Dude, there is NO CORRELATION between price and difficulty period lol. Price got pumped last year due to hype and good news from media. That seems to have died down for now.
If there is a correlation, dash price needs to be 2-3 times higher than it is now due to the difficulty's phenominal rise. Antminer D3 will then make some significant profit instead of wat it is doing now.
Sorry to say that but you might be wrong here because there is some correlation between price and difficulty. It may indeed take some time to get established and revealed, especially when there are huge price swings in the short term. Nevertheless, if the price goes up in the long term, new miners will join the club, and the rise in difficulty will definitely follow after some adjustment period until profitability sets at some typical value. On the other hand, when the price goes down, it becomes less profitable or just no longer profitable to mine for some or most miners, they fall off, and difficulty goes down too. Obviously, it is not as simple as it looks for there are a lot of factors at play here. Volatility is likely the most important one of them, which massively complicates the matter, but certainly not the only factor. Another likely factor is that miners may be mining at a loss for some time expecting the price to rise in the future. Dude, there is no correlation. Tbat is just u thinking someone is looking out for u lol. More miners = higher difficulty Price has nothing to do with difficulty Price may have nothing to do with difficulty but difficulty definitely has everything to do with price. When will there be more miners - when the price rises or when the price falls long-term? Rising prices will undoubtedly increase profitability of mining at the current difficulty simply because the same number of coins mined will cost more, but if profits increase in some field or activity, they will invariably attract a lot of new players. Therefore, the rise in Bitcoin prices will attract new miners and the rise in difficulty will follow as you say yourself. More miners means higher difficulty. Price is the cause and difficulty is the effect in this case but all causal relationships are necessarily statistically correlated, though the opposite is not always true, of course. It seems like you are looking at one side of the equation or in one direction only. |
|
|
|
There`s no single manipulator,who is rich and powerfull enough to push the prices down.
There should be a group of big crypto whales and they sell together,forcing the price to go down.When the prices go down,all the small traders start to follow the trend,and eventually the market is manipulated.
Slow and steady decline means small panic.Fast and rapid price crash means big panic.Both scenarios can be created by manipulators.
What do you mean by "artificially bring the prices down to cause panic selling"?
I wouldn't call this decline slow, slow is over weeks but not like today and yesterday. If it wasn't a single manipulator or big whale cashing out, why are the prices going down in this manner? It looks like someone intentionally and deliberately keeps the rate constant to bring it to a point when people think it's over and freak out mindlessly selling their coins. That's what I mean by artificially bringing the prices down to instigate an avalanche-like panic selling. When the prices start crashing on their own. |
|
|
|
Your first post about deflation is pretty high-quality and deserving of a Merit, I think. While I disagree with a couple of the things you've said there, like deflation is disincentive for borrowers/investors. I do like the thought that went into it and I agree with more than half of it, regardless it is very thought-provoking and it is the kind of conversations that I used to see around here a lot. We need more in-depth conversations about cause, effect, implications, economics, direction, theory, etc. I really like the chart that you brought to the table for the discussion about bankers killing cryptocurrency. Again, I think we come to different conclusions and interpret the data differently, but I have never seen a chart that quantifies things so concisely and in a comparative manner such as this. Your posts make me think and consider things that I have neglected to, it is quite fun. I type this as I review each new post, but it looks like you scored a 3/4 with your posts here and moreover you seem like an interesting user to have a back-and-forth with on these kind of topics. You are informed enough where you don't seem triumphantly naive or arrogant, you simply are there to have conversation and it isn't the same boring dribble we normally see from lower ranking members. This is the only post I didn't throw you merit for from your submissions, just because it doesn't feel very "helpful" or something I would give merit for; while I agree with what you've said in the post, I just don't feel like it deserves merit. Thanks a lot for meriting my posts. Here're two new threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2867856.msg29446835#msg29446835https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2891738.msg29728767#msg29728767And you may also be interested in these replies too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2850347.msg29507032#msg29507032https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2867856.msg29508247#msg29508247https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2850347.msg29588662#msg29588662https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2867856.msg29589598#msg29589598https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2891738.msg29731062#msg29731062 |
|
|
|
|
These are my observations so take them with a grain of salt, but I've seen the patterns described below at two markets which are not connected, so there may be some truth in what I think. These are crypto and currency markets, specifically. What I noticed can be summed up as follows.
If you are a manipulator, you are not interested in crushing the price at one stroke. You would rather be interested in a steady decline. First of all, it gives traders time to react and place their orders to buy at what they think low price, that is build support at still relatively high price levels. Second, when you eventually crush this support, you can press prices a little further since there will be less support at lower prices. And third, letting people buy at higher prices will likely make them panic sell at lower prices later, so all-in-all you may achieve better results this way than if you chose to bring the market down in one sweeping blow and then had to face plenty of resistance at lower levels when a lot of support builds up there. The same approach should work perfectly if you are a big whale and want to cash out. It doesn't make sense to dump all your coins at once because that would scare the hell out of everybody and you won't get decent price on your coins.
The bottom line is that if you see prices decline in a steady, intimidating manner with no major rebounds as it happens these days, it is likely someone trying to artificially bring the prices down to cause a panic selloff. Another option is a shrewd whale closing his massive Bitcoin position.
|
|
|
|
The lack of financial education in general is a worrying problem. We teach students about literature, maths, science, ... and we tell them that those are the things they need to know in life. Yet usually, the largest single expense they will have on their lives is a house, and that normally comes with a mortgage. Yet, only a few schools will tell them what should they be expecting, the risks and the consequences of such a contract.
Bitcoin and alts is another case in which people are carefully kept in ignorance by the governments and lobbies.
What can we do to make more people interested in economy and finance and to better educate the youth so that they don´t get ripped-off?
I think it is mainly because you won't find qualified people that would be able to teach this discipline properly. It is not like math, or literature, or history. It doesn't mean that there are no such people, but their time would be pretty expensive for any typical school in most countries. Would they really be interested in that and why? In essence, you are asking that someone should be teaching the youth how to live since genuine financial education is very important and significant part of everyone's life. But this is what good parents should do, not the school, to teach life and how to live it. |
|
|
|
I dont think bitcoin is going to be used in the near future as a payment method even though that was one of its purpose because of the high fees. You cant go to a shop and buy food and also pay an extra 2-3$ fee because thats a lot for paying a single time. Also the volatility of bitcoin makes it impossible to be used as a payment method because it can dropp 1000$ in a single day. Of course it can also go up with 1000$ but thr risk is to big
If you mean transaction fees, today they are way higher than $2-3. It is more like $20-30. But you can still use Bitcoin payment cards and don't pay that much because you would in effect be paying with fiat. For big payment processors high volatility is also not a big issue up to a certain limit. But ultimately you are right. It is a vicious circle. No one accepts Bitcoin due to its volatility, while its volatility is due to lack of acceptance. |
|
|
|
Dude, there is NO CORRELATION between price and difficulty period lol. Price got pumped last year due to hype and good news from media. That seems to have died down for now.
If there is a correlation, dash price needs to be 2-3 times higher than it is now due to the difficulty's phenominal rise. Antminer D3 will then make some significant profit instead of wat it is doing now.
Sorry to say that but you might be wrong here because there is some correlation between price and difficulty. It may indeed take some time to get established and revealed, especially when there are huge price swings in the short term. Nevertheless, if the price goes up in the long term, new miners will join the club, and the rise in difficulty will definitely follow after some adjustment period until profitability sets at some typical value. On the other hand, when the price goes down, it becomes less profitable or just no longer profitable to mine for some or most miners, they fall off, and difficulty goes down too. Obviously, it is not as simple as it looks for there are a lot of factors at play here. Volatility is likely the most important one of them, which massively complicates the matter, but certainly not the only factor. Another likely factor is that miners may be mining at a loss for some time expecting the price to rise in the future. |
|
|
|
naturally the bank is afraid because if we keep the money in the bank every month must be cut our balance while in blockchain there is never any cuts unless we transact, so people will be attracted to the full blockchain in the bank.
That is true that banks are afraid but they their own startegies how to cope up with these. But at this point banks are trying to handle. For now they can't kill easily cryptocurrencies because many people prefers bitcoin as their job and cryptocurrencies as the formation of transaction. Aside from easy way to transact it is also an advantages for all. Banks has nothing to do with bitcoin and the survival of other crypto currencies rather these digital currencies had made the survival of banks very tough. People are not ready to store their money in their bank accounts because the interest rate offered is very low as compared to the rate of profits offered by digital currencies. Well, I don’t thinks so there is any currency which is able to beat bitcoin. Bitcoin is the legendary coin. How can it possibly be so? Apart from cryptocurrencies, there are a lot of other investment options like stocks, bonds, ETF's, derivatives, and many others which I'm simply not familiar with. It is said the whole derivatives market is mindbogglingly huge and estimated at over a quadrillion dollars. The whole cryptomarket with its cap around half a trillion dollars is simply minuscule beside these markets. But they didn't kill banks somehow, so why should crypto? Bitcoin and others aren't used as currencies anyway, so what real impact could they produce on the banking system? Here you can see big Bitcoin is in comparison with other markets. The chart is somewhat dated, I know, but still:  |
|
|
|
We always hear about economies collapsing due to inflation. Can anyone give me one example of an economy collapsing due to deflation?
Cannot give you a good example. The only deflationary assets we have are precious metals and those can theoretically be found in outer space the more we explore. So there will never be a deflationary asset like bitcoin. There are many deflationary assets dude! Many of the newly created ALTs have a limited supply, so by your theory, these are deflationary. But that is just an example. Personally I never believed in the scarcity story. There are quite a few altcoins which have limited supply and which could be called deflationary. But does this alone make them any more useful, for just being scarce? To me, this idea is not valid and legit. Though someone has actually tried to exploit the idea of scarcity producing value and created a coin dubiously called 42-coin. They claimed each coin should be worth 1 million dollars because the total supply would be only 42 coins. And what do you think? In the end it turned out to be just another shitcoin. |
|
|
|
Look op, judging by your rank, i think that you have also been here for quite some time also. And if i am not mistaken, you should've already read a lot about not just bitcoins but also about most crypto currencies existing. And i honestly think that someone like you have at least looked at the history of cryptos at least once or twice on how they move every month of every year. Which is why i do not understand the reason for your worries. I mean, don't you see that this corrections are healthy for the world of crypto as a whole?
Unless, you can show things that prove your claim, i really wouldn't be worried. Instead, i would be happy since this is a great opportunity to invest amd gain more profits. Just sayin'.
I dont think op did the research in the movement of cryptocurrency in the past years. As what i have seen is history repeating itself, having a dip in the first month of the year then rise in later part of the year. Though op has a point in his post but it did not justify on how banks manipulate the price of cryptos. To take control over it they need to buy a lot of coins and not just bitcoin to manipulate cryptocurrency. If they can send it into oblivion, they don't need to buy any coins of any cryptocurrency. The bankers and the governments which are their puppets have enough resources to do essentially the same without buying anything. Buying coins would actually be counterproductive because that would mean accepting crypto. The governments can just ban it directly or if they can't, they can make it legal first and then regulate the hell out of it until no one uses it. |
|
|
|
Usually developed countries fight deflation. deflation is actually the inverse of inflation. In short, the amount of money is reduced, the value of money increases and the prices decrease. There was a major deflation in Japan at the beginning of the 2000s.
Deflation is not the opposite of inflation or its mirror image with a minus sign attached to it as many people here seem to erroneously think. Under inflation, the interest rates have a premium added to the inflation rate, which is kind of obvious. For example, when the annual inflation rate is equal to 3%, you could well expect that the interest rates would be somewhere around 7%. Of course, they may be higher or lower but you get the point. But this is definitely not so with deflation even if you try to invert everything. Under deflation, you can have like 3% annual deflation rate (-3% inflation), but that doesn't mean that the interest rates will be like -7% or just negative, so you could borrow money in a bank and the bank would pay you interest on the borrowed funds or you could return less, which is essentially the same. The interest rates even under the most severe deflation will always remain positive for the borrowers, no matter what actual deflation rate might be. And thus your real interest rate may be huge. This is one of the reasons why deflation is not an inverted version of inflation and why its effects on the economy are so detrimental if it persists. In these circumstances, people as well as businesses are discouraged from borrowing which leads to a decline in economic activity and ultimately to a recession. It doesn't make sense to invest money because you can just sit idly on it and wait till its value rises without doing anything productive. |
|
|
|
In order to defeat gold, first Bitcoin needs to achieve the same level of popularity and user-base as that of its rival. But as of now, Bitcoin is far behind gold in terms of these parameters. Bitcoin is having around 100 million users, while gold is estimated to have more than 2 billion users. I agree that bitcoin defeat gold.Because bitcoin now has great price and its increasing everyday while gold its increasing so slow and a tiny increase price not like bitcoin huge price increase.i think if you lucky bitcoin will increase 500$ in a week or day
No wonder that you are having a Merit of 0. If you make shitty posts like this, then soon you will be having a Merit in negative. The real statistics may be even worse for Bitcoin than you think. First off, I really doubt there are around 100 million bitcoin users in the world. There might be so many people who used Bitcoin at this or that point in time but it is not like 100M people are using it today. Second, even if people have some coins in their wallets, can they be officially considered Bitcoin users? I think there are many wallets with dust not sufficient even to make a single transaction. These are left for dead, and they won't be moved until transaction costs go down a few dozen times. These are my thoughts. Why is an oz of gold directly comparable to 1 bitcoin?
Why not a grain, gram, oz, troy oz. tael, tola, kg or tonne?
As far as I understand it, people love comparing things using basic units of account, thus we have 1 ounce of gold versus 1 bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'm loving the way how these Chinese investors are out playing the ignorant government. You can't simply try to put a hold to something this revolutionary as cryptocurrency. The article only demonstrates that the market will always find it's way to do business regardless of what the Chinese government has to say. You ban crypto? Sure, we cut all ties with the country and move elsewhere and do business over there. It's that simple.
I don't think it is that simple. The Earth is round and if all governments around the globe decided to put a bridle on Bitcoin, there will be no place where it can hide. Other than that, the Chinese government aren't ignorant and still less are they incompetent. The authorities effectively kicked Bitcoin out of China, and they likely had a number of reasons for doing so. Therefore, Bitcoin has to move somewhere taking its possible negative effects on the economy to other countries. It is like some countries exporting their inflation to other countries. Kind of economic war. |
|
|
|
Most of us already know that Bitcoin futures would affect the bitcoin price but has never thought in this way. We just thought that it would make bitcoin crash just like what happened in tulips bubble.Most of the experts have already predicted that Bitcoin futures may lead to bitcoin crash as it happened in tulips.We could also see that there were irregular movements of bitcoin price suddenly reaching ATH of 20,000 dollars and then suddenly falling down and remaining stand still in that price range for more time.It makes us to suspect that price manipulation is being done.
Actually, i don't think we can blame Bitcoin futures for the price plunge as of late. They sort of fell victim themselves to the price manipulation, and their introduction allowed manipulators to earn a little bit more from the ones who were careless enough to invest in this market without thorough consideration. The price crash would likely have happened anyway, with or without Bitcoin futures. I recently read through a post by a user on "Why Bitcoin Futures aren't a conspiracy against Bitcoin" on reddit. It elaborated 3 reasons in detail as to why the current futures market is relatively new and isn't really affecting Bitcoins price (considering many people assume it's the cause of the downward trend in crypto prices this week and the previous). In short the first reason that the user mentioned was about a lack of volume in terms of open contracts on CME and CBOE on the day we noticed the value of Bitcoin plummet. The second reason being the maintenance margin requirements being too high which would discourage manipulation, basically for CME being 43% and CBOE being 40%, and then there's brokerage costs thus reguding leverage as compared to directly investing in Bitcoins. Lastly, the user also described that there were actually higher long positions as compared to short positions by wall street investors and this too were a small proportion of investors.
For my part, I don't think either that Bitcoin futures are a conspiracy against Bitcoin. They are yet another tool for emptying the pockets of novice traders who may be attracted to the exchanges like CME and CBOE by being able to trade "Bitcoin" there, for all their big names and stuff like that. Manipulation of this kind is certainly possible but not right now. It would make sense if open interest (i.e. the number of futures contracts outstanding) was comparable to volumes traded at major Bitcoin exchanges. As far as I know, open interest is pretty inconsequential so far to make this manipulation economically feasible. You would have to risk too much to gain too little. On the other hand, this explains why seasoned traders will likely stay away from cash-settled Bitcoin futures in the future (pardon the pun). They definitely know this and similar tricks and won't let anyone lay hands on their precious dollars
This is a valid point but I mentioned it in OP, though I agree that the possibility of such manipulation may push away big-time investors from this nascent market. Bitcoin futures without actual delivery look like a solid way of losing money so far. Thank you guys for all your input! |
|
|
|
This is a great explanation of how the mechanism of futures trading. But I think that you're oversimplifying the situation. The price at which people are signing the contract this is just the trend. What will happen if in this moment there will be some event which will have a significant impact on the price? For example will address the issue of scalability. The price increase will be impossible to stop any emissions of coins on the market. Therefore, everything in this world is relative.
Could you explain in greater detail what you mean by the price being the trend? It seems like I don't quite get your point. If something unexpected happens like what you mention, then market makers will simply sit on their hands and do nothing. They will strike only if they are dead sure they will milk the market. This is how market manipulation works in general. Well, this is how I think it works. Anyway, everyone is welcome to chime in on this matter! At least someone tells the truth that nobody wants to hear!
When the bitcoin futures were launched, the prediction was bitcoin at 18.000 $ at january 18.
Actually, it was at 12.000 or something so.
Don't you think that someone had a BIG interest to provoke a fall?
Do you think that this unbelievable media campaign was a coincidence?
Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about Bitcoin futures that had been added to a few regular exchanges in December, and it seems that I understand how Wall Street could manipulate the Bitcoin futures market as well as Bitcoin price itself. Many people think that these futures can affect Bitcoin prices and I agree with them to a degree, though for likely quite different reasons.
We all know that Bitcoin futures are cash settled. This basically means that when the contract expires a trader's account is simply debited or credited depending on the current Bitcoin price, and no delivery of real bitcoins takes place. When people buy contracts they expect prices to rise. Conversely, when they sell contracts, they expect prices to go down.
This opens wide the doors to market manipulation. The Bitcoin futures market makers can easily see how many contracts have been sold or bought at any given moment. When the number of bought contracts substantially exceeds sold contracts, market makers can sell real bitcoins at exchanges like Bitfinex, thus moving the price down and leaving traders with losses, and vice versa.
Such manipulation could make sense if there is enough volume in the Bitcoin futures market while the price can be easily moved in the required direction. This explains how Bitcoin futures can affect Bitcoin prices, though in a somewhat convoluted or even controversial way, while the number of open contracts can then be used as a contrary indicator of sorts.
What do you guys think of this scheme?
2 mod: if this topic belongs to Speculation, please move it there!
|
|
|
|
I have read some posts and comments by senior members related on how the futures on Bitcoin are controlling the whole crypto-currencies market. Do you understand the effects? What your view?
Futures in bitcoin would not kill it but rather it would exist in parallel like oil futures,gold futures,etc.It would not have any direct impact over bitcoin prices.But it would have a slight effect over the minds of investors to decide whether to buy or sell bitcoins at the prevailing price or to just hold.Its already predicted that futures in bitcoin would reduce its volatility but it has not happened. That would largely depend on the types of futures. Unlike Bitcoin, oil and gold futures are mostly physically settled. When a futures contract that is physically delivered expires, it requires the holder to either deliver the commodity or take delivery of that commodity from the exchange. Cash-settled futures are not deliverable. Bitcoin futures are only cash settled, and no delivery of real bitcoins is required when the contract expires. There is hardly any reason to think that such futures can affect Bitcoin prices. Personally, I'd rather think of them as sort of betting on the future prices. It could affect the prices only via manipulation. For example, market makers could see how many contracts have been bought, and they could deliberately crash the Bitcoin price. Then the buyers would have to fix losses on the contract expiry. Conversely, if too many contracts have been sold, they could artificially push the Bitcoin prices higher, and thus reap profits again. Then wash, rinse, repeat. But it makes sense only if there is some volume in these contracts, otherwise it is simply not worth it. |
|
|
|
Hi, Nowadays thousands of ICO companies come into the world and die! The problem is that big part of those ICOs are means of just getting money and nothing else. It causes lack of trust and people are afraid of investing their money in ICOs. But there are many very interesting ICOs with high potential and ready product, which suffer from widespread opinion that majority of ICOs are scammers.E.g. KickCity is a company that has existed for two years. KickCity an event platform that generates revenue and has a Helsinki government grant. KickCity needs ICO to make business bigger and to become a decentralized platform where every user is rewarded for ticket promotion. Such companies shouldn't meet obstacles because of scammers!?What is your opinion on modern ICO regulations and investors' attitude to ICOs? P.S. all mentioned above is my personal opinion and I glad to hear any attitude  Is this a novel way of advertising an ICO of a company? I think regulating ICO's would be as futile as regulating cryptocurrencies. The ICO runners will just spend a little more dough to start their business is some obscure jurisdiction with vague laws. Of course, their number may diminish but does it mean that their quality will rise? Perhaps, the best way to regulate these efforts would be via raising awareness of wannabe investors, though as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Most people would still prefer to learn the hard way. |
|
|
|
While the percent of coins lost is smaller, the value is still eye popping and respresents the largest crypto hack to date. This on top of the fact that we know these exchanges are targets for hackers and yet they still employ weak cybersecurity protections or make stupid crypto decisions like housing all customer funds in a wallet that apparently required a single signature to access. To the extent the drop in price is directly attributable to this hack, it's because we still have inept operators causing massive harm to customers.
No matter how strict the regulations might be, they won't stop hackers. Japan seems to have the most regulated cryptomarket in the world. There you would have to pay an insane amount of money to obtain a license if you wanted to start a cryptobusiness, be it an exchange or some other legal cryptoenterprise. I hope that regulation proponents will rethink their stance because government regulation doesn't add much to security, if anything at all. |
|
|
|
Of course they do not want to lose control and profit. Making the world completely decentralized is still a utopia. At this point it is a source of profit and some illegal action. But I hope that the situation will change.
We don't need to make the world completely decentralized at one go. Rome wasn't built in a day. It should be a constant process even if we have to retreat sometimes. Crypto has shown us that decentralization is certainly possible thanks to cryptography. If governments manage to collude in their crusade against the cryproworld, they may win some time for themselves. But everyone and his grandma already know that, first, it is definitely possible to decentralize the world, and, second, they are very, very afraid of that, which proves the viability and possibility of such decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
