He’s just promoting his altcoin, his projects, himself. He knows that Bitcoin is mostly young males would be fixated on losing their dicks.

IOW, smart marketer.

Do not take speculation advice from a marketer.

Yes, but I’m pointing out that although the crypto winter brutalized the altcoins, there were new ICOs and launches taking place in 2014 and accelerating into 2015 and 2016. So the adoption sector of the ecosystem did not slow down, it kept on growing.


Adoption and startups facet of the ecosystem is growing more and more heated. I do not think that will pause in any decline, although non-compliant ICOs might be walloped.

Everyone is so wealthy enough now that a 2/3 decline from $40k will not stop any projects from being funded.


Your $20k could possibly be the peak before the possibly multi-month correction I am contemplating as a possibility before we attain the final peak before the 2/3 decline.

Sensing that BTC may exhale after the CBOE futures launched on Sunday or the CME on Nov. 18. Nasdaq futures not to launch until 2018.

Possibly the leg from $11.5k – $17k (Kraken) was the first of two legs? So 2nd leg to ~$20+K next week?

Could you update your 2nd chart? Hasn’t it already hit the $17k resistance? So where do you see $20k on that chart?

EDIT: cryptocurrency can have this volatility while still be consistent with a move to private monetary system by 2032 per Armstrong’s ECM Private wave model. The USA stock market’s rise to 42,000 doesn’t have to peak/plateau at same junctures as cryptocurrency. A decline of 2 years could correspond with the decline and bottoming of Asia in 2020. Asia is driving much of the speculation growth of cryptocurrency.

It doesn’t make any sense to argue that small blocks are more decentralized when you justify small blocks by pairing it with an insecure offchain protocol that settles onchain.

As I already stated upthread, that doesn’t mean I am arguing that BCH is more decentralized. They’re all centralized.

All proof-of-work and proof-of-stake blockchains will be run by oligarchies. Period.

So at least I prefer that Bitcoin be immutable and secure during the time the “Zionists” are building it to be their NWO reserve currency.

Because I need my BTC to not be stolen while I am working on a better blockchain design that could possibly remain decentralized while volume scaling.

Any way, this forkathon circus is just part of the process. I don’t really care that much other than the annoyance of not being able to HODL Bitcoin with 100% confidence of it not being stolen by the a reorganization. I don’t have a preference for the personalities of Core or BCH. Yet I do have a preference to see all those who believe in the lie of democracy (tyranny of the mob) to be destroyed and lose everything. As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability. If you want to experiment with a new design, then fork an airdop as BCH did.


It will “work” technically in terms of demoing payments but the Mt. Box game theory means it will be fraught with manipulations we do not want on the reserve currency.

Let LN run on LTC. We can use LTC for payments for coffee.


More insecure shit. Please you’re not a technological expert.


Incorrect as usual.

Sorry I do not have time to refute more of your naive ramblings.

You realize I have programming work to do, which is much more important than arguing with you. Could you at least stop repeating the same things over and over. I already understand you’re infatuation with technobabble buzzwords that you don’t understand the technological and game theory implications of deeply.


They are both lying. There will be no decentralization.

You’re just sticking your finger in the wind and guessing because you do not know how to create these technologies. You are not down in the trenches. You lack detailed understanding.

So what you see merit in, is irrelevant.

You’re not stupid. You read a fair amount. You’re somewhat informed (and probably read more current events than I do). But you lack technological depth. That is a big handicap, and you should be slightly more circumspect when throwing around proclamations about technology + game theory which is very detailed and complex.


That has been my point all along.

They will be punished by having their BTCSegWit “pay to anyone” donations stolen by the blockchain. Lol. Just what they (and you) deserve for believing in Core’s lies.


BCH does not donate all the SegWit transactions to “pay to anyone”.

They did not mutate Satoshi’s protocol in egregiously insecure ways with ridiculous BIPs!


Quoted for the (story of the) ”witless and the woodchipper” outcome.


The whales are destroying STEEM just as I predicted.

I’m very busy trying to beat EOS to launch, so please stop.

Let’s both go quiet and work. We’ll observe what happens.

You can have the last word for now.

---

I voted $50k since it is closest to $40k.

Near-term $25k is closest to my prediction for a first-peak but not the final peak before the ensuing crypto winter.

If you mean the eventually price of Bitcoin in 2026+, then greater than $1 million eventually.

@miscreanity, imo all that you described is supports my logic on why Bitcoin’s (cryptocurrency’s) crypto winters are becoming longer in duration and less extreme in depth, i.e. speculation is gradually being supplanted by actual adoption. All those anecdotal reasons don’t supersede the mathematics of adoption (they’re a manifestation of the mathematics but remember smaller things grow faster in percentage terms than larger phenomenon). The speculation that remains will overshoot the reality of the ecosystem adoption and we will get another decline (formerly known as “crypto winter”), it just will not be as deep (but it will be longer) than the prior one:


The 2014 – 2015 crypto winter didn’t stop the ecosystem from booming. ETH issued an ICO for $18 million in 2014 which was shocking to all of us at the time (but I think Mastercoin has done a $1 million ICO in 2013 and @jl777 afair had raised 1500 BTC for SuperNet). Also the venture capitalists were increasing their investments throughout the crypto winter. I expect the same and at an increased level for the coming ~27 month decline after the peak perhaps with 8 years before the next peak is reached at $1 million per BTC.

I think $100k is plausible before the ensuing ~27 month decline by perhaps -2/3 of the price. We should at least reach $40k on this peak (although we might get a multi-month pause and correction after reaching $18k – $25k first).


Examples of the speculation exceeding the reality is the recent LN demo wherein people think that suddenly means that everyone can instantly buy coffee with Bitcoin and they think the fundamental insecurity of SegWit on Bitcoin is solved:

He better prepare some hot sauce. No way BTC hits $1 million by 2020.

The more likely time frame for BTC to reach $1 million is 2024 – 2026.

Show me a chart that has that target projection drawn on it.

The adoption rate has to slow in percentage terms. Oak tree seeds grow to saplings quite rapidly, but not to the moon.

Although I can say that that slowing can be accounted for significantly in the longer duration of the U-bottom from 2013 – 2018 as compared to 2011 – 2013. So it’s not entirely implausible. Peak-to-peak appears to project less than $100k though.

All of Hyperme.sh’s predictions above came true or soon will.

Indeed I think BTC already topped out (or will next week as the move from $11k to $16k may have only be one leg of two legs up) at $18k – $25k¹ then will U bottom for a couple or few months and then skyrocket again to $40k (ditto as in 2013). Then a 67% decline back to < $15k.

Perhaps the altcoins will moon now during the interim lull (usually happens when BTC pauses), as LTC did in 2013 after the first BTC peak.

¹  _{Average pricing including Asian exchanges which are higher as quoted on Coinmarketcap, Shapeshift, and others}

$18 – 50K.


I voted $50k since it is closest to $40k.

Near-term $25k is closest to my prediction for a first-peak but not the final peak before the ensuing crypto winter.

If you mean the eventually price of Bitcoin in 2026+, then greater than $1 million eventually.

I sketched a hand (inaccurately) drawn update of the green price line (did not update the regression):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2550946.0

BTC will likely peak $18k – $50k then decline for 27 months to reach a bottom at  ~-67%:

Plateau move or Phase Transition followed by crypto winter?

If you want to zoom the following charts, click here.

Martin Armstrong’s recent blog sparked some private discussion which I wanted to bring to this forum to crowd source the analysis:


So far his computer has analysed that Bitcoin is in a “phase transition”.

Armstrong’s appears to be referring to the analysis in his recently published $750 How To Trade A Vertical Market guide, from which I excerpted the following (highly miniaturized so as to make it nearly illegible so as to not steal the value) log-scale historical chart of the DOW:



So notice the DOW had two phase transitions followed by water fall collapses in 1835 and 1929, with the 1929 crash being in the range of -90%. After that, the DOW made plateau moves in 1970s and 2000s, but the percentage declines (volatility) climbing to -54% for the 2007-9 subprime crash as compared to the more moderate level in the 1970s.

What I interpret in that DOW chart is that volatility increased in the USA while it was moved from gold standard without a national central bank to having Fed to prevent declines, but now the volatility is increasing again (because the Western nation-state-based, monetary system is falling apart) but the USA stock market is still being driven by its unique short-dollar-vortex position as the reserve currency.

Armstrong is referring to his ECM model turning points wherein the world in a Private wave that will peak in 2032 meaning that the public institutions (including the fiat monetary system) will be destroyed and replaced by the move to privatized institutions. So Armstrong is pondering if Bitcoin is just in a phase transition or if something more fundamental is going on. Well Bitcoin is going to become the NWO reserve currency, but Armstrong does not realize this yet. He is just starting to wake up about Bitcoin.

Here’s @Trolololo’s chart of BTC with my hand (inaccurately) drawn update for comparison:



The question is whether this principle of phase transition versus plateau moves relates to Bitcoin?

Note that the BTC crashes are not shaped anything like waterfall collapses, except for the decline side in 2011 but the recovery was more U-shaped. Rather they are vertical up moves that resemble phase transitions but with U-bottom (instead of waterfall) collapses wherein the cups of the bottoms are becoming shallower and longer in duration as follows. Perhaps Armstrong classifies anything that doesn’t decline more than 67% to the bottom as a plateau move, else a phase transition regardless of whether the decline is waterfall. Bitcoin isn’t getting waterfall collapses because the adoption is ongoing despite any price changes, thus not everyone in the ecosystem is panicking when the price peaks and declines (in 2014 and 2015 venture capital continued to pour in while the price was declining and ETH issued the first ICO). So thus maybe we can say Bitcoin is transitioning from phase transitions to move of a plateau moves (and the chart is a continuous fractal pattern also in that way with patterns within patterns).

The 2011 BTC decline was -93% and 5.5 months crypto winter in duration. The early 2013 -67% correction was short-lived and not deep enough so it was just a step along the move to the high at the end of the year. The 2013-2015 decline was -83% and 13.5 months crypto winter in duration.

So clearly Bitcoin is in another huge up move to be followed with a subsequent decline which will be less than -83% but much longer in duration than 13.5 months. Bitcoin plateaus in that way, because the mania about it (it’s replacing the world monetary system!) gets ahead of the actual implementation, adoption, and use case realities, and this time will not be any exception.

The 2013 peak was ~35X the 2011 peak and ~500X the 2011 bottom. Those ratios applied to current move would give us a maximum peak of $35 – $100K. But I’m nearly certain the ratios should decline as the rate of adoption is slowing and flattening as evident by the chart. So looks like the peak will instead probably be in the range of $18 – $50K. Probably to be followed by a decline of perhaps -67% that may bottom after 27 months.

Bitcoin is an adoption oriented phenomenon which is reflected in it’s chart. The DOW reflected the industrialization of the USA and the monetary system that adapted to fulfill it. That nation-state fiat monetary system is not well adapted to the coming Knowledge age (as we leave the Industrial age), so thus the monetary system is being replaced with cryptocurrency.

Thoughts?

Here’s some zoomed in equivalents of the DOW chart, which I obtained from the Internet:

Do note that Polymath will not help for legally issuing ERC-20 app tokens. Polymath is for tokenizing what would have been issued as a security anyway.

The key distinction being that it won’t help you side-step onerous regulations that make most app tokens impossible to issue legally.

It matters if the purchases are primarily for investment or use. The SEC will interview various purchasers to collect evidence.


Those are all (except crowdfunding) bought for use, not for investment. Those who are selling investments on crowdfunding instead of pre-sales of things for use, are regulated as securities and will get in trouble if they have not complied.


Regulators will prioritize prosecuting scams and frauds. But even if you do not cause any losses for anyone, a security is supposed to be regulated, so it is risk that your token could get delisted from exchanges in future.

Why not create a great game and market it and make a lot of money? Because you want a lazy way of selling bags to speculators. If so, then do not be surprised when the big boys are jealous that the little guys are stealing their monopoly on selling bags to greater fools.

Selling or pre-selling a game is not a problem. But if the customers are buying it to resell as an investment then you have a problem unless the free market factors dominate the investor’s expectation of profit. See why selling pre-functional tokens are bad in the discussion of the SAFT.


Pay attention to what I wrote above about “unless the free market factors dominate the investor’s expectation of profit”.

As the banned @TPTB_need_war pointed out and the banned @Hyperme.sh pointed out about baseball cards, the issuer is not the dominant factor the investors are reliant on. Rather they are reliant on the baseball player’s future popularity, performance, etc..

An issuer of collectibles on a blockchain would be much better off to release an algorithm on a existing blockchain such as Crypto Kitties did, because if the appreciation of those cards is primary dependent on the issuer’s ongoing efforts then it will be a security under the Howey test.

Yep moving towards capital controls and war. But Asia will bottom 2020ish while the West will continue to fall into the abyss until at least 2032, because Asia does not have the huge entitlements to pay. It is all about taxation.





In the chart above, we see that Asia (China+India) was dominant and stable during the Medieval period wherein the Western Roman empire had collapsed. Then as the West rose, eventually it conquered the East (think of how England addicted the entire of China to opium and took all of China’s silver in payment for the opium they sold to them). Ditto UK colonialism of India and Europe’s colonialism of the entire third world. The USA rising while Europe declined was the West being stable in total, but now we see Asia climbing again as the West has destroyed itself with addictions to socialism, etc..

The chart above exemplifies that Western civilization has peaked and is destroying itself in an unstoppable wave of addiction to incorrect ideology.

Only if Trump can permanently destroy the leftists (which is not likely!) can the USA avoid the fate that awaits Europe.

Go study worldwide tax burdens and entitlements. China and the developing world has very low levels compared to West. The West is F.U.B.A.R. because of the leftist crap, entitlements, and massive taxation. The level of debt is not that important. Rather it is the structural problems that prevent any change. Trump is trying to make the changes, but less 50% of the Americans are truly conservative (but the leftists are all concentrated in a few places such as cities, West coast, and East coast) which is why a civil war and break up of the USA into regions is coming. Competition from Asia being more competitive due to lower taxation will force the conservatives in the USA to break away from the leftists. This economic pressure will become much more acute and noticeable after the US dollar peaks and international capital flows start heading back out of the USA and to Asia again (probably 2022 or so).


Huh? Did you not see I wrote that gold will go to $5000 on this page?

But hell no, if you think gold is going to $50,000. You’re tinfoil hat looney if you think that.

Cryptocurrency is the much more significant change that is coming to the world.

---

China, Japan, South Korea, Japan (and increasingly India) have embraced science and technology. And they’re already moving ahead of the USA. For example, China has employed entanglement at a distance to have faster communication lines over longer distances than achieved any where else in the world.  As the West collapses under oppressive taxes and debt collapse, our youth will be destroyed and their only future is to leave and head East. A massive brain drain ensues. Actually it has already started.

It must be very difficult for a boomer socialist with a colonialism pride to deal with the changing of the power structure of the world. But you’re too smart to get stuck in wrong-headedness.


Universal basic income seems to increase knowledge creation. The issue is the creation of a corrupt/inept/non-annealing centralized morass to administer it. If we could achieve it in a decentralized paradigm, then we’d have a huge win.

Latest update.

CoinHoarder I will reply later to your most recent post.

First, I’m going to start another thread about the whether a crypto winter is now impossible or not. Interested to discuss analogous to the DOW stopped having deep, drawn out crashes after 1929 Great Depression and only goes to new plateaus with minor, short-leveled corrections. Will BTC stop having crypto winters? I will start a new thread to discuss this.

I would hold no less BCH than I hold BTC if trading for maximum short-term gains (and at current price ratios I would want much more BCH than BTC for short-term trading). But if wanting a HODL forever strategy (such as because of tax implications discussed in the prior post), then I am not sure how much BCH I would hold, probably much less. But I absolutely would not hold BTC long-term that was obtained after July. SegWit theft risk is not small enough.


The CME/CBOE futures markets just launched could enable the miners to make a hell of a lot of money when/if they attack BTCSegWit. They could earn profits on (and finance their massive chain reorganization with) massive shorting, on “stealing” (partaking the SegWit “pay to anyone” donations of) BTC, and on the rise in their BCH bags which they trade back for cheap BTC being dumped like scalding potatoes.

They could consolidate much the BTC taking it from inexperienced/naive fools into the hands of the experienced wise elders (which thus increases the value and reliability of the reserve currency), and ride off into the sunset as kings, because crypto will not die and not go away because of such an attack would be justifiable to restore immutability to Bitcoin so we do not have this insecure SegWit shit on the reserve currency. SegWit can run on Litecoin instead. We do not need it on Bitcoin because Bitcoin is a global reserve currency not a medium-of-exchange for the masses as explained below:

Afaics, ShapeShift.io and Changely don’t have any daily limits. Limit per transaction is about $5K or so. But the problem is taxation differences.

The USA has something called like-kind exchange, meaning no capital gains tax event if trading between liked-kinded assets.

https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/74789/do-altcoin-trades-count-as-like-kind-exchanges-deferred-capital-gains-tax

So 99.9% gold coins are like-kinded with 99.9% gold bars. But coins with some copper and gold are not like-kinded.

https://klasing-associates.com/possible-1031-exchange-bitcoin-ethereum-electroniccrypto-currencies/

https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3632491-is-an-exchange-between-bitcoin-and-altcoin-considered-like-kind-exchange

Here is the key phrase: A truck cannot be exchanged for a car without going through fiat.

So the theory is that when trading on an exchange everything is an IOU that is exchangeable without going through fiat. Even the fiat balance on the exchange is an IOU issued by the exchange (even if it is USDT), thus not really fiat. And the tokens are not really tokens just an IOU, as evident by the fact that exchanges often fail to pay those IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). So there is no actual differentiated (potentially non-like-kinded) exchange until withdrawing from the exchange an actual token or fiat. For those willing to keep their investment on tokens and risk the losses if the exchange blows up. In short, all trading within an exchange is trading fungible IOUs in an online game and there is no taxable event until some crypto or fiat is pulled out of the exchange. Exchanges only issue IOUs (e.g. Mt. Gox). Unless you have the private keys or the fiat at a bank in your name, then you have only IOUs. (Note; IANAL and I am not providing tax advice)

However, apparently FinCEN requires all transactions within the exchange to be tracked else the cost basis will be the one that maximizes tax burden.

But when trading on ShapeShift and Changely, you immediately exchange tokens, thus potentially a taxable event unless the tokens exchanged are correctly construed to be like-kinded. It’s not clear whether trading between tokens on different ledgers is like-kinded or not. The IRS has not ruled on that yet.

If the 99.9% gold content makes coins fungible with bars (i.e. you can trade them fungibly without going through fiat because they have a common basis of purity which is not fiat), then does having the same original source for the case of competing forks of Bitcoin make them fundamentally fungible? I think not. However, if we can trade them in pairs without going through fiat does that make it a like-kinded exchange and essentially fungible? I think no. Meaning I deliver payment in BTC but pay with BCH because there is an instant liquid exchange between BCH and BTC. This works the same with forex and barter, but afaik we still must pay taxes on barter and exchanging foreign forex without involving our nation currency. For those jurisdictions where Bitcoin is ruled a currency (e.g. Germany but only if held over a year presumably before cashing out of the currencies not just trading between currencies, but not available to corporations), then when buying another altcoin, then the purchase is not a taxable event, but when selling the forex (i.e. the alt which is not ruled a currency), then it could be a taxable event. Since the EU has ruled that Bitcoin is a currency (not an asset), thus if trades between currencies within an EU country are not a taxable event then only when cashing out to an asset would a potentially taxable event occurred depending how your nation taxes gains on the value of currency. Note I heard that a high ranking official in Finland stated that trading between altcoins in Finland is not a taxable event.

The tax implications of exchanges for those who are in tax jurisdictions that require assessing taxes on trading between different tokens. So if hodling a token on a wallet, then transferring the token to the exchange is a taxable event because the token has been converted to an exchange IOU. To avoid taxation, according to our aforementioned rationale that exchange trading is all like-kinded IOUs, the tokens would have to have been held on the exchange the entire time and not withdrawn in order to avoid a taxable event. Bummer!


We can’t have it both ways. If we argue that exchange holdings are only IOUs and not actual tokens and fiat, then the taxable event is when entering and exiting the exchange. If we argue that the tokens and fiat inside of the exchange like-kinded to the actual tokens and fiat outside the exchange, then the taxable event is upon trading within the exchange.

Those who pay 0% CGT (short or long-term capital gains) don’t have to worry about this, such as in Italy and maybe Switzerland. As another example US citizens can move to Puerto Rico and stop paying capital gains taxes on gains from outside the USA and Puerto Rico.

Yeah I agree that delaying when taxes are assessed is a huge factor in planning the strategy for investment.

I had not been factoring this tax concern into my analysis of which tokens to hold or trade. Many of you would prefer to long-term hold and not trade because of tax concerns.


Note USA citizens who have their primary place of work (even if self-employed) abroad can qualify for the annually inflation-adjusted ~$103k foreign earned income exclusion, and they’re apparently not liable for paying income taxes in the country where they are if that country taxes foreign “residents” (which in my case, the Philippines doesn't tax resident foreigners even if I were a resident, yet I’m only officially present on a tourist visa anyway). But the self-employed must still pay self-employment tax which is 15.3% (to fund Social Security retirement benefits which I will never receive any benefit from and which the government raids for general budget appropriations). Yet the AMT also applies to expats, and kicks in at $42 – $54k depending on if married filing separately or single, although the Trump tax plan may raise those thresholds significantly or eliminate the AMT.

---

A controlled demo really says nothing about the game theory of Mt. Box centralization of the hubs of LN. And the fact that most users will simply choose to have an account with a hub and thus be given fractional reserves. And the failures of hubs like we have failures of exchanges  now. And the runs on the bank. And the surge spikes of settlement load on the main chain. Etc..

We’re a long way from knowing which electronic currency people are going to want to use to buy coffee. Even if LN worked perfectly it would not necessarily win the adoption race for uptake.

I can’t predict whether SegWit will be a failure mode for BTCSegWit. We’ll have to wait and see.