some merchants aren't willing to accept crypto the main reason is that of the uncertainty of prices in the crypto market keep fluctuations so merchants are afraid to accept crypto currencies
There is no logic in that given how many fiat currencies are in a perpetual inflation loop Businesses are profit-oriented and they typically leave no stone unturned to sell more goods and services, so if Bitcoin payments allow them to attract more consumers and thus bring more profits, they should be all in. Of course, if there are regulations that prevent this, they might not want to risk their business but other than that, there is absolutely no reason for businesses to decline Bitcoin payments |
|
|
|
|
Okay, I registered with your casino
Now where can I get my free sign-up bonus? Well, kidding aside, could you explain in greater detail how we bet without our funds being sent to the casino? As I understand it, we bet using EOS coins on the EOS blockchain in a decentralized manner, right? So if I want to make a bet, I have to install an EOS desktop wallet (given that you don't have control over my funds). This part I kinda understand, but what's next?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not care about investor confidence. It may not sound good but that is the truth.
LOL Bitcoin price won't even go into the bullish market or even go up if the traders has no confidence in the market. If you think Bitcoin can move up on its own then think again we are the ones creating the demand here and without us trusting the market we will see it fall. Even your expectations of Bitcoin being above 25,000$ won't be feasible if you yourself don't trust what you are holding. So if you want to see Bitcoin go up then you should be part of the people who are hodling Bitcoin until now Indeed, Bitcoin cannot move up on its own Just as it can't move down on its own either. It depends on who helps it move either way. And the rumor has it that the 2017 sprint to 20k was not due to traders but thanks to Bitfinex printing infinite amounts of tethers with which they had been buying up real bitcoins. If this rumor is true, that leaves us with no other conclusion but the one according to which we are not the ones out there who can create demand for bitcoins. Basically, this demand can be easily created out of thin air, just like fiat money |
|
|
|
I am holding a bag of useless illiquid tokens. So do millions of other people in our community. We must do something about it! So I decided to Pick up the gauntlet. I’m having meetings with projects leaders, big companies, and trading platform, trying to find the best solution for all of us. Would love to hear your situation, thoughts, and ideas.
Yeah I do. Because of my stupidity, I hold bags of altcoins even I am aware that it is worthless. I want to regain my losses and that's why I waiting to the right moment to sell all of it. I have still faith to it that its value will rise again You can be certain that you are not the only one waiting for that moment And that's likely the reason why it will never come. The market which lies ahead of us will be quite different from what we saw in 2016-2017 (and still see, for that matter). What's going on now should be correctly called "the purge". After it is over (which may take some time up to a few years), there'll no more than a dozen altcoins left for alive. All the rest are going to bite the dust as totally useless for anything other than quick pump and dump |
|
|
|
-snip- not get enough Bitcoin business to justify the effort to support it.  Out of curiosity, what would those hidden costs be? Staff trained once, retains the knowledge. Wallets are free so as participation in the network. Legal help also is paid once. What is that that I'm missing? You are missing quite a few factors at play here All in all, you are missing a good reality check if I can say so (no offense intended, just in case). Staff come and go, and still more so for big retailers. Therefore, you can't really expect to train them once. It is typically twice, thrice, and more times. The same is also true with respect to legal help as regulation, and Bitcoin regulation in particular, is rapidly changing, so it is not a "shoot and forget" thing either. In this way, without constant inflow of cryptobuyers, it may be not worth the deal after all. And maybe, you are missing something else here |
|
|
|
A 'new bitcoin' or a "better than bitcoin" cryptocurrency has been created every month.So far,no coin has proven that it deserves the right to be the new king of crypto.All those articles are a bunch of BS.
It would be great if they really create such energy efficient crypto,but I highly doubt it.
Yeah, that would likely require a new Satoshi Nakamoto However, it is not about a new Bitcoin killer coin but rather one of the existing altcoins attracting more user attention and acquiring more real adoption in the long haul. For example, Dogecoin was created mostly for kicks and it had twice as much shit kicked out of it while it is still alive and kicking. Indeed, it can't be a Bitcoin killer as that would be beyond such ridiculous even for Dogecoin. Nevertheless, Litecoin could easily become that competitor to Bitcoin, at least as far as real use is considered |
|
|
|
This is an unbeatable logical argument for the bullish case of institutions holding Bitcoin. Im not saying they should dump all of their gold, but definitely dump a certain % and diversify with Bitcoin. This will happen sooner or later, and it just takes a first mover for the rest to follow, they will not be able to afford not having some due game theory, similar to not having powder back in the way when when wars were fought with swords Actually, your argument doesn't hold water at all If Maduro went with Bitcoin, the coins would likely have already been stolen. It is probably the reason why Venezuelan gold was on storage in London, i.e. to prevent it from being looted by whoever is in power at the moment. I remember when some African dictator fled his country with the total dollar reserves of it (something like 9M dollars). Now imagine that Maduro is overthrown (and bitcoins not stolen by that time), how are you going to get them back? |
|
|
|
With that said, though, we still can't discard the fact that you short with coins borrowed, i.e. with someone else's coins who is taking kinda counter-short position. Really, if you had bitcoins and expected the price to fall, it would make sense to sell them, not lend Zoom out, it would depend on the time-frame No, it doesn't. The profits earned as well as losses incurred remain the same irrespective of the timeframe in which they occurred Maybe I got confused. Ok, if my time-frame is "HODL", and expect Bitcoin to be in 6 figures by 2025, wouldn't it make more sense to lend them than do a more active style trading? No, it wouldn't make much sense Quite the contrary, it doesn't make any sense unless you feel completely averse to trading. If you are going to lend these bitcoins, the interest rates you are likely to receive will be miserable, something like 1% annually. Add to this the risk of exchange scamming (not uncommon in this world), you will see why it is not worth the money accumulated. On the other hand, you can day trade with a minor part of your stash, keeping the rest of your coins in a personal wallet and still be better off profit-wise (and still more so if you expect Bitcoin to be 6 digits by 2025) Ok, I'm now not sure if I understand what the whole topic is. Haha sorry No need to be sorry, you can't understand everything But it is quite simple really. If it is not profitable to lend, it turns quite profitable to borrow, whether the market is rising or falling. In the case of market rising, you borrow to open a long position (yes, it is not just about short selling). On the other hand, if the market is falling, you borrow to open a short position, i.e. sell on margin. And this is exactly what the whole topic is about, i.e. on short selling. Pretty simple, isn't it? |
|
|
|
2k-3k is the floor.
there is a real reason for those numbers.
at least 40% of the hard iron mining is used to help power plants load level when they have excess power I'm curious how low should the price crash to make people finally forget about the costs of mining. When Bitcoin traded above 6k, quite a few folks here aggressively claimed that there was not a single chance that the price could ever go below 6k because that was the cost of mining. Now the price is trading below 4k, and so what? Did the cost of mining prevent the price from plummeting below 6k, may I ask you? The price can crash to 1k and the cost of mining will have no effect on this downfall Why are people repeating the same bullshit again and again even if they are constantly being proved wrong? |
|
|
|
we don't need a catalyst for a bottom to form. what we need is for sellers to dry up "There's plenty of room between here and zero" You see, we can understand that there was a price bottom only in retrospect, i.e. when prices have risen enough to justify and validate this conclusion. But for prices to rise the lack of sellers is nowhere near enough. We also need demand for that, what a surprise. And here's the catch. With speculative assets no demand means prices falling in the long run as there is no real value to prop them up. In other words, even if technically there are less sellers sticking around, their effect on price becomes multiplied as there is no demand either and consequently no support |
|
|
|
You are absolutely right.
If you are willing to spend money in exchange for a good or service, be it fiat or bitcoin, there is someone out there who will accept it. Now, while millionaires can buy anything they like in bitcoin by throwing enough money at it, the average person here isn't going to be able to convince some big supermarket or chain to start accepting bitcoin, but they could certainly have success in smaller independent retailers or tradespeople. After me asking every week for a month or so, one of the sellers at my local farmers' market started to accept bitcoin, and now he isn't the only one accepting it and I'm not the only one spending it.
Stop waiting for retailers to accept crypto and start asking them to accept crypto. Holding won't get us anywhere if no one is spending.
Although cryptocurrency has a lot of potential to consider so to speak, you can't really blame those merchants or shops that are adamant and hesitant to accept cryptocurrencies as payment mostly for their goods and services. I mean, as a merchant or marketer, you have to shed off a good amount of capital to do business, and more capital to sustain it, and if you would rely at something that is actually unreliable and has changing values more often than not, it might affect your business big time. There's nothing better than having cold hard cash that everyone knows and accepts You don't take into account everything that counts here Basically, you are assuming that people across the world have inflation rates like 3-4% annually. While it is certainly true for countries like US, Japan (with its perpetual deflation) and the Eurozone, this is definitely not so with respect to the rest of the world. In many countries inflation is times greater than that, and in some of them it lies in the region of double and triple digits (not even speaking of Venezuela here). So how are merchants making business in the countries where fiat money is even less reliable than Bitcoin and far from "cold hard cash" unless you actually mean a cold corpse in rigor mortis as cash? |
|
|
|
Minimum bet is $10 also, so you can easily lose twice with that "bonus" money and still be without much left to play with You can lose as many times as you wish Actually, until you win provided you could win in the first place (which is not certain yet). No one can prevent you from registering at the site again and again using the same promocode and receiving the same 22 dollars each time. And you can do this trick with withdrawals as well. All of this is telling quite unequivocally that the whole business is nothing more than a lame attempt to steal money from greedy gamblers or just greedy individuals |
|
|
|
Investors are immune too much for this dramas which no surprise the market didn't dip that much what happen is opposite. We are pro decentralization but why are we so much affected by a centralized authority specially the US SEC decisions? On which there is no guarantee that upon approval the price will skyrocket again, I can feel the organic growth but due to manipulators its hard to achieve rewards during this season The answer to this question should be pretty obvious People are not so much pro-decentralization as they are pro-profit deep inside. In other words, they would easily exchange a little bit of decentralization for a little bit of profits. That's the reason why we care so much about SEC decisions as their attitude directly affects our profit potential, either way. Then again, you yourself talk about prices and rewards, not adoption and use, which is telling |
|
|
|
i have not seen anybody making a claim that bitcoin's adoption is "limited" by merchants so i am a bit surprised to read it for the first time here. sure, the merchant adoption is one of many factors in bitcoin adoption journey but it is not the limiting factor. and i wouldn't call it "cause and effect". it is more like a chicken and egg problem because they both can be cause and effect at the same time.
- if we get more merchants to accept bitcoin as payment the adoption will grow
- if the adoption grows then merchants will see it and accept bitcoin as payment.
I don't actually think it is more like a chicken and egg problem. As you can see from reports posted here, it is along the way I see it. And I've given examples in the opening post which factually prove my point, i.e. whenever there is real interest from consumers to pay in Bitcoin which involves serious money (like in real estate business), there is no lack of merchants ready to accept crypto as long as it is not prohibited by the law. To repeat, when money talks bullshit walks Regarding no one making such claims, you can start here |
|
|
|
With that said, though, we still can't discard the fact that you short with coins borrowed, i.e. with someone else's coins who is taking kinda counter-short position. Really, if you had bitcoins and expected the price to fall, it would make sense to sell them, not lend Zoom out, it would depend on the time-frame. No, it doesn't. The profits earned as well as losses incurred remain the same irrespective of the timeframe in which they occurred Maybe I got confused. Ok, if my time-frame is "HODL", and expect Bitcoin to be in 6 figures by 2025, wouldn't it make more sense to lend them than do a more active style trading? No, it wouldn't make much sense Quite the contrary, it doesn't make any sense unless you feel completely averse to trading. If you are going to lend these bitcoins, the interest rates you are likely to receive will be miserable, something like 1% annually. Add to this the risk of exchange scamming (not uncommon in this world), you will see why it is not worth the money accumulated. On the other hand, you can day trade with a minor part of your stash, keeping the rest of your coins in a personal wallet and still be better off profit-wise (and still more so if you expect Bitcoin to be 6 digits by 2025) |
|
|
|
I believe the effects of short-selling in Bitcoin are negligent if you zoom out enough. Bitcoin demand has a lot of potential to grow, and there is not enough supply to cover the demand. We might only be starting to scratch the surface I can't say that I strongly disagree If you zoom out enough, it may well be so, i.e. shorts become inconsequential (as this is what I think myself). But this assumes there is enough demand in the first place to make naked shorting a losing business as someone who tried to short Bitcoin in late 2016 (if I'm not mistaken) lost around 300 bitcoins only to have his short position liquidated. But with no demand, shorts are just accelerating the process which would go on its own even without them What kind of "demand" are we talking about? Short term demand, long term demand? Because Bitcoin has not reached its full potential in dark market commerce yet in my opinion In this case it doesn't matter Because to make shorting (short selling specifically) a losing business the demand should be sufficient to trigger a forced liquidation of these shorts. As you can see, time is not one of the variables at play here. You just need the price to make an abrupt movement to the upside to catch short traders unprepared. Basically, this is what short squeezes are about, i.e. about making short sellers cover their positions at a loss due to a sudden excess of demand (or have these positions liquidated by the exchange itself) With that said, though, we still can't discard the fact that you short with coins borrowed, i.e. with someone else's coins who is taking kinda counter-short position. Really, if you had bitcoins and expected the price to fall, it would make sense to sell them, not lend Zoom out, it would depend on the time-frame. No, it doesn't. The profits earned as well as losses incurred remain the same irrespective of the timeframe in which they occurred |
|
|
|
There are many reasons why people aren't spending Bitcoin. Like why would someone who is at a loss spend his coins in a bear market? Actually, this is a good reason As you can either sell them and book losses or spend them and then not have that feeling of being a complete loser having to close a losing position. Well, ultimately it is still six of one and half a dozen of the other, but in the latter case you won't feel yourself that low. And you can always buy back when the price goes lower and feel like a winner If you got cheap Bitcoin and they are worth 10 times more now it's very difficult to find something you want to spend them on. If I had a million dollars in cryptocurrency now I wouldn't spend because I don't need anything expensive right now. What am I gonna buy? A thousand pizzas or 5 thousand coffees? That's because you don't have a million dollars in cryptocurrency. Or, maybe, it is the exact reason why you don't have so much in the first place |
|
|
|
[...] bitcoin is very volatile, such high volatility becomes a major barrier for merchants to accept bitcoin as a means of payments I don't particularly disagree with your points However, if you are a big merchant with thousands of clients paying or willing to pay with Bitcoin, you can either mass-hedge directly against price volatility (this will cost you around 1% yearly at max) or use third party services that specifically deal with this issue. Besides, we should keep in mind that with expansion of Bitcoin adoption volatility is set to taper off eventually as real value, which comes through such use, takes away from volatility just like speculative value adds to it I do not think any technique can easily stand against price volatility. If it was easy, none of us would lose It is in fact quite easy Most of us are not doing this because a) we simply don't know how b) hedging against volatility means we are sacrificing future profits via "buying low selling high". But for merchants and producers (who are not interested in speculation), it is a working strategy which is widely used everywhere in the world (I'm not talking about crypto specifically here). If you want to hedge against future price change, you can hedge with futures or options. With crypto, you just open a short position equal to the amount held. In that case, you are 100% protected from any price move, though, as I said, you can also kiss goodbye to your profits as well |
|
|
|
-snip- On the other hand, any law reflects the social fabric objectively...
This would be my exact issue here. I have a first hand experience with unreal expectations from my irs. Last year they wanted us to submit taxes for every transaction crypto -> crypto. Somebody completely detached from reality interpreted the law and requested the impossible. There was a little storm in the community, irs gave up this crazy idea. However few subjects, like the biggest crypto-exchange had to run away of borders, because taxes would eat them whole up. As you can see, law matters a lot Yes, just as I said earlier, laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood And it should be taken literally. If some law is kinda set in stone, i.e. it is assumed to be something sacrosanct and inviolate, no matter what, it will get rewritten in blood sooner or later. Events leading to this are called a revolutionary situation when "the rulers are unable and the ruled ones are unwilling", according to Lenin. I don't think it is particularly different with money as we have an example of Zimbabwe where the population completely abandoned the local currency after the government devalued it. And no law could change this outcome |
|
|
|
Year 2015 started with Bitcoin price at $317. Price then sank and reach bottom two weeks latter at $171. Then hang between $200 and $300 until November when bull market started. And reach $430 at the end of the year. That gave us 35% price increase in 2015.
Year 2019 started with Bitcoin price at $3740. Two weeks before that price reached current bottom at $3190. Price of Bitcoin should hang between $3500 and $5500 until October when bull market will start. And reach $8000 at end of the year I wish it were so But it doesn't look like this at all. I actively traded in 2015 and thus have "first-hand" feelings of the price action back in the year. And today (i.e. after the last 3 weeks into the new year) it looks and feels very different. These days we see mostly stagnating prices, while in 2015 it was an entirely different picture in this regard. Prices constantly moved up and down in the range of 5-10% every other day, with regular major corrections and rebounds. It was an active market in 2015, today it is mostly a dead one |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
