I have heard of lightning network but its only segwit adresses I'm able to use currently to alleviate fees, I'm just talking about the reality of the situation and how that feeds back into market demand.   Of course I want them to advance the capability of crypto far more then it is now especially for micro transactions, until its usable we are all speculating perhaps a little too much and hence the price pulls back to a more steady area.

I'm pretty sure all my transactions are micro!   I'm not a whale sadly, if fees have fallen to $2 then thats way more realistic for most people to use BTC.    I swear they recently halved, I'll check the graph site I have bookmarked and post the fee structure/backlog as I think its relevant



I dont want to spike the guys site with traffic, pm if you want a link as he gives a few dynamics

I took higher maths in college and the most relevant subject you can ever learn is statistics.   Its not that people are lacking finance education exactly its just they have no interest in something as boring as not spending.

Investment can be interesting and exciting even as the prospects can yield great returns and even with personal involvement.    The only thing I see recently that interests people is crowd funding of projects, like Star Citizen for example is an entire company paid for by its customers.

Crypto has sparked peoples involvement also, I like to think its the start of an era of capitalism.   The current meta for a large part of the 1st world is conspicuous consumption, heres the wiki for people not familiar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption


Its basically the selfie kind of show off trend to always be buying something and showing 'you've made it'     Sadly people are less interested in how to make it, long term business and good finance.    

Just to counter with something straightforward but often unstated, the Dollar which is kinda the other end of Bitcoin and also could reduce to zero worth.   The cost of producing a dollar note is above 1 dollar because its made from cotton, no matter as most dollars remain digital not issued physically.
The problem is the debt of the issuer of dollar notes has liabilities so great the worth of the dollar is possibly zero and unsustainable in repaying those debts.    That'd be fine if the debt was secured over 100 years, 50 or even 20 but its average term of debt repayable on demand for US treasury is about 4 years.   The UK term is 13, we failed in the 1970's

US gov cant ever go broke, they just write themselves a new cheque from new money.  One hundred years ago that was illegal and a balanced budget realistically long term was a requirement but its possible now in effect via Federal reserve.  The big but to that is dollar worth will be wiped out if they do pay for the debt owed in dollars by continually producing more dollars, its debasement and basically a failure of the dollar standard.
 
 If I read a nobel prize winning dude mentioning any of those possibilities then great, I value his opinion but if its just one sided stating how Bitcoin isnt backed by a government or military or politics then he failed to weigh up all factors.

If we lived with sensible money at normal interest rates then BTC probably would be more of a toy but all major economies are tied to dollar and similar QE measures.  Japan especially is so far down the yellow brick road its shockingly bad, we dont want to look behind the curtain.   I dont think BTC takes over but I doubt it fails while any of the excess debt remains

I was going to say over more then a year its quite a clear inverse trend.  Dollar decline and alternatives rise, crypto was called a token commodity a while ago rather then a currency.   It must be used to have value as its not centrally redeemable to any authority it relys on utility for its worth.

Alot of industrial commodities rely on a postive world growth outlook to perform or they suffer over supply vs demand.   Bitcoin has little supply now but also it is not used up like a plain metal might be.   Consider the case long term for such arguments imo.

Some people accuse Bitcoin of being FIAT, not based on a solid value and able to be duplicated in 'fork' chains.     Its all a point of view however more factual is that the major FIAT currencies will certainly fail.

Yen has great problems, a 17 year long QE program that cannot be unwound without massive losses or defaults.    Dollar is unbalanced in its trade, propped up by sales of US treasury bonds the exchange rate would fall horribly with tens of trillions stored in debt .     The oil revival and new exports of natural gas have helped USA some but it is seriously lacking overall in balance.   
The QE of USA will also end badly, the average term is 4 years only which means it can unwind involuntarily forcing massive cuts in government spending to bring in a surplus rather then the decades long deficit.

An enemy in retreat is always at its weakest and since global trade is a competitive battleground with countries fighting for most value I do expect an unfortunate decline to happen to the largest FIAT currency right now.
MY point is that to make a statement consider both sides, Bitcoin must replace FIAT at least partially as FIAT is rotting from the inside out.     Those who are able to prepare the crypto blockchains to take the load will gain the most in the burden of trade that must be carried as the world reserve currency gives way.

It cannot be ignored, something must take over from Dollar.   This is a decades long story and crypto is late to that story and only one small part of it.

Kinda amazing how this turned out      C9 turned over a new leaf in the middle of competeting, what happened to them.   Is Valens the reason why or Tarik ironically (labelled by trolls as a bad thinker in game) being the in game leader to defeat even SK ?

Im a fan but I did not expect them to win, even in the final game it looked like they couldnt do it.     You know how Liquid failed in their attempts, slipping unable to reform and alter mid game.   If you watched the game, I'd love to know if you got how they did it.   Tarik obviously has been one of the worlds best for years, since 2014 I've followed him but aim alone couldnt win it.   All of Faze can beat Tarik in theory so it has to be their team game that won this.    

If I see a good over view or review of the Faze vs C9 game I will post it.    I do agree with Skadoodle winning MVP, not just with AWP he did work with the rifle and I dont remember ever seeing him play as well or with as much effect in every round like he did to help C9 this finals.    

Tarik highlights, some good combo baiting there with Stewie2k  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAr_on8vHRw


Biggest win, 1st global esports win for NA in 3 years  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5r5I9Ir5f4

That is so not true, its pretty much the opposite of what should happen.    Every gold standard needs its silver or even its copper to circulate within the plain population.  If the view of bitcoin is to only serve the elite and exclude all competing innovation then I do not believe it will prosper.

More likely Alt coins will bring features, innovations and even alternate paths to Bitcoins ideas.    Nobody who is a fan of capitalism should be negative on competetion, I only see Bitcoin doing well by not following the downward path of dollar to centralised crony biased capital basis.

All of these things were previously run privately.  Its normal for people born now but the older generation can remember smaller government, lower taxes, less coverage from central bodies.

The only time I really agree with a large tax and spend system is for health care.   People of a nation are the greatest investment any government or country could make in itself, far more then infrastructure or other ventures.

A bridge can envisaged, planned and paid for by private industry, its often possible to see revenue streams ahead of time.   A crying baby who needs care and attention by doctors in order to become a productive adult that will produce for his country is a harder case to make and also it might take 20 years to see those returns.    I will agree with healthcare for a national tax and spend government but other concerns are far overblown.

Most notable misuse of taxes is for 'defence' and unfortunately it becomes more likely that wars occur.    Most people would not opt to be contributing every week towards weapons that could destroy entire regions.   Very obviously the productive gain from war is not there, USA and arguably most of Europe spends far too much on preparations for war instead of just defending their own national borders which is justified as a national concern.

People pay taxes out of fear quite often.   I agree with taxes based on spending more then earning, never try to discourage people from honest labour and enterprise that also is a negative.

Banks will always be required on a basic level to provide loans and liquidity to longer term assets.    Every business needs cash flow, crowd funding is a positive force but I doubt it will be the only one that provides funds even in a distributed crypto economy.

Banking is just a label, many firms provide funding to others in various ways.   I think it will be a positive to see more companies providing a kind of assurance to various deals, the old merchant banks helped to ensure contracts were secure for transactions.     The bank gets a cut and the participants feel more able to continue normal business with various parties.   It should at least be an option, however BTC is lacking revenue streams from facilitated micro economies and I think that is the bedrock to an overall economy and greater business involvement.

No I totally disagree, investment risk is personal.   If an ICO expects to be successful then a long term reputation is reasonable and various assurances by third party bodies also operating longer term would be the normal way to proceed with business.

Just because the technology is new its doesnt mean every aspect of fund raising and starting a new business is unprecedented and new in its layout.   They can just follow tried and tested ways to accumulate guarantees for investors.  

It is more expensive to introduce ideas like escrow or bring on partners to launch ideas and companies but that is the normal cost of operating business.     Thats not really regulation, its upto to the investors and those risking time and effort to see that a company proceeds correctly not unilaterally without proper accounting.   Not all risk is reliant on government for assurance, I see that as a backwards step for crypto capitalism.    Crypto is a decentralised system not leaning on public authoritys for security.


Government is biased to debt, its own prospects and politics.    It has become a negative for business, its not a good idea to go back to a failing system.   True capitalism is distributed by the market not a central body.

Two different questions there, you have asset allocation and market risk.    People might also think you are asking about the integrity of the blockchain also.

This is why people are always comparing Bitcoin to gold because its value is not reliant on a central body, authority or company to continue in value.   It does rely on the market demand vs supply and also it requires people to take care of their own security.

Lodging your Bitcoin with a website means you have left the blockchain in effect, you have forfeit security in favour of trust of 1 website.    The protocol cannot be blamed if the user loses value from a website or personal failure.

So far as risk and asset allocation, then no you should not hold all value with Bitcoin.   Again this is not the fault of the protocol if people lean on one asset type to retain their wealth.    Its very often the case people should secure their own household living costs as far as possible to achieve proper security, very boring mortage type costs are far more secure then remote investment or reliance on crypto protocols.   The primary use of Bitcoin is to transport value imo so holding all value when you do not intend to transmit it seems wrong, the answer is you are over speculating if doing so.   Again the failure is personal judgement.

Thats probably a point missed, Switzerland previously had a reputation for very discrete banking.  However since world reserve currency became regulated by US government as primary issuer of dollars, it was no longer possible not to reveal personal details on request of accounts normally outside the US system.    USA can exclude Switzerland from dollar trade and that would be a far greater loss.
In the past world trade was tied to gold as was the currency of Switzerland, so they have lost that independent standard.   Obvious thing would be to create a a crypto similar to the old banking standard with unrevealed details of participants .

They could even regulate it within Switzerland as per the old banking rules they maintained even though crypto should be globally distributed in my ideal scenario not tied to any one place

Switzerland is a special case, they also recently voted to return their banking system and currency to a gold based standard in order to restore plain capitalism in the country.      Their central bank has operated a fixed link to Euro was unable to continue when ECB continually printed more money taking Switzerland into a devaluation scenario.

So the country has gone to polar points on the scale of monetary policy.   It might even be possible they take part in crypto, the other largest participant is Japan which engaged in a giant QE program and devaluation of currency to the detriment of the population.
    The other factor to note with Switzerland is its divided taxation system and city state type operation, its quite unique.   Famously USA has become altered from states to centralised to Federal concerns with many states objecting at times but never significantly altering Washington policy.   So I think its possible parts of Switzerland could encourage crypto more then others.

If you go back one hundred years before the start of the Federal Reserve then the entry for inflation definition was an expansion of the money supply.     With QE this is clearly apparent

Overall we have increased the production of money far above a normal rate.    Most new cash was used to buy government bonds which only distributes the cash gradually within the economy.
Only when government repays the debt will we see the return to a normal scenario and a nessecery higher interest rate on the Dollar, Euro or Yen.

Japan has been operating QE for 17 years so it is unlikely they will ever repay the debt or unwind QE programs.    In effect the bonds have defaulted but are being continually rebought by government itself to prevent that scenario.    Some clarity might appear if you look at Greece who are unable to rebuy their own bonds hence have neared a default scenario, this is the same for every country far past 100% GDP debt, Japan is 260% or so

Thats not always the case, it could also have been private industry that built those things or communitys themselves.   Taxation is a horribly inefficent and distant long winded way to fund anything, a local cooperative is far more motivated and informed to do a better job of all those things you list.

Tyranny of the majority is the real reason you all have to pay taxes.   Mass apathy is the primary cause, like I said above motivated people can always find a more personal solution then a federal government imposing possible prison time for a tax and spend system that only promises overall gains and does not always deliver!

In theory you have the democratic right to alter all the details but on a massive million population scale, the individual is lost in a mass of media spin.    This is probably why we see some small move to self exclusion from larger systems, like the Catalan vote in Spain or Brexit.     

I tried out the in browser CPU miner but its more then a little lacking vs a proper executable hashing program on the desktop.      I dont think its even 10% of what the cpu is capable of doing, is that a limitation of the browser language used, too high level using an interpreter?  or its just not well adapted to each CPU or well optimised.   Bit of a shame as that would be useful to have open on an office pc in work, lots of people would probably use it ?

But thanks for the free rolls anyhow

^^ ICO is not a negative so long as they actually engage in business done.    Thats pretty much my emphasis overall, excessive speculation sure but too much trade?   Not a bad thing


Its very possible for bitcoin to achieve higher values then in 2017, however I would not expect everything to happen all at once.     Hurdles must be passed before price can match actual trade done with demand producing possibilities for speculators to become bullish.

The main driver for higher prices is not crypto currency at all, its not clever technology.    Its not even the emerging market and addressing those without banking in tradational systems.   The main reason Bitcoin is likely to continue past 20,000 'in the years to come' is in relation to dollar and the decline of value occurring from QE fallout.

If you want a solid answer to your question for the long term then look at Dollar reserve, trade balance and QE programs in major economies.   If bitcoin can be more stable then the unwinding of QE bond holdings then the price will rise.    Think of a set of scales, if dollar is burning value on one side and Bitcoin is merely steady on the other side then value will find favour in a more solid value of Crypto.    That does require that Bitcoin maintain steady trade, it does need to lower fees to do that.

Too much speculation is a negative but over years BTC is capable of rising so long as development continues positively.

Governments wont ban what they can tax, I tend to agree with that.    Problem is crypto in general is becoming more restricted by regulations which means its as much hassle or even more for a business then just using normal FIAT.

That is kind of a drag of prospects for crypto in general.   Could they ban, I dont believe its that feasible in any democratic country like you say because its just a token that is secure.   Thought crime is not yet with us and me transferring tokens is not really a negative per say.    It could be a negative in theory when used for crime but then so could anything, big time criminals sometimes keep fine art as a store of value.   Will fine art be banned or restricted not likely.

Bitcoin has a recent uptrend still in place and I think 13,000 overhead is more important to watch then any bigger objective.

Its a problem for me or many others not able to shift great amounts,  I dont know who is creating the problem and why but it has to be got past by any means necessary.   I've heard it could be spam or a couple of things, I dont doubt people could try to attack bitcoin for their own gains but in any case a solution has to be found.   
   Most people in the world are pretty humble, I always see the smallest of trades being ironically the most important and most genuine kind of trade possible.   How big is the Coke company and all its doing is selling sugar water in a can right, I want to see Bitcoin back to being able to handle the tiny trades and respecting the little guy.   

I still see FIAT as the biggest threat to crypto, the banks very much want to take over the idea and do it their way with a centrally controlled unit value.    They'll win if people become divided I think

It would be more irrational to believe there wasn't any market manipulation going on.     Every market has this, this is like people declaring bitcoin is used for crime when Dollar and Euros notes are the most popular way to transport value by criminals world wide.   Gigantic liquidity is why, watch the last series of Narcos for a fair explanation of the illegal trade constantly conducted in Dollars.


The point is to have an open competitive market available to all, then you have the basis for capitalism to take place.   Not that people will stop being greedy or trying to be dishonest, of course they will.   
Biggest problem right now is exclusion of participants by failure in the transactions fees