Halfway through 2021 before we even see 10k again according to this analysis. Just looking at the cycles.

Looks completely fake. "Would you mind suspending your little project ?"

Sometimes mainstream economists who are sceptical of bitcoin at a conscious level actually justify its existence at a subconscious level.

Steve Keen is one such economist.

He writes off bitcoin due to its "ridiculous" energy budget, but in a previous lecture he identified the need for a "dis-saving entity" that would compensate for the currency that went out of circulation due to savers "parking" their capital. He argues that the "dis-saving entity" can be created by "bookkeeping". But the reality is it has to come from outside the bookkeeping realm since bookkeeping alone cannot create "capital" it can only account for it.

I don't think it would quite qualify for the "rest" part...

How is this guy not right ?

Customary trolls out on duty: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/1143481098116227072

LedgerX futures got approved.

Smash & grab. Everybody thinks it's the last chance to get in below 10k because after that price goes up in increments of 10k.

Facebook Coin is falling into the crack between the old and the new in its attempt to be "blockchain".

At least with a regular bank deposit you have a proper contract in your own name. Meanwhile in trainwreck land:

Wow. 400 BTC wall on stamp munched through like it was a mini ham sandwich.

Vapourised.

The problem is there's too much demand and not enough supply.

Don't worry.

There'll be plenty by the time the price approaches that level.

Ever heard of "synthesis" roach ?

It's all around you. Synthetic sound, synthetic vision, synthetic building materials and synthetic medicines.

Cryptos are more fungible simply because it was DESIGNED into them. Crypto is synthetic money. Gold is a naturally occuring mineral. You need a handy furnace to make it fungible. You need a handy Ocean Liner to make it transportable and you need a handy safe to make it storable.

All of these properties were designed into Bitcoin which is why is has better fundamentals than gold and which is why it's doing what gold SHOULD have been doing during the last 10 years of fiat supply explosion, but didn't due (contrary to your demented rantings) to it's p*ss poor fundamentals when it comes to functioning as a commodity based monetary unit in modern markets. Medieval markets - you might have had a point.

Are you one of these guys by any chance ?
FUD conference 2019

 • More fungible than metals
 • More divisible than metals
 • More portable than metals
 • More storable than metals
 • More tradeable than metals (In fact you can trade the good itself across the world and not some "ticket" for the good)
 • More bearable than metals (You can "hold" it rather than holding some "ticket" to a safe in which the metal may or may not be)
 • More spendable than metals. (Try getting change on a stick of gum from a bar of gold)
 • More durable than metals (Try recovering your gold bar that sank to the bottom of the sea, got raided, took a detour during delivery or otherwise went AWOL. Bitcoin private keys are decoupled from the asset that enables redundant storage while the world's most powerful computing network looks after your public keys. With gold, the private and public keys are welded together making such sophistication impossible)

Bitcoin only has "garbage" fundamentals in the way that synthetic antibiotics have "garbage fundamentals" compared to garlic. But feel free to chomp on 20 raw cloves of garlic per day the next time you get tonsillitis.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the fundamentals relative to the prevailing market platform which over the last 150 years has been electronic. States and central banks invest in gold because they have to, not because it has "better fundamentals". It's regulated tier 1 capital. They can also benefit from a 1% change in the gold price whereas that gain on the average joe's savings would just about get you a dinner for one

Indeed. The main argument against "alt" coins is tribal, not analytical as is well demonstrated here 

LoL ! I suggest you visit Nouriel's Twitter thread to cure yourself of this delusion 

First of all, crypto is not a "currency", it's an asset. A currency (at least in modern parlance) is a pure unit of account and may or may not coincide with a particular commodity, be it electronic or otherwise. Even if it does, it never does so for very long since the unit of account quickly decouples from the value of the associated asset due to it being used to price everything from cornflakes to lending credit, so there's no natural monopoly there as far as the asset is concerned. (Take Sterling Silver and Sterling Paper for example, paper "Pesos" and metal weights etc. Sterling as a unit of account became a monopoly within its juristiction but silver itself remained as just another asset despite far out-performing its paper namesake for value).

Secondly, the "street" analogy wasn't geographical, it was with asset markets. Bitcoin may be "global" geographically but it isn't "global" in terms of the spectrum of investible monetary assets. For that reason the street analogy is relevant because we see the same economic dynamics in play as with the "original" coffee shop - a steady increase in demand going hand in hand with a steady reduction in dominance.

This is not true and is a widely held myth amongst so called "maximalists" who tend to view the market through the arbitrary lens of a single asset - commonly known as the "monopolist" view.

Diversity in the asset class has pulled in demand out of proportion to the growth in supply or the effect of internal competition. That's not uncommon in economies.

I once lived in a street which had 1 coffee shop. The price of a cup of coffee was about the average for a residential area. Later another one appeared, then a restaurant. Over the years (about 2 decades) the number of coffee shops/bars increased to around 20-30. The price of a cup of coffee is now about 50% above that in other areas. A glass of wine is about 2-3 times the price.

The influence of "competition" worked in reverse because the aggregate impact it had on "selling the street" as an attractive area to visit far outweighed the adverse effect of internal competition amongst commercial outlets trading at that site.

That's what's happening with the crypto-asset market and is also why bitcoin depends on altcoins as much as they depend on it. Without technologically superior hedges, supporting trading pairs, diversified access to the crypto-asset markets, financial specialisation and derivative platforms, bitcoin itself would never have seen the growth it has.

No, I meant to post it in this thread, despite the customary "verbal abuse" as you say, because it demonstrates the principle that the "shitty ships" and bitcoin relationship is symbiotic as I've been pointing out for a few years now. The "shitty ships" buttress bitcoin's rise like the legs of the Eiffel tower so it can go higher. It would never have reached this level without the emergence of the altcoin market.

At a mature valuation, BTC dominance should be between 10% and 20%.