OP, that has nothing to do with deflation. Strategy is just a buyer in the market, a larger buyer, but no different than any other buyer. You don't define if an asset is deflationary or not buy how many people are buying or selling, otherwise it's deflationary/inflationary status would change every day based on whether there was more buying or selling.
And the 450 newly mined bitcoins daily is nothing compared to the volumes that are traded daily.
So the whole thing is a pretty meaningless statement.
|
|
|
Honestly I can't imagine why anyone would have thought Bitcoin was topped out earlier this year. But there's always plenty of people who claim that every dip or correction in price means a bear market has started, so seeing a bear market in every dip is nothing new, happens all the time. People experienced in this market just know to tune these people out. In fact, people experienced in these markets know to tune out anyone who makes public predictions, both these 'bear market around every corner' people and the 'we're going to $500k this year!' people as well.
It's especially hard to predict movements in price now because the old retail hype driven, halving-created 4 year cycle is over at this point.
Retail is still around of course, and general adoption among the masses is gradually growing each year, and retail can occasionally throw the price up or down by 10-20% in a brief panic or elation, but gone are the massive hundreds of thousands of percent hype-fueled blow-off top frenzies of 2011, 2013, and 2017. But with that also gone are the giant long 75% 1-2 year bear markets, so that's a good thing. And now instead of retail dominating the market it's the big institutional players that are driving the market, both selling and buying, with US ETFs sometimes buying up a billion dollars a day, and companies sometimes buying up a billion dollars at a time.
Basically, the 4 year cycle is over, giant bull and bear markets are over, and so it is pretty meaningless from here on out to talk about 'the end of the bull market' or 'the end of the bear market' when the market no longer has these years long bull and bear markets, but rather as we've seen tends to have a short bullish pump to a new level when resistance breaks and then tends to consolidate for a number of months at a time before repeating - we saw it in $15k to $30k, $25/30k to $35/40k's, $40k to $70k, $60/70k to $100k, and again from $75k to $100k the past month. The market is tending to have several month long on/off periods these days, allowing for a gradually rising price rather than extreme ongoing market conditions.
|
|
|
What your vision with Bitcoin after 20 year later
By 20 years from now I just want to be able to spend Bitcoin where ever I want and without worrying about taxes for transactions, so I don't have to sell bitcoin to spend it or do any tax accounting for everyday purchases. In 20 years price should most likely be above $1M, so only tiny amounts of bitcoin will need to be spent to buy anything including even a car. I just want to go into a store (or website) and pay with bitcoin seamlessly over LN or some other instant second layer solution as easy as paying with a credit card or apple/google pay is today. I think it is realistic that second layer solutions, tax law, and merchant adoption can be in place by 20 years from now in many nations to allow this so that bitcoin can by then already be fulfilling it's potential and design as humanity's global currency.
|
|
|
I stumble on this, and i ponder to understand how Bitcoin currently at $93,357.00 could appreciate to about $833,000.00 in the next ten years "On average, our panelists think bitcoin ( BTC) will be worth $135,048 by the end of 2025, down from the $161,105 predicted in our January 2025 report. Looking further ahead, they see the price of BTC rising to $452,714 by year-end 2030 and $833,000 by the close of 2035." https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-aiming-for-833k-finder-experts-see-prime-time-to-buyIs this realistic? Is this a prime time to buy? What's your thought on this? I think a range of $450k-$833k is doable by 2035, depending on how adoption proceeds the next 10 years. $833k I'd say is the high end of what is possible during that time. And I'd be fairly surprised if the price is under $450k in 2035. $450k in 2030 would be very bullish, but more realistic for a lower end prediction for 2035. I could see something like $250k-$300k in 2030 and $600k in 2035, and maybe passing $1M by 2040 as being pretty reasonable assuming nothing super bullish or super bearish happens to keep the price down or greatly speed up adoption.
|
|
|
Yes of course Bitcoin will get to one million dollars. Heck if you play out inflation over a couple centuries, assuming the dollar still exists by then, bitcoin will be worth billions of dollars, of course that will mostly be from the dollar's drop in value.
I think in today's dollars, one bitcoin can get up to several million dollars worth, maybe $3-$4 million, something like that, by end of the century once it is fully normalized and accepted in society as the world's store of value and the alternate daily usable currency for the world.
Of course even by the time it reaches that level of full adoption, thanks to dollar inflation bitcoin will be worth tens of millions in the dollars of that future day.
Point is, $1 million is not some sort of dream end goal for the price, it's just another arbitrary price benchmark that Bitcoin will reach on it's way to global adoption in the coming decades.
I think we'll see $1 million within 20 years, possibly even before 2040 if national reserves and corporate adoption of bitcoin really progress over the next 10 years, as just those two things alone would not only help normalize Bitcoin for society and make a lot more people start to feel like saving with bitcoin is not some outlandish risky concept, but also those two sources alone could eat up like 10% of the total supply in that timeframe.
I wouldn't be surprised to see $2 million or $3 million hit by 2050.
|
|
|
This thread comes on the heels of the reaction and expression of disappointment which I have been seeing from many bitcoin lots as a result of the fowled Arizona bitcoin reserve, and other similar news relating to government bitcoin reserve. Except for Hampshire . In the recent months I have been reading variants of threads about government backed strategic reserves from the federal level to the state level, even with some smaller municipalities. And it's like we're no more giving attention to the corporation and institutional adoptions that's constantly going on (a recent one was from 21-Capital, in aggressive bitcoin accumulation business after Strategy). And according to a newsletter article I read, which quotes that "corporation adoptions alone can skyrocket bitcoin to beyond $140k. Today corporations hold a total of $756k BTC", end of quote. $140k in my opinion is even an understatement! Despite how significant the government adoption of a bitcoin reserve is believed to be capable of shaking bitcoin price to the moon, it's also imperative and noteworthy to subtly remind us that with or without the government reserve's, bitcoin value will still surge with each circle as corporation/institutional adoptions expands. Everyone gives attention to corporation and institutional adoption of Bitcoin but countries and states steal the attention because they are more significant. It always depends on the corporation and on the country or state too. If company like Microsoft, Nvidia and Apple creates bitcoin strategic reserves, then it will steal the attention and not the New Hampshire but if the whole United States creates Bitcoin strategic reserve, then it will be a hot news. Consider that there is a big difference between the corporation and the country. Apple, which is one of the biggest and the most successful company, has reserves of 160 billion dollars but country like China, has 3.2 trillion dollars. That's a huge difference and that's why countries will steal attention. Yes large countries have more money to throw around, but also most of a nation's money is spent on running the govt/country, not on building reserves. Most govts, especially larger ones, are also answerable to the citizens, so a nation isn't going to say "let's throw $500 billion into Bitcoin!". They don't have the free money nor the political freedom to do so. And there are also only what like maybe 10-20 large nations that could buy a really significant amount of Bitcoin. There are nearly 200 companies with market caps around $100 billion up to $3 trillion. The top companies sit on tens of billions of dollars at all times and could easily put many billions of dollars into bitcoin. While many dozens could easily put anywhere from a few hundred millions dollars to several billions dollars into bitcoin to strengthen their treasuries. There's also lots of private companies that could do the same. And then there are thousands and thousands of smaller companies that could put anywhere from tens of thousands of dollars into bitcoin to tens of millions of dollars into bitcoin, if every company were to adopt a partial Bitcoin treasury. An new companies are made every year. While national reserve bitcoin adoption will garner a few big headlines and could end up buying up to like 2 million bitcoin total, corporate adoption of bitcoin treasuries will be a long lasting or permanent stream of billions of dollars into bitcoin. Both are going to suck up a lot of the bitcoin supply over the long term, but corporate adoption is likely going to be bigger overall. Companies may end up owning several million bitcoin eventually.
|
|
|
Not sure why the OP thinks everyone expected $150k-$200k last year. I don't think anyone expected that. At least no one serious.
Anyway, as far as this year, $150k could definitely still happen, but it's all speculative in that it depends on what happens in the world.
1. If the White House stops attacking the US and Global economy, that'll make markets and economies much stronger and help boost the Bitcoin price a lot. 2. If New Hampshire is just the first of several US states to pass Bitcoin reserve bills this year that'll help boost sentiment of wider adoption and help boost the price. 3. If the US govt and perhaps a couple other nations pass substantial Bitcoin reserve bills this year (a big IF), that would enormously boost sentiment of wider adoption and greatly boost the price as well as east up a significant amount of liquid supply over time. 4. If more and more corporations adopt Bitcoin treasuries, which is much more likely if #2 and #3 above happen, that will also boost sentiment that wider Bitcoin adoption is getting more serious at all levels of society and could suck up an additional hundreds of thousands of bitcoin from the liquid supply. Also Saylor keeps talking a big game about buying tens of billions of dollars more Bitcoin but has mostly been doing smaller buys these past few months, presumably Strategy put their big buys on hold once Trump's economic chaos started, and have gone with a wait and see strategy, but if #1 above happens then Strategy will likely start to gain confidence in general economic stability again and that may cause them to really start implementing this tens of billions of dollars of buying so we could see another 10-20 billion dollars of bitcoin buying come from Strategy alone this year. 5. If #1-#4 happen, that'll boost global Bitcoin sentiment enormously and we should see the ETFs suck up another few hundreds of thousand of Bitcoin the remainder of this year. 6. All the above would boost retail sentiment some, further increasing the price.
In a perfect storm, of all these things happening this year, $200k is a definite possibility this year. Though if it rose that rapidly, doubling in less than 8 months, that'll likely be a blow off top and we'd probably be looking at a good part of next year being a significant pullback as investors get scared of the rapid price increase and take profits and sit on the sidelines for a while to see how it plays out in the short term. Personally I'd rather see a more sustainable growth this year to $130k-$140k and continued appreciation next year, perhaps passing $200k in 2027, passing a quarter million in 2028, and getting well up into the three hundred thousands by end of the decade.
|
|
|
While quantum computing might not be a threat to bitcoin directly, yet it is a threat to the security of funds when you reuse addresses. This is because when you use an address, your public key is exposes and with quantum computing, it can be possible to compute your private keys from your exposed public key.
It is better you don't reuse addresses, You can mitigate this risk by moving your funds to a new unused address each time you use an address so that your coins are safe in the new unused address.
Yeah this is also what I understand the threat to be. QC can break encryption from public key to get the private key. So QC is only a threat for when you reuse an address as the public key is only exposed when you send a transaction. Though it also means the ~2 million bitcoin sitting in addresses from back in the real early days of bitcoin (when bitcoin was sent directly to public keys rather than public addresses) are just sitting around ripe for the picking for when QC gets mature enough to break the encryption. So that is the main threat, the ~2 million btc that WILL eventually get stolen by QC at some point in the future. Of course some of that btc are still controlled by people and they can move it to new addresses, but the majority of those coins are likely lost coins, and so would eventually be stolen in a QC world. I did see recently there is some proposal about eventually essentially blacklisting those QC-susceptible addresses basically, or I think maybe the proposal was actually to have everyone move to an even newer address type and not allowing any current address types in the future, i don't remember what the exact proposal was, but that is what I proposed on here maybe a couple years ago - that unless some action is taken there will be ~2 million bitcoin that get stolen at some point in the future from QC and so at the very least that original pay to public key transactions should be blacklisted, thus preventing the threat of QC stealing those ~2 million lost bitcoin from 2009/2010 time period.
|
|
|
I like that Jack said 21 will outperform Strategy because they are actually going to have revenue producing businesses instead of a money losing company stacking BTC. That makes it seem like they can actually outperform especially when you consider how much smaller they are to start. I didn’t think we’d see competition in this space. An interesting development.
Well that's long way to go and for sure they know that the institution they try to out perform is already well established company that has been tested for many years of challenges and they remain standing strong. Hopefully they didn't say that just to get media mileage and get attention of future investors that might get attracted on everything they say. But its still really good that we have see them coming up with plans to focus on Bitcoin since somehow competition on accumulation on Bitcoin is really great for Bitcoin ecosystem. And I'm also excited to see their future accumulation post just like what Microstrategy did after they accumulate their Bitcoins. I think it probably isn't as far away as you think. Strategy's "strategy" of buying Bitcoin is honestly idiotic and can only lead to them inevitably being liquidated at some point or charged with some sort of financial crime if they aren't. So all Jack really has to do is not touch leverage and his company will win long term. Saylor is using leverage and buying tops, which seems smart when the market goes up... Markets are smarter than greedy men though. This market will go only as high as it takes to get Saylor's position overleveraged to where the actual big boys in global finance (who may not have even entered the space sufficiently yet and who's entrance will likely cause the coming bubble) can sell and liquidate him. That will likely be what kicks off the bear market of 2027 if you ask me. Maybe he'll be saved this cycle by the US Government buying, but I am confident that at some point in the possibly distant future (maybe 2 years, maybe 10 years) Strategy will be liquidated and cause the mother of all Bitcoin crashes. lol what are you even talking about? Liquidated or financial crimes? It's not a crime to buy Bitcoin. And the majority of their Bitcoin they own without debt (or have already paid off the debt on the older collateral loans they took out years ago). There's pretty much no way they are at risk of any sort of liquidation event that would put them in any sort of trouble. What is going to happen to Strategy is that by next decade they are literally going to have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin. The only risky thing I see with Strategy is I keep seeing Saylor mention, whenever he talks about wanting to buy many tens of billions of dollars more Bitcoin (which so far they aren't really doing at all), is when they talk about like half of that future buying coming from interest bearing debt. They've done fine on very low interest bearing debt in the past, because they didn't do a whole lot of it and it had zero or very low interest, and they got those old debts paid off already. But when Saylor talks about interest paying debt on tens of billions of dollars of future purchases I'm like how the heck are they going to pay that interest considering the company only makes like ~$100 million revenue quarterly, and usually barely scrapes by on profit. Maybe I'm not understanding how those financial instruments work, but that seems highly risky - i mean they'd end up just having to sell bitcoin to pay the interest cuz they don't have any other money. I assume Saylor knows what he is doing, but the future plans certainly sound silly to me if they are going to have to be paying interest on tens of billions of dollars considering the business doesn't really have any way of generating much profit and the annual interest payments would likely be more than their entire annual revenue. But if they stick to just selling stock to buy more Bitcoin then they are golden because that is a zero risk strategy, so they should absolutely continue with just that.
|
|
|
Trump’s Bitcoin Transaction Makes History at NYC Crypto Bar – Will This Sway Voters? I put it in quotation marks because he doesn't make it, it has to be made for him. Although it may have significant symbolism, a former US president and presidential candidate using bitcoin to buy some hamburgers, which he then handed out. He is clearly trying to win the vote of bitcoiners but he could learn a bit more about it by now. Yeah the entire Trump and Bitcoin thing is a joke. Only extremist clowns who already support the traitorous criminal fall for this BS. He's just buying votes by saying whatever lies he thinks will help him get elected (god forbid!). He's "pro-bitcoin" and "pro-crypto" but doesn't know the first thing about it, has never touched bitcoin or crypto himself since the only cryptocurrencies he "owns" are campaign donations from gullible suckers giving this grifter their hard earned money, and he can't even use an app to scan a QR code and instead needs other people to make the bitcoin purchase for him. The whole thing is one big obvious publicity stunt to get more gullible uneducated people to vote a traitor into the white house so he can avoid going to prison the rest of his rotten life. Vote Harris, keep America safe and strong and ensure we don't get a wrecked economy and corrupted nation under Trump that would harm Bitcoin!
|
|
|
Some folks are really obsessed with the US election. I can understand it partly because Trump, as the first candidate ever in US election history (afaik) has taken a very pro-crypto stance. But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not be fine if Kamala Harris wins. Even if she didn't reveal her stance on crypto/Bitcoin (yet) and is likely to continue the Biden approach which is more skeptical to "crypto", above all altcoins. For those reasons: 1) Even in Biden's "anti-crypto" tenure Bitcoin has done well. Not only did the price rise, but ETFs were approved, even for Ethereum. 2) The US are already a leading Bitcoin/crypto country. They don't need Trump for that. In the mining sector, they are "the" single leading country. There are also several exchanges in the country. At least ~50 million American people hold crypto according to estimations. 3) Altcoins are far more affected by the SEC policy than Bitcoin. The SEC's actions under Gensler were mostly directed to altcoin exchanges, the "staking" business (which is not even really PoS-style staking but often a ponzi-like construction of some exchanges) and DeFi projects which are not really decentralized, like Uniswap. 4) The US are only 4% of the world population. Bitcoin is a global currency. In addition, as shown above, in the US population crypto has already a high adoption (almost 20% of the population having already bought or held crypto). The potential for future price growths lies mainly outside the US where adoption is often still much lower, even in rich countries in Europe for example. These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin. Discuss & Disagree  Much more importantly, if Harris wins America will be fine. Definitely can't say the same if the criminal wins.
|
|
|
Don't forget that the main reason most Bitcoin is held in a small amount of wallets is because tons of people, companies, and ETFs hold their Bitcoin on exchanges. So those 1.87% of wallets are not the bitcoin of a few people, they are the bitcoin of millions of people and many companies and institutions, held in exchange wallets. So the claim you are trying to make is the lie. That's what happens when you blindly post statistics with zero understanding of context. Yes your stats may be right, but your conclusion is dead wrong because you have no understanding of the context.
|
|
|
Should we be putting so much weight on the US election in order for Bitcoin to grow or it is just a dumb retail talk?
I see so many people believing that the election is everything for Bitcoin from here and out.
If kamala wins it is 30k for BTc and if Trump wins its 90k for BTC. ..
But Bitcoin was here before these people and it survived this far, what could possibly go wrong anyways if this or that happen?
It's just dumb retail talk. Mostly its looney toon Trump supporters who want to try to somehow tie global incorruptible money to their corrupt candidate. It's honestly pathetic. If Harris wins the election, the looney toon extremist right may briefly dump their Bitcoin but then the rest of the world is going to buy it up, it'll be a short lived buying opportunity. Anyone dumb enough to sell Bitcoin because Trump loses deserves the selling low and buying back in higher that they are going to get. Bitcoin is going to to great no matter what happens, though with Harris as president the US is going to be a stronger, safer, more free, and more prosperous country so obviously that is good for investments and we're going to see Bitcoin do well during a Harris presidency, no matter how much the crazy right wants to convince people that's not true. Regardless, Bitcoin has absolutely nothing to do with US politics, and the election has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin. It's so pathetic seeing people try to tie Bitcoin's outcome to this election. Anyone doing that, or calling Trump the "Bitcoin President" is extremely gullible and supports a criminal conman a lot more than they support Bitcoin.
|
|
|
the cost of that 714EH would for 230THasic at $6k each, which would be 3104348 asics which is $18.6 BILLION.. billion with a B.. and thats just the hardware, let alone the electric costs that get added on and warehousing and manpower needed to set up the mega farm (also asic manufacturers dont just distribute 3m of asics in one shot, so it takes time too)
Yeah, as you suggest, the actual cost would be so far beyond that $18.6 billion figure. It would take a LOT of time and money to set up the infrastructure to run a series of Bitcoin mining operations equal to the size of the entire global mining industry. And like you said there aren't millions of unused asics just sitting around lol. The attacker would have to compete for supply with the entirety of the global mining industry. That would drive up prices of the asics, making that $18.6B figure just for the mining machines potentially much higher, and it would take years to acquire them and set up the infrastructure. And presumably by the time they got it all set up, after likely several years, the hash rate will have increased significantly, so the attacker would have to keep buying asics well beyond that initial amount needed for a 51% attack when they started their plan. All told it would take numerous years and dozens of billions of dollars to engage in a 51% attack. And after all that, the Bitcoin community could easily simply sidestep the attacked chain and keep going, making the attack worthless (though of course the simple fact of an attack happening, even though it could easily be sidestepped and not cause any lasting harm, would certainly at least temporarily hurt the reputation and market for Bitcoin).
|
|
|
The thing is that if everyone knows a 51% attack is happening and if the attackers were able to maintain their atttack, everyone would simply abandon the longest chain because it would then be corrupted.
The longest chain is considered the Bitcoin chain for the purposes of maintaining a consistent history when dealing with orphaned blocks. That doesn't mean the global Bitcoin community will just be forced to blindly follow a corrupted chain if a 51% attack occurred lol. Human beings are involved in the operation and use of Bitcoin, it's not just blind machines following rules. Those 51% attackers would quickly find themselves in 100% control of a completely useless blockchain and Bitcoin would keep going as normal. As soon as the 100% of honest miners switched away from the corrupted chain, the attackers would lose the chance to get the mining rewards they were hoping to get because the blockchain history they are using would be different from the blockchain history everyone else is using and so even if they kept running their chain they wouldn't be able to spend the money with anyone but themselves.
Now sure, they could keep doing the attack again and again, causing chaos for a short time, but they'd keep losing and burning huge sums of money for no monetary reward. Eventually they'd have to give up and it'd be an enormous financial ruin for the attackers.
|
|
|
Is she doing this because she needs more donations to help her campaign funding or is she only doing this because she saw how Trump is pro bitcoin and it helped his campaign and she wants to gain that market share?
Like Cameron and Tyler said a couple of weeks back, if she wants to be pro Bitcoin and pro Crypto she doesnt need to wait until she wins the election. She can take a stand now and fire Gary Gensler who is bad for the crypto industry. However its been a couple of weeks and not action really taken.
Which shows she is just doing this to buy votes and nothing more.
Hopefully you realize she has no power to fire Gensler lol. This is the kind of nonsense lies Maga cultists spread, don't be one of those idiots. If you want to see someone completely changing their stance on crypto simply to buy votes and nothing more, look no further than convicted criminal and lifelong conman and traitor to America Donald Trump.
|
|
|
OP, not sure why you would think it has lost decentralization. Nothing has changed. It's decentralized as it has always been. Seems like you don't understand what decentralization means. Anyone can own Bitcoin, that doesn't change its decentralization.
|
|
|
No. That idea is laughable. The flippening gained popularity in 2017 when Ethereum surged to relevance and people thought it might create a whole global ecosystem of crypto apps. Didn't take long to realize the flippening had zero chance of ever happening. Honestly its crazy there are still people who think it'll happen.
Since 2017, it's been 7 years, and in that time Ethereum has gone through three fads that have all flopped hard, Ethereum became far more centralized and less secure with its change to PoS, the burning thing failed to contract supply since that required high congestion and users just use L2's now to avoid the ultra high fees on Ethereum, Ethereum's hoped-for high 6%+ staking rewards failed to materialize and instead settled at 2-3% which isn't that exciting for investors, ETFs launched and while TradFi and institutions are very interested in Bitcoin they have very LITTLE interest in Ethereum. And honestly it is unclear if Ethereum will even have another fad up its sleeve to give it a temporary huge pop in price like it got in 2017 and 2021.
At this point Ethereum is mostly just the graveyard where useless meme tokens die after some of them get their couple weeks in the spotlight.
Realistically the only direction the price of Ethereum is going against Bitcoin long term is down towards zero, like every single other cryptocurrency. Sure Ethereum will continue to increase in price, because it's the center of the Crypto world and people are gonna keep attempting to build projects on it, but its 2017-2021 heyday is gone and it'll no longer keep up with Bitcoin's price growth long term. In 20 years I wouldn't be surprised if Bitcoin has passed $1,000,000 (16x from here) while Ethereum is at like $30k (11x from here) or less. Ethereum is currently at 26% the market cap of Bitcoin, long term that'll probably drop to like 10%, going up to 100% is absurdly naive and impossible.
|
|
|
Why?
These guys are the reason why Bitcoin has been thriving and growing. They never said anything bad about Bitcoin but they did infor everyone that apart from Bitcoin nothing can survive that long. They were the one who made Bitcoin a global essential commodity. These are the guys which make Bitcon what it is meant to be and they are right about it.
The problem here is that we guys don't have the capacity to buy a full 1BTC and to get it fast we use the altcoins route. Which according to my understanding is the fastest way to get to that point rather than accumulating more every moth or week with the hard earned fiat.
You might be a privilege one as being some of the first guys to be part this forum. We were not that lucky enough but we still feel that we can be a big supporter of Bitcoin by becoming a maximalist by using altcoins as an alternative to gain more satoshis.
nope it is elitism and a terrible way to think. Sad that you argue for it. Now does that mean I want 12000 other coins no I don't. A few hundred are more than what is needed. The math so so fucking simply that scrypt algo for small p2p payments meaning LTC and Doge crushes BTC for small p2p payments that I basically. get disgust when people talk btc and second layer is all you need. Bullshit simply not true. Stop the fucking argument Stop wanting to use a tractor trailer to deliver a single lunch. thus at a minimum you need to accept sha 256 and scrypt. or you are simply delusional Sorry to rip you but I am right and you are wrong. Oh wait sound like I am practicing crypto inclusionim is that as bad as BTC maximalism up to you to decide. not me. my mind is made up Did you seriously just try to argue that LTC and Doge should be used for payments???! lol. This is exactly why people are maximalists. Because when you aren't you make mistakes like this - trying to claim that any old random cryptocurrency that nobody cares about or uses and is inherently terribly weak compared to Bitcoin, is actually better than Bitcoin simply because it's cheap...because nobody uses it. Crypto has led to interesting experiments and ideas, but in the end the world doesn't need other cryptocurrencies. The few interesting ideas that have come out of the crypto world should just be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem. The weakness in Crypto is that there ARE different ones, when we only need Bitcoin. Why would anyone EVER want to use some random crypto when you can use a global secure (etc etc great qualities) currency for all of humanity: Bitcoin. I don't like the maximalists who try to say stuff like literally everything in crypto is a scam, because obviously that's not true, but it is true that Crypto is basically just a distraction. So far not a single thing in Crypto has shown any real reason for existing. ICOs: failed as pump and dumps which then became illegal. DeFI: failed as nothing more than token schemes. NFT pictures: failed because the whole concept was flawed. Even actual crypto apps that tried to have some sort of business value failed because who the hell wants to deal with a different token for every single app lol. And the older cryptos who actually tried to compete with Bitcoin as money all failed because they all lack most or all of the things that make Bitcoin amazingly good money. Payments can be done with Bitcoin L2, you don't need anything else. Savings and moving money around can be done on Bitcoin L1, you don't need anything else. "Crypto apps" can simply be built using Bitcoin (and maybe with smart contracts with some more Bitcoin L1 or L2 upgrades), you don't need anything else. It just makes a hell of a lot more sense to keep building on top of Bitcoin for anything that is actually useful and let all these weak Crypto attempts die out as doomed experiments. Everyone goes through their own educational journey on Bitcoin/Crypto. Eventually, most people realize it has always been about Bitcoin, and Crypto is just an interesting proving ground to figure out the few good ideas that should be built into the Bitcoin ecosystem, while leaving all those tokens and their failed experiments to die out. Even Ethereum, which for two cycles looked like it was actually following Bitcoin's growth thanks to a couple fads it had (ICOs in 2017, DeFi token schemes and NFTs in 2020/2021), is starting to look like it has kinda run its course and it no longer has any fads up its sleeve to keep up with Bitcoin growth. The Ethereum upgrade formerly known as ETH 2.0 was supposed to make it better, but it massively increased Ethereum's centralization and therefore weakened it. The token burning was supposed to be a gimmick to get people to think it had a pseudo cap to its supply but since all the people still messing around with crypto apps just do stuff on ETH's second layers now there isn't even enough burning going on to balance out the issuance. For a while people thought staking might turn Ethereum into a dividend-like investment for the investment class, with people thinking it'd have 6% earnings or even some crazy predictions of 10% or 12% earnings, and that all fizzled and earnings are like 3% at best, and the recent ETFs don't even allow staking so the class of investor that may have been still somewhat interested in what would be somewhat decent stock earnings at 3%, can't even use ETH as an income generating asset, so the ETH ETFs have very little interest. And compared to everything else in Crypto Ethereum was the golden shining example of massive success, it's the bright shining center of the Crypto world, and it's starting to look fairly dim now. So everything outside of Ethereum is far far worse off. And so we are seeing that outside of "crypto degens", people (aka the general public) are only really going to be interested in Bitcoin. And there is no reason for them to be interested in random crypto projects, hell it's hard enough for people to wrap their heads around what is obviously the alternate currency for the future of humanity.
|
|
|
This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though... Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html For real, this guy is making a point, but the issue is that people do not look at it from the economics perspective but from the investment perspective that can only enrich some sectional individuals (if it works because there are risks involved) but not a country. Can Bitcoin be used to adjust a country's inflation? No. Can it be reasonably used to secure a national reserve? No. Trump is just a desperate person who is using people's weakness against them. I wonder how a country would feel if it had a $100B domicile in Bitcoin in its reserve and Bitcoin dropped significantly as it does during the bearish season. Such an amount could have devalued to $25B in some situations if we consider the past record to judge. Now tell me, do you think the National Reserve is a joke? Think of it, some central banks are using the reserve to adjust their FX deficit most time where they could remove about $2B at times for the national economic stability. How would they feel if they were selling their Bitcoin at a cheap price when they bought it expensive and they couldn't wait because the matter is of pressing national need? These are just a few of many reasons to discourage any economist from going in the way of Trump and Bitcoin bigots. Notwithstanding, Bitcoin still has its usefulness aside from what Paul Krugman claimed. Just want to point out this is not a good argument - the bitcoin as part of the nation's reserves thing. Nobody would care that Bitcoin price temporarily dropped. Do people freak out that the US owns hundreds of billions of dollars of Gold when the Gold price drops? Nope. These are permanent national reserves. US won't care one bit about the volatility of Bitcoin. The point of putting it in the national reserve is that it is hard money and is a useful asset, like Gold, for the nation to hold, simply in order to increase the value of the nation's permanent resources. Your argument makes it sound like you think the US is gonna be trading Bitcoin or something haha. That is not what anyone is talking about. Anyway, Trump is a corrupt traitorous deranged lying idiot criminal so nobody should put any stock in anything he says. He's just trying to buy votes from gullible people with his suddenly crypto-friendly talk. Best thing for Bitcoin is going to be a United States that still functions and remains a free country, so we need Trump behind bars for his crimes, definitely not in the White House again. As far as Krugman goes, he clearly hasn't bothered to research what Bitcoin actually is. It's pretty dang common among economists to just assume Bitcoin is some sort of scam because it isn't part of the traditional financial system, and so they just write it off and never put any effort into understanding what it is.
|
|
|
|