Hey guys, maybe someone can make me understand
Do you think we will be able to use BTC in a couple of years to buy for example coffee?
The real question is, the minimum fee we can pay is 1 sat, there is nothing less than 1 sat, right? but if in the next years 1 sat = $2/3, the fee will be as expensive as the thing you wanna buy (coffee). I don't like this BTC = Gold/store of value, I want to use BTC for my everyday expenses.
Find me even 10 coffee shops on the planet that accept bitcoin and then we can start talking. Until then... or until Starbucks accepts it directly.... let's don't. |
|
|
|
In a gold rush, the money's in selling shovels. Cash up front, please.
Shovel - 1860: $0.96 c Shovel - 2017: $6.00 Gold - 1860: $20.67/oz. Gold - 2017: $1280/oz. I don't think shovels were the better long term investment though.  |
|
|
|
Well normally Bitcoin would look a little overbought here, and mild correction would come. But Bitcoin is honey badger. Let's see what happens.  |
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of hidden meaning and complexity in Peterffy's response. I'll try to summarize.
It has everything to do with how equities, commodities, other assets, etc. are structured on Wallstreet. For the vast majority of these asset classes, the Average Joe masses only collectively own about 1% of any of them. What this guy is backhandedly trying to say is that the other 99% (think pre-mined) are in corporate industry "strong hands" that won't foolishly just sell it all in the event of something bad happening (e.g., stock market correction, black swan event, terrorist attack, etc.). Also these "strong hands" asset products are re-hypothecated and re-leveraged as collateral against other investments. The fear of a massive sell off by thousands or millions of weak, jumpy hands, creating a cascading domino of margin calls, is low. Thus volatility and systemic risk is low.
But Bitcoin is different. 90+% of this asset class got into Average Joe's hands first, before Wallstreet coming in. And once Bitcoin futures and ETF derivatives get created, and then are possibly leveraged against other assets/investments as collateral, that poses a long term systemic risk problem to Peterffy. Because he believes that Average Joes are weak sheeple who are more prone to panic and sell all their bitcoin (the underlying hard asset), which would induce and create massive volatility in futures/derivatives since they hold A LOT of it (actually the MAJORITY of it). He's also worried about the systemic risk to short sellers who may not be able to cover a sudden "to the moon" price rise (e.g., someone is trying to corner the market using massive leverage).
Personally, I believe he is both right and wrong.
He's right about the clearing of bitcoin trades. Wallstreet tends to create their own fkn problems. So Bitcoin should be isolated from all other clearing house products. Available margin should be low. Everything should be fully collateral backed. Leveraging and rehypothecation of Bitcoin derivatives against other investment products should be illegal and not allowed.
But he's wrong and condescending about the masses. I think they have stronger hands than over leveraged Wallstreet does. And during a sudden bearish event, if anything I would hope that the masses would be BUYING more bitcoin, not selling it.
|
|
|
|
I agree. This was and is no ordinary FUD. Bitcoin overnight losing 60% of its hashrate (security!) to an altcoin is a serious warning. Yes it returned but it touches the very foundation of Bitcoin.
The foundation of Bitcoin is selfishness and greed. If miners find a better way to fulfil that then they're going for it. A BTC that depends on the good will or long term vision of miners has failed. Agreed. "Profitable" means that someone (users, investors, traders, etc.) has to constantly be buying those coins steady off exchanges, each and every day for years, in order for the miners to make ROI and pay their bills. The BCH camp just sort of trivialized that part like it didn't matter, lol. Miners are not going to just mine something indefinitely because some hashrate chart says that in a 12 hour window period it was "profitable" to do so. It takes a LOT more than that. |
|
|
|
So since the start of 2017, 380+ new shitcoins have been added to the list (as tracked by coinmarketcap.com). The list went from ~900 to ~1281 cryptocurrencies. And 6581 "markets", whatever the hell that means.
So Bitcoin's % dominance as tracked there is not being 'eroded' by other alts supposedly taking market share away. It's being eroded % wise because of all the shitcoins merely being added to the ever growing list.
In other words, just by virtue of adding a new shitcoin to the list, Bitcoin's % market share of the total is shown to go down. Because the individual fiat market caps of each new shitcoin added are fakery. Complete bullshit.
A more accurate way to track % and total market share would be to restrict the list to say the top 500 by market share, and anything below that gets taken completely off the list.
If one wants to get accurate info, all data MUST be shown. It's a fact. End of the story. Nope. You can add another 100,000 shitcoins to the list. Won't make a difference to Bitcoin's true % dominance. |
|
|
|
Well in that case, 6-8% is complete bullshit. Gas is very cheap compared to the last decade, groceries aside from beef show very little price change, things like car parts, clothes, utility bills, home improvement supplies, tools, etc etc etc do not show any significant inflation. What has gone through the roof is real estate in many parts of the US, and of course stocks are way up.
I see no signs of the kind of inflation in everyday purchaes that people are talking about in this thread. It may happen, but it's not happening as far as I can tell.Most likely it is just hype to get the btc price to keep rising, but it has no basis in fact.
chesthing, I'm gonna have to flat out disagree with you on that. Do you even pay bills, bro? My electric bill has doubled since 2009 My health insurance monthly premium has doubled since 2007 My haircuts have doubled since 2007 My grocery bill is up about 40% per shop since 2009 My oil changes have doubled since 2007 My water bill is up about 50% since 2009 New cars cost 30-40% more than they did in 2007 Most fast food is up about 25-30% since 2009 A sit down fine dining experience is up about 50% since 2009 (just look at the cost of a single cocktail now!)
Things that don't affect me, but I've heard that:Rent is up about 20% over the last 4-5 years in major metro areas. Real estate is back up to pre-2008 crash levels, and climbing higher still. Cost of an average college degree up about 30-40% since 2007. You're right though in that gas has gone down, and shit from China (ie., clothes, tools, home supplies, etc.) hasn't gone up all that much. But everything else has! And the MAJOR thing that hasn't budged in a decade across the board is.... WAGES. |
|
|
|
|
So since the start of 2017, 380+ new shitcoins have been added to the list (as tracked by coinmarketcap.com). The list went from ~900 to ~1281 cryptocurrencies. And 6581 "markets", whatever the hell that means.
So Bitcoin's % dominance as tracked there is not being 'eroded' by other alts supposedly taking market share away. It's being eroded % wise because of all the shitcoins merely being added to the ever growing list.
In other words, just by virtue of adding a new shitcoin to the list, Bitcoin's % market share of the total is shown to go down. Because the individual fiat market caps of each new shitcoin added are fakery. Complete bullshit.
A more accurate way to track % and total market share would be to restrict the list to say the top 500 by market share, and anything below that gets taken completely off the list.
|
|
|
|
Me too.
However, if I was better with photoshop I'd replace the grass and trees in the background with moon craters.
Let's see. That would be the moon, trains, Sparta and Carolina. Have we left anything else out?
Lambo? |
|
|
|
at 1,200 bucks and if it goes up more or less at same proportion to BTC as it is a fork
I will be utterly befuddled
They can pingpong a few BCH back and forth wash trading at $1200/bch on Bithumb probably indefinitely. How do you think all the shitcoins have the fiat value they claim? The market float for each one is miniscule and controlled. It's easy when you control the float esp on a single exchange with 0% trading fees. And they'll just peg it to some bitcoin multiplier indefinitely while decreasing the float. Hell, they probably even have phantom trading going on too at Bithumb. |
|
|
|
if BCH stays as an ALT ..conflicted.....(might buckle if moves to alt status....all them $$$ from the air)
What do you mean "if"? BCH *IS* an altcoin. By every definition of what is an altcoin. Doesn't matter if it started life as a BTC fork. It is an ALTCOIN. Wake up dude. |
|
|
|
You just can't make it up.
I'm getting fork fatigue. I hope that most people do, and just stick with the first one to keep their lives simple.
It's more than that. BELIEF and trust in one cryptocurrency is forming and solidifying. All the rest are seen as "fools gold" and deemed worthless. This is exactly how precious metals first become money, back when the first 1000 or so people starting trading it as such. It all started with belief that something has value over other stuff. |
|
|
|
Interesting chart, Torque! However, I donīt really know what to say about these stats. The US economy is obviously heavily reliant on consumption and most people happily oblige by wasting their entire paycheck on consumption. A big part of the population goes even further by going into debt for the purchase of consumer goods. Nonetheless, the chart implies a falling velocity of money, which in my opinion would indicate that people have shifted their preferences from pure consumption to saving money for the future (lower time preference). It gets really interesting when you look at the saving rate development in the same time frame from the same source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
As you can see the savings rate hasnīt really increased and most people are still busy with pure consumption. However, as the chart posted by you shows the
velocity of money has been on a constant decline, which is rather contradictory. Yeah, the reason why the savings rate hasn't increased in the U.S. during the same time period, is that people are up to their eyeballs in debt! Every extra dollar they make is going to service their existing debt interest payments instead of into their savings. And they haven't really paid down their existing debt very much. Savers are also punished now holding dollars in bank accounts, since they get no savings interest in return. Couple that with the fact that 6-7%/ yearly inflation over the past decade has probably caused at least a 40% decrease to their purchasing power (because wages have remained flat over that same period), and people have had no choice but to shut down all extraneous consumption, including consumption that would include taking on more debt. Hence the M2 money velocity dropping like a rock to the lowest levels in over half a century. And sadly this is not going to get better for most U.S. citizens... if they continue to just feeding their debt interest payments. Sure their debt will inflate away somewhat over time, but if their wages don't keep up with the REAL inflation, they will not be able to build 'wealth' and retire with anything. |
|
|
|
Oh, he is most definitely gonna do that. No way we hit $500K in 3 years. We'll be lucky to hit $50k within that time. |
|
|
|
8 is quite a large number of times for someone to visit a restaurant. Roger must really like BBQ chicken. Well, ya know, he has to spend it to cuz..... the value is dropping fast. lol. |
|
|
|
Go New Hampshire, go! Now every other U.S. state needs to follow in their shoes. https://twitter.com/keithammon/status/914207798682152960?s=17Exempts those 'in the business of selling or issuing payment instruments or stored value in the form of convertible virtual currency' or 'receiving convertible virtual currency for transmission to another location' from registering as money transmitters.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
