I reread the introduction - but I still don't understand what is the reason? Is the author not saying something or deliberately omitting some nuances? Perhaps the bank was problematic, but the author decided to ignore the warnings? Perhaps the counterparties were not clean on their hands or fell under financial monitoring, which they also always inform about? There must be real reasons and grounds for blocking funds. Just like that "because we wanted it" can only be in countries with totalitarian or criminal regimes. Can the author publish funds blocking protocols, official letters? It will be transparent, understandable and open ... And this looks one-sided
You might read about the Cyprus financial crisis in 2013 if you want to understand more, to see what happened. Regular people in Cyprus paid for the crimes of their corrupt political class. Using bitcoin, the people of Cyprus wouldn't have had their money stolen. e.g. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/04/the-cyprus-banking-crisis-and-its-aftermath-bank-depositors-be-aware/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21814325https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–2013_Cypriot_financial_crisis |
|
|
|
in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there. A lot of people lost their money during the Cyprus bank deposit "haircut". I wanted to ask the OP about what happened to those funds after the haircut, but he has been inactive here for almost three years now (the last time he posted was in 2018, I believe). Ironically, a lot of foreign citizens (mostly Russians) lost their funds during this haircut. Many of them preferred the Cypriot banks, because the interest rates were higher when compared to the banks in their country. He did say something way up thread about moving to the Caribbean and doing his business from there. |
|
|
|
|
I voted no, but given the phrasing of the question, a yes is tempting: sell it now, then get my spouse to buy 4 X as much back right away.
|
|
|
|
That´s a thread from 2013 but a few things need to be cleared and updated.
The Laiki bank was in governmental ownership since 2012 and the 100K guarantee was clear from the start. Yes, that they really enforce that option is crap but it was stated in the fine print.
Going to cyprus is by defintion a questionable move. The CySec is infamous for giving out licenses to the even most shabby fintech companies, most notoriously to the Get-rich-quick Binary Options brokers.
The EU has advantages if you know how to use them, like the passporting rule.
Anyway, in conclusion the story sounds to me of a mix of being careless, being greedy for tax reduction, and bad luck of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts. A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so. And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc. Nothing shady, just money used for operations. And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts. in addition OP did not "go to cyprus" - he lived there. Good point. He did live there...I think in the thread he said he moved to somewhere in the Caribbean after this. I'd be interested in hearing an update. I've just been reading the book "Bitcoin Billionaires" and it has something of a discussion about the events here. Made me think of this topic. |
|
|
|
Is there going to be a correction? Your opinions are greatly appreciated.
Regards
No one knows. The only thing that has been true that anytime anyone has bought or mined between Jan 2009 and December 17, 2020, they are ahead right now. The long term trend has been up and with increased demand, decreased new supply, and more uses, that seems likely to continue. |
|
|
|
|
One should never have more than they could afford to lose. That has been the refrain since 2010. Every year since then the risk of total failure has decreased. With many huge companies and funds buying hundreds of millions in bitcoin, the risk further decreases.
The question is really the asymmetric risk/reward involved here. Putting $20000 in now with a potential 1 or 2 orders of magnitude increase in fiat price still possible, could make sense for some people. Others it might only be $200. It depends on income, total net worth, age and other factors.
The key is that the risk has been decreasing year by year while the reward is still there. Just the size of the potential reward has decreased since the price was at $0.10 or $1 or $100 or $1000.
1. I don't believe that there is a hard and fast answer as a percentage. If you have $20,000,000 in other assets and have $20,000,000 in bitcoin, it is a lot different than if you have $2000 in other assets and $2000 in bitcoin. Or $0 in other assets and $200000 in bitcoin and no earning potential. If you have no debt, are making $100,000/year, and have no assets, but $50,000 in bitcoin, that is significantly different than making $30,000/year, and $20,000 in debt, and $30,000 in bitcoin.
2. Everyone should have at least a few % of their assets in bitcoin as insurance and protection. Anyone who understands bitcoin should have something in it. Anyone who wants to protect their own assets and family should having some in it.
3. Bitcoin, obviously. Then gold, then fiat given the way the statists have been printing fiat like mad.
Others might have a significant percentage of their wealth in bitcoin because bitcoin has increase in price so much since they purchased and it might be money they don't need and they are willing to let it ride.
|
|
|
|
This is the part that got me the most 'destory the bankers ability to control our destiny with their printing press, God damn, if you still don't understand why Satoshi Nakamoto vanished into thin air you will forever remain dumb, 🤣🤣🤣🤣, this smart man knew that it's a war on banks and the government for crying out loud, if Nakamoto was visible and well known it would have end up pretty bad, what a smart human being👍👍👍
It is more precisely a war on bankers and their ability to print fiat, inflating the value of money away, not necessarily banks. Banks in and of themselves are not a bad thing if they are fully reserved and not enabled by the governments to print money at whim. It is a war in dishonest governments, dishonest bankers, dishonest politicians, and dishonest money. It is a war on authoritarians and collectivists who use the power to print money to obtain power. See Venezuela, Cyprus, Cuba, North Korea, Argentina and many, many others who are attempting to buy people by promising "free" stuff using the hours and minutes of your lives to get the money to do so. In short, it is a war for every person's freedom to protect themselves and the creations of their lives from people who believe they have the right to dispose of your life to satisfy their whims. Their need justifies the seizure of your means. |
|
|
|
BTC Bitcoin price is now in ATH( ALL TIME HIGH). Now its price is super hype. Lots of people now should be want to trade or buy but i recommend everyone to be careful at this point. Now this is the point where anything can be possible it should be up or it should be down. That is why this is a very risky point if you are a trader you have to think very much before take a step. And i don't recommended any one to buy bitcoin at this point now its a time to price down. Just wait sometime to price down then but this is not the right time to buy. And don't buy when the price is already high. And traders try to trade in a stable point because its a too much risky point. I hope everyone understant it. If you think i am wrong then suggest me to the right point or if you thought i am right then i want all of Your appreciate. Thank you everyone
People said the same thing at $0.50 and then at dollar parity and then at $30 and then at $100 and $1000, $5000 $10000. "The price is too high." "It won't hold." "It is a scam/ponzi". etc If you aren't sure, invest 10% each week for the next 10 weeks. Or 5% for twenty. Every time this happens people say similar things and just buy some at some point and hold it. I've been saying the same thing for 10.5 years. |
|
|
|
...
I don't understand why people think that the launch of Libra will be good for us and for decentralized coins.
...
I agree. People aren't (yet?) aware that Facebook will be able to see, extract and analyze the items in the Diem ledger. And they will do so. They're salivating about it right now about the information and power that will accrue to them by doing so. They won't just know everything you like (and by implication dislike), exactly who your friends are, see when you visit just about every web site on the internet and everything they can calculate by implication. They will know every site you go to, when you get there, what you do there, how long it took you to actually purchase something, exactly where those funds came from, exactly what you purchased. Facebook and their partners will know just about everything about everyone who uses Facebook and Diem. You want any privacy? Don't buy into Diem, and delete FB. The reasons everyone has mentioned above also are relevant. You buy a hat supporting person X, or a want to donate to person Y? If Facebook doesn't approve, they could easily shut you down. Or they could take the coins of the people you are buying from and you'd have no recourse. Unlike a credit card company which is (theoretically) on your side, Facebook is only on their own side. Freezing the coins is enough, they already have the cash you used to buy them so if they are frozen, you'll never be able to redeem them while FB has your cash to use as they wish. Look at how PayPal has done things with frozen accounts. This is also why privacy upgrades to bitcoin are so important so that every person every where can validate the chain, but they can't know that person A bought Z from person B. Diem/Libra is evil. Could it help bitcoin and decentralized coins? I am not sure who is stupid enough to turn over their entire life to a company. Of course, I didn't think in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 that anyone would allow tracking of them like Google et al do, let alone like FB does. Makes me think of the HL Mencken's (slightly edited quote): "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the ... public." |
|
|
|
as I've been saying all along, I expect the other major exchanges to have their hand forced by Bitfinex enabling Lightning deposits/withdrawals, and Kraken have taken the next step toward that scenario
This. Competition in the marketplace will force them to compete. This is a "race to the top", e.g. a "race to freedom". Taproot, Schnorr and other extensions will help increase privacy, among other things and I hope that competition keeps the improvements coming. |
|
|
|
What about using Bitcoin as a currency? If everyone were just focused on hold, would that mean we are smart and send a message to the world that Bitcoin is not a currency but a form of digital gold? Of course, there are those who invest in BTC and are not interested in anything more than profit, but they will also make a sale sooner or later - so it is only a matter of time before most of the coins will pass into the hands of large investors.
I think a good balance should be found between hold and using BTC as a means of payment. We can often hear that someone was very stupid to pay for 2 pizzas as much as 10 000 BTC, but there is no point in thinking that way - money in any form exists to be spent, there is no point in just stacking it.
I agree. Once bitcoin reaches a higher fiat price, 20-30 times (perhaps 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more) from here and becomes more stable with less room for appreciation, close to equilibrium, I think that will be the point where more commerce occurs. Likewise, at that point there will be more people remaining in bitcoin, instead of doing fiat conversions. Commerce and capital protection and appreciation are just some of many uses, that is the nice thing about bitcoin and freedom, everyone can make their own decisions without some centralized group controlling them. As far Laszlo goes, I agree too. And anyone who knows him, knows he's anything but stupid. |
|
|
|
Now, with the bitcoin and cryptocurrency community looking forward to a slew of developments in 2021—including the much-anticipated launch of Facebook's bitcoin-inspired cryptocurrency and potentially industry-defining U.S. cryptocurrency regulations...
Facebook's coin (whatever it will be called) could not have been inspired by Bitcoin because in its essence it is something completely opposite to everything that is at the very core of what Satoshi Nakamoto invented. FB will eventually launch some kind of stablecoin, and we all know that such coins are completely pegged with the fiat currency that supports them - which opens up unlimited manipulation as seen in the case of Tether. ... I have to agree with this. I'd also add that Facebook's coin "Diem" (not Libra)*** might as well just be an entry in a database for all the "innovation" it brings. It is centralized, censorable, blocked at a border, tied to fiat, can be frozen at the whim of whatever government can pressure FB. It might just be that FB not liking what you are posting or disagreeing with you. As the last few years have shown, these huge companies (FB, Twitter etc) are behold to the governments and political parities. Do something they don't like, "well your coins are frozen and you can't move them or cash out. Recourse? None since they aren't regulated banks." Members of the association will be able to see, extract and analyze the items in the Diem ledger - think they are following you now with cookies? Then they'll be able to also track what you spend your coins on. Bitcoin will (one hopes shortly) be helping to increase privacy on chain. The "Association" is essentially an unregulated central bank that will be able to monitor EVERY transaction, freeze, control, inflate the value away or seize your coins at any point. It might as well be the Petro or one of the other nonsense coins. Anyone who decides to use this is just asking to be controlled. The ONLY potential positive is that people will see it, and go into "real" crypto, but that is a small hope. **** https://www.diem.com/en-us/white-paper/"On December 1, 2020, the Libra Association was renamed to Diem Association. This white paper, originally published by the Libra Association in June 2019 and then re-issued as a stand-alone update in April 2020, replaces previous versions published by the Association. Supporting technical papers published by the Libra Association in June 2019, have either been edited or retired. Features of the project as implemented may differ based on regulatory approvals or other considerations, and may evolve over time." |
|
|
|
That's it for you and you correctly point out that the number of fools who believe in those silly shitcoin forks is damn too high. I don't care about that much from the moment I know very well the real Bitcoin mechanics. Let the fools believe what they want, if they don't get that there's only one BTC, that's their problem, not ours.
Agreed. When Lite Coin forked the source code with the faster blocks tweak, there were a lot of the same comments about it. It was an interesting experiment (and still is), but it didn't really impact bitcoin. Today's forks are even worse since they really add little or nothing of value. |
|
|
|
When the pandemic hit, the US dollar was as mighty as ever. Despite talk of faltering American supremacy, the dollar ruled as the medium of international trade, the anchor against which other nations value their currencies, and the “reserve currency” most central banks hold as savings. Before the US, only five powers had enjoyed the coveted “reserve currency” status, going back to the mid-1400s: Portugal, then Spain, the Netherlands, France and Britain. Those reigns lasted 94 years on average. At the start of 2020, the dollar’s run had endured 100 years. That would have been reason to question how much longer it could continue, but for one caveat: the lack of a successor. Read the article @ https://www.ft.com/content/ea33b688-12e0-459c-80c5-2efba58e6f1aAt the time of writing this thread there was no paywall at Financial Times for this article  Bitcoin can certainly provide an alternative. It is more likely that statism or authoritarianism (socialism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism etc) will undermine the dollar with bitcoin being there to pick up the pieces vs bitcoin causing it. As soon as they start debasing fiat currency, it is lost. The dollar hasn't hit a century of being fiat yet, a reserve currency based on some objective value can last as long as the political class doesn't debase it. |
|
|
|
Investors are not necessarily smart people, and in this particular case to say that the max supply of Bitcoin is not the final 21 million because we have xx cases of forks is completely meaningless. Well, for one man who has an average IQ it shouldn’t be hard to understand that anyone can make their own version of Bitcoin, the whole thing is free and requires only little technical knowledge. All this, of course, does not change the fact that copies are just copies and there can be thousands of them - all of them will eventually lose even the little meaning they still have.
Why do these smart investors think that most would opt for the alt BTC just because its price is lower than the original, so the investment is cheaper? We know who is Roger Ver Judas or Faketoshi CW - they can literally stab their versions with a fork and swallow them with all those lies they packed them into.
I have to agree. I saw an article ( https://www.coindesk.com/first-mover-mohamed-el-erian-bitcoin-19k) and it was discussing Metcalfe's law from an investment perspective and in the article they are discussing the number of bitcoin addresses and say: "Cipolaro’s price projection does require assumptions about how fast bitcoin’s network grows during the first half of the 2020s. Over the past 12 months, the number of Bitcoin addresses has grown by 18%. So he assumes growth rates of 5% to 25% over the coming years. " Now they are claiming that bitcoin addresses are the measure of the network effect and to me that sounds only tangentially related to the uses of the network. Perhaps they are simplifying it for ease of calculation, but addresses don't seem to be a good indicator of the network effects. If they are arguing that the number of active users is represented by X addresses, then perhaps it is understandable. Speaking of Metcalfe, I most recently saw Metcalfe speak about 2.5 years ago and he was discussing ethernet and some of the people at the place I heard the talk (Maine, US) were just completely ignorant, two example questions. "If there is ether, how can you say you invented ethernet?" Of course it is just a name. "If there is no ether, how can ethernet work?" He seemed to be amused at first, and finally he said that he "wasn't able uphold his end of the conversation, but he'd be happy to talk to these people afterwards." It was a very polite and astute way of handling what was degenerating into nonsense. |
|
|
|
One important point about this is IF it gets people to stay in crypto instead of converting back to fiat. A buys from B and B just keeps the crypto and then uses it to buy from C, D, and E. C,D, and E do similarly.
If B converts back to fiat immediately, it is better than nothing, but not much.
It is not possible with the current design because Paypal itself does not allow its users to send crypto from one to another even within the system. Paypal makes it clear that you can only buy, sell, hold, crypto and get familiar with it and the market. [1] Now, if people intend to stay in crypto rather than convert back to fiat, they'd rather do it somewhere else outside Paypal. Furthermore, Paypal also makes it clear that "when a consumer selects Cryptocurrency as the funding source, the Cryptocurrency will be instantly converted to fiat currency and the transaction will be settled with the PayPal merchants in fiat currency." [2] So expect that no Paypal merchant will be receiving crypto payments. But then again this particular feature which allows its users to purchase using crypto will be offered in 2021. [1] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/cryptocurrencies-tnc[2] https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/cryptocurrency-on-paypal-faq-faq4398?app=searchAutoComplete#:~:text=No%2C%20users%20can%20only%20fund,debit%20card%20or%20bank%20account. Yeah, but I was responding to the headline which was dealing with the percentage of PayPal customers who were willing to pay in Bitcoin even though none of it is currently possible. It seemed to me as if the headline was dealing with what people would like vs what currently is. |
|
|
|
|
The pull quotes show this is why (a) there is huge upside still, and (b) people are getting in now while the price is relatively low:
"Give me the top 7 cryptocurrencies, put them into an ETF wrapper, and let me invest in it with liquidity so that if I want to buy a million dollars of it in the morning and sell a million dollars in the afternoon, I can do that in an ETF format," he said.
"...the seal of approval from the SEC that the ETF would require may convince more institutional investors to buy bitcoin, " he said. O'Leary said institutional support is "slowly creeping" into the bitcoin market, but many investors are still hesitant without "clearance from the regulators."
"If tomorrow morning we woke up and the SEC said you can create an ETF with bitcoin and we think bitcoin is legitimate payment system and storage of wealth, not only would it go up, you'd have a lot of people like me investing in it, because I'd say ok, I'll give it a 5% weighting," added O'Leary.
"Fortunately for O'Leary, the prospect of a crypto ETF may not be far out. In October, SEC Chairman James Clayton said the SEC is working on regulations that may one day authorize the use of cryptocurrency ETFs. "
|
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that if I don't need something, I'm not selling/spending bitcoin on it. (I try not to buy it anyway). I'm inclined to let the bitcoin ride right now given that the future (still) looks bright. Another order of magnitude or two and I might sell some small percent and invest them in something else from a diversification standpoint. Geographic diversification and political system diversification are important. Right now bitcoin is providing a lot of that since our geographic diversification is still somewhat limited, but with bitcoin being so portable, it is an escape hatch if ever needed. Definitely not on "rubbish"  though. My guide is - if it makes my life better and spending it isn't going to haunt me then why not? When you only buy things that improve your life that immediately removes most purchases from consideration. I'm going to be a purple gaseous corpsebag soon no matter what. No doubt what I spend will be worth vastly more in future and at these price levels that's fine for minor buys. It would be a bit different if I'd spent 60 BTC on a bunch of computer games back in the day. I'm at the point where I don't have a great deal of fiat in comparison anyway. I agree about the "life better" thing and "haunt me". I just don't need to to sell bitcoin to do so. And try to be judicious with other stuff. Better locks on the house, yes. Better safety in the car, yes. An efficient washing machine or dishwasher, yes. Lambo, Bentley, pet jewelry, Golden Goose sneakers, Louis Vuitton luggage, etc no. <--- to me, that is rubbish, a way to overpay.  |
|
|
|
I would certainly be tempted to splash out on some rubbish when the time comes. Probably won't. The Bitcoin specific marketplaces though always have an extremely ragged selection of crap and a lot of the time they add a shit ton to a price just because it's Bitcoin so they think you'll be grateful to be paying with it.
The future will be what this bloke is doing - facilitating conventional sales.
I am of the opinion that if I don't need something, I'm not selling/spending bitcoin on it. (I try not to buy it anyway). I'm inclined to let the bitcoin ride right now given that the future (still) looks bright. Another order of magnitude or two and I might sell some small percent and invest them in something else from a diversification standpoint. Geographic diversification and political system diversification are important. Right now bitcoin is providing a lot of that since our geographic diversification is still somewhat limited, but with bitcoin being so portable, it is an escape hatch if ever needed. Definitely not on "rubbish" though. A lot of it, Lamborghini's etc are merely expensive toys designed to separate people from their money, aka rubbish. lol |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
