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?

"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 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?

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

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 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

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)

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)


No, it doesn't. The profits earned as well as losses incurred remain the same irrespective of the timeframe in which they occurred

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


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

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

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

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

Actually, I intentionally omitted this part in the OP to keep it readable

Though I didn't mean taxation in particular but rather government regulation in general. Obviously, if Bitcoin payments are frowned upon by the government officials, we can't really expect mass adoption by merchants like Amazon and their likes. On the other hand, any law reflects the social fabric objectively existing in a society (i.e. laws are secondary), and if a lot of people start using crypto without looking over their shoulder, the government won't be able to discard these developments. Otherwise they run the risk of people "discarding" the government itself (like it happens in Venezuela right now)

Could you please explain in a few words the technology they are going to use?

I mean it would be nice to write a short summary of review of what they are actually planning to do in the OP. But I suspect the they are simply going to run a couple of servers to make it look like their coin is "99 percent more efficient compared to today’s popular cryptocurrencies". Also, is this news somehow related to the other news about a bunch of scientists from a few American universities developing another Bitcoin killer coin?

In simple terms, you don't see the forest for the trees

Bitcoin can only have value if it is used in real life. Without the real life adoption, it is set to fail, maybe, not today, or in a year, but the end is kinda carved in stone (remember, laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood). To put it differently, without someone actually using Bitcoin, you won't have it as a store of value. So the holders should in fact be blamed for not using their bitcoins because they are shamelessly profiting from someone else's effort. Your "long-term investment" is possible only thanks to this effort

This is a scam operation by its looks

In other words, you are not supposed to actually play there (and I'm not sure whether you will be able at all even if you try). What you are expected to do is make a deposit and then try to withdraw it with the free bonus added. Whether you succeed at that or not depends on how greedy the operator of this shop is. So don't look for bugs or other shortcomings there, this is not what the whole shebang is about

Where did I say otherwise?

Speculative value means volatility, but volatility means that high prices are followed by low prices and vice versa (read, you can ride the spread). Whether this value is intrinsic or not is irrelevant here as there is no "intrinsic" value because all value is entirely subjective and marginally subjective at that. If you have 10 apples, adding 1 more apple won't give you a lot more pleasure in eating it, so the "eating" value of 1 additional apple is essentially 0 to you (so-called marginal utility applied to apples and similar fruits). If there is only this value at play (i.e. you can't give the apple to someone else or sell it), then it will be pretty much useless to you in these circumstances


Labor theory of value has been proven wrong right after its emergence. In other words, an abstract piece of bread costs so much only because people are willing to pay for it as much. If they aren't, the producer either lowers the price till people start buying it or stops baking bread at all, selling out the leftovers for pennies or giving them away for free

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

As you say yourself, it is not worth it

Simply because you can just buy this dollar amount of bitcoins and forget about them for a couple of years instead of spending a whole month of your life wasting your time and effort. Other than that, with sites like freebitco.in you can in fact get much more than that up to a point of earning decent income and making living off it, but it still requires a lot of effort (e.g. via recruiting enough referrals). The bottom line is that there's no free lunch if only through luck. But if you want to test your luck, you are in the right thread already and don't need to go elsewhere

The prevailing opinion on the forum seems to be that Bitcoin's adoption is limited by merchants' reluctance to accept it as a means of payment. In my eyes this view represents a typical cause-and-effect dilemma, which is colloquially known as putting the cart before the horse (i.e. confusing cause and effect). In this topic I will try to explain why such an opinion is in fact incorrect

To prove that it is not merchants' fault or reluctance to accept Bitcoin but rather unwillingness of the consumers to pay with it, we should think about the use cases where Bitcoin holders may in fact be willing to spend their coins. And if I'm right (which I am), then we should see merchants actually accepting crypto in these areas. This approach can easily prove whether people are really putting the cart before the horse here

Big-time holders don't seem to be very interested in speculating with Bitcoin because they already have enough to live like pigs in clover for the rest of their life. But when you have so much wealth, you would evidently want to spend some of it on things which you dreamed of your whole life, like sports cars, penthouses, jewelries for your girlfriend, traveling around the world and living in 5-star hotels like a king

And this is where we see Bitcoin being willingly accepted by providers of these services and suppliers of such goods. You can easily buy elite real estate, pay for the most exclusive sports cars, seduce your passion with most exquisite jewelries, and you can do all these things with bitcoins - provided you have enough of them, of course. In simple terms, when money talks bullshit walks. And Bitcoin is that money



So it is not about merchants at all