Look, I understand that you want your Bitcoin to go up in price so you can turn a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that Actually no, personally I'd prefer if Bitcoin stayed where it is now but with added volatility (say, within the 1k range) Where you are wrong is thinking that regulations and Wall Street involvement is going to somehow make the Bitcoin price go up. You think it will bring Bitcoin into the mainstream If you are right, then it should bring more volatility. If you are wrong (and I'm right), then it should bring higher prices, as simple as it gets The problem here is that government and banks are not interested in finding a better alternative to fiat which they control. They are not interested in surrendering their control of money, and the supply of money.
Government doesn't want you to have money they can't track, money they can't control and steal from you via taxation and inflation is not what they are after What government do you refer to here? Anyway, there is no agreement between powers, so any government in particular doesn't mean a shit on its own And all that Wall Street wants to do is offer you derivatives (a.k.a. paper Bitcoin) for you to invest in.
When they figured out a way to issue paper gold, they effectively diluted the price of actual gold. Because countless people prefer to hold paper gold over actual gold. They are bring told this paper gold is safer, more regulated, and just as valuable as actual physical gold It won't work with Bitcoin because you can't sell paper bitcoins without providing a means to validate them, i.e. whether they are actually backed up by real ones. This is the difference between gold and Bitcoin. They have already tried to pull off this trick by creating cash-settled Bitcoin derivatives (i.e. futures) and they fell flat on their face. Their effort mostly failed as no one got interested in this shit. That likely explains why there is no Wall Street with Bitcoin (and may never be) As you can't fool the blockchain |
|
|
|
Further, there seems to be a misunderstanding. The checkpoint which I speak about should only refer to old transactions (say, older than a year), while you seem to mean that it should lock all transactions immediately prior to the checkpoint. This is not how I imagine that
A checkpoint makes all transactions prior to the checkpoint irreversible. If that's not what you mean, maybe you should clarify That's definitely not what I mean and I have clarified everything in the OP and in the following posts. Then what did you mean? You haven't clarified at all. You've said multiple times that once the blockchain is pruned, all older transactions, e.g. older than one month, will be irreversible. How is that any different than a checkpoint at all? Are you kidding or what? You just said that a checkpoint is about making all transactions irreversible right before the checkpoint, i.e. even one minute prior to the checkpoint and now you ask me how what I suggest in this topic is different from a checkpoint at all. Further, if we make all transactions which are 1 year old (and older) irreversible by pruning the blockchain, how could it possibly allow miners to game the system if checkpoints are used specifically to make transactions irreversible, i.e. prevent miners from throwing their little shenanigans (as you were saying yourself)? Now I'm starting to seriously question your whole attitude here |
|
|
|
Even the most ardent crypto evangelist must admit that bitcoin appears to have been the worst investment of 2018, at least in pure dollar terms. The cryptocurrency has lost almost 80 percent of its market capitalization since it established an all-time high at around $327.15 billion. The adoption rate and volume have dropped likewise. Organizations that were planning to launch their bitcoin-based services have delayed their projects or scrapped them entirely. As any seasoned trader would say, the bitcoin bubble is bursting — or has burst already That depends on which side of the trade you were on For example, if you were shorting all the way down from 20k to 3k, 2018 was likely one of the most profitable years ever since Bitcoin's "known" history (i.e. since 2013) and quite comparable to what you might have earned if you were long since 2015 and till December 2017. Regarding halted or paused adoption, I don't believe in that as there was nothing to halt or pause. Most of these so-called "bitcoin-based services" were vaporware anyway (aimed at earning quick buck through hype), so nothing to be sad about |
|
|
|
Why? Because it's like comparing being weak and strong/healthy, which condition is bad? First of course because it needs time to be fixed and during that time you feel bad. Inflation means rise in prices while usually keeping same wage, so much money goes from you pocket or sometimes you even have to make serious economy. Overally it causes panic, people spend less money and business becomes more hard to manage That depends on inflation rates Small rates (like 2-3% annually) are useful for the economy as they prevent it from stagnating by stimulating production. So if we take your example with being weak or ill, physical exercise, a bit of stress and some exposure to non-lethal agents can in fact be quite useful and beneficial as it allows the body to fine tune its defenses and keep them up to date, so to speak. Without these stress factors the body will quickly lose its fitness and acquired adaptations |
|
|
|
If you ask me, this is a very lopsided view
While you personally may be in for quite a long time and not going to spend or exchange even a single satoshi for fiat, no matter what the price might be (though I seriously doubt that), having Bitcoin's price tag over 3k helps a lot even if you are an early adopter (you know, life circumstances and all that). But this price simply wouldn't be possible without all these greedy people sticking around. Without them Bitcoin would likely remain mostly unknown to anyone out there (I mean common people), with its development stagnating heavily (provided Bitcoin would be developed at all). In short, cast no dirt into the well that gives you water
I'm not against greed and profit. Greed and profits are good things. But it's blatantly obvious from reading this thread that most people don't understand what the philosophy of Bitcoin is. Some comments outright welcome legislation and regulation. Don't these people understand that Bitcoin was set up to fight against government fiat? Don't they understand that banks, government, and Wall Street are the ennemy of Bitcoin? How many of the people on this thread do you think would be jumping up and down if tomorrow their bank manager offered them a Bitcoin account or Bitcoin credit card? Now you don't see the whole picture There is no other way if we want Bitcoin to succeed in the end. All in all, your position comes down to challenging and defying governments ("Bitcoin was set up to fight against government fiat"). This is definitely not the way to go because it is just stupid and would pretty much be equal to fighting with windmills. There is another approach more subtle and thus more promising over the long term We should let the governments regulate Bitcoin as they please and see fit as we can't stop them anyway. At the same time no one can stop you from using truly private currencies either if you are actually looking for a fight. And Bitcoin's greater popularity among wider public will also contribute to your cause as well |
|
|
|
I don't see any reason to be optimistic until we make higher highs and not continue with lower highs and eventually break out to the downside. I get it that people want this bear market to end, but it doesn't end because you want it to end, so don't expect anything until we see higher highs. The trend favors the bears and that needs to change I remember you were saying different things a while ago Did you change your mind and turned from a permabull into a permabear? Or just accepted the inevitable, i.e. we may be in this market for long and it is not set in stone that we won't crash lower? Was it you who were advocating to average down? Do you still recommend this strategy or what? Not that I care a lot really, rather curious how quickly people come to realizing that things are a bit different in reality that in their imagination |
|
|
|
For all you people doing the smart thing now and accumulating Bitcoin on the bottom, two questions:
What's your goal number of bitcoins to accumulate now (or how much will you be satisfied accumulating)? It is definitely not about accumulating Well, for some it may in fact be the ultimate goal, though personally, I think of it as a process (read, the more the better). But it is not really about accumulation at all, it is more about making your bitcoins (or whatever coins you might have) work for you in a profitable and constructive, purposeful way. Keeping bitcoins under the bushel is not my thing and probably not the choice of many other people as well Regarding your second question, you are essentially asking how much money people need to be happy. I guess you can't buy happiness with money but it is certainly better to cry in a mercedes than on a bus. So the lower limit is a mercedes (though lambo would do better) |
|
|
|
About 2 months ago Roger Ver spoke about the split of Bitcoin Cash and BSV.
Since then Bitcoin's price dropped from $6,500 to the $3,000 area.
Now he made a statement about supporting Bitcoin etc. etc. - and now we see the Bitcoin price is touching $3,600 hovering even towards $3,700 If anything, Bitcoin Cash split was a trigger of that crash But it would happen even without the split. Really, do you believe that the price action of the two coins which are now worth less that 200 dollars combined could affect Bitcoin's price in any noticeable degree? That's hilarious. Regarding Roger Ver specifically, if his words were so influential as you assume them to be, why don't we see Bitcoin Cash surging now, which is essentially his creation? These are simple questions answering which gives you a chance to better understand how inconsequential Roger Ver is (on par with John McAfee's, I guess) |
|
|
|
Most people here don't care about crypto vs the banks. They just want their bags to be pumped so they can dump for fiat money. There aren't many hardcore libertarian left in bitcoin.
Yeah, I'm starting to realise that. I was mining in early 2009. And after 10 years away, I decide to come back. And this is what the community has become? A bunch of greedy people more concerned with the price than anything else while completely misunderstanding what Bitcoin stands for. In this thread I've come to realise that a great many people here would gladly get rid of their coin to get paper coin issued by their bank or broker. This is not helping one single bit If you ask me, this is a very lopsided view While you personally may be in for quite a long time and not going to spend or exchange even a single satoshi for fiat, no matter what the price might be (though I seriously doubt that), having Bitcoin's price tag over 3k helps a lot even if you are an early adopter (you know, life circumstances and all that). But this price simply wouldn't be possible without all these greedy people sticking around. Without them Bitcoin would likely remain mostly unknown to anyone out there (I mean common people), with its development stagnating heavily (provided Bitcoin would be developed at all). In short, cast no dirt into the well that gives you water |
|
|
|
you really cannot issue bitcoin or any bonds without any collateral, if they issue bonds in the name of bitcoin they need to have real bitcoin as collateral. This is what you believe based on your unshakable faith in the establishment and banksters. In fact when it comes to gold, I can buy an unallocated certificate, or an allocated one. They are the exact same price, except the unallocated one doesn't even pretend to have a gold bar attached to it. I don't buy neither, I buy physical gold. And you can't buy that from a bank or from a broker So you are a gold bug? Okay then, but I don't think we can compare gold to Bitcoin for the purposes discussed here. When you buy an allegedly allocated gold certificate, you can't check whether this gold actually exists and allocated to you personally. But with Bitcoin it is different as no one will be buying Bitcoin certificates without being able to check whether their bitcoins actually exist (even if they don't have the keys) This question had been discussed in great detail in the past, and the consensus was such these institutions will be interested in full transparency regarding their operation (as Bitcoin easily allows such transparency) lest they should fail to attract a lot of investments and investors. That's the power of the blockchain |
|
|
|
It won't be governance through the blockchain
As it will only be elections through the blockchain, if they will ever be, of course. The blockchain can help greatly with making elections tamper-proof as you won't be able to doctor the results because everyone will see that immediately (as an invalid transaction, for example). Hacking this system would require hacking the underlying cryptographic algo, good luck to you with that
Agreed. But how do we make sure that the ones voting through Blockchain, as you said, are competent? Maybe if it was like some form of TCR, then non-experts on x matter should delegate the vote to renowned experts? What is TCR in this context? Regardless, we can't be sure, and that's the problem (which I already mentioned in one of my posts). Delegating power and authority is how the current system works, and I don't think there is a need to change it. We just need either to make elections fair (and this is where the blockchain can help) or dismantle this system altogether in case we are not happy with the results (e.g. due to some random dudes being elected for whatever reason) |
|
|
|
But I don't think we need to invent the wheel here as the criteria are pretty established already. It is eduction and experience (expertise) in the respective area. It should be clear that no one can become a qualified surgeon without first studying all the required things and techniques for some time as well as having a lot of practice as a surgeon assistant. It is the same with virtually any other occupation out there
So it'd be selected people, governance through blockchain? Always interesting to hear thoughts... It won't be governance through the blockchain As it will only be elections through the blockchain, if they will ever be, of course. The blockchain can help greatly with making elections tamper-proof as you won't be able to doctor the results because everyone will see that immediately (as an invalid transaction, for example). Hacking this system would require hacking the underlying cryptographic algo, good luck to you with that |
|
|
|
My fear is that if Wall Street actually gets around to invest in Bitcoin, they will not issue any actual Bitcoin to their customers anymore than they are issuing actual gold bars to their customers. They will just sell 'paper Bitcoin' or bitcoin certificates to their customers Cash-settled Bitcoin futures are essentially those bitcoin certificates And they have been around since November 2017 if I'm not wrong on the dates. However, they didn't attract a lot of investors, so there is no reason to think that these certificates would necessarily do better. And keep in mind that they can't fool anyone into thinking they have real bitcoins while there are in fact none The rumors are circulating non-stop that there is less gold in the COMEX vaults than the amount bought with physically-settled gold futures, and that may in fact be true. But this trick is set to fail with Bitcoin as it is easy for everyone to see on the blockchain how many bitcoins they actually have |
|
|
|
Margin trading can be good way to earn huge profit if we understanding price action, but offcource with more high risk. Before trade on margin trading, we have to choose and understanding about level of leverage first, for crypto pair the ideal of leverage is 3x because crypto has high fluctuacion. And for forex pair we can use 500x because forex has low volatility.
Margin trading in my opinion is similar to gambling by rolling dice. You are predicting movements in the market while also stopping yourself from getting liquidated. On top of that you need to repay the loan that you took. It seems attractive but remember that the trading site does make a lot of money from the bitcoin futures trades and they are advertised much more nowadays. If you are willing to take the risk and go for that 50x leverage you are free to do so but without backup of analysis you will fail and even if you do have sound analysis end of the day markets are unpredictable That's not margin trading done right You don't necessarily have to go for 50x leverage as in that case you would in fact be mostly gambling. Personally, I never use margins greater than 1.1-1.2. In other words, my margin positions are enough collateralized to withstand any sudden price swings (though I had my positions wrongfully liquidated in the past) Further, the interest you pay is not big provided you don't borrow funds when the market starts to move in earnest. The bottom line is that you can in fact use margin trading without exposing yourself to a lot of risk and you won't be gambling at that (at least, as long as trading itself is not gambling) |
|
|
|
Aw, you changed your profile image, I really liked the one with the cat and airplane I liked it too, but I didn't have a lot of choice Litecoin really is a great example of an altcoin that isn't a shitcoin.
It's the coin I use the most aside from Bitcoin, just because it's affordable and faster than using Bitcoin.
I'd like to add that for a coin not to be a shitcoin, marketcap isn't always a factor for me The market cap is a crappy metric For example, if we take a closer look at trading volumes and relate them to the price of a currency unit as well as the total number of all coins currently circulated (to give a proper perspective and correct frame of reference), we will see that Litecoin is one of the top coins out there (of not right at the top). Indeed, it is speculative use only but speculative is all we have so far, yet it still allows to draw accurate conclusions as to the popularity of a cryptocurrency |
|
|
|
And it is one of the uses where the blockchain technology can actually be used (other than as an empty buzz word). I refer here to election systems which allow tamper-proof voting using the blockchain technology. So you set up such a system in a society or community (local or whatever) and then everyone votes in a decentralized and secure manner. In this way "that stuff" (whatever it might be) gets enforced with the blockchain protocol (though in an indirect way)
Yeah, I know what our next problem would be, i.e. how many people are actually competent to make sane and balanced decisions on that stuff. But this problem can be alleviated by first electing competent people to handle the job and then allowing them to solve the issue in question
Well, if it's really decentralized and in the form of stake, how do you make sure that they are competent? Maybe masternodes? How could it get done? I think it is not an issue which should be handled by the blockchain But I don't think we need to invent the wheel here as the criteria are pretty established already. It is eduction and experience (expertise) in the respective area. It should be clear that no one can become a qualified surgeon without first studying all the required things and techniques for some time as well as having a lot of practice as a surgeon assistant. It is the same with virtually any other occupation out there |
|
|
|
I've multiple wallets and I was wondering if I keep transferring bitcoins among these wallets (my own wallets ) will that eventually consume all my coins (keep paying fees )? Technically, not necessarily Since at a certain point in time you will likely have just dust remaining in your wallet which will not be enough to cover your transaction fees. And this is a more serious issue than it can appear at the first look as "many a little makes a mickle", i.e. many small amounts accumulate to make a large amount. Exactly this happened when Bitcoin rose and transaction fees rose along with it, ultimately leading to these small amounts in many wallets across the blockchain essentially left for dead and removed from circulation |
|
|
|
You can exchange 100,000 RP for 200,000 satoshis, that's right. But with that amount of RP you can redeem it 31 times for obtaining 1000% bonus on minimum free roll wins. It is 616 sats per hour currently. I don't think it's feasible to claim the faucet 24 times per day, but 14 times per day seems pretty possible.
616 x 14 = 8,624
8,624 x 31 = 267,344
So, it appears that currently redeeming RP for the 1000% bonus is better than exchanging them for satoshis at the rate 0.00000002 BTC per RP There are only 28 days in this February Kidding aside, we shouldn't forget that we are also earning reward points while we free roll. But that's not all. Rolling 14 times a day, you can make 434 (14x31) rolls with 1000% bonus applied, and it is possible that you may hit higher tiers during that time. It is not set in stone, of course, but you hit them pretty regularly nevertheless (at least, the first two). So you can't discard this possibility either. Maybe, there are some other factors at play here which I'm not familiar with. If anyone knows about them, you are welcome to chime in |
|
|
|
There are always traders in Bitcoin but once it gets hyped you should get ready to get out.
Then when there is a $1000 rise a day and you see "Infinite moneyzzz trollfaces" surround you know it's time to sell
In practice, this doesn't mean anything Don't be a fool and stop repeating this bullshit which had been used once in order to get away with insider trading (if you you forgot the origin of this "observation"). You should get out when the market is about to crash and get in when it is about to surge. Ironically, both the former and the latter can happen when Bitcoin starts to get hyped a lot, so all in all it doesn't mean anything in particular as it can mean anything in general |
|
|
|
Charlie Lee did mention recently they were going to add a privacy algorithm to litecoin so this might have increased the price then most if not all the other alt coins in the recent pump. What do you think?
I don't think it is a good idea Well, actually it may be a good idea on its own (since who can be against a little more privacy) but the consequences of adding this feature may be quite unexpected (or not looked for, at least). For example, ZCash was created as a Bitcoin copycat with more privacy in mind but it ended up having been delisted on a few regulated exchanges specifically on this account (being more private that would be tolerated). And then it turned out that practically no one needed that privacy in real life. So be careful what you are looking for |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
