It looks like you are basing you conclusions on wrong premises. You basically assume that because there are bears who are still waiting for Bitcoin to crash to zero and there are also bulls which are hoping for a 7-digit figure in the future, we will see a lot of volatility (which I personally hope for, just in case)

However, the market doesn't take into account what anyone thinks or expects (let's call them dreamers), it is what everyone actually does which matters. And if no one is buying and no one is selling, that's pretty much it, i.e. lack of volatility. In other words, you can sit on your hands and dream on as long as you please, but that alone won't make your dreams come true

If wishes were horses, beggars might ride

Then your whole post doesn't make sense

If the 3k was the bottom (the start of an accumulation range in your terms), we are already well into the bull market. And this has nothing to do with timeframes (because you already meant we hit the bottom). Look, I understand we don't know where the price will be in a month or even in a day, but you can't say that something is white and then pretend it is black (and vice versa). Now you are essentially backing off like we (well, me at least) have massively misunderstood what you wanted to say

Yeah, they should have started with less squares. I think 10x10 would do for a start. If they are going to scam (which we can't exclude), expecting someone to buy up all 100 squares might be a reasonable idea after all. Then they would just shut down the shop and run away with the money. If they are in it for real, they could start adding more squares after assessing the first results and probably entice users with more features (like real lotteries do all the time) as they gain experience in this field

But we can't think for them

You make pretty contradictory statements

At first you say that we are still in a bear market (which I tend to agree with), then you proceed to claim what can be interpreted that we are no longer in a bear market. A bear market assumes we are going down (or at least continue to move in that tight range). How come? Yes, I understand that we can see if the market turned to bull only in hindsight but it does't make your words less contradictory

Are you deliberately spreading FUD?

As it looks this way exactly. More specifically, why the American regulating bodies now see foreign cryptocurrency exchanges as under their jurisdiction? Bitfinex is not a US exchange, and as far as I know, they don't allow to trade US citizens there. The CFTC has been looking into this exchange since times immemorial, they even fined Bitfinex a few years ago, and what does it have to do with the launch of regulated futures? Care to explain yourself?

This just proves that something is fishy here

Well, it is pretty obvious what's fishy here as you can be dead sure that when someone praises something without limit (which is always the case with low-paid shills), everything is fishy there. I never did such a thing in the past (and never gonna do in the future) but if it were up to me, I would have invented a pretty convoluted narrative to make people believe in something (like using something negative to create actually a positive impression). But that's definitely not my element (just in case)

WTF, Tyson beat Lennox?

I must be from a different Universe then. Or these dudes are (whoever made that pic). Tysons aside, the hot girls (as well as the luxury cars) are to show you what you can get if you play at that casino and win (when it's ready, obviously). And while you are waiting for the release, you can enjoy the show and dream on

By the way, the biggest reward in boxing history was received by Floyd Mayweather when he beat Manny Pacquiao in May 2015 (Mayweather took home 180 million dollars)

Any cryptocurrency is digital by definition, but it doesn't mean that all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. Here's an analogy. Apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples. Crypto in cryptocurrency refers to the use of public-key cryptography (aka asymmetric cryptography), so if a digital currency doesn't use this kind of cryptography, it cannot be legitimately called a cryptocurrency

If anyone has a different view on this matter, you are welcome to give your perspective

I essentially support that view

Though with a big and fat if (even capital IF). It is not set in stone if we are in fact going to be "mass-adopted" by average Joes, now or then. Really, what's in crypto for these folks? Most people live paycheck-to-paycheck anyway (and some are massively in debt at that), but Bitcoin is not going to be a regular currency. If anything it will be a store of value, commonly referred to as "digital gold". But how many people are actually hoarding gold? Not many, I suspect

I'm doubtful if anyone is going to deposit anything there

Basically, the whole idea of this system is to promote yet another shitcoin. And while a couple years ago it might have attracted some money, this is no longer the case. As they say, once bitten twice shy, and people are likely to stay away from any such efforts nowadays. Regarding self-moderated threads, I don't like them either (but who does?), but on the other hand, it is easy to derail even a topic about a truly legitimate product which is just kicking off (for example, by angry competitors)

Is it possible to do this with a smart contract?

I mean not with Bitcoin (which seems to be impossible yet) but with some other coin like Ethereum. From a user's perspective, the difference is pretty negligible between the two coins (for this thing), but the issues of trust will be greatly alleviated. Escrows these days cannot be trusted either even though 1 BTC is not so great amount to scam on. So I think making use of a smart contract is the right thing to do here, people may actually get interested

Some folks here claim that Bakkt is actually going to dilute the value of Bitcoin specifically because these futures are not going to be 100% backed up by real bitcoins. I don't particularly believe in that narrative myself (as people may start asking questions) but if it does happen, the outcome may not necessarily be positive for Bitcoin at all (like shorting it to death with piles of Wall Street money)


It may or may not be so

I mean if they just add Bitcoin to the list of already traded assets in whatever they use for trading so that registered traders don't have to do anything (as it will feel like nothing changed), then I agree with this point. On the other hand, if the traders will have to download something entirely new or ever register with the new platform (read, file an application or anything involving paper work), then I don't see how it will be "simpler". So it will all depend on the specific details of an actual implementation

We shouldn't really expect any bull run. And then, when it finally comes, it will be a nice surprise (and a nice catch for some). Jokes aside, we haven't yet crashed to where we started from, and it is a good sign. We are still a little over 50% of that past rally and if Bitcoin manages to keep that ground, it may become a new launching pad eventually. Though, personally, I don't expect any real growth in the coming months as it seems that Bitcoin is no longer in the speculative phase of its life cycle, so don't expect too much from it



As the saying goes, you can't teach the old dog new tricks

And how's that going to be different from the platforms I mentioned?

Do people have to understand Bitcoin's inner workings, intricacies and technicalities to use them? I guess, no. And I don't think that Bakkt will be able to add more simplicity to what we already have on this front. The only thing which seems to matter here is the name behind this platform, with Bakkt’s parent company being Intercontinental Exchange (i.e. the Wall Street dudes)

And here we are back to square one, that is, whether Wall Street traders and their likes really need it with Bitcoin when even housemaids can now have and use crypto?

That's a good example

But it shows a lot more than what you mention. Basically, you can't really blame these companies as they are looking for profits and that's exactly what their owners (stakeholders) expect. So the question should rather be addressed to the corrupted governments of these "small" countries which allow all this shit to happen in the first place. Obviously, they are being paid by the mining companies to turn a blind eye to the damage the latter make to the environment

Did you actually mean to say the news being the cause or reason of a price move?

As I can't see how it can be the result of it (other than the news about the price itself). Anyway, you seem to be discarding a very important point or issue here. We get the news (any news, for that matter) when it had already been priced in (read, insiders already bought or sold it). So when it looks like the price has already been going when you hear it (which makes you think like it's a coincidence only), it is just because you are late to the party (and mostly everyone else)

It is more like all major countries did it before the US

Basically, the gold standard was effectively abandoned everywhere in the world (but in the US, obviously) when WWI started. That was a reasonable thing to do as belligerent countries started to print money like there was no tomorrow and for some of them there was not (as all countries do that when they are warring)

Germany as the Wiemar Republic had returned to gold standard in like 1923-24 for a short while to get down with the hyperinflation they succumbed to after they had lost the war and were obliged to pay heavy war reparations (which they fully paid out only in 2010)

But is it really worth it?

And I'm not just talking about money. Well, I'm actually talking about time and effort you spent doing all this stuff. Okay, now you get like 50 bucks a month (or whatever), but has it never occurred to you that you could have spent this time doing something else, probably more profitable and rewarding in terms of overall satisfaction in the long haul? Just curious wanting to hear from people who actually made it (personally, I never tried that thing myself but still contemplated going that route at some point)

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective

As you seem to be missing something in your understanding how trading works in real life. There are no rules as to how long you should keep your position open, so it is definitely not like you close it no matter what after some time (like a few hours). You keep it as long as you see fit. It may be just a few minutes or a few months depending on the market. In simple terms, you set the rules based on the market behavior, and how long you should keep your position depends on it (read, as long as you need)

I have no doubt that the Bakkt launch will kick prices up

Even if on hype alone (actually, we have already seen that). However, I'm not sure if this platform will appeal to the kind of people you mention in your post, i.e. stock traders and their likes, as there is nothing that would prevent them from trading cryptocurrencies right now

Ultimately, it all comes down to having coins in your pocket, i.e. in your local wallet (desktop, hardware, paper or otherwise), so how would Bakkt be different from, say, Coinbase, Gemini or any other regulated exchange out there?