In simple terms, because people want to believe

For example, if you want to believe that Bitcoin is going to crash further, you will probably come up with the idea like we have been in a bear market for over a year already and there is no chance that it is going to change soon (actually, it is a damn good assumption, at least statistically). On the other hand, if we want to believe that Bitcoin has already bottomed or going to bottom very soon, you will start to draw analogies with 2015. But ultimately, neither approach is internally correct as it is only a matter of belief or faith, even though one can turn out to be correct in the end (just like a broken clock is right twice a day)

But that's not my point

Indeed, you cannot trust gold for the reasons stated, but I don't think you can trust Bitcoin a lot more than that, either. To be 100% betrayal-proof, you should do everything by yourself. I don't think this is the case with Maduro as otherwise he wouldn't be in a situation like the one he is currently in). So he has to trust someone, and that is where there is not much difference between gold and Bitcoin as the flip side of trust is betrayal, as per definition. When money is involved and big money at that, you can't trust anyone, even your closest relatives like spouses, children, etc



That's why it is so lonely at the top (see Bezos case)

To me, that makes no sense

If you disagree and you think it does make sense, then you are welcome to explain how holding a big stash of bitcoins can help you control it. Further, you likely also need to explain how Bitcoin is "a threat to a lot of business industries worldwide". It is only a payment tool as well as a competitor to fiat, and while it may in fact pose a threat to a government monopoly on money printing, I don't really see how it can be a threat to real businesses apart from the banking industry. And even in the case of banks, things are not all black and white here

That's not what they say

Basically, they claim that they can't be hacked because they allegedly don't have the private keys from bitcoins with which users are betting. So, in a sense, there is nothing to hack, and technically, that would be true if they didn't actually have the keys. Whether the latter is true indeed is another big question which has been asked by me and other posters in this thread a few times by now. Naturally, if the owners are lying (which might well be the case), then the whole point of "beta testing" or whatever becomes kinda irrelevant (if only as an excuse for exit scam)

I'm not sure if that would count as "use"

For example, if you are a nation state and have a few frenemies out there, you would be interested in obtaining their weapons to study them and develop defenses against them. On the other hand, if you are of those frenemies, you would do anything to prevent that from happening, and consider it as a bad thing overall if that actually happens. Personally, I have no doubt that the alphabet agencies you refer to have enough bitcoins, but we'd be better off if they didn't. Obviously, that has nothing to do with businesses investing in Bitcoin and Putin allegedly thinking about buying a stash of bitcoins


Blockchain "rules" are not the ones they can easily break

Well, I don't think casino owners would ever care

Because they are not charities but businesses, and rather ruthless ones at that given how much they depend on luck (just like their clients). However, they may be eagerly interested in turning fiat gamblers into crypto gamblers, which seems quite in line with their goals. Whether crypto gamblers can be considered true crypto users as well is a point of debate, though. Technically and logically, they would definitely be, but if they remain crypto gamblers only, I guess this is not what might interest us, the cryptocommunity at large

Actually, it is certainly possible

Conceptually, it is possible in the same way as decentralized cryptocurrencies themselves are made possible with the blockchain. You would just need a blockchain specifically crafted for this purpose or just a second layer solution (like Lightning Network) added to it which will write bet outcomes to the blockchain. In this manner, a decentralized casino would work pretty much like a decentralized exchange. You enter a smart contract with somebody in this casino, casino rolls the dice (which you can check and validate), someone wins while someone else loses, then contract closes with funds released to the winner

No technical indicator can show you that

I mean there is no such indicator that can really predict or foretell that there will be a price rise like 3 times. Where did you get that and what "most of the technical indicators" you refer to here? At most, they can show you that a trend change can be expected but none of them will tell you the range of this new trend. Some people are using TA with crypto but I'm curious how much is that different from tossing a coin in its predictive capacity

There is no reason to think so or assume anything to that tune

If we cut the crap, the market cap of a cryptocurrency (say, Bitcoin) is just its price conveyed in a different form. So what you say is basically equal to saying that an increase in adoption should show up as a price growth. That would be correct if the price was all made of real value. But if 90% of its value comes or came from speculation (and this might be a gross underestimation, especially if we look at things from an ATH perspective), then the price decrease can be extremely misleading

In other words, with lower prices we could in fact see wider adoption, which might well be the case now. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that lower prices could strongly contribute to mass adoption, however counterintuitively it may sound, as there is less speculative overhead in the value of an asset, and thus more room for real growth. Simply put, speculation prevents adoption, but less speculation necessarily means lower prices

It's possible but not very likely

Unless there is something like perfect storm or a Black Swan event (whatever it could be). Let's not forget that since 2015 the use of cryptocurrencies (especially the top ones) have expanded significantly in real life. This is a difference which makes the difference between now and then. So while Bitcoin can fall lower from its current levels, personally, I don't expect it to fall much lower (not below 1k if you are looking for a concrete price tag as the final support level) unless we hit a major roadblock or even a brick wall like a critical bug discovered and actually exploited

Only time can properly "establish" coins

That's one of the reasons why Bitcoin itself is still at the top. The same Litecoin is technically a better version of Bitcoin but it is not even the second best in terms of either market cap or price (though it may be the one in terms of actual use). In other words, this room is crowded (if not to say overcrowded), and it takes a lot more than some well-known and recognized company like Facebook or Apple, or whatever to launch its coin and push it to the top. That's likely another reason why we don't see such coins in real life

Why can't we expect the price to drop so much?

Many altcoins including the top ones have dropped over 90% already (e.g. Litecoin has fallen 17 times from its ATH to its recent low). But how will Bitcoin be much different from them if things turn really bad for it? 3k is still a huge price from any point of view (other than looking at it from the 2017 highs) and there is a lot of room below, so to speak. I hope it won't be like that but saying it is impossible is not a good way to go in both trading and investing

Uh, so what's the meaning then?

You basically say that there is some dude saying about Putin considering buying Bitcoin reserves and you believe that has been happening for years now. Now you say that you don't believe anything, okay then. So how am I to interpret your words really? You still believe or has already disbelieved that? And what did you believe precisely? It looks like you mean that Putin has been considering buying bitcoins, which is a strange thing to believe in (that was my point)

Anyway, how much can you buy OTC? Obviously, not much and that makes the whole business pretty much pointless. Apart from that, there would be a lot of noise if a lot of coins started moving around, which doesn't seem the case either

Very strange logic here

You say that new coins are free marketing for Bitcoin and then you proceed to say that they will produce negative effect on people's minds and opinions (the point which I agree with). So how is it free marketing really? It is negative publicity and it is definitely not the case when any publicity is good publicity. Further, I don't really think that these new shitcoins will make people more aware of Bitcoin. I'd rather say it works in reverse order, i.e. people learn about shitcoins through Bitcoin, not the other way round

Interesting to keep that in mind

But I don't think this will ever have any meaningful impact on price on its own (I mean Bitcoin's annual supply going below the supply of gold in relative terms). Most of gold is used in jewelry anyway (over 50%) while most of Bitcoin is used in speculation, so there is hardly any meaningful correlation as these are two completely different assets used for entirely different purposes

It is no more than your thoughts (as you said yourself)

Governments can't agree on a lot of more important things and now they should be all of a sudden "banning cryptocurrencies and introducing a single global currency of their own". Why should they necessarily ban cryptocurrencies to introduce a global currency? Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are a small aberration in the grand scheme of things, objectively and financially. And that leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the lack of a global currency is a proof that there is no agreement among governments, and thus no chance of banning cryptocurrencies universally. Pretty simple, isn't it?

You are too late to the party, mate

New coins are of no particular interest to anyone these days. Of course, it doesn't mean that there won't be any (as some certainly will), but you have to create something really out of the way to attract the attention of the crytpopublic. Right now we are waiting for the vast majority of altcoins (otherwise known as shitcoins) to kick the bucket, not to rise and shine. So it is kinda the wrong time for new coins

Well, I didn't intend it to mean like literally doubling the odds, up or down

Sorry for the confusion created, it's my fault. I meant to say you can tweak the odds in the same way as you change the bet amount, i.e. to compensate for the accumulated loss and likely to earn something. Personally, when I used martingale myself (these times are long gone), I set the odds in such a way that doubling the bet (in this case literally doubling it) would earn me twice as much as I lost on previous steps (to me, it looked like true to the game martingale). Earning just 1 satoshi as with "standard" or "official" martingale seems like a really stupid idea

Actually, it makes perfect sense

Partnership with Iran despite all US sanctions, Brexit (with Britain always being the closest ally of the US), pan-European army - all of this points to the fact that we are on the verge of the EU being transformed into the Fourth Reich, if not already (with Angela Merkel as a new fuhrer). Let's remember that the prewar Iran (I refer to WWII here) had been actively collaborating with Nazi Germany, and now things start to look suspiciously similar or even familiar (at least to those who kinda been there). Everything might have turned quite differently in WWII if Iran and its oilfields hadn't been preemptively taken over by the Soviets and British in 1941

I don't mind you waiting, bro

And while you patiently wait for the rise, I will continue shorting everything which has price above 100 dollars using regular Bitcoin as a cover for my shorts, and will probably even add a little to my small Bitcoin short position as well on the way up (provided the surge to 5k ever comes about). I have a strong feeling that all altcoins will soon be worth no more than 50 dollars per coin (I mean the ones which are higher than that price at the moment)