If institutional players are getting in even at this price range. They probably know something that others don't. I have read some leaked documents from citibank predicting that btc will reach $315 in 2021, I am not sure how legit that is but looking at all these investors I think there may be some very good reason why they're openly revealing their investment. If true, we're at the beginning stage of unstoppable bull run.
It seems like you made a typo, so I actually Googled what you're talking about: Pointing to a chart that shows three bitcoin bull runs over the last decade, the note suggests that the current rally could "potentially peak in December 2021, at the high of the channel, suggesting a move as high as $318,000 [per bitcoin]." I would take this with a grain of salt though, considering the note was apparently addressed to institutional clients -- of course they'd want to hype it up. The wording also suggests that it's a ceiling price, which is probably only possible if all our best trends continue going until then. Anyway, there were a lot of murmurs about institutional interest when Coinbase launched Coinbase Custody in the middle of the bear market (2018), and we're simply living it now. I think we all know there's no way to go but up at this point, so they don't really know any better than us. |
|
|
|
looks like the new year and christmas will be a good momentum for btc price hikes
If memory serves me, the only time there was a sizeable rally over the holidays was back in Dec 2016 - Jan 2017, so I'm not so sure this is going to happen. People do spend a lot of money over this period, but typically on holiday stuff; I imagine Bitcoin and investment in general would be pretty low priority for most. I suppose you could make a case for COVID bringing extra money though, considering most people won't be able to spend on parties and travels. Honestly speaking though, it doesn't seem like prices are being driven by retail investors anymore, so maybe timing doesn't matter at all anymore; if a big player does something flashy, we're all having a holiday feast. |
|
|
|
Taxation on capital gains is fairly common. Places without those taxes usually attracts billionaires so that their wealth will be taxed less significantly. Attempting to prove the extent of your capital gains would be an administrative nightmare, in terms of determining how much to tax so I don't expect most countries to start taxing cryptos yet. It's not that unfair to impose a high tax on capital gains though, IMO.
I would normally agree, but capital gains are usually only taxed at 15-20% in India. That explains this part of the news: Some experts are anticipating a 30% tax on cryptocurrency gains, and many are advising their clients to file bitcoin returns as capital gains, which are associated with stocks, according to the article. ...but then again would it really be that simple to circumvent that? Only time will tell, and we don't even know if it's going to happen to begin with, but taxing crypto more just for the sake of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At the end of the day though, I don't think India's tax agency is anywhere near as potent as the IRS, so smaller players may be able to get away with cheating on their tax returns lol. |
|
|
|
Impact on the price? maybe little. The possible impact would be,
- wallet developers being identified by regulators
- regulators asking these wallet developers any information about their users
If you're that worried whether a regulation asking information about these wallets will be implemented then you should probably start learning about decentralized exchanges.
I don't think developers have anything to do with it: “This proposed regulation would, we think, require financial institutions like Coinbase to verify the recipient/owner of the self-hosted wallet, collecting identifying information on that party, before a withdrawal could be sent to that self-hosted wallet,” Armstrong tweeted. It's just a bunch more KYC that means if you're going to withdraw BTC from your Coinbase (or whatever regulated exchange) account to whatever wallet, you're going to need to prove who owns that address first, regardless of whether it's custodial or decentralized. Either way, I kind of feel like this is a worst case scenario kind of thing -- I simply don't see how they can implement this effectively. Even then, you could just prove ownership of some random Electrum wallet, then send the coins from there without restrictions. It's just going to be a bunch of red tape with very easy workarounds. |
|
|
|
It's good that this message is out there, but I would be very wary of linking newbies to anything Bitcoin.com related. I took a quick peek and it doesn't seem like they outright refer to BCH as Bitcoin anymore, nor BTC as Bitcoin Core, but their wallet still lists BCH first; something which could be very confusing to newbies wanting an actual Bitcoin wallet. People needs to be careful, knowing what bitcoin is all about very well to not be a scam victim by people that take advantage of ignorant people.
This quote is actually very relevant to what I'm talking about lol. |
|
|
|
-snip- A lot of places where I regularly spend bitcoin (both online and in person) give discounts for purchasing with bitcoin as opposed to a credit card, often in the region of 5%, but some up to even 10%, which is not insignificant and vastly outweighs any cashback or rewards I might get if I used a credit card instead, even after you factor in that I pay the transaction fee with bitcoin, as opposed to the merchant paying the transaction fee with a credit card. Do they give the same discounts for fiat purchases? If not, then they're probably enthusiasts who would be willing to take less profit just to see Bitcoin usage. IIRC credit card companies charge somewhere in the ballpark of 2%~4%, so they shouldn't be saving as much as 10% by not paying credit card fees. To be clear though, this is a great thing, and is just the kind of incentive that can spur actual usage. Sure it's not as straightforward as swiping a card, but if it's easier on the pockets, it will always be a legitimate consideration. |
|
|
|
Would you be able to send cash worldwide without settling charges and profoundly expense with MasterCard?, obviously NO.
You're right, but depending on what you're purchasing and how congested the network is, credit card fees may be smaller. Heck, most items are priced assuming you're going to be using a credit card, because you can't be charged more for using it (in most places in the world at least, some areas even give discounts for cash purchases to go around it) -- if you're paying credit card charges whether or not you're using it, then using it effectively has no cost (for the end user at least). The reality is that Bitcoin and credit cards have different use cases nowadays, for better or worse. As previously mentioned by others though, BTC can still compete via the Lightning Network, which is actually a really good solution for small purchases. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never be available to paypal users. hey can never withdraw them. Only one that will be able to use papayl users Bitcoin will be paypal itself. They will be able to manipulate Bitcoin market with those coins from their users. Paypal users will be only able to watch.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but never is a strong word. The fact that Paypal is stocking up could indicate that every bit (or at least most) of Bitcoin they sell will be backed by real coins (which was a concern for some people when it was initially announced), so they would at least be capable of allowing users to withdraw BTC. I'm not holding my breath, but they haven't even rolled out this service worldwide yet, so it's probably far from a finished product as far as they're concerned. Manipulation is definitely a touchy subject, but with wealth spread around the multiple institutions starting to pour in, I imagine it would be hard for any one of them to do significant damage alone. I would also think that the SEC keeps a close eye on everything Paypal does. We'll see though I suppose. |
|
|
|
Is Skybridge Capital a semi government company.
Nope. Their founder worked for the White House for like 10 days though lol. Why can't it make a move investing on bitcoin.
They mostly deal with hedge funds and are required by law to disclose information about their trades and portfolios to the SEC, so they can't unilaterally invest. |
|
|
|
I'm not expecting a major crash this time around because apart from Bitcoin transcending all the bubble talk that plagued the 2017 run, we actually have transparent institutional support this time around; people are much less likely to panic sell if they're seeing big brands like Paypal get in on the fun. Panic selling is not just characteristic of Bitcoin. After gold's exponential rise into 2011, it crashed 46%. You think gold lacks institutional support?  I was mostly referring to the likelihood of it happening, considering how much more volatile Bitcoin can be than gold. You raise a good point though. Now that we've climbed from ~$17k to ~$18k in 12-ish hours, I'm definitely expecting a sizable correction -- I just hope it happens sooner rather than later lol. |
|
|
|
A few days ago I would have told you to go for it, but after this explosive rise to ~$18k, I'm inclined to think there is a crash looming. I would personally wait, but now wouldn't be a bad time either if, as you said, you're in it for the long haul; I'm sure BTC can achieve much greater heights in the future, so missing out on a small discount here shouldn't matter too much. One more thing I'd like to mention since you were interested in DCA, is that lump sump investment tends to outperform it according to this small study. It's going to depend on your entry point, of course, but it's still worth noting. |
|
|
|
The previous bull market took place as a wave, because the growth happened all of the sudden in an unexpected moment. By the time people are into hard discussion about the price reaching $8000 & $10000. The price crossed $8000, then $10000 and keeps moving. Around $15000 it gained stability. Looking upon the growth more inflow of money happened and the same kept the market in pumping. This caused the price to cross $20000 and crash.
I mostly have the same position. I'm not expecting a major crash this time around because apart from Bitcoin transcending all the bubble talk that plagued the 2017 run, we actually have transparent institutional support this time around; people are much less likely to panic sell if they're seeing big brands like Paypal get in on the fun. If the fees had anything at all to do with the crash, I imagine it had more to do with people's transactions getting stuck, feeding more fear to the bubble anxiety, than fees actually getting more expensive. I'm actually a bit surprised that growth has been as explosive as it has, but it certainly feels a lot more sustainable than 2017's. |
|
|
|
Indeed, he is too exaggerated about it, bitcoin and gold can coexist, why not?
Gold and bitcoin, both have respective advantages, strengths and weaknesses.
The value of gold relatively stable for centuries, a safe-haven asset against inflation. Meanwhile, the value of bitcoin is very volatile, at some point could rise or drop thousands of dollars within days. Even if bitcoin value rises to over $100K, it wont cannibalizing gold in any way.
He never gave any reasoning (because he's obviously just trying to get in news cycles), but if I were to try rationalizing his statement, it's probably under the premise that Bitcoin and gold are used for the exact same reason, and that reason only -- hedging. If this were true, then it's true that Bitcoin comes with massive advantages; it's infinitely easier to store, protect, move, and even liquidate. We all know it's not as simple as that, though, and even if it were, the concept of diversification should be enough to make sure gold will never be obsolete. This Bitcoin vs. gold narrative has never really made sense to me. |
|
|
|
Why do they allow VPN's? Maybe it's just useless and authorities are able to identify user's location anyway but it marks those who use VPN and place them in some database.
If I could guess, I would say that it's because VPNs have some legitimate uses outside of just using IPs from specific countries. It's not like they can flag every VPN user either, because all they can really do is compare a visitor's IP to a list of already known VPN IPs; this is why services like Netflix are able to block some, but not all VPNs (or more specifically, they can't block all VPN servers). They could use the GPS for identifying the location, since that can’t be changed by VPNs, but only mobile devices have one and browsers do not allow websites to access the GPS, for privacy reasons.
I think just about every laptop comes with GPS nowadays, along with pre-built PCs. Your point still stands though, yeah. |
|
|
|
- Prosecutors say an unnamed hacker stole the trove from Silk Road and moved them to a wallet where they sat from April 2013 until the Tuesday seizure.
- The individual consented to the government seizure on Tuesday.
- The news comes days after blockchain intelligence firm Elliptic reported that a wallet possibly belonging to the Silk Road marketplace moved almost $1 billion worth of bitcoin (BTC, +0.07%) earlier this week.
- This was the first transaction from the address since 2015, when it transferred 101 BTC to BTC-e – a now-shuttered cryptocurrency exchange allegedly favored by money launderers, Elliptic said.
i wonder what the exact course of events was, or more specifically, where the hacker made his mistake. this makes it sound like he moved the coins in a way (or to an exchange?) where they were identified by the USA government. then they gave up access to the coins to police as part of a plea agreement, or in an attempt to gain leniency. if this is anything like the first silk road seizure, those coins will start being auctioned off by the US marshals in.....6-7 months? i wonder if it'll have much effect on supply, in the sense that OTC buyers accumulating via those auctions won't be accumulating from other OTC or exchange sources. The actual court document seems to provide a rough outline of events. Some snippets: 15.In 2020, law enforcement officers used a third party bitcoin attribution company to analyze Bitcoin transactions executed by Silk Road. From this review they observed 54 transactions that were sent from Bitcoin addresses controlled by Silk Road, to two Bitcoin addresses:1BADznNF3W1gi47R 65MQs754KB7zTaGuYZ and 1BBqjKsYuLEUE9Y5WzdbzCtY zC iQgHqtP N totaling 70,411.46 BTC (valued at approximately $354,000 at the time of transfer).
16.The individual amounts that were transferred were mainly round Bitcoin amounts and close together in time. For example, 10 of the transfers occurred at approximately 3:59 a.m. and each transfer was for exactly 2,500 Bitc oin. This pattern of withdrawals and the amount that was withdrawn was not typical for a Silk Road user. Specifically, a review of other withdrawals from Silk Road revealed Bitcoin amounts that were mostly less than 100 Bitc oin. These 54 transactions were not noted in the Silk Road database as a vendor withdrawal or a Silk Road employee withdrawal and therefore appear to represent Bitcoin that was stolen from Silk Road.
17.On approximately April 9, 2013, the Bitcoin addresses that received the 70,411.46 B itc oin from Silk Road sent 69,471.082201 (approximately $14 million at the time of transfer) to 1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytP Cq5f GG8H bhx (hereafter “1HQ3”).
[...]
21.Individual X, whose identity is known to the government, was determined to have been involved in a transaction that related to 1HQ3.
22.According to an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Individua l X was the individua l who moved the cryptocurrency from Silk Road. According to the investigation, Individua l X was able to hack into Silk Road and gain unauthorized and illegal access to Silk Road and thereby steal the illicit cryptocurrency from Silk Road and move it into wallets that Individua l X controlled. According to the investigation, Ulbricht became aware of Individual X’s online identity and threatened Individua l X for return of the cryptocurrency to Ulbricht. Individua l X did not return the cryptocurrency but kept it and did not spend it.
23.On November 3, 2020, Individual X signed a Consent and Agreement to Forfeiture with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Dis tr ict of California. In that agreement, Individual X, consented to the forfeiture of the Defendant P roperty to the United States government.
One thing of note is that "Individual X" sent money from the hack to BTC-e in 2015, which could have led to his identity being known to the authorities. That may ultimately have been inconsequential though, since Ross Ulbricht himself somehow knew of their identity as well. |
|
|
|
I typed "#bitcoin" on the search box of Facebook and it says that it has 231k people posting it. You can see it for yourself guys. I think that's sort of a bug that Facebook did and for few users. As I can see in the results, the posts with the hashtag include old posts of months ago.
I've seen the same post a month ago about "keeping our community safe" when you use the hashtag. But other than that, I've seen that it's allowed for others.
The page did did say it was a temporary ban, so it might have already been lifted. I checked out the original source tweet though, and some of the people who replied also said it was fine for them. It may have been for specific regions only, and it might not even be active anymore. It's also worth noting that there hasn't been any recent policy change (that's big enough to make actual news at least) that may have caused it. So yeah, let's put our pitchforks down lol. |
|
|
|
|
Prices have been climbing steadily even before the election hype. I imagine it has much more to do with increased and sustained institutional interest. The Paypal move in particular is huge, considering how it opens up the market to a lot more new people.
I'm not sure if we'll actually get 20k back this year, but if we do, I expect it will be more slow and sustainable as opposed to explosive and volatile like before. We're really seeing the groundwork this time around.
|
|
|
|
Because I don't think the election results will have significant impact in bitcoin price?
The results won't, but the aftermath might. Some people have predicted civil unrest if Trump loses and contests the results -- that would be good for Bitcoin in theory because it will be bad for traditional finance, and investors may want to look elsewhere. We're all in for a shitshow regardless, so I can understand why OP at least wants to make some money out of it lol. |
|
|
|
Lol McAfee trying to spin facts again: I am charged with tax fraud – which is lying on your tax return. I have filed no returns for many years and have made no secret of it. If I have said nothing how could I have lied. My real crime is speaking publicly about the insanity rampant within our system of government. Tax fraud includes:
False exemptions or deductions
Kickbacks
A false or altered document
Failure to pay tax
Unreported income
Organized crime
Failure to withhold
Failure to follow the tax laws
Regardless of where you stand with taxation, he absolutely committed tax fraud by definition. Best of luck to him though, I suppose -- I'd also rather be jailed in Spain than the US. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
