|
Oh, bother. Dinner has been delayed. Again.
|
|
|
|
The chikun broke up, let's see how much this influences bitcoin.
What does this mean? Up? Usually it does, don't know if it will apply now. If bitcoin would follow the chikun, it would reach 7300 CNY, but bitcoin didn't give a shit. Bitcoin is not a pussy, and not a chikun follower.  Bitcoin be da HoneyBadger, and we all know what it is that HoneyBadger don't give. |
|
|
|
One of bitcoin's largest weaknesses is the rough consensus attack (as seen demonstrated on Ethereum), so that undermines the concept that just belief it is money is good enough
Not to disparage Ethereum (::ahem!:  , but what happens to J. Random Crapcoin in the face of investard suicide has little demonstrative application to Bitcoin. Not to say that it is computationally impossible for such a thing to occur. I just don't expect it to. And even if it did, then what of it? As I recall, the aggregate value of ETH + ETC shortly after the split was greater than before the split. Right now, at that layer, metals occupy a 99.8% wedge, with crypto making up the adjacent 0.2% sliver -- but growing quickly ( on a scale encompassing decades).
This is actually not true in the context that the silver market cap is barely bigger than Bitcoin. It is absolutely true. I did not just pick that 99.8% figure at random. Last time I ran the figures (admittedly a couple years ago), if bitcoin market cap rose to equal total monetary gold in circulation, divided by (ultimately) 21M, comes up with a figure slightly north of half-million USD per BTC. In the face of this ~500x in comparison to today's value, the silver market equivalency is a rounding error. You might posit that silver has explosive growth in its near future. So much that it dwarfs Bitcoin's expected explosive growth. And I might ridicule that thesis. In fact, I will. Out of all the noble metals that exist, the only ones suited to be used as currency are gold and silver.
Unsubstantiated claim not supported by facts entered into evidence. Though this would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, it's very difficult for them to stop use of metals no matter what the law is.
What attribute do you believe monetary metals possess that is not possessed by cryptocurrencies? From my understanding, crypto is the better bet. After all, we can hide an unlimited amount of it in secure fashion. The best bet in the long run is determined by whatever you believe makes up the base of Exter's pyramid: Well, I believe that that rendition of the pyramid is needlessly complex. The utility of this tool breaks down when it loses the attribute of each layer being an abstraction of the layer below. BTAIM, I would place at the apex "societal belief in the concept of money". In my mind, metals and crypto are peers in the next layer up. As neither are an abstraction of anything other than the societal belief in the concept of money. Right now, at that layer, metals occupy a 99.8% wedge, with crypto making up the adjacent 0.2% sliver -- but growing quickly ( on a scale encompassing decades). I personally don't see bitcoin occupying the same bottom slot as monetary metals so it would have to be one higher on the same level as fiat.
Even if you don't envision crypto at the same layer as metals, why need it occupy the same layer as fiat? Fiat is -- or at least was until 1913, 1933, or 1964 however you want to think of it -- an abstraction of metals. Crypto was never such. It does not need to be shoehorned into a taxonomy that was set in stone before its existence. We live in a closed ecosystem and the blockchain for metals was created by two neutron stars colliding, so unless you can replicate that, it's not very easy to tamper with the metals blockchain.
If you want to go universal, you don't get to do so without the observation that the current supply of monetary metals is infinitesimally small in relation to those we will have access to in the future. OTOH, Bitcoin supply is fixed*. . Assuming the market cap had topped out on both metals and bitcoin and you were forced to go all-in on one, which one are you going to pick?
Porque' no dos? I wouldn't know how to even start making that evaluation. Fortunately, your hypothetical is not in effect, and I cannot at this point think of a situation that would force me to make such a choice. Anyway, as you can see from my numbers, it is difficult to advocate a 100% all-in position on Bitcoin with 0 metals even if you are a crazed gambler seeking maximum yield. If you fall in that category of seeking max yield while still having some type of safety, you would likely be something like 50% metals 50% bitcoin at most, or even 70% metals 30% bitcoin due to the risks involved. (Notice I did say you need to be a crazed gambler to have 30-50% of your money in Bitcoin).
I'm not going to disagree with your numbers. While I do disagree, there is no solid means of making that evaluation. I think you're off the mark, but have only speculation upon which to rely. As do you. That said, I agree that is foolish to have a lot of wealth tied up in either of these asset classes without a holding in the other. I currently am biased toward Bitcoin, as I believe the potential upside is much greater than that of metals. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, it's very difficult for them to stop use of metals no matter what the law is.
What attribute do you believe monetary metals possess that is not possessed by cryptocurrencies? From my understanding, crypto is the better bet. After all, we can hide an unlimited amount of it in secure fashion. |
|
|
|
I remain convinced that Bitcoin is a long-term successful moonshot. ... In understand your assertions. I certainly acknowledge the desire of TPTB to control it all. I just don't think they will be successful. A decade ago, discussing the true nature of partial reserve banking had one labeled as a loon. Now there is a portion of the population that understands. The tighter the grip, the more the resistance. |
|
|
|
Perhaps everyone here thinks that we are currently replaying October 2013 and haven't even made it to November yet?
Pretty much this^. Not everyone. I think we could be replaying August 17th 2012. Yeah, but you're bearish more often than not. I remain convinced that Bitcoin is a long-term successful moonshot. I remain serene in the face of crashes. Is now analogous to Oct 2013? Frankly, I have no idea. But it could be. More importantly, some time in the not-too distant future will be analogous to Oct 2013. In the meantime, I await -- seated comfortably at my pick-a-nick table -- awaiting mah fine and glorious repast. If you would think deeper about what I said, you would understand how bullish I am long term.  Hint: what price was in August 2012 and what price in October 2013? You mean presaging the runup to $266? OK, then. Mea culpa. |
|
|
|
As you may recall, my sells are staggered,
Yes. Likely similar to what I refer to above as 'laddered day trading'. (I'm likely not conversant with trading vernacular - that's just my term). so I am not really selling at the top... even though maybe that would be a better strategy
Well, of course selling only at the top would be a better strategy ... if only there were some way to make this strategy realizable. But there ain't. C'est la guerre. |
|
|
|
The Fact, that China can deny you the Use of your BTC, sure seems like Control to me.
Again... 'China' is not a single entity. |
|
|
|
Perhaps everyone here thinks that we are currently replaying October 2013 and haven't even made it to November yet?
Pretty much this^. Not everyone. I think we could be replaying August 17th 2012. Yeah, but you're bearish more often than not. I remain convinced that Bitcoin is a long-term successful moonshot. I remain serene in the face of crashes. Is now analogous to Oct 2013? Frankly, I have no idea. But it could be. More importantly, some time in the not-too distant future will be analogous to Oct 2013. In the meantime, I await -- seated comfortably at my pick-a-nick table -- awaiting mah fine and glorious repast. |
|
|
|
Perhaps everyone here thinks that we are currently replaying October 2013 and haven't even made it to November yet?
Pretty much this^. |
|
|
|
I haven't sold any in a long time. I think I may sell a few if we can get back to around $1100. Will buy back more if we get into $800s
This. Why the next pump will fall short. All the peoples that feel they missed out on the last peak will dump as soon as they can. A couple of days ago -- when we were in the $1100's -- I moved ~1% of my stash to an exchange, setting up a laddered day trading scheme. Some sells executed. First divestiture I made since the great runup of 2013. . . . . No, it was not enough to explain the crash. Either time. ::le sigh:: FWIW, I re-bought on the way down. |
|
|
|
... So no one should be whining about someone else's success when they are in a fair contest with them.
... You can do something to get something.
Thank you for derailing this bitch-fest by injecting some sanity to the discussion. |
|
|
|
I would be crying out really loud if something happens to my precious coins but nothing will happen to them now though.
Have you -- yourself -- verified that your hardware wallet does not have a backdoor? If so, then how exactly did you verify this conclusion? What makes you so sure that other methods are not equally secure? |
|
|
|
If the PBOC can basically come in and dictate price policy to exchanges that control 90% of trading...then what good is it?
This is fixable. Hopefully, Bitcoiners will come to realize that using these crap exchanges is detrimental to their financial well-being. Then the 'problem' will fix itself. |
|
|
|
OK BOYS
BITCOIN IS DEAD
you know what to do Note to self: remind killerpotleaf of this post when he/she rebuys precious at $1300. |
|
|
|
<--- <--- <--- Oh, bother. It appears dinner has been delayed. (Note to future thread archaeologists. Bitcoin price just experienced a 23% fall) |
|
|
|
... bitcoins, the cryptocurrency created by technologists to circumvent state-backed paper money, suffered the heaviest fall in its 23-year history.
Even when tripping over themselves to get out yet another Bitcoin obituary, the controlled MSM blunders mightily. (Still uncorrected at this time). |
|
|
|
I had noticed this spamming of the blockchain,
The market is making the largest moves that it has made in years. Why do you classify transaction demand as spamming? Does it not make sense that times of great market volatility might be times that people might be genuinely desiring to move their BTC either on- or off- exchanges? I doubt it... The most plausible explanation is spam, especially if you look at the level of the spike. Well, I think you are not thinking rationally. Most Bitcoiners know that it is unsafe to keep Bitcoins on exchanges, due to counterparty risk. But one can not trade through an exchange when coins are not on the exchange. Times of market volatility are by definition times of Bitcoin changing hands. Accordingly, when the market makes big moves, it is absolutely irrational to think that movement of Bitcoins between local wallets and exchanges would not rise from the baseline under such conditions. people with big blocker agendas tend to want to view plausible facts and theories in order to attempt to suggest that there is something wrong with bitcoin due to organic growth..
The readers will note that you inserted this comment about blocksize apropos of nothing. I might suggest that your knee-jerk reaction is indicative of an idealogically-driven blind spot. I will admit that there may be something wrong with bitcoin in the sense that it is difficult to prevent spam attacks, but making the blocks bigger is not going to solve that particular issue.
I will note that there is no testable criteria for classifying any given transaction as 'spam' or 'not-spam'. However one wants to define spam, there are arguments to be made that either support or defleact your bald unsupported assertion that 'bigger blocks will not help the spam issue'. But that is irrelevant. Indisputably, more valid transactions (however one wants to define 'valid') fit in bigger blocks than the number of valid transactions that will fit in smaller blocks. |
|
|
|
I bet he dumps it all out of spite  Good. It would be one less thing the naysayers could constantly whine about. It can only affect the market once, and that's it. Indeed. It would likely be on the scale of the drop of the last 2 days. Then done. And then honeybadger resumes its inexorable climb. That said, no fucking way is that dude satoshi.
He was babbling incoherent stuff trying to sound smart on a panel where Nick Szabo is looking at him like, "WTF?"
While true, that's hardly probative. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
