As I said, I didn't intend this topic to turn into a debate of whether altcoins are good or bad

But personally, I think they are a good thing overall (well, at least some of them, for example, Litecoin) but then again, this is not what this topic is about. Regardless, if altcoins give more than they take from Bitcoin (ultimately, Bitcoin's value expressed in its market price), then it would mean that they add to its value (and price) as a net result. But this is exactly what is for debate here

Regarding Coca-Cola, yes, I think we can safely assume that. The inference should be straightforward. As long as people buy drinks specifically because they are carbonated and have caffeine in them, they will start drinking more Coca-Cola if there are no other such drinks around. I think this is a pretty solid assumption

That's right, charity begins at home

You should also take into account that people may not be willing to tell the world (or just you specifically) about their investments and not only about the ones in cryptocurrencies (which is actually a good idea overall to keep your mouth shut about your wealth). So your friend might have had exactly that in mind (read, he was not deliberately trying to confuse you). In this way, you may have to act more subtle (or be closer to your buddies) if you want to find out their real attitude toward crypto



As they say, silence is the sound of money talking (and money making, for the record)

I consider this issue neither resolved nor handled as essentially nothing has changed apart from me leaving a neutral rating for the perp. Further, I've been accused of spamming even in this thread itself. And since I challenged these people to provide any real evidence of that (which they failed to do so far), I think they should be given some time before they can be officially declared slanderers and forum enemies as well as given negative rating too (just kidding, though who knows)

In this way, I will keep this thread open for the time being


So how's your quest for my spam posts going, found something?

In fact, that remains to be seen

But your premises themselves are pretty much wrong on their own. All cryptocurrencies are mostly used for the same purpose which is earning profits via speculation. In this manner they are all very good substitutes for each other. And it is not about that only. For example, you can use Bitcoin to hedge against altcoins volatility. In this case, you can't technically say that Bitcoin is a substitute for altcoins, but they are still used together (read, you are incorrect even if your premises had some ground)

Strictly speaking, we don't know that for certain

As what we saw in 2017 may well have been a one-time event, i.e. a lifetime opportunity to earn via cryptocurrencies (and get done with them). Indeed, the market may recover eventually but it is not very likely that the hype that you mention is going to come back, at least not in the near future (and then it will be a new hype)

Apart from that, it is not completely impossible that won't go lower as the bear trend doesn't look over at all. With that said, I agree that some could return after we get to 10k and beyond but we should first get there which seems like a daunting task on its own

Why do I not see him tagged as a signature spammer yet?

I'm not sure how I can be partially right here

Really, if Bitcoin price would be higher without altcoins, then I would be just right (read, 100% right) since this is what my point essentially boils down to. In this case it would be legit to say that altcoins are in fact diluting Bitcoin's value as that is the net effect of their existence. It doesn't matter that while taking from Bitcoin they are also adding to it something as what they take exceeds what they give back

I think there's not a lot of difference really

Indeed, if you calculate two different correlation coefficients, i.e. one for the downward movements and the other for the upward ones, they may in fact be somewhat different. But I don't really expect them to be too different to draw a conclusion like the one you arrived at (like "bitcoin does not have such a strong influence anymore")

In other words, if you just evaluated the upward correlation (without first considering or taking a look at the other metric), you would have to conclude that the price action between Bitcoin on the one side and altcoins on the other is still highly correlated. If anyone wants to make direct assessments, you are welcome

I definitely like your doublespeak


Let's make things simple

You come up with a couple of posts from my recent post history which you consider spam and then we continue talking. Until then all your insinuations like stake.com promoting spam, me making over 200 posts a week, numbers telling a story of their own, some truth being there, etc are just that (i.e. insinuations only)

Really, if it is mostly spam, or a significant part of it is spam (what you seem to be implying here), you won't actually have to dig a lot deeper as such posts won't be hard to find, right? Otherwise, your whole narrative starts looking like another unsubstantiated accusation itself (well, at least that's how it feels)

I thought it was obvious that I referred to those who bought at prices significantly higher than the current. This is the premise which you should take into account before drawing any conclusions. In other words, if you bought at 170 dollars, you don't fall into this category, so you simply can't compare yourself with these hapless bagholders. Well, in fact, you can but this is not what I meant

As this is not my point here

Things may take a different turn, though

As you seem to discard the fact that Bitcoin is not the only pebble on the beach (even if it is the dearest one). There is a bunch of cryptocurrencies which won't miss a chance to take Bitcoin's place once it is empty. Technically, it would depend on the exact reason why Bitcoin goes down. For example, if it goes down for purely market reasons (as has been the case all this time), then it is reasonable to assume that the rest of the pack will go down along with it (as has also been the case so far)

In these circumstances the balance of powers in this game of thrones will be preserved, and Bitcoin will likely remain the top cryptocurrency. On the other hand, if there is something which breaks Bitcoin (and Bitcoin alone), it will probably be a one-way street for it. In this way, it may be impossible to build the trust again as by that time the ship would have already sailed



Or sunken, for that matter

You should be sort of genetically predisposed (hard-wired) for trading

So I don't know if it is possible to acquire it through experience. What I refer to here is how you act and react in cases where your trading pains become unbearable (technically, you can't use your head in these moments), i.e. what you do when things go massively awry

For example, if you are predisposed to panic, then it is unlikely that you will be able to profit from trading consistently as such people are called pigs in trading parlance and for a reason (they get slaughtered when the market makes a sudden turn against them)

That's how the market plays you (and all of us, for that matter). At first, you don't believe in something - "I thought it would be even unimaginable to reach 1K" (personally, I didn't expect Bitcoin to break out of the 1-2k range once it got there), and very soon the market fools you, even though, technically speaking, you didn't lose anything (you didn't earn profits but it is not the same as losing). You think that you have learned your lesson hard ("now I changed my mind"), and then the market proceeds to fool you (read, "teach" you) again and again until you change your mind once more (as some already did)

Then rinse, repeat


The mother of all regrets is not selling at 20k

But isn't it exactly what we see with cryptocurrencies right now?

Apart from sudden bursts of activity as witnessed recently, it doesn't feel like there is much interest in crypto presently. Basically, the price is stuck specifically due to loss of interest from bulk investors as there is no demand to drive prices higher but there is no supply either to press them lower. Indeed, speculators are losing interest and this turns into a self-supporting cycle (also known as death spiral in certain circles)

And it also explains these abrupt surges, which can be thought of as an exception confirming a more general rule. Really, if both supply and demand run dry, it doesn't take a lot of financial muscle to move the price in either direction (and still less when we talk about altcoins). And this is what we see as someone (or a group of someones) adds fuel to the cryptofurnace now and then. But this is not real action

It's been a while since the question raised in this topic had been discussed here. Now that we have seen Bitcoin to rise and fall (once again), it seems appropriate to continue this discussion

At first, it looked like we are no longer in the narrow range when we first went over the 4k level. People who were bored to death by stagnant prices for well over a month felt euphoric. It really felt like we were on the way to get resurrected and live again soon. Now we are back to square one

Well, technically, we didn't return to our previous tight range of 3.5k, give or take, but does it make any real difference if we are going to get stuck in the new tight range for the next couple of months? So what is your take on the recent rally? Was it for real or was it only a minor aberration in the current "boring" state of affairs in crypto?

Does it change anything in the "tight range forever" paradigm as described in the OP?

What do you mean by "budging" here (in respect to me)?

In other words, how do you actually imagine me budging? Further, if you think that the right way to handle this matter would be to exclude such users from the Trust lists (which may well be the case), how are the folks going to learn about this and similar cases if we were not to start such threads (which seems to be your point)? If anything, letting it go would only promote such behavior in the future, wouldn't it?


I'm not sure whom you refer to here. Anyway, having no means to handle this situation (i.e. effectively prevent users from abusing the trust system) means it basically failed in its purpose (as theymos himself seems to be about to accept)

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

Okay, I decided to tag them with a neutral rating with a link to this thread:



If anyone is with me on that, you can do something to that tune


Well, that's not what I meant

If someone is irresponsible, you can't trust them as it is essentially synonymous with being untrustworthy (by and large). You can't trust such people (as in I would trust him with my life and with my wife) because you can't reliably expect them to make rational decisions and choices. It is like two sides of the same coin, where the one side is impossible without the other. If this is not what Trust is about, then I stand corrected

You'll appreciate what?

That's fucking hilarious if you ask me. You are spreading misinformation (read, outright lies) and now I should go find that thread? No, that's definitely not how it is gonna work out. You make a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it (read, if you don't prove it, you will go as a liar)


You evidently remember it wrong. I joined the Coinroll signature campaign when Yahoo was already the campaign manager (I just didn't know he was the one). Now think how much of what else you could remember is actually true (and how much of that is just your "unbiased" imagination)


You are stepping on a very thin ice here. Basically, you are walking right into a minefield as I'm neither the top poster here (in terms of total post count), nor the most active one (in terms of posts contributed daily). So tread carefully here as with such generalizations you may not end very well as you evidently don't know who is posting that much, if not more (this is not a threat, this is a warning). She is a real bitch (this is not an insult)

Anyway, this campaign lasted for 8 weeks. For me, it started with this post and ended with this one. That makes a total of 1100 posts which produces less than 140 posts per week. So much for "making over 200+ posts", huh. Apart from that, you may actually want to visit my profile to see how many merits I earned during the last couple of months (read, a lot more than you). It seems like you desperately need a good reality check right now

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?


So you can't substantiate your claims. Okay then


That's not how it looks and feels. So much for "well-qualified shit-posting"

There is no gray area here

As this is all complete bullshit. When things get hot, you can give like 3-4 replies to the same post in a matter of minutes and receive as many replies to your single post from the same fellow. Yeah, the thread gets clumsy (you likely saw such conversations yourself here and there), but that has nothing to do with spamming (as this is the opposite of it)

Note that it is not even remotely the case here as I was replying to different posts made on different dates, most likely, as I kept reading the thread (I honestly don't remember). You read the thread, you post replies. If your reply as you think requires a separate post, you submit a separate post. What's wrong with that?


You have already stated your reason here

If your true reason is different from what you said here (read, what you accused me of), then it would be a double abuse of the trust system. And as I already implied, you put yourself in a position when there is no reason whatsoever for me to ask you anything. Simply put, it is not up to me to deal with this issue

Basically, you are to face the consequences of your actions as this is what being responsible is about. You started it, not me. It is not like you first accuse someone of something and then negotiate your way out of it when things start looking grim for you. Things don't work that way