I doubt that. There is some speculation going that it might have been Jack (CEO of Twitter) who is currently in control of the @Bitcoin handle. If that's actually the case, then it has come to a good end, at least for the time being.

The bids for the lease must have been insanely high for Roger to back off. It makes me wonder if the bitcoin dot com site isn't actually owned by him but simply leased to him as the previous highest bidder. Interesting development.

Finally a post that makes sense. Markets in general are dominated by institutional algorithms where human input is just there to improve the algorithms further. The rest that trades manually are retailers, market makers, etc.

There is a reason we get support and rejections from moving averages at the very exact point of contact. Humans don't do that, they can only aim to buy as close to the average point as possible. A hit is just a lucky shot.

I recall having seen an old wall street documentary of the early 2000s where they explained how high frequency trading works, why this type of trading happens through algorithms, etc. So indeed, it's not new at all.

Governments have always tried to exercise control over things they consider a potential threat. Just because they consider it a potential threat it still doesn't mean crypto currencies are the future.

Let's be honest here, Bitcoin exists for almost a whole decade and the primary use case it had back in the days it no longer has today, which is to be an internet currency for quick and cheap payments. That's definitely not progress.

Yes, the price has gone up a lot, but that's about the only form of growth we can agree on that Bitcoin had and will continue to have. I'm just being realistic here. I'm a long term Bitcoin bull, but I'm not a delusional moon boy.

It's traded like a stock, except for the fact that it has no underlying revenue and profit streams and therefore is more likely to experience 80ish % crashes, which we can see in the charts happened more than once already.

As for the control of supply, Coinbase is working towards that with their acquisitions. If you combine every single coin Coinbase currently holds, it's a number very near to 2 million Bitcoin, or nearly 10% of all the coins to ever be minted.

I'm less optimistic in that aspect. I don't think we'll continue to get the growth rates that we have been rewarded with in the past. Bitcoin has never really had a true multi year stock market level bear market.

Once the institutions and their clients are on-board, who else is left to buy your coins? Investors are solely here for the gains and the excitement that this market offers. If you take that away, there isn't much left that crypto has going for it.

People assume there is so much latent demand for Bitcoin that it has to reach $100-$500k but that's just wishful thinking. I'm open to the possibility of a $100k wick in the distant future, but that's about it.

Bakkt can only disappoint. Just because an institution offers Bitcoin settled futures doesn't mean it has to be a successful product-- we have seen what happened to CBOE when their volumes didn't meet their expectations.

It only makes sense for an institution of that order to withdraw their product because it takes down their overall performance statistics. I hope that my skepticism will turn into a more positive vibe, but I want to see it happen first.

Another thing that works against Bakkt is that they may delay their launch once again. The CFTC gave them the approval they needed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bakkt is ready to launch next month.

Of course, they had to list Bcash as well. Roger has definitely done his best to market his shitcoin in the most aggressive possible way in Japan. Too bad for him that nobody really seems to care to actually use it....

I like that BitFlyer finally has some actual competition to focus on with Rakuten entering the space. BitFlyer can be seen as the Japanese version of Coinbase that offers a wide variety of other services than just being a spot exchange.

It's good to see that we right now have so many more fiat onramps than back in 2017 when we hit the $20k mark. Back then exchanges were so clogged up due to the demand that fiat just couldn't enter. This shouldn't happen again.

Most people obviously wouldn't, but considering that renewing domains and hosting costs next to nothing nowadays, the scammers can wait months or even years for newbies finally bite.

Scammers usually don't operate just one site, but a multitude of them. I'm pretty sure that the few newbies that fall for these scams generate the scammers tens of thousands of dollars annually. Solid ROI for so little work and risk.

Things will only get worse when the crypto as a whole goes parabolic. The people and institutions investing in Bitcoin aren't the dumb retailers that went nuts on altcoins back in 2017/2018. Once they come back, prepare for worse.

I by default assume that my personal information and trading history has been compromised by regulators. It just isn't worth it to avoid taxation. One way or another, they will catch you off guard and still make you pay.

It's debatable and very subjective whether or not taxation is fair, but there isn't a way to get around it when you're using centralized services and they have all your personal information.

At the end of the day, fiat exchanges have turned into a slave of their banking relations already, so what would prevent the same exchanges from handing over your information to regulators in order to remain operational?

Gambling sites that don't have a license are illegal by law and therefore risk being shut down by regulating bodies where you as player will lose all your funds. This is why people prefer licensed (legal) gambling sites.

I haven't heard yet of a country where you can 'freely' (legally) operate without a license. It would be a total mess would that be the case. This type of business model is a ticking time bomb and therefore better to not touch.

It has plenty of speculative use, but very little as currency, which isn't really that surprising with how it's not a good currency because of its lack of scalability and volatility, but also because people don't want to spend it.

If you want people to use something as money, it shouldn't be scarce and it should be something that you get a stable amount of each and every month, which fiat perfectly does, but crypto in general totally not. Crypto isn't even close.

I'm incentivized to spend fiat because I know it loses value. By spending I'm voting with my fiat against fiat because I value the goods that I buy with it over the asset itself. With Bitcoin I'm voting too, but by not spending it.

I could have made some decent money if I traded against some of CNBC's bullish statements, and then I'm mainly referring to the statements of Brian Kelly. If he's invited to have a say, the market mostly seems to do the opposite.

The other clowns over at CNBC are rarely saying anything that makes sense. In this case it would be more of a 50/50 bet would you trade against their statements. Not really worth it in my opinion.

Overall, you have to read between the lines and pick up the important bits and pieces, which admittedly is a challenge considering the noise, but as I said, Brian Kelly is usually a very decent counter indicator. Look out for him.

When the price is going up nobody complains about manipulation, but when the price goes down manipulators are back at it again. Maybe it's time to figure out how shorting works and then you won't complain anymore.

Massive price dumps are the side effect of how little liquidity there is in this market, and the same applies to the pumps. People calling manipulation without backing up these claims aren't doing themselves a favor.

This pump and dump activity was quite common within the very early days of the internet boom, and that within a regulated environment. This market needs time in order to mature. Don't blame external elements for the volatility.

It doesn't really matter much what happens in the very short term unless we decisively break the descending resistance and have at least two daily candles close above it.

Based on the descending triangle that seems to gain more shape every week, the next leg up (if we have one) should peak just over the $11k mark and from there pull back in a brutal manner, possibly with another dose of fud to go with it.

People say we're still in an uptrend, which technically is true if you zoom out, but the chart doesn't look as pretty anymore as it used to do. I rather be conservative and be proven wrong by going up than being overly bullish and see the price dump.

The price went up initially as per the charts and the time at which Cyprus was going through its crisis, but it was NOT because of the crisis in Cyprus, but just the bust and boom cycles Bitcoin happens to go through.

People currently believe that Bitcoin's price has gone up because of the economic turmoil. In other words, it functions as a safe haven asset according to them, which I don't believe.

Most of the price action we have seen that has correlated with gold moving up is just coincidence. Bitcoin might be a store of value to us, but it definitely isn't for the more rational investors. They still consider Bitcoin a gamble.

The gold chart looks extremely bullish while the Bitcoin chart indicates that it could take a massive dump any time soon. When that happens people will realize that Bitcoin isn't a safe haven asset.

We will never reach a stage at which there aren't enough coins in existence. There will always be a seller willing to let go of his coin(s) if a high enough price is being paid. It's just common sense.

We have seen that already happen in countries where coin scarcity has resulted in hefty premiums. South Korea's premium for Bitcoin was like $5000 over western spot prices during the previous bull run. Insane.

Another thing is that I doubt people will use Bitcoin globally all together. It's more of a wet Bitcoiner's dream. This is and will stay digital gold. It's impossible to compete with fiat as day to day currency.

That's makes sense. People have repeatedly pointed at dozens and dozens of 100BTC sales on Binance, which would take an awful lot of time to withdraw with a limit of only 2BTC per day.

It requires level 2 verification to withdraw 100BTC per day, which still means that it would take a long time to empty your Binance account. With how active CZ is on social media, he would have singlehandedly whooped them.

The 100BTC sales are very likely whales selling into their own buy orders to get their volume count up (higher volume = lower trading fees). People need to stop believing news outlets.

This once again points out that Bitcoin is the only brand within you can use to market yourself as business. No one would give a dime if they used Ethereum or XRP in their headlines. Bitcoin leads in every possible way.

It just sucks that it happens in a way they deceive people. The only thing you're doing as business by following this path is shoot yourself in the foot. They singlehandedly made sure Bitcoiners won't be doing any business with them.

I think you need to grow a thicker skin. Bitcoin has been labelled as the currency of the underworld for many years now, and it still has managed to grow out to become the worldwide phenomenon that it is today.

It's a weak argument no-coiners like to use against Bitcoin, but it doesn't work. Mixers have a perfectly valid legitimate use case, but this might be hard to fathom for people not respecting their own privacy.

If you don't think privacy is an asset on its own, then sure, you by default assume that other people fall in the same category as yourself. One day you will find out why mixers are important, but then your privacy might already be compromised.

It gets even more interesting when you take into consideration that the people behind Coindesk have a significant stake in Coinbase and Grayscale as well, which helps them to push their narrative in an effective manner.

I'm however less surprised about how manipulative crypto news outlets are. I have seen it happen outside the crypto world as well, and there is very little that you can do about it other than to stop reading and sharing their news articles.

I do use Coindesk the most of all crypto news outlets just because the rest sucks harder. I want to stay up to date with everything that's happening here, and from there I can do my own research would I doubt the validity of their claims.