it is also claimed that altcoins are effectively making Bitcoin supply unlimited, i.e. without them Bitcoin price would be higher. In this manner, they are taking value from Bitcoin as if its supply were in fact constantly expanding. Indeed, not all altcoins are born equal and it is not likely either that a multitude of shitcoins out there can make a serious dent in Bitcoin's value, if at all (as most of them are abandoned by now anyway). But there are other, more precious pebbles on that beach
Major altcoins such as Litecoin, Ethereum, BCash, maybe, a couple others are not something to be sneezed at and then discarded as completely inconsequential. It could be said that they are making crypto better known to the wider public and thus contributing to Bitcoin's value as well, so things are more complicated than they first appear to be.
I found an answer to this question for myself by looking at bitcoin dominance on the market and prices. There is no strict correlation between bitcoin and altcoins. However, if we analyse history with the help of coinmarketcap's historical snapshots, a few things become clear: 1. Bitcoin's dominance is falling as the market grows. 2. Meanwhile, the prices of bitcoin as well as other coins are growing. 3. During the bullish market, bitcoin and altcoins are doing great in terms of prices, and bitcoin's dominance is decreasing. 4. During the bearish market, bitcoin and altcoins are losing value, and bitcoin's dominance is increasing. With that being said, when bitcoin goes up, other coins follow the trend. When the market is in very good condition, some coins go up, others might go down, but the prices generally don't follow those of other coins apart from the general upward trend. When bitcoin is going down, other coins generally tend to follow the trend and lose more. So, when things are bad, they are bad for bitcoin and even worse for altcoins. Thus, IMO strong altcoins help out bitcoin and vice versa, the market's growth is good for the king as well as for the kingdom, so to speak. So what's the bottom line? Do altcoins add to Bitcoin value or take from it (price-wise, before all)? To make things easier to understand, would Bitcoin be priced higher if there were no altcoins (or just less altcoins)? Further, it seems to be universally accepted that Bitcoin is the primary driver behind the market growth (as well as downfall, for that matter). In other words, where Bitcoin goes, there altcoins go as well (on average) |
|
|
|
On another hand you can't rely on banks because you have zero control on money. Imagine bank froze your account, what can you do? Nothing. But who can freeze your bitcoin wallet? No one ever. You can save houndreads of money in very small tiny usb stick and save it saffely which is pretty comfortable compared to saving paper money in real life. Of course this doesn't mean we have to give up paper money, keep both because both of them are neccesary It seems that people slowly come to understand this And it is not just about banks freezing your account (though it is about that too, of course). Governments are notoriously famous for constantly stealing the purchasing power from common people. So even if your bank may not necessarily freeze your account, your government will do their job without fail. Bitcoin may go up or it may go down, but fiat money knows only one direction. You guess which |
|
|
|
Hi guys.
I'm wondering what's your opinion on the goods purchased in currencies other than euros or dollars, say crypto. I'm aware it's being used as a regular currency in various fields now. There are, for instance, lots of successfully run marketplaces based on crypto out there.
Over the past year, the market capitalization within crypto soared to the Moon. Unfortunately, it's been a bear trend for a while now and no one can say for sure when it's gone. However, I am still thinking there's some light at the end of the tunnel - new market, pretty few competitors, great potential. So it's high time to become an active user.
So that begs the questions: Your thoughts on crypto as a payment method? Any progress achieved in the upcoming year?
We need the lightning network, it is as simple as that, as soon as the price of bitcoin goes up the network gets very busy and you need to pay huge transaction fees to get a confirmation in a decent amount of time, however even getting a confirmation in 10 minutes on average is not good enough, if we want bitcoin to be used to buy goods we need this process to be many times faster and until that happens I do not see massive adoption happening at all It would be interesting to see that situation to repeat itself And how well Lightning Network would behave under such stress, i.e. how many people would actually be encouraged to use it in real life. But right now with measly 700 bitcoins used for payment channels, it doesn't look very promising on this front (and it remains to be seen whether these coins are actually used for anything) If things were to repeat themselves, we would likely get into what we had already been in with insanely high fees in the past. To put differently, we may not see mass use of this technology until there is mass adoption already under way. So it is not like you see it (i.e. no mass adoption before LN) |
|
|
|
Are these trades ones that are put here by people with dust on an exchange they didn't withdraw and then decided they may as well list a trade there to see what happens and maybe they can withdraw those coins at some point if it ever triggered That's not necessarily so Sometimes, there is not enough liquidity in the orderbook and you can see very long candles in either direction (aka flash crashes or surges), which move well beyond the average prices across the market. It does happen now and then, especially at smaller exchanges, so placing such orders makes sense, and still more so if they are not big. In other words, it is not necessarily dust as someone can just add a small order and hope it gets triggered eventually. I use such orders myself, though in a shorter range, of course So this is why most likely all those troll orders exist. They are counting on either an exchange bug or someone fat-fingering and dumping the price somehow Nice gif. Can be an exchange itself trying to pull off their little shenanigans, though |
|
|
|
I think it has been still about profit with the shareholders. The traditional corporations were built to have maximized profits and also dependent on what the government stated/signed in that public benefit. It has always been to seek profits whether it's private or public entities Support this view Besides, all this bullshit about public benefit, social responsibility, flashy philanthropy is used exclusively to cover the ruthless nature of capitalism (but socialism is not much better, just in case) as in today's world it is not considered a good thing to go for profits only. It is the same with creating foundations by extremely wealthy people (think Bill Gates here) which are often created to avoid heavy taxes on inheritance, for example |
|
|
|
Haha first time I heard about this question that's gambling site offers investment, gambling is play for fun and play for fear to enjoy not for investment.  ; Sharing stock to the owners of the gambling site as investors it is possible but need huge of money before can do that It is more like you don't have a clue what this topic is about As it is definitely not about gambling as a form of investing (which has been explained many times in the thread, just in case). And as you also seem to admit that it is the first time you hear about gambling sites (aka online casinos) offering the investment option, it speaks more about yourself and your familiarity (or rather lack thereof) with the matter in question. Many casinos had been offering this option (i.e. investing in the bankroll) in the past and some probably still do. In other words, it is not something exceptionally rare (read, such ignorance is rare) |
|
|
|
CME futures expire today 04:00PM forum time, so we might be up for something. It really looks like the price wants to go up from where we are right now, and CME might give Bitcoin that extra push. CME's volume is twice that of Coinbase Pro, so for people thinking they don't have any importance here, think again.
but the volume has no relation to the spot market. there's no way to arbitrage, there's no physical delivery. the CME market is basically like trading a CFD. it's totally isolated from the market. there's no way it could lead the price. so it's not really important Wasn't it you who had been arguing with me on that issue in the past? If I remember correctly, you were claiming that the amount of gold derivatives to be physically delivered (if not sold before the expiry) by far exceeded the amount of gold in the vaults, were you? In this manner, they could be considered paper gold only, yet that massively affected the gold spot price. Now you are saying a completely different thing, like 180 degrees different. How come? i'm much more concerned about bakkt because physical delivery = real effects on supply and demand That goes without saying. But other people are still saying that they are going to issue more Bitcoin certificates that they will have bitcoins in their custody. Then we are instantly back to square one |
|
|
|
Before they said this they were speaking that Bitcoin and everything related to crypto is fraud, now they say this "Cryptocurrency was supposed to replace banks in the long run". Never liked the at all but This could influence in current price on market, they are good on what they do after. Or this could be some marketing trick for JPM for there own blockchain platform. As they say it will be backed up with diamond and gold but if will be only for business customers.
Not many lines or articles are online for the moment but hopefully it will be in next few hours or days.
I can't quite understand! Why is JP Morgan doing such a thing? Haven't them ever criticized Bitcoin and its derivatives? I can't really understand. No, you don't understand But what you should understand is that what someone from JPMorgan says (read, Jamie Dimon says) is not equal to what JPMorgan itself might say. In this manner, it is totally possible for Jamie Dimon to sincerely hate Bitcoin while JPMorgan as a whole fervently love it (and vice versa) Whatsmore, it is not uncommon to see people and institutions alike say one thing and then do a completely different thing (and behave like they didn't do or say anything at all soon afterwards). It is called double-speak preceded by double-think and followed by double-play applied to the world of finance. Get used to it |
|
|
|
I feel like this market moves so much slower than years ago. Everything seems to take longer. More consolidations and whipsaws and slow bleeds, and less roller coasters Wasn't I telling you essentially the same? No, you were saying there was going to be a really tight long term range between $3K and $4K. I couldn't agree with that at all To me, it is mostly the same But you are entitled to disagree, of course. Other than that, I really expect things to move "much slower than years ago" and "everything taking longer". Wtf, isn't this exactly what we have been experiencing recently? Well, in the last week, there was some action finally but it already seems to be on the wane anyway, and we can't discard two months of inactivity just because market looked somewhat alive for a couple of days With that in mind, I look back at the 2015 bottom and it took a solid 9 months to carve that out and enter a bull market again. And who knows, maybe it'll take twice as long now. So I wonder if this current price action isn't all just trolling before we see another eventual attempt at making new lows again I can't agree with that part, no way For people who hadn't been there and hadn't seen with their own eyes how things actually unfolded through that year, it may look like we were sitting on the floor all 9 months. That's the impression that many would get after reading your post. But it was never the case. We crashed below 200 dollars in February, that's true. But then we surged to 300 dollars by the midsummer. And then there was a flash crash to 200 in late August and by November we were over 400 dollars already. In this manner, you can't actually say that it took us 9 months to carve the bottom out as there were two distinct bottoms with plenty of high price in between That's what a long term bottom looks like. A trading range ($150-$320), tested multiple times in both directions. We eventually broke upwards from that bottom range, but it took 9 months to do it Yeah, I understand that with today's prices in many thousands it doesn't look or feel like a big deal, but that was over 100% increase, which would match today's prices going from 3.5k to over 7k. Just giving you a perspective on how much "long term bottom" actually was in these price swings Most of these shitcoins already died in 2018 (abandoned and left for dead). If anything, 2019 will only make people truly understand this fact
A lot of the altcoins that "died" in 2014 and 2015 bubbled again in 2017. Just sayin Which altcoins prior to 2014 do you refer to specifically, the both of them? Neither Litecoin nor Dogecoin died in 2014, so they didn't have to resurrect in 2017. Just in case |
|
|
|
There might be some element of this happening, a "dilution" of sorts. But I think it's probably outweighed by the effect altcoin markets have on the circulating BTC supply.
The altcoin markets reduce available supply in the BTC/USD (and other fiat) markets for multiple reasons. People buy BTC to send to altcoin exchanges. In addition, speculative BTC that might otherwise be traded in the fiat markets (increasing supply) stays in the altcoin markets instead. When traders transition from trading BTC/USD to altcoins, they reduce the available BTC/USD supply I think this effect is negligible It is so because altcoin exchanges are inconsequential themselves as most traders are still mostly interested in fiat in the end. So even if they may in fact use Bitcoin as a value transfer vehicle (which I doubt since Litecoin is mostly used for this purpose), the end effect should be pretty much insignificant. Anyway, here's the chart from Bitfinex that I made just now and which basically proves that: As you can see Bitcoin-altcoin trading pretty much sucks compared to fiat pairs there. The difference is 10-fold, which speaks for itself Uh, each of those alt/BTC pairs are doing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of volume each day. That is negligible to you? All of the BTC trading on these markets is literally taken from the spot market supply. Negligible? LOL I'm curious where you see hundreds of millions of dollars in these pairs Well, really, where did you get that, care to provide a reliable source? Top altcoins at Bitfinex barely make 10M dollars a day via Bitcoin. This is nothing compared to fiat trading volumes which are literally in the hundreds of millions. Anyway, we should compare trading volume in fiat pairs with trading volume in Bitcoin pairs, and then you will see the discrepancy. Further, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the whole matter as such. Okay, there is some Bitcoin trading with altcoins going on and so what? Not to mention, you're only looking at the top coins. Of course those have bigger fiat markets. Outside the top 10 or 20 coins, fiat markets are much less significant than BTC markets Indeed, I'm looking at the top altcoins only as the rest of the pack is even less than negligible |
|
|
|
try this casino stake.com
it is good
It is not enough to say that the casino is good. You should add some features on why people should try it out, the features and other stuffs that they can enjoy and benefit from it. I know it's a good casino and is a sister company of primedice but I can't see that they have an investment option. Stake apparently doesn't offer this option And neither does PrimeDice, for that matter. I remember as a few years ago this question had been raised (when many casinos opened their bankrolls for outside investments), and Stunna (if I'm not confusing him with someone else here) said that they simply didn't need this kind of money And it makes sense actually. If they are generating enough profits on their own, they may not want this kind of "fundraising". Anyway, any established casino (at least, as I see it) can take the path of private investments (i.e. bring in a couple of extremely rich investors) if they ever choose so You're not wrong, Stunna's also the owner of PrimeDice and that's how the origins of Stake happened I had been there when it happened Though I don't think it is actually about different objectives (as you say further in your post). From my perspective, it is more about available opportunities (options). Really, when you start a business, you don't have a lot of choice at first. It is not like you can easily find a lot of solid investors unless you already built a name and plenty of trust. But this is never the case when you just start off Things might have been and probably had actually been different at the dawn of crypto (say, in 2011-2013) when there were a lot of investors full of cheap bitcoins willing to invest them. But these times are long gone and now you have to fight for the venture capital (especially after the ICO disaster). In this manner, public bankroll can provide you with some capital but not much and for mostly the same reasons They literally got scammed 2000 bitcoins from a seed hacker and still continued their way
It was more like 200 bitcoins (in 2013 if I'm not mistaken) |
|
|
|
I feel like this market moves so much slower than years ago. Everything seems to take longer. More consolidations and whipsaws and slow bleeds, and less roller coasters Wasn't I telling you essentially the same? With that in mind, I look back at the 2015 bottom and it took a solid 9 months to carve that out and enter a bull market again. And who knows, maybe it'll take twice as long now. So I wonder if this current price action isn't all just trolling before we see another eventual attempt at making new lows again I can't agree with that part, no way For people who hadn't been there and hadn't seen with their own eyes how things actually unfolded through that year, it may look like we were sitting on the floor all 9 months. That's the impression that many would get after reading your post. But it was never the case. We crashed below 200 dollars in February, that's true. But then we surged to 300 dollars by the midsummer. And then there was a flash crash to 200 in late August and by November we were over 400 dollars already. In this manner, you can't actually say that it took us 9 months to carve the bottom out as there were at least two distinct bottoms in 2015 with plenty of high price in between I believe 2019 will be the year where most alts die and never make a comeback. There was a window of opportunity to pretend to be a viable BTC replacement. Now it's over. Bitcoin is way too far ahead in terms of development Most of these shitcoins already died in 2018 (abandoned and left for dead). If anything, 2019 will only make people truly understand this fact (who haven't already) |
|
|
|
So theoretically you could expect a lot of interest in these exchanges. But somehow there's not much. And I think it will be the same with atomic swaps (either through smart contracts or in some other way), i.e. people won't be interested in these. And that's the reason we are not going to see a lot of development here either
the biggest problem in that front is that centralized exchanges are making money so they keep staying ahead of the game while decentralized exchanges won't make money. and everyone nowadays wants to make money that is why they develop in first place. the days of Satoshi are over where the developers created things to change the world not for financial gains. and the worst part is that even if they are paid, they create some sort of shittoken in the name of decentralized exchange with ICO or something like that and don't deliver anything because they made the money they were looking for Merited your post as this is what I've been telling folks for years I had even created a topic here after Bitfinex got hacked in August 2016 when over 120k bitcoins were stolen. People were nodding their heads in agreement and nothing has changed since then. A truly decentralized exchange is only possible on the blockchain level when your desktop wallet functions as that exchange. But no one is financially interested in this kind of thing since there is no way you could profit off it, apart from running an ICO fraudulent scheme as you correctly note in a way i still believe that this can change in the near future though. the decentralized and open source community is much bigger and better than what we have been seeing so far which has been mostly greed. things like bitcoin which are created to change the world not the creators pocket size, happen rarely but they do happen. that is why i believe eventually this tide will turn and we start seeing some better developers enter the space with motivations to improve the system not just make money from it. ...and then we will see stronger decentralized exchanges, much better alternative cryptocurrencies and lots of innovation For some time I believed in that too Especially, when Bitfinex got hacked. I thought like wow so many bitcoins had been stolen, so why not spend a couple bitcoins to build a truly decentralized exchange? But now I basically lost that hope. Bitcoin has been around for over 10 years already and most of that time exchanges had been hacked (or had been scamming) Personally, I'm trying to avoid these risks by limiting my exposure via shorts, i.e. by keeping only part of my stash in an exchange's account as a collateral (that exchange is Bitfinex) and trading with shorts mostly. But in the case of a major hack like the one described above, I will still be hit severely I'm not against to bitcoin but just highlighting practical issues as of now people need to face if they deal with bitcoins and they can't exchange bitcoins to fiat easily when they need money To make things easier, you may try your luck with Bitcoin payment cards (I didn't try them myself, so you are on your own here) |
|
|
|
But in the long run, what matters is still adoption. I think that people looking into other cryptocurrencies that offer different functionality won't necessarily have a negative impact on bitcoin's adoption levels. Plus, there is really no way to stop the creation of new cryptos. Bitcoin's supply will still be capped, and that won't be any different, which is a reason why I personally wouldn't get too excited about "fad" coins Bitcoin can be "adopted" only as a store of value And in this respect it has an unbeatable advantage before any other cryptocurrency. That they can't possibly take from it, ever. On the flip side, though, it is still more of how things should be (i.e. how we hope they will be), not as much as they really are, now, with the meaning being that Bitcoin is still speculative for the most part But as other coins are also speculative (even more speculative than Bitcoin itself), this inexorably drives us to the conclusion that altcoins can't but eat at Bitcoin's sweet pie (like the one posted in the OP) simply because that pie consists of speculations mostly, not real adoption |
|
|
|
Am yet to believe that the forthcoming bitcoin halving will be the last of Bitcoin. How on earth will these speculations arise because we all know the importance of Bitcoin halves even in the past. Bitcoin halves are the most important moment in the life of Bitcoiners and to all it enthusiast around the world It won't be the last one There will be many more halvings in the future provided Bitcoin survives them all, of course (if that was your point). On the other hand, it may in fact be the last halving in terms of making real effect on the price of Bitcoin as next halvings will become less and less significant as block reward reductions start to get smaller and smaller in respect to the total market supply of Bitcoin (i.e. the number of bitcoins mined to date) The rise in bitcoin during this period in the history of Bitcoin usually come after the few months from the date of the halve, so, many should not expect the rise immediately but hold till the right time for the demand to soar high before the full halve be initiated. Can't wait to see the forthcoming halving of bitcoin Some hype, or even plenty of hype, should be expected a few months prior to the halving date (followed by a correction a couple weeks before the actual event) |
|
|
|
Still hoping that the market will not go down from there. if the price does not rise, then the price will fall It's not set in stone, apart from really minor corrections like 50-100 dollars I know we are all preparing to fight the last war in which that was the case. But as I already said a few times, we are in a different market today, so old patterns may no longer work and thus our expectations may fail. We crashed to 6k and had been trading there without major rebounds or breakouts. Then we crashed again to 3k and stayed there most of the time. So why can't it actually work in reverse order? |
|
|
|
This week Bitcoin has begun to show a good increase and I think many people are happy and happy with the current increase,
will the price be as soon as possible to recover at $ 20,000?
I really don't understand why you guys are so excited to see the price jump to $20,000. You just have to remember that it took us months or years to see the price hits all-time-high. So in this case, it will not be overnight, we have lost like 80%-90% already, so to get to at least $20,000 there could be waves of bull run to happen, it could take years though Technically, it is not true At least, not in the sense most people think. Indeed, it took long 7 years to get to over 2k if we start counting from Bitcoin's birth. But after we got there in the summer of 2017 (for those who don't keep track of the dates), we went parabolic (or even exponential) and reached 20k in some 3-4 months. In other words, it may take us no longer from current 4k to an ATH provided there is enough demand as we have already been there and seen that |
|
|
|
With that said, though, it is also claimed that altcoins are effectively making Bitcoin supply unlimited, i.e. without them Bitcoin price would be higher. In this manner, they are taking value from Bitcoin as if its supply were in fact constantly expanding. There might be some element of this happening, a "dilution" of sorts. But I think it's probably outweighed by the effect altcoin markets have on the circulating BTC supply. The altcoin markets reduce available supply in the BTC/USD (and other fiat) markets for multiple reasons. People buy BTC to send to altcoin exchanges. In addition, speculative BTC that might otherwise be traded in the fiat markets (increasing supply) stays in the altcoin markets instead. When traders transition from trading BTC/USD to altcoins, they reduce the available BTC/USD supply I think this effect is negligible It is so because altcoin exchanges are inconsequential themselves as most traders are still mostly interested in fiat in the end. So even if they may in fact use Bitcoin as a value transfer vehicle (which I doubt since Litecoin is mostly used for this purpose), the end effect should be pretty much insignificant. Anyway, here's the chart from Bitfinex that I made just now and which basically proves that:  As you can see Bitcoin-altcoin trading pretty much sucks compared to fiat pairs there. The difference is 10-fold, which speaks for itself |
|
|
|
No they are just trying to get the transactions cheaper Could you explain how it is going to work out in practice? After all, Bitcoin has been around for over 10 years, and I guess this is sufficient amount of time to understand the technology. In other words, if it could actually contribute to make any transactions faster and cheaper (in case you refer to fiat transactions), that would have been done long ago already Bitcoin is decentralized money while fiat is centralized one, and whenever trust is not an issue, fiat will beat cryptocurrencies in terms of efficiency. When two parties trust each other, they don't need the network to confirm their transactions as these will be considered "confirmed" once they have been made (i.e. reported as made) |
|
|
|
In 2009, prices of food were going down. Farm producers stopped producing in order for the prices to go up again. No regulations, no nothing. What's more, many of them were sanctioned for the measures they took As I said above, it all depends on margins and costs Indeed, no one will be producing for a loss. Well, technically, this is not completely true as many producers may in fact be producing for a loss for some time so as not to lose their market share (as it often happens in real life, for example, with crude oil), but for simplicity's sake we can just stipulate that they won't But this apparently contradicts the assumptions set forth hitherto, i.e. producers are automating production to lower their costs since otherwise they simply wouldn't go for it. But in that case they will be expected to lower their prices as well (all other things being the same) as that means more profits in total for the majority of goods |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
