A huge room for profit is still there for miners, and given that most mining companies align the prices of their machines with the current price, it's not surprising that most operators are stacking up their investments knowing that bitcoin can still go nuts at any given point. People who say 'mining is dead' basically don't understand the economy of the mining scene. Of course, miners won't let the price reach a certain level wherein profitability is no longer possible. They control the flow of new coins, and if anything they have one of the largest stakes in this whole industry. It's normal that they expand their operations since the prices are low and it is their leverage since the machines are also cheap. A clever move, I'd say.

Bearish sentiment is now looming over the market after several delays on the ETFs were imposed. My take, people will not actively speculatte until the decision date is closer. Suddenly, the price steam has waned and is now slowly dying. $7400 has been a struggle today and yesterday. After the descend from $8000, prices appear to not have any strong grip on whatever level they may be, suggesting that the bulls are retreating and waiting for another hype opportunity to produce momentum.

Number 4 is relatable, as I always actively avoid sticking to my plans once I see that there's still a huge room for additional profit and improvisation of technique. It's not really 100% guaranteed that the plan will work, and it's unavoidable to see opportunities along the way and not getting it. Most of the time, not sticking to my trading plan leads me to more profits than I initially visualized but there are also times that I lose instead of gaining something. Much of these errors are somewhat relatable since we've all been there at some point

Just a thought, how can one tech be obsolete if it's not being utilized properly in the first place?

We all know that tech will surely be replaced over time by even greater and efficient piece of tech, but seeing bitcoin being used largely as an investment and not a currency, I'm pretty sure it will not get obsolete, not yet. As long as people believe that something has value, they'd still use it and willingly accept it, just like gold for thousands of years. Also, people are now being introduced to cryptocurrency, so perhaps this is just the dusk for bitcoin and its brothers and they still have a long way to go down the road. Hopefully they're utilized as currency and not just another investment vehicle which most people think will bring them riches quickly.

But let's admit, not all farmers have the capability to set up shop and install new tech. A huge percent of farmers in developing countries still don't have the means to even get their own plot of land, which makes them unable to meddle with new money or even use it just once. Real world scenario, we're far from using bitcoin dominantly over fiat and that's the truth.

Idk how people are able to create such false information even though information is widely accessible with little to no restrictions today? Little do these researchers know that miners always seek places wherein energy costs is kept at the minimum, and they always opt for greener energy if possible. Why would a mining operator agree to a lucrative rate when it comes to electricity? Wouldn't it be harmful to his/her operations in the long run especially if bitcoin under-performed? The study's scope, perhaps, is limited and hasn't seen the state of bitcoin mining today. Such a huge FUD and BS without them verifying their data.

We don't know much about what's going on within the SEC, or whether they really are reconsidering on approving the ETF. I just hope that they really take public opinion into consideration on their deciding pricess. A month seems to be a long time already for the deciding process, and by then people can overspeculate and hype the shit out of the market. Whatever the results are for the ETFs lined up, it will be a huge deciding factor on where the market will go in the coming months.

If the goal of bitcoin is to replace fiat, that is. However, it has been discussed multiple times that bitcoin wouldn't be ultimately replacing any fiat in existence due to its deflationary nature. Aside from that, no central authority could ever handle bitcoin due to its decentralized network; if one nation is to assume control of bitcoin, this nation would ultimately break the integrity of all coins in existence, resulting into the fall of bitcoin. Assuming that bitcoin reaches $213,000 as reported by UBS, it only comes on par with the total money supply of the US, but will not be able to replace it.

I don't think so. Most rich people are still workaholics and tend to just dedicate their time in their craft instead of doing nothing. Working more simply means amassing more wealth, and rich people don't exhibit signs of contentedness that's why most of them are still working even in an old age. Perhaps the newer generation who inherited their fortune can be lazy, but most rich people are still dedicated and hardworking, that's for sure. Old CEOs and company chairmans are fine example of rich people attending work just to acquire more wealth.

Unless the Indonesian gov't releases an official statement, anyone can still use bitcoin at their own will, just not to the extent that banks can facilitate bitcoin-related deposits and withdrawals. This is actually a normal reaction from a government that has yet to come up with their definition of the cryptocurrency relating to their constitution. There's still room for reconsideration since the government hasn't released a law yet.

Perhaps, but the only problem is that it's still a highly-volatile asset that could sweep away all earnings and life savings in a matter of an instant, if a flash crash happens. Even I believe that it could help me in terms of hedging, while I'm still hesitant to do so given the nature of the coin, with more downs than ups in the recent times. As of now, I'd like to keep things exclusive for bitcoin: a speculative vehicle that I'll hold long-term and a handy currency which I can use if ever the need arises.

It could be, it could be not. People would likely cling to gold if in case another crisis happens or look for another asset class in which they could stash their properties in. Bitcoin is a legitimate candidate for such a position but the question is whether volatility is still great by then. If it is, people wouldn't try to stash their life savings in bitcoin and will just move to gold. If it isn't, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies would be the strongest currency/asset class existing during the crisis until everything pans out. For now, going long in bitcoin with whatever spare cash one can shell out is a good thing, that's for sure.

I'm pretty sure most of the potential investors to the ETF would already know the difference in holding real bitcoins compared to the ETF itself. However, I'm sharing the same sentiment; due to FOMO, these people might be swayed by their emotions and 'force' themselves to buy these ETF even though it doesn't have any direct connection to bitcoin and they're basically holding a 'promise' from the issuer. it might result to a pump due to hype but once the ETF is finalized and approved, interests would surely wane and weaken as well.

Real estate has been the go-to of people who want to make some serious buck for the past 10 years, at least back in the Philippines. Crop fields are slowly being bought and turned into subdivisions, apartments, townhouses etc. and I start to wonder whether they have these units sold or are they creating buildings to waste? The lucrative amount of money made in real estate, alongside the amount of credit needed to develop the land is staggeringly astonishing, and one way or another, it has to implode from within. As for your situation, I still think it depends highly on where does a developer want to start his/her estate. Typically, the metros is a good starting point in creating such apartments because the demand is high, while countrysides, on the other hand, are mostly built houses which is straight up being bought by people who have the means to do so.

For me, I see ETF as a big mover in terms of market sentiment and confidence of the people towards an asset class, in this instance bitcoin, and see whether there are solid interests from the higher echelons of the global investment markets to that of a rising asset class. If there is, people would follow suit and try to see their luck by riding the waves. Oftentimes it results in a hype or FOMO by the people on the sidelines, expecting a rapid boom in price when in reality, only a handful of traders are stimulating the price just to make it look like legitimate money from the ETF is already flowing in on the economy. It does help, one for recognition; two for training purposes from institutional investors and; three, traders' confidence on the market.

To be able to land on the spot of 'MOAB' I think it should surpass even the market capitalization of gold, which obviously didn't and not even half of it was filled by bitcoin. This isn't surprising, considering that only a handful of institutional investors' eyes are laid on bitcoin as of late. I don't see how bitcoin can be considered a lucrative bubble compared to the ones on the list, or maybe people just want to sensationalize it and make it look 'bad' from the eyes of the public. Either way, it's far from being the mother of all bubbles; it had its fair share of magnificent runs but that's pretty much it, a rising asset class with a recognition from the worlds' financial magnates and leaders.

Processors as concierge or processors for machines? The t
OP seem to be vague, but I'd still give my thoughts on the two points I've given.

Payment processors, IMO, removes the decentralized and trust-less nature of bitcoin. While it helps vendors to not get caught in bitcoin's volatility, bitcoin loses its identity and essence just to save a few merchants from potential losses. In order to eliminate the need for payment processors and get more merchants on board, volatility must be eliminated, though that in itself is already a pretty hard tssk to acheive.

On the side of processors for mining, it's already accomplished by dedicated ASICs capable of doing complex algorithms for bitcoins in an impressive rate. Surely in time, more and more powerful, cost-efficient and greener processors might be released, thanks to our advancements in technology. We don't need to add more miners, we just need to decentralize them IMO.

Personally I think this is just natural growth coming into play. People need to learn that every event contains a reaction from the market, and it always goes both ways.  No one can ever stop people from making FUD or bad comments when prices are taking a beating. Also, I believe that through these, newbies will be able to discern what is FUD and what is fact by doing their own research on what's happening with the market. You can't forever protect someone on the harsh realities of truth, and they must see and experience it firsthand to become better traders and investors in the future.

Personally, having places to spend my cryptocurrency would be the best thing and might attract potential end-users of the said currency. Right now, there's little to no merchants involved with cryptocurrencies and avoid it as much as they can. The volatility of the coin scares most of the merchants, and no matter how successful the coin is speculation-wise, it's still lacking in fundamentals, and that's what project managers and services need to work on. Word is already out there regarding bitcoin's existence, together with rhe info of what it does and why is it revolutionary. People just need to apply these concepts firsthand and realize there's much more into it than just a new investment fad. We're in a paradoxical state where we want to progress but we keep on focusing our energies in speculation. If we could distribute the attention into some other field that needs more work, that would be great.

With the number of arbitrary predictions created at this very forum on a daily basis, I don't think the data gathered by the study holds weight and is not reliable. Sure, the analyzer would cherry-pick the words the researchers think is valuable in determining the actual price and place it in an algorithm, but at the end of the day it's just another study of guessworks translated to a pseudo-valuable research. Most of the time, predictions that come true are mere coincidences and not really because people knew that it was going to happen. The market always has the tendency to go against popular opinion, therefore making predictions inconsistent and an unreliable source of opinion for decision making and opening a position in the market.