It's not as much a prediction as a reading based on past movements. I do believe that Bitcoin can get to those levels (at some point, at least), but not because of this reasoning. It's basically impossible for prices to move the exact same way and in the exact same timeframe as they did in the past. Going from ~3k to ~20k is also way different from going ~9k to ~60k.

Your strategy is about as safe as investing can go, but it's also appropriately low yield. Investment is really all about personal preference though, and there is no "best way". If this is what you're most comfortable with, go for it.

As for the most appropriate thing to do, it would depend entirely on your expectations. What do you want out of your investment, and how much are you willing to risk? If you want to make it big without risking too much, you can do what most people do: buy in, hold, amass slowly, and spend some in between.

Also, when you buy doesn't matter too much if you're in it for the long run. A thousand or so difference in price won't matter too much once prices triple or quadruple, so don't stress yourself thinking about it too much.

Your fears are unfounded because it wouldn't matter to them. Most of the people you described are happy just to see food on the table. They're not going to care if they bought it with fiat or Bitcoin. Bitcoin does provide financial inclusion, but the sad reality is that you need to be doing adequately financially to take advantage of it.

At our level, nothing can be done to create lasting impact. Donations can help them not go hungry for a few days, and that's about it. Poverty is not the cause of the problem, it's a symptom. You have to go for the root, whether that's systemic corruption, or ineffective governance, etc.

Bitcoin is already trading at a premium in Hong Kong:

https://www.ccn.com/crypto/bitcoin-price100-premium-hong-kong-violent-protests/2019/06/17/

That being said, I'm not sure if this conflict can make a large enough impact to have significant effect on global prices. I also don't think the CCP would be very keen on taking drastic actions with the whole world watching, but I also kind of don't see them giving in to protests. I only hope they reach a compromise.

It's probably only surprising because it was painted it in such a way that makes it look like their government is being more open to crypto just because they're being more open to blockchain tech. Accepting blockchain technology doesn't necessarily indicate support for crypto though, as it's only really one of many possible applications. There are some sectors that are intrigued by the blockchain but aren't as accepting of crypto, and this is probably one of those cases.

Can't blame people for being optimistic though, I guess, and the media are just taking advantage of them.

There are blockchain courses from reputable universities now, so maybe completing a few of those is a requirement? "Expert" might be an oversell, but considering how new and small the field is, there really isn't much to learn about it. Even the earliest contributors only really looked at the code and built from it, so it's not exactly rocket science.

You could probably market yourself as an expert once you get working knowledge of the code.

I seriously doubt they're that liquid. This is also a good way to set off AML alarms, and will likely require going though fucktons of hoops.

Either way, I would guess that the practical max would be $10k (in the US, at least), since anything above that needs to be reported by law. For anything higher than that, other avenues would probably be better.

Is this what you're referring to?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/indian-police-uncover-cryptocurrency-scam-involving-bitconnect-promoter

If so, they uncovered the scam, not necessarily recovering whatever money got stolen. Good for India though I suppose.

Each BTC isn't really just software anymore though, much like fiat isn't just paper. Even if there were identical forks, people won't consider them as Bitcoin. Trust certainly plays a big part (maybe biggest, even) in valuation, but scarcity does too.


I think arbitrary is the word you're looking for. It probably would have made much more sense if they divided the total land area of the world by 21 million to highlight that there's only ever going to be this much, regardless of value. I really thought it was a statement about scarcity rather than their own valuation.

Lol I wouldn't even call it a correction since we bounced right back up in just a few hours. It's just volatility at work, and it's crazy how many people seem to have panic sold (social media made a big deal out of it).

I initially thought this run would be short-lived, but now I'm entirely convinced that we're out of the bear market. $10k is likely in our immediate future.

It's pretty crazy how much people would pay to expand their business network. This could easily pay off too, considering this is Warren freaking Buffett.

That being said, I'm not sure if they could change his mind on crypto matters. Old dudes tend to be set in their ways, and I imagine Buffett is even moreso, considering his level of success. They'll always believe that their methods are better than everything else.

No clue yet, and I already did say that network security should be prioritized. If we had any idea what the appropriate size should be, then people would already be talking about it. I might be misreading you, but if you think a hard fork for bigger blocks isn't in the pipeline already, you're incorrect. Even the Lightning Network white paper calls it necessary:


I believe in side chain solutions, but I also believe those side chain solutions should be within reach of the general public. As pooya87 said earlier in the thread, if it costs $50 to open a LN channel, then it probably won't work as intended. It's all well and dandy that miners are getting their share, but I am of the opinion that we need to find a sweet spot where everyone's happy enough with what they're paying/getting.

That's true, but I was alluding to the assumption that not many people other than speculators are indifferent to high fees. If fees must truly be expensive (to the degree that the average person would feel burdened by opening a channel), then I imagine that kills a lot of Bitcoin's use cases and flushes out a lot of legitimate users with it.

I agree that cheap fees will have to take a back seat to network security, but shouldn't be neglected at the same time. The network could be the most secure on the planet, but if only a handful can comfortably use it, I'd say it has failed.

It's really hard to point to a number, but I'm thinking the highest we could go is just enough so that the average person can open a channel or two weekly without really affecting their savings. It could be thought of as a small utility bill or something that doesn't impact monthly budgeting in a significant way.


It currently seems to be heavily fueled by speculation -- people pay the fees because they'll be able to make that and more. I'm not sure if I believe that would be sustainable. It doesn't feel like many value Bitcoin's other intrinsic qualities at the moment.

I'm sure he didn't mean it literally. What he's essentially saying is that everyone is just as much Satoshi as CSW is lol.

Considering how erratic CSW is being though, I would be surprised if he takes this lying down. It seems like he's already acknowledged it, but I'm expecting him to take it to court lol. Ready your popcorns!

Just because it has happened once before doesn't mean it will happen again, much less that it will happen in essentially the same way. We're going to need more instances to even begin to conclude that there's a trend, and trends aren't even always followed.

Cheers if you're right though. I'm not complaining lol.

They are conflicting ideologies, but like I said, there's no right or wrong answer. Neither side should be shaming the other, because what people want to do with their own money is their business. The industry has thrived with people doing exactly what they're doing now, so there's no real immediate problem to solve.

The issue of lack of use should resolve itself eventually as Bitcoin becomes more convenient to spend. People routinely spend for convenience (like how piracy is plummeting because Netflix and Spotify are convenient), and I foresee the same thing happening with Bitcoin. There are several developments on this front, like lightweight Lightning wallets, Bitcoin being accepted for bills payment, etc., so things are only going to get better from here. It's going to happen organically even without some people's holier than thou preachings.

That's exactly what I thought too. I guess it just boils down to compromise of cheap-enough fees and good-enough miner support. It probably won't be cheap enough for a single cup of coffee, but should be viable enough for not-so-smallish transactions.

This just highlights the problem with a deflationary currency and why fiat is inflationary by nature. If a person has incentive to not spend, he will not spend. It's also why crypto can't be used as the sole world currency -- the global economy will stagnate, with people not wanting to spend their money.

That being said, there's no right thing to do in this case. Spending is better for the ecosystem, but since crypto enables people to do whatever the fuck they want with their money, they should be doing exactly that. You don't have to go to either extreme either. A healthy middle of spending some and saving some is always an option.

I see. I was always under the impression that block rewards were supposed to be the compensation, and transaction fees were cherry on top. I also read somewhere some time ago that the sheer number of transactions at mass adoption would continue to make mining viable even at low fees and no block rewards, but I guess prices trending down does complicate that. It's looking like a lot of the early ideas have been short-sighted.

I guess everything does make sense though, considering the fact that we're looking into off-chain solutions for scaling. I just thought that the game plan was always to keep on-chain transactions relatively cheap (i.e. still very viable for people who prefer on-chain transactions), though that does defeat the purpose of trying to move bulk of the transactions off-chain.