Bitcoin—even Bitcoin holders and users—and the US Government.” Jimmy Song’s summation*: “Yeah, the nice thing about laws is they take a long time…” Indeed it will be “very, very interesting to see what goes forward.” If this bill passes, how many of you future criminals out there are still set on hodling? https://btcmanager.com/us-senate-bill-s-1241-criminalize-concealed-ownership-bitcoin/.... This is the first update I've seen on US Senate Bill 1241 which could represent a first attempt at legal crackdown on crypto. There's a decent probability the rest of the world could follow in the USA's footsteps if these policies are adopted. Previously, it was reported on zerohedge that US Senate Bill 1241 could allow for state confiscation of crypto currencies without oversight or probable cause. I think some of what the bill contains is tentative and could change. |
|
|
|
Did all this news from Catalonia just die down? ANyone?
I think there are 7 major independence movements similar to Catalonia occurring right now throughout europe. Catalonia may be the tip of the iceberg so to speak. This link describes some of europe's independence movements: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-05/7-independence-movements-could-destroy-euThere haven't been any major updates on Catalonia that I know of. Last I heard two of the independence leaders were imprisoned. Don't know if it will have an impact. My guess is there haven't been any new developments. Catalonia is like brexit in ways where there probably won't be big updates for awhile. |
|
|
|
|
I've thought about this question in the past. I've seen people do ok for themselves making/selling jewelry or artwork. Having a lot of followers on social media seems to help with this. It might be possible to buy a sewing machine and start a small fashion business. I don't know anyone who has done it but if the price of fabric is low enough, there could be a niche market for those who enjoy cosplaying and creating custom attire.
I see 3D printers going for $300 on amazon and wonder sometimes if its possible to start a small business printing miniature figurines, jewelry, or other items and selling on ebay. Production and manufacturing is very affordable and easily accessible these days. It might even be possible to buy a guitar or keyboard and use it to produce clips on youtube to earn ad revenue.
None of my ideas may be any good. But there could be 3rd options to the HODL versus mining paradigm common in crypto that are affordable and worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
|
Great news! I hope someday investors, economists and financial advisers will proclaim the value of decentralization! the way that investment gurus preach the importance of diversification!. The more bitcoin and crypto currencies decentralize across various nations the less impact single countries like china will have if they decide to ban crypto exchanges in an attempt to keep money inside their borders.
Bitcoin's overall price volatility could decrease as it becomes decentralized across more countries, which could contribute to its overall stability, and long term value. Rising demand and increased trading volume could also be contributors to long term HODL plans although like some have said there is danger of a bubble if bitcoin's price becomes overvalued in proportion to its base metrics.
|
|
|
|
|
Most will say a lot of money. Enough to cover the worst case scenario in terms of withdrawal.
I think it is possible to run an exchange with less liquidity. Maximum deposit and the overall amount of currency being traded across the exchange would need to be limited to implement this. But it is possible.
Imagine a scenario where a person owns 0.1 BTC. They might run an exchange with a maximum btc deposit of 0.001 btc and cap the number of users to 100 to avoid more funds being traded across the forum than they have on hand. There are scenarios where a big bank wouldn't be required to run an exchange although I'm not certain how profitable they would be with small deposit sizes if exchanges are still charging 1% trading commissions and 5% withdrawal fees.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good question. To move the price 1% downwards: adding buy orders on exchanges (price * quantity) from the highest buy order, to the buy order 1% below current price, could yield a decent estimate. That sum averaged across whichever exchanges factor into the "current bitcoin price".
To move the price 1% upwards: it would be the inverse opposite. Adding sell orders (price * quantity) from the lowest price to 1% above the current price would yield a decent estimate.
|
|
|
|
Only serp posting picks. A lot of people used to post picks here. Where did they all go? I haven't paid much attention to this card. Usually I do research and sometimes I'll watch tape of previous fights to break things down better. This time, I did none of those things and so my picks may not be reliable. Still, if I had to choose it would look something like this. Max Holloway > José Aldo
Alistair Overeem < Francis Ngannou
Henry Cejudo > Sergio Pettis
Eddie Alvarez < Justin Gaethje
Tecia Torres < Michelle Waterson
Charles Oliveira < Paul Felder
Alex Oliveira > Yancy Medeiros
David Teymur > Drakkar Klose
Felice Herrig < Cortney Casey
Abdul Razak Alhassan > Sabah Homasi
Jeremy Kimball > Dominick Reyes
Justin Willis > Allen Crowder
Amanda Cooper > Angela Magaña Like bbc said above, Aldo's legs kicks could make a difference in the rematch. Jose Aldo's coach, Andre Pederneiras said Aldo was injured the 1st time he fought Holloway and couldn't throw leg kicks. It might make a difference if Aldo can injure Holloway's leg and slow down the pace of the fight so he doesn't tire. Otherwise, I think the fight will go a lot like the 1st one did. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
