I heard this before when I started a thread to discuss how Bitcoin dominance changed over time. And this is, by the way, why I know that it's not right to say that before the beginning of 2019 dominance was around 33% (officially). In fact, as you can see here, Bitcoin dominance was above 40% since June of 2018 and never went below this mark afterward according to coinmarketcap.com. As for this being a wrong way of calculating dominance - yeah, this is likely to be true. However, just like joniboini, I don't understand how you concluded that it's 90%+.

I hope that what we have now is just a correction or something, not the change of the trend. The price is not very welcoming now, it's $8k instead of $10k, and it's very close to the $6k-$7k price barrier that Bitcoin struggled with for months in 2018. The price hasn't dropped so low since June. However, it's also true that similar drops have happened during the bull run and haven't changed the general trend (although the price after each drop did not recover fully). I guess only time will tell what's going on right now.Well, this is another way to look at it. Stabilization is not bad, I suppose, although I would prefer stabilization at $10k rather than $8k... We already has "stabilization" around $6k-$7k, and some people called it 'coma'.

The first rule of investment is to invest only what one can afford to lose. So obviously investing life earning and savings sounds like a bad idea. However, it's not about investing in cryptos specifically, it's about any investments. I agree with the obstacles listed in the article, all of those things are indeed the case. However, I still think Bitcoin is a great investment opportunity even nowadays. Surely, there's volatility, and of course, it's possible that Bitcoin will just collapse. But if you invest in something more reliable like gold, for instance, you can also be pretty sure you won't receive good profits from it.

Now that you've shared this information, it seems that Bitmex contributed to the price crash. But I agree with you that Bakkt is also the reason.
But what if it's actually the opposite? Bakkt could trigger the growth of the price because of drawing the attention of more people to Bitcoin, but actually it seems that the opposite effect even in case Bakkt is successful can happen. Namely, since Bakkt is futures contracts (so, basically, a way of ignoring the market situation and agreeing on prices in advance), it can be that people who were investing into BTC directly are now going with Bakkt. As a result, the price is low. It seems that for now, it's early to evaluate the success of Bakkt, though.

I also thought about Bakkt when I saw that the price dropped. Some people also assume that it's for technical reasons, that it was going in that direction. As an article on Cointelegraph mentions, another hypothesis is that it's because of Trump impeachment stuff related to Ukraine. Another assumption I saw was about some mining farm quitting the business (but it's clear now that it's not the case), and it's the first time I see the version about quantum computers. Even if it's not the reason for the current price, it's useful to know that some information of doubtful character about quantum computers and cryptos is going on the net. It can have an impact later.

The auction sounds very weird to me. I understand that since Bitcoin is not legal tender in Great Britain, it's probably not as strange to the officials, but I see it as an attempt of selling money at a different price. Imagine if they confiscated 500 EUR and then made an auction in USD to see who is willing to pay how much for it. It's ridiculous, Bitcoin has its market price and it should not be worth way more or way less. And all those formal requirements don't make the auction particularly attractive. Not to mention that it kind of does not feel right to receive the very same money that criminals use. I mean, of course, we can receive and send this money without knowing it but buying it knowing for sure about the dirty transaction history is not something I'd do.

You must have done a lot of research to write such a detailed history. However, as others said, it's really long for a bitcointalk post. Perhaps, a visualized version with a timeline, steps, and some images would be easier to perceive. Especially since you have such an intriguing name of the thread about Bitcoin secrets. I also wanted to add that perhaps you should consider adding David Chaum with his Digicash. even though the project failed, it was in a way something like the first cryptocurrency, at least in terms of anonymity and cryptography used to perform financial transactions.

Okay, I guess we know already it was not about a big mining farm, and some people even say that there was no hash rate drop (even though there is one if you look at blockchain.com data). Not only the hash rate is back to normal (if it went down), the price is not back to normal, so the correlation clearly does not exist. So what could it be that made Bitcoin's price decrease rather significantly... The only thing I can think of that could affect it is Bakkt. Maybe it's because of the disappointment in it, maybe, quite the opposite, people quit trading BTC directly and instead prefer the futures contracts.

Technical analysis is a beautiful fantasy. It's a prediction which is as good as any other (or, like mjglqw says, and then there's a special value of it but not in terms of predictions) but is covered in a sophisticated convincing form. What makes it different from other ways of predicting the prices, though, is that since many people believe in TA and act according to its predictions as well as share them with other people, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You know, like spreading FUD leads to prices going down, but in a way more serious than that. Anyway, the current price drop is significant, that's true, but it does not mean that we won't see Bitcoin around $10k in a couple of days.

Op, you should make a normal post about this platform, just like others said. It should look like an ANN thread, with screenshots, links, general information, special offers, etc. Well, at least that's what you should do if you are officially promoting Winbet. With no link, it's even hard to understand what website you are talking about, because sometimes casinos have extremely similar names, and sometimes people make phishing websites to scam those looking for the real website. Moreover, in the information, you should mention how your website is different/better than other ones people already use and love. For instance, there is Sportsbet.io that people often use for sports betting. How is your sportsbook better than this one?

Who uses bitcoin cash these days, lol?
And the op sounds like a shill to me, since this person stimulates users to check out a website people barely heard of. Looks too much like marketing move to me. Anyway, I don't like jackpots. The reason is that there isn't much gambling process involved, and the chance of winning is usually too low to stimulate trying it. Let alone a jackpot on an unpopular website which might even turn out to be a scam.

Will the op be updated with the link to this website? And do we have the launch date? Screenshots are nice, and it's good that there is a way of getting free coins to play. I also wanted to ask about the KYC policy, because it's something to consider before playing.

Yes, the lack of users can be very problematic, especially for a new website. I once wanted to try a new website, and I was given free chips to do that, but it was poker and multiple times I accessed the website there was nobody to play with. Eventually it ended in nothing, I got bored waiting.

It's not a single day. There were 6 rounds of Premier League and Watford did not win a single game yet, right? They had ties but no true wins. Last year they won 4 games out of the first six. They played with different teams, though. But even if we look at how they played with the same teams, the result was better. Surely, though, there is still time to prove that it was just a bad beginning. Let's hope for the best!

If Bakkt launched when it was supposed to, it could trigger the market recovery. Postponing the launch resulted in disappointment and contributed to the winter dump. Now there are way less people who still care about Bakkt, so I think there won't be any huge impact. Futures ignore the actual price, I think they are not healthy for Bitcoin. But a small pump due to hype can occur temporarily.

I think there is no single answer to the question of investments of these two people. The op mentioned that they invested a lot in the current system, which is true. In a way, they can feel protective of the sources of their income and see bitcoin as a threat. But other factors can include them being conservative, not willing or needing to risk with all the money they already have. Moreover, they can genuinely not see the long-term potential of Bitcoin, and who knows, they might end up being right.
People who have strong opinions are not likely to change them. Instead of focusing on them, we should promote Bitcoin to those who are not sure what to think yet.

The dice game is very popular. It means that many people enjoy it, but it also means you have a lot of competitors. And honestly, I don't understand what's so sophisticated and unique about your incentive mechanism. Moreover, you have to fix something with the website, I guess, or the link to it, because the screenshots look nice, but I tried to load the website from my phone multiple times, and it didn't load.

You are right that it's not a fact this is going to happen. It's just what happened before, and people came up with a way of explaining it and hoping it will happen again. The logic is basically that miners affect the price in a serious way. That the price has to go up, so that mining is still profitable. And it often does. But miners don't have a major and direct influence on the price, actually. Moreover, less than a year ago the price of bitcoin went down to $3k from $6k, contrary to the beliefs of those who think miners are important and thought it was impossible.
So the price might not grow after the next halving, but another reason here is that people try to stay positive and hope for the best.

Yeah, it's nice that someone is trying to make it possible to comply with the requirements using cryptocurrencies. I think it what CipherTrace does can be very useful to exchanges and other businesses that don't won't troubles with the authorities. If we look at it from the user's standpoint, however, this is not a good thing, because there aren't many sponsors of terrorists or financial scammers among us, but we are required to give away so much data about us nevertheless. This is just not fair and also impractical to fight crimes. It would make more sense to come up with certain requirements, based on the analysis of the known cases of crimes, under which the travel rule should apply. Otherwise the investigators will just drown is data and be too tempted to use it for other purposes.

In a way you are right about debt. But there are some nuances. First of all, the US seems way more debt-based both internally (people are very used to taking loans) and externally (the US owes the hell lot of money). Secondly, if we are used to it, it doesn't mean it's okay and won't at some point lead to a terrible crash. Thirdly, and this is a point that can support your view, debts are a way of establishing political relations. The last point is something I learned with my country. The EU gives us money, and expects us to use it to become more like EU. And we have political leaders calling for returning the debts and being fully independent, but this is seen as a threat and disrespect, because the close ties we we are built around having these debts.

Yes, this makes sense to me. Bitcoin is not really an integrated part of the investments' market. Some are holding it, some are trading, some are using it as money. This means that even if some people are interested both in oil and Bitcoin, these people might act according to the predictions stated by the op. But they won't affect the price much, because these people are not in control of the majority of coins. So anything can happen with Bitcoin but it won't be the result of what's happening in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.