Who would have thought that.
Any reason for this? I'm guessing there was no reason for it to go up in the first place. In other words pump and dump
Over the past several months, surpassing $300 has been a huge hurdle, since a lot of people choose it as the number to cash out at. I imagine since price surged past $300 without falling back down, people speculated it would continue to shoot up, causing a bit of an overbuy followed by a correction. Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
|
|
It is amazing that 7 years ago Satoshi made Bitcoin. And still, no one has been able to make a better cryptocurrency than him. I couldn't imagine the world without bitcoin. I have used bitcoin a lot and it really helps with day to day life. It's great too see it come this far, for the amount of time and the price it has gotten too.
I'm not sure if I agree that a better cryptocurrency hasn't been made. Bitcoin has a lot of flaws, and there are a lot of altcoins out there with fixes to the inherent flaws of Bitcoin. However, the community surrounding Bitcoin has made it impossible for any alternative to take the throne, and I imagine nothing will be able to surpass Bitcoin until the community agrees to back this alternative. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, either $350 or $400 is the new barrier, depending on how the hodlers feel. I think it is clear that this surge past $300 has established that price as the new floor going forward, now we just need to see where everyone needs to cash out. $350 is not nearly as significant a number as $300 or $400, so we might see $400 as the actual barrier (granted we may not reach the barrier still).
Since we can't really tackle $350 right now, it's just about right to call it as a barrier for now. If we managed to get past it in a few weeks time (assuming that this rocket still has some fuel and the performance today is just due to being a weekend), I don't see why we won't manage to hit $400 as well. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. If we get out of this weekend above $300 we could potentially keep climbing up. For whatever reason, weekends are typically bearish for Bitcoin, so it's not totally unexpected that prices are dropping today. |
|
|
|
I would like to pay for television services with Bitcoin. Then I could watch my favorite channels like starz and HBO with Dish Network. Maybe someday Dish Network or DirecTV would accept Bitcoin.  Dish does accept Bitcoin friend  But as for the others, I personally would love to be able to pay for Netflix or Hulu in Bitcoin. Well, actually, as long as there are so many cheap accounts being sold here I might not actually get a subscription, but it would entice me to use them legitimately. |
|
|
|
I would go for 21 BTC. In twenty years from now they could be a good sum. Also, 21 is a cool amount considering the total amount of BTC which will be 21millions.  Nono. 21 is a nice half of 42. But the good amount is obviously 42 bitcoin. And 42 bitcoins in 20 years with bitcoin at >20k give you possibly one million USD~ worth which by all mean would mean a good retirement cushion. It all depend on if BTC manage to start competing with FIAT. If it does, we win. Yeah, I was thinking 42 as well. It's the answer to life and everything, as well as enough to get you into the half million club. Either 42 is going to be enough to live comfortably without working, or won't be enough to buy you a nice shirt in 20 years. |
|
|
|
I don't think everyone looses, but there is a large percentage probably do. But professional Poker players do exist, so there is a small percent that can make it work. Sadly I'm one of he larger population that has only lost money. I would advise you quit gambling. Unless you're good at poker, you are only going to loose money. If poker gives high quality entertainment for only few lost dollars or so, is it bad? Consider that there can be days where u win. Especially, if u playing with ur IRL friends Concerts' tickets and so on cost way way more money. Absolutely. Poker night with your friends is a relatively inexpensive way to spend your night. Since there is no "house", the money ultimately will just circulate through you and your friends. The only actual expense is food and drink, but that could be said about any form of entertainment |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. Here we are making an attempt at comparing two forms of money by their inherent property, not how the market values them. Of course Bitcoin is not yet valued as much as gold is. Here are the characteristics we should be concerned about: Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more divisible than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more portable? Yes Is Bitcoin more easily verifiable? Yes Gold is certainly more durable than Bitcoin. I don't see why divisibility and portability are relevant properties in regards to a store of long term investment. All I know is if I thought my fiat was going to crumble, I would buy gold, not Bitcoin. Physical assets are subject to seizure. You may not find them relevant but this is pretty much how every form of money was judged historically. You don't find it relevant that Bitcoin can be divided into micro-transactions and sent all over the world while gold is hardly convenient for casual transactions and quite a hassle to store and transport in large quantity? Bitcoin can, and has been, seized in the past. If you want to look at Bitcoin as solely a replacement to gold then being divisible to the millionths doesn't provide much benefit. Now, overall, I think divisibility is a very important component to Bitcoin, but we are speaking just in regards to it as a store of wealth. Anyways, as I stated earlier, Bitcoin can't go big (replace gold) and still be used for "casual transactions". Divisible or not, the block size would be too large of a constraint, and the fees would be so exorbitant that using Bitcoin for casual transactions wouldn't be a viable option. |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. Here we are making an attempt at comparing two forms of money by their inherent property, not how the market values them. Of course Bitcoin is not yet valued as much as gold is. Here are the characteristics we should be concerned about: Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more divisible than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more portable? Yes Is Bitcoin more easily verifiable? Yes Gold is certainly more durable than Bitcoin. I don't see why divisibility and portability are relevant properties in regards to a store of long term investment. All I know is if I thought my fiat was going to crumble, I would buy gold, not Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
VISA 100%.
If Bitcoin is used universally in day to day life, it would make a huge impact on the global standard of living. There are so many life changing applications that Bitcoin can accomplish when used in such high volume, and the outcome would be phenomenal.
And either way, we would all be filthy rich. If Bitcoin was so overwhelmingly successful as to replace VISA or gold, it doesn't really matter which is worth more at that point.
|
|
|
|
Seriously in what 3rd world country do you live that you can get anywhere with less than 1 million dollars?
Even $1,000,000 isn't a lot of money anymore these days.
Are you serious at all dude??? If you give me 1 million bucks, I would easily live my whole life king-size and die like the same... If you think it ain't anything and if you have something bigger to share, why don't you just come ahead and share it with us if it's nothing for you???  What country do you live in? In certain parts of the USA, $1 million is actually not too much money. Look at New York City. That 1 mil can by you a small housing unit in the city, which is by no means life changing. However, there are cheaper places where $1,000,000 can buy you a nice house, a car, and pay off all your loans with plenty to spare. Still, certainly not a king-size life and absolutely not enough to discontinue work. And who would want to live in NYC unless you are high paid executive or own a successful company It would not be viable to live there if your just an average guy/woman who is working just to get by Well, there are plenty of average men/women living/working in New York. Someone has to fill every position under these executives and companies. Of course, it wouldn't be a good strategy to move to New York if you wish to live comfortably as an average person. Some, however, were born into the area, or stay for other reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Huobi has no trading fee, allowing people to trade as much as they want, often times buying/selling to themselves to pump up volume and force a price manipulation. It's simply a minor discrepancy in price due to the lack of fees over in China. Also, one could argue that the $300 ceiling didn't exist in China, since they don't look at USD, which allowed them to cross over it easier.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. |
|
|
|
Simplest way to secure your future is to buy two (or more) houses.
You rent out the other houses to pay for all your expenses for your primary house (it is not likely that rental return will ever be zero nor is it likely that rental return will be much less than the expenses needed to maintain an equivalent house).
Your only problem with multiple properties will be taxation (as eventually I think all governments are going to tax properties as things like "income tax" are going to become defunct in the future).
So even if you buy multiple houses - keep some BTC for the taxes!
My parents bought a second house after the housing bubble collapsed in 2008 and it seems to have been a very wise financial decision. As long as someone is living within your second property, you are earning a steady income, and if things get rough financially, you can always sell off the second house, or move into it if it is smaller and sell/rent the larger one. |
|
|
|
How many people here want Trump to win? I always find it so funny people get so upset about politics and they know they have the right answer. How the heck do you know you have the right answer when you don't even have any idea who the person is you are voting for.
I don't think anyone here would be the kind to support Donald Trump. He caters to the average American, the "John Q Public", if you will. Either way, he doesn't have enough influence to make it very far in primaries. Anyone who isn't voting for Trump right now will vote for him when their candidate drops out. And in relation to Bitcoin, I would imagine a lot of people here support Rand Paul. As far as Bitcoin acceptance goes, he has been the most supportive of Bitcoin. He even accepts Bitcoin donations for his campaign. |
|
|
|
That's how the game developers make there most money through InApp purchases take Candy Crush for example they built an empire with just that game.
I know. call me old-school controversial stupid, but I prefer to buy game for 4.99USD (or any amount) from store, than get it "for free" and then pay for some gems or other digital goods, which makes the game somehow playable and little bit enjoyable. Actually this is their way of coping up with their games being pirated. As soon as the installer has been pirated, income stops. But with inapp purchases, as long as there are new levels to unlock, or goals to achieve, gamers will still purchase and income never stops. This is also the reason why it is best for bitcoin if it can be integrated into inapp purchases. Do you have a source for this? Freemium models dominate the gaming industry right now because they are infinitely more profitable. Clash of Clans shattered earnings records for mobile games under this model, and many others have followed their lead, earning millions of millions along the way. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, where is the option for $350 or less?
$350 will most likely become the new $300, and I expect a lot of investors to sell off once the psychological number hits. China shouldn't be used as proof otherwise, since the equivalent of $350 in their currency isn't any special number, and 0 free trading allows them to stray further from the overall market.
The OP does not think the price will stop at £350 or less. If the price rise only $1-3 a day, it can run very long. Well, if the price does rise each day, then you are right in that the bull run can go for a potentially very long time. However, the run is already losing steam, and appears to be quickly coming to a close. The price has dropped pretty significantly in the last 12 hours. |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Gold holds its value through millenia of usage and stability, along with the nature of the mineral. Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. |
|
|
|
|
As far as interest goes, a lot of people approach gambling as entertainment. For $50 they can spend a night out socializing at a casino and getting drinks and being in a fun environment.
As far as addiction goes, some people don't know how to cope with loss, and resort to more gambling in a (usually failed) attempt at recovering from their losses.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does. Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
