Uhh I don't think you have a very good grasp on what Bitcoin is if you're calling it a meme token lol. Bitcoin is a hard currency, plain and simple. There are plenty of meme tokens out there, they're a dime a dozen, and that's completely different than what Bitcoin is. If you can't tell the difference between a meme token and Bitcoin you probably shouldn't be in this space until you learn A LOT more about bitcoin tbh
Well, maybe "memecoin" wasn't the word I was looking for. You can call it whatever you want, but it's not used as a mainstream means of transactions and never will be, based on its technical limitations. That means cryptocurrencies will be solely used as investment instruments and since there's no other tangible value associated with them it will come down to their name/brand/meme/reputation/etc. Bitcoin has obviously got the biggest brand name in crypto, followed by Ethereum, etc. etc. and their market caps reflect that. This entire thread, to me, seems to be mostly about people worrying about a problem with Bitcoin and crypto generally that nobody actually cares about, and nobody has any reason to care about. Bitcoin is slow and expensive to transact in, and with a $860B market cap, I think it's safe to say that this is unimportant to investors, that's all. |
|
|
|
|
I've been trying to understand the situation better here, and I think I have figured it out.
1. Crypto's lack of suitability as a mainstream currency has never been an impediment to crypto investors, who simply don't use the product that way.
2. But crypto's story involved Bitcoin et. al. being a "real currency" that can be used like traditional ones.
3. Hence the reality that it's never going to be a mainstream currency seems to detract from the mythos around crypto for many people.
4. People think of the "myth" about crypto dies, then, I guess, they think fewer people will buy Bitcoin, and... the price will go down.
If that's what people are holding onto, I would advise them to drop it, and to get real. Treat Bitcoin and the rest of the cryptos for what they really are, and celebrate that rather than hiding from it.
Bitcoin and the rest of the cryptocurrencies are "meme tokens". There's nothing wrong with that, and it's a new thing in the history of capitalism that we can invest in pure memes, and this idea is not going away.
Stop trying to pretend that cryptos are something they are not...
|
|
|
|
The evidence is extensive. The fact that western media omits information that contradicts their chosen narrative has never more clear than when 30k Palestinians die in less than three months. If their willing to overlook such devastation to keep you in the dark, what else are they hiding from you? I think you need to expand your sources of information.
The deaths of Palestinians has been widely reported, so....  |
|
|
|
If human trafficking and pedophilia bore you, you are complicit in this evil. Keep your head in the sand, and keep playing into it. You want to call it a conspiracy theory and keep thinking of it as a partisan stunt, but "divide and conquer" is the oldest trick in the book. You're playing right into their hands.
Lies made up by one political party about another in order to win the election is... pretty boring. We've all seen this same thing a million times. There's never any evidence and it never amounts to anything. All it really does is makes people who wanted to vote for their side already want to vote for their side a little more. |
|
|
|
You should take a look at Haypenny. While it's not a game platform, it's a platform a game could potentially use. Think of it as the "Youtube of digital currency" as it offers a platform that's completely free and fast, and allows anybody to create their own digital currency ( not cryptocurrency). There's a very easy and well documented public API that a game developer could use to integrate any number of currencies into their platform. Your game could interact with the wallet provided, or create your own and just use the system as a raw engine, your choice. |
|
|
|
Except that loads of people from all the Parties have been looking into these things and asking questions. So, that brings us to the point of why somebody would want to downplay it all, except that, maybe, they were part of it.
Partisans looking for dirt on their opposition. Yeah, that's not something to get too excited about. Why not, instead of some complicated conspiracy, the news outlets find that this story simply bores people? |
|
|
|
Maybe "they" aren't telling you because... it's just a bunch of made-up stuff. Looks like Republicans have hit another dead-end with this story... |
|
|
|
As these challenges persist, there's a growing worry that Bitcoin may be viewed more as a store of value than the revolutionary payment system envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto. If high fees become a recurring issue, the risk of hindering Bitcoin's adoption as a medium of exchange is a real concern. I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether you believe the increase in Bitcoin fees has affected its adoption negatively or enhanced it rather.
Bitcoin, and crypto generally, simply has no chance of becoming a mainstream means of payment due to its architectural limitations. The very fastest/cheapest systems even on the drawing boards are still 1000x too slow/expensive to compete with credit cards and banks. They've beat on this problem for over 10 years and have dumped millions of dollars and thousands of experts into the problem, so I think it's safe to say they aren't going to solve the problem, ever. The good news is that people still love crypto as a speculation instrument. Bitcoin is over $40k right now, so people obviously don't care whether it's going to be used like a real currency. People should stop trying to pretend crypto is something it's not, and celebrate what it actually is. |
|
|
|
Indeed, for any new technology to break into a new market, you actually have to be even cheaper and even better than the entrenched competition.
You don't necessarily have to be cheaper to succeed, though it is necessary to capture the widest possible audience. But even expensive things can be successful if there's demand for them, due to some other property compensating for the high price. True, but not for commodity products. As far as a consumer or vendor is concerned, a transaction is a transaction. The only thing that makes them different is speed and cost. |
|
|
|
Not even Fox News is covering this "story" on their home page. I'm thinking these revelations aren't what Republicans hoped they would be... |
|
|
|
Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Money and control.
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two sides of the same coin. And neither side is focused on getting rid of the corrupt banking system. Both parties want to enhance and use the banking system more than they are using it already.
Where is money located? In the banking system. Big money people LOVE money and never have enough money. Money buys them control and everything else they want in life. So, they will support the Parties that focus on anything other than the corruption in the banking system and the money... so they get to keep more money and more control.
Sure, but why, if there is a conspiracy of billionaires, would they work against each other like that? Doesn't sound like a very efficient conspiracy theory to me... |
|
|
|
You cannot call it decentralized if you can name names of whom are holding and from where and when. so sorry to tell that there are no record or even estimation of actual Holders or Users but what we can see is How many wallets are in moving or used but that does not prove how many users because there are wallets that is being owned by single person some even using thousand of wallet for single person .
but what I wanna ask is for what that you ask this? is there by any chance that you have to know this ?or something to do with you?
There seem to be ways of estimating the numbers, which many on this thread have already posted. There are also ways of getting at individuals, as the advent of mixers demonstrates. Obviously we can't get an exact number, but getting a vague idea can show us the trends, which is the most important thing. The reason I asked is based on trying to understand the market, nothing personal. |
|
|
|
No doubt banks are creating hate on themselves by this current idea of keeping cash away from the owners. The banks are suppose to be channels for cash receiver and transaction but the government is now forcing digital banking down the throat of people by taking it away especially during the festive season which is discouraging people from further saving in this current year. Perhaps this kind of development is what will increase the volatility in crypto this bull run because more people will prefer to hodl their money in crypto where they can easily access it and not in banks where they will ration fiat and encourage you to go digital whilst it original jurisdiction is to be physical.
How are banks "keeping cash away from owners"? Can you explain that? Nothing like this is happening in the USA. |
|
|
|
I am not sure this is correct. You should not trust the polls in Russia: it is forbidden to say there that you are against the war or that you want to give some territories to Ukraine, so most people just don’t answer anything in these polls. More interesting are some psychological researches, which reveal strange Freudian effects; you can watch this information here: https://youtu.be/9_0E9IzXT34It seems that the Russians now have “ultra-loyalist” mentality and they are ready to support everything the power will suggest – from returning Crimea to Ukraine to starting a nuclear war. I definitely don't trust the polls in Russia--and that's the whole point. The reason they obtain this "loyalty" is because there are no constitutional protections for a free press like there are in the US and other free countries. Just saying, "democracy" alone doesn't get you anywhere per se. |
|
|
|
Why does it reflect market volatility, do you mean because there are a number of buying and selling processes that occur on the exchange and how is this related if the holder keeps bitcoin in a wallet and never trades in the short term. As far as I remember, I once read a post about holders storing more bitcoin in their wallets compared to bitcoin that was traded on the exchange. Do you think market volatility is the same as the narrative you are trying to put forward.
So far I have never considered the amount of bitcoin holdings held, whether traded or stored in the wallet, when wanting to invest and maybe many other people also think the same about that. The reason why bitcoin is much more fundamental is because it has resilience and a four-year cycle as its journey.
I was only guessing at the volatility thing. I only know that people consider this a key metric for other instruments that are owned by a multitude of entities e.g. stocks. Regardless of the reasons, clearly lots of people consider how widely held Bitcoin is to be an important metric. That in of itself makes it an important metric since it speaks to the perception of the instrument's popularity / desirability. Put it another way, if a study showed that fewer and fewer people were investing in bitcoin over time, that would exert a lot of downward pressure on the price. |
|
|
|
As far as the wealthy who control the CIA, they are the owners of The Federal Reserve Bank. How do we know? All the banks in the US are tied to the Fed. They all create new money out of the promissory notes that they get for the loans they make. In other words, they get loan repayment twice. Once in the borrower's repayment over the years. But the first time in the signed promissory note that they convert into money.
Again, why would these wealthy people back both Trump and Biden? |
|
|
|
For Bitcoin the big things (like marketplaces/search/social media for the internet) are going to be (1) govts and financial markets normalizing it as an investment/store of value and then (2) L2 solutions spreading and major merchants adding bitcoin as a payment option using L2.
1. Bitcoin is used as an investment/store of value already, all over the world. What more do you want from governments that they are not already doing? 2. Today you can have a Bitcoin account, transfer funds to a USD account to fund a credit card payment, and you could easily do all of this in real time to the point where it would be effectively no different than paying in Bitcoin. Millions of people do this all of the time, every day, when they visit foreign countries and draw on their home credit card. |
|
|
|
So the actual analogy with Bitcoin is that Bitcoin won't get mass adoption unless transactions because nearly instant and with zero fees. Like what banks offer today.
Indeed, for any new technology to break into a new market, you actually have to be even cheaper and even better than the entrenched competition. Bitcoin isn't even within 10,000x on transaction speed and cost. Some other cryptos are marginally better, but they are still 1000x off the mark. The blockchain architecture will never allow cryptocurrencies to get anywhere close to what they'd need to be to compete. The great news is that none of this matters since people love to use cryptos as speculation instruments. Crypto prices have never been tied to wide adoption as a payment mechanism, and never will. |
|
|
|
You could contact the CIA in Langley, VA. The specifics of what they do and why are only known to them, and the wealthy who pull their strings. You never answered the question. If the CIA controls everything on behalf of the super-wealthy, then why do you care about electoral politics? Why do you advocate people vote for one party or another if it doesn't matter? Also, who are these "wealthy" who control the CIA? It seems to be that there are very VERY wealthy people like Michael Bloomberg on the side of the Democrats and Rupert Murdoch on the side of the Republicans and they seem to want opposite parties to win the election. How do you explain that? |
|
|
|
The point is that voting decides little. Rather, voting is a pacification program used by the powerful (the CIA) to pacify the people into thinking that they did their best, or that they won, so that they don't openly revolt and straighten things out. Something like that would take power away from the rich, and the rich just couldn't stand something like that.
So the CIA controls voting? Interesting. Why did the CIA choose Trump in 2016, and then Biden in 2020? Who will they choose in 2024? And if the CIA chooses our politicians, then why especially do you care about the subject of politics? Seems like a waste of time if the outcome is already determined and out of your control. Also, what else does the CIA control? There was a restaurant I really liked in my area that went out of business. Everybody liked it and it appeared to be doing great, and yet it failed. Could that be the CIA too? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
