...When people are going to realize that this is a red flag? ...
I think you are right - probably never. People want a quick buck and think "this time it is different" and someone can really pay be 1%/day or whatever. Whether naive, stupid or just greedy, there are enough people out there that someone, somewhere will try and take advantage of them. |
|
|
|
How about instead of these people "demanding block chain education" they get off their butts and learn about it online? There are a ton of resources out there for anyone who is motivated. Sitting back and demanding something is a lot less productive than actually doing something yourself. |
|
|
|
Coming from the social network which has been known for censorship, it's hard to say the motivation behind this.
If twitter adopts this wholly, I'm almost thinking it's because they are getting tired of being expected to act as the gatekeeper of what is right/wrong in society & what's allowed on their platform.
Having a decentralized version of twitter (whatever that may entail) may give them an out in having to censor by simply switching to the narrative "well it's decentralized"
Twister is already out there as a decentralized Twitter - there are even iOS and Android apps for it now. In general, a decentralized version of everything is better than a centralized version, I will be interested to see what they have in mind over time. Hopefully not just buzzwords. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of millions of USD are gathered from innocent individuals due to their lack of proper and thorough knowledge about Bitcoin or crypto.
You can't fix stupid. People are at a stage already where they know that it is a scam, or at least likely scam, but they don't care. All people care about is that net passive gain in their account. Funny part is that they aren't actually gaining anything because they are so stupid that they reinvest every single payout. It means that the profit margins of these scams are much higher than people think. The same applies to cloud mining where people continuously reinvest their payouts. Fools. Ponzi schemes by name have been around for nearly 100 years and similar scams (not called Ponzi schemes) for 1000s of years. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is too good to be true. 1% per day or 10% per month is a scam. The thing is though, there is a sucker born every minute and people want a quick buck without any effort or work. As long as the get rick quick, something for nothing attitude is prevalent, it will continue happening. |
|
|
|
...
As we all know, mining is now completely centralized. Big money buys expensive equipment in the form of ASIC / GPU / FPGA devices and deprives everyone else of the right to participate in the issue of cryptocurrencies.
...
Pools are centralized, but one can switch pools easily. No one has a "right" to participate. If you have something of value to offer, then it is a permission-less entry, if you have nothing of value to offer, no one should be forced to let you participate at their cost. If you want to mine, earn money and buy miners. |
|
|
|
|
11. Censorship resistance.
12. Instant micropayments online (via lightning etc).
13. Asset protection.
14. Protection against currency controls.
|
|
|
|
|
The obvious answer is that governments want to control people and consequently they want to control the money that they use. They can inflate the value away, they can seize it, they can censor it, they can ban people from receiving payments in it, and they can put currency controls on it at the border. In short, controlling money, means controlling people, and that is just a short incomplete list of things governments don't like.
Inflation is a huge hidden tax on everyone and governments do not want to give that up. Bitcoin (or other non-centralized crypto, of which there are almost no others) prevents or at least helps to limit, most of those issues.
|
|
|
|
I well remember Chinageddon in 2014. What amazed me about that was it was impossible to get any sense of what was actually going on. I don't think it ever arrived. There are however many tens or hundreds of thousands of Chinese users on this very forum and I don't recall any of the selfish pricks telling us a single thing.
I didn't know these 'local exchanges' existed. Or maybe they never did.
Yeah, the number of times China has "banned bitcoin" or "shutdown the exchanges" is practically infinite. It just seems like FUD. It seems difficult to determine what is really going on, but if I were in Hong Kong, I would be buying bitcoin in order to protect myself from the authoritarians in power. |
|
|
|
I read this article online that the government could stop the Bitcoin? Easily using a simple trick. Making the bitcoin market price staying in under a 1000$ for a long time and wait for the people to lose interest in it. For me, this is easier said than done, making the bitcoin market price lower than 1000$ would encourage investors to invest in bitcoin that will inevitably affect the market price. What is your opinion about this? Could the government do this? https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-could-be-stopped-by-governments-pretty-simply/"The government "? Which one? "mak[e] the price lower than 1000$". How? Whomever proposed this seems to not have thought it through. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm with DooMAD here.
1. The only people who're saying it's needed are the people launching these products. I keep saying that the actual institutionals who really want in, have gotten in already, mainly individually or through OTC desks or through PEs. That wave happened in 2016/17. And they've been hedging way longer than we think they have.
2. All these guys keep saying there's demand, and they're getting pressure from clients. But come actual launch days, there's no volume. So clearly, that demand's made up by the very guys creating these products.
The guy from Grayscale made some good points though, there are plenty of people who would like to easily get in. Likewise there are institutions that would like to get in, but don't have an easy vehicle to trade, don't want to be concerned about who in their organization is holding the private keys, and don't want to have to go through the required steps that holding the private keys would require in order to have their holdings insured. Certainly some hedge funds have gotten in, but there are huge markets that will open with an SEC approved product and just because some institutions may be in doesn't mean that many of them are. Look at the premium that GBTC enjoys because it is one of the few ways to easily get in from a brokerage account. Whether the SEC will have a change of heart this time is unknown, but eventually they will do so. Every time that there is an application to deal with the perceived shortcomings of previous applications it gets one step closer to approval. It certainly isn't "needed" in the sense that one needs air, but from an investment perspective, there are many organizations that would like to add crypto to a model portfolio but can't do so without a SEC approved product. So from that perspective there is indeed a need. E.g. a Merrill, Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab for model portfolios, robo advisors, or opening up the market for retirement accounts (IRAs, 401ks, 403bs etc). Even opening up the market for regular brokerage accounts with a product that doesn't have a huge premium over the bitcoin market price. |
|
|
|
~snip~
then there are a set of people post unrealistic things will bitcoin will cross $50k if it pumps by few hundred dollars,
When Bitcoin price was under a dollar or even a $100 then when someone said bitcoin may reach to $20k, this was unrealistic too. When something has not happen yet is always not real but that does not mean it is not going to happen. Not sure if I am making sense here. Anyway, Bitcoin can reach the $50k mark very soon and possibly after the next halving or in the next few years. It's supply and demand. PS: Those FUD people and those optimistic people are always around us. Exactly. There were people claiming it wouldn't ever get above a US dollar. Then that it wouldn't hold dollar parity etc. The answer is: no one knows and it was (and to a certain extent is) a binary proposition in that it will be worth a whole lot or very little. That said, the longevity so far and the long term fiat price of bitcoin changes augur well for the future price. In short, the fact that bitcoin has done so well over the past decade makes it more likely that the long term bullish hypothesis for bitcoin comes true. |
|
|
|
|
The halving reduces the new supply of bitcoin by half. A decrease in new supply could result in an increase in price if demand remains the same since there are fewer new coins available to satisfy that demand.
Will it result in an increase in fiat price? No one knows for sure, however after the previous halvings the fiat price of bitcoin has increased significantly. Not immediately, of course, but that is probably because people are aware of the impact on supply and plan for it, then when it doesn't happen immediately they worry and sell.
So in short, no one knows the future and while it has happened in the past, there are no guarantees it will do so going forward. If you do believe in the benefits of a decentralized, censorship resistant, non-state actor control currency, payment system, and asset then whether or not the fiat price immediately rises is less important that what has happened over the last 10+ years.
The simple result of the halving is that if new supply decreases and demand stays flat (or increases), then the price will rise.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fine time for Argentinians to protect their assets, but a better time would be been since either early August when the writing on the wall became clear or, even more so, any time over the last few years.
|
|
|
|
|
When someone has no other argument based on logic or facts, they throw out "racism". It is an old canard that is used by those with few intellectual arguments left.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin won't help people who won't help themselves. Instead of complaining about someone - "the rich" - take action and do something. Given how divisible bitcoin is, anyone can use it.
However, trying to use bitcoin after you are already enmeshed in a crisis is kind of like trying to buy fire insurance when your home is already on fire. This isn't bitcoin's fault, it is the fault of the person who didn't plan ahead.
There isn't a country in the world where the politicians aren't willing to sell everyone's liberty down the river for their own power. They push envy in the promise of "free" stuff to sell their agenda so everyone with any sense should prepare now, instead of when the house is on fire.
Look at Chile, they are on the road to Venezuela. Smart people there should be moving money offshore and buying bitcoin if they don't have the ability to move other things out of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole concept of valuing "stable" crypto as a function of fiat is just stunningly naive. Fiat is anything but stable, it continues to lose value every year, from several percentage points to thousands (or more). Not to mention it ends up creating a central point of failure, whomever is custodian of the assets backing the so-called stable coin.
|
|
|
|
This thread should be locked as a respect to Hal for being one of the earliest contributors in the creation of Bitcoin.
Rest in peace Hal and thank you for all your contributions in the cryptocurrency space.
One hopes that Alcor works and Hal doesn't Rest In Peace. |
|
|
|
So while the article seems to say that the US *government* isn't crypto friendly, the individuals are.
What a strange disparity: is it not supposed to be "by, for and of the people"? Or did that cease to be (at least in terms of owning assets) when the government threatened their so-called co-governors to sell their gold to them for a bad price in 1933, and then legalized owning gold again 40 years later? I agree. I think most people want to be free while most in government want to control and they try to mislead people with promises of "free" stuff. FDR's gold confiscation was reprehensible in a free society. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
