It is not all a bubble, with the price of bitcoin fluctuating the people lacking the true knowledge about bitcoin term it as a bubble. If this is a bubble then the destruction of bitcoin as well other digital currencies would have begun long ago, but now the growth continues. This clears the confusion whether it is a bubble or not.
I'd say that a drop from $20,000 to $6,000 over the course of 6 months is evidence enough it was a bubble. Perhaps it didn't "pop" so much as deflate, but it was a bubble nonetheless. Bitcoin has been bouncing around for a long enough period of time and at a price significantly under the ATH to conclude it was a bubble. If it was not, you would need to see a quick recovery to near the same price, and both of those components have failed. There has neither been a recovery (let alone a quick one) nor has it risen to about the same price. |
|
|
|
|
Crypto can do something things better than fiat, but only very limited and specific things. For example, crypto beats fiat at being decentralized, but what value is that really? The world works fine on centralized fiat. It's a solution to a non-problem. Another example, crypto beats fiat at being trust less, which is tied pretty closely to being decentralized, but again, solution in search of a problem. One area where crypto does seem to function better is remittances. Value can be transferred around the world with ease and without significant fees. There are too many middle men required in the fiat system to make that work, but that single application hardly makes crypto a suitable replacement for the current system.
|
|
|
|
Few people are trying to claim ignorance. They trust that the Earth's assets are boundless and that a bean stalk can develop to the sky. Or on the other hand maybe they know somewhere down in their heart that we are making a course for an ecological and monetary fiasco, one that they think only they will get by through minds, gold, and firearms.
Others accept intensely that innovation will safeguard us out once more, that smart primates will dependably locate another apparatus that will enable us to separate always stuff from the planet.
Up until this point. Changes in horticulture, back, government, assembling and transportation kept pace with the populace development.
The advancement in technology improved economy from past many years but do you think it will grow forever or their will be reduction in resources?
When resources become scarce, competition and innovation typically have historically driven new advancements which lead to a larger economy. There are probably limits on innovation, but nobody knows exactly what they are. Just as 100 years ago, nobody could have envisioned what an internet economy would have looked like or even imagined it to be possible, we cannot know what innovations will occur in the future. And as certain resources become scarce, we find substitutes. There are physical limits on this as well, but scarcity has been pretty good as spawning advancements and alternatives to the scarce resource. |
|
|
|
In my opinion government regulations on cryptocurrencies would have both GOOD and BAD results.If ever government put regulations to cryptocurrencies, it means cryptos will be accepted and legal which I see is good, but if it will to happen that they will put regulations, they won't let people to use and have cryptos without knowing who are these people involving themselves to it and how big they earn from cryptos. They would also want to trace every transactions done in the blockchain and worse, they might control the cryptoworld.
There's a difference between a government not prohibiting something and someone's willingness to accept it as a currency. If governments don't prohibit Bitcoin, that is they allow it as an official currency, that doesn't mean everything will switch over. Bitcoin has never held a steady value. That brings a lot of uncertainty to businesses, not to mention every consumer in an economy. I wouldn't expect a large portion of the population to ever want anything to do with a currency that can't hold a stable value because of how difficult it makes it to function in an economy. For all the gripes about fiat losing value over time, there's little doubt that it's still better than Bitcoin as a currency. |
|
|
|
But information that IS insider information is without question illegal to trade on.
It's pretty interesting how the opinions on insider information are pretty far apart from each other. In the crypto world there are loads of people trying to justify the use (abuse) of insider information, while there is nothing about it to justify. It's illegal by itself and unethical in every possible way. Roger Ver seems to be on that side as well, which might explain the crazy price explosion of bcash just before Coinbase announced that they will be listing it. Coinbase CEO is pretty close with Roger Ver as well. We'll probably not hear much from it again with how Coinbase and Roger can just keep their mouth shut, unless something happens and they start to blackmail each other. We'll see where it ends. Yeah, in that case it was Coinbase employees who had the inside information and were trading on it. At that time, nobody but Coinbase knew about the intention to support BCH and this was a potentially huge development that would most likely send the price substantially higher. And indeed that's exactly what happened. Trading on that information when it wasn't public would be insider trading. In the securities arena, insider trading is plainly illegal. There's no defense for it. In crypto, I don't know if it's *technically* illegal because that would come down to a legal interpretation of if any securities laws were violated (if the underlying instrument is/isn't a "security"), etc. What's plain is that it should be illegal if it's not, and it was a violation of Coinbase's policies. In my opinion, it was morally and ethically wrong as well. |
|
|
|
Just that... do you think there is any re-distribution effect at all due to bitcoin?
Bitcoin specifically, and crytpo generally, doesn't do anything magical in regards to redistribution. Even if the whole world was denominated in Bitcoin, it wouldn't mean anything for redistribution. Redistribution takes active effort, and Bitcoin doesn't actively do anything on it's own. Asking if Bitcoin has a redistribution effect is the same as asking if the USD has a redistribution effect. The answer is no, because both are representations of wealth and don't address wealth inequality or wealth distribution. I don't know where the notion of Bitcoin having anything to do with wealth equality even came from, but many people seem to have this notion that it's a magic bullet that will solve all the world's economic problems, and that notion is silly and has no basis in fact. The great advantage of bitcoin is that it does not steal from you using the inflation tax, the wealthy can invest in all kind of assets and they have a very small amount of cash available if you compare it to the size of their assets which means they are not that affected by inflation since their assets go up with the inflation but for the rest of the people that cannot do that and keep most of their savings in fiat they lose a lot of money every year, making the rich even richer. This is far outweighed - FAR OUTWEIGHED - by the volatility of holding Bitcoin. Since December, the dollar might have depreciated by perhaps half a percent, or one percent. Bitcoin has lost 60% of it's value since December, and routinely loses five or ten percent in a single day. The dollar has never experienced this kind of loss in such a short time span. Investing in Bitcoin to avoid inflation is about the dumbest thing you can do with your money, other than investing in an advertised ponzi scheme. |
|
|
|
As we all know, stock market had been there for a very long time now and on the other hand, cryptocurrency is a fast rising trend when it comes to the world of trade and commerce. Some may prefer to invest in crypto because of high returns but some will still go with stock market and play it safe.
In your opinion, what will be the best option to invest your money on?
Without certain experience, Trading and Hodling are risky. The most acceptable method of investing at the moment is ICO. For a more successful contribution, you need to carefully analyze the project. Identify is necessary for the market side. For example, the Kelvin Blockchain project has an innovative method of encryption, transmission, storage, and security. All this is based on quantum computing. Thus becoming in demand in the future. With the coming quantum technologies, the current market must experience many changes. To be more exact, many coins will leave the market, as there will simply be no demand for them, due to the same technological superiority. Kelvin Blockchain project itself is flexible to implementing cryptographic algorithms which will make it one of the safest blockchains ever existed with 10+ signature available from the start. This project does not rely on any particular signature algorithm and due to the multi-client use - on some single consensus. In case of any problems, it is possible to quickly locate the threat and prevent it’s distribution throughout the system. Multiple blockchains with different consensus algorithms, token types, and assignments will be available. The multichain technology allows creating almost an unlimited potential for speed and productivity. Kelvin Blockchain can launch up to 2^64 subchains - more available subchains will benefit in increased speed and security. Moreover, all the blockchains will be processed in one wallet so that the client could have fast transactions, secure investments and cheap smart contracts as well as a lot of other services at his hand. Trading is riskier than HODLing because every time you trade you open yourself up to new potential loss. If you buy and hold, the most you can lose is all you've invested. If you're constantly moving new money in and out, you're at risk of all the money you're constantly putting in, plus you have the added downside of inefficiently timing the market, which is far more likely than efficiently timing the market. Also, ICOs are not the most acceptable method of investing at the moment. ICOs are largely scams and far riskier than buying Bitcoin and sitting on it, which is far riskier than traditional equity investing. ICOs are about the riskiest thing you can do with your money. |
|
|
|
It is important not what rules are introduced - but for whom and for what purpose. This is a kind of filter for large capitals. As soon as the fall will develop a methodology for working with crypto-currencies - there will be a lot of restrictions on entering the ordinary people's market. The purpose of the crypto currency is simple - to give attractiveness to investments together with anonymity - for accumulating the capital of the rich of this world.
Crypto has nothing to do with "accumulating the capital of the rich of the world." It's entire intention was to create an immutable and unalterable ledger that couldn't be manipulated by a central authority. Everything more than that is artificial values people are assigning to Bitcoin. It was not intended to redistribute wealth, or create wealth, or improve the economy, or make everyone rich, or any of this other nonsense people constantly and incorrectly claim about Bitcoin or crypto. |
|
|
|
Buffet is a very clever and prominent person but it seems me tha the often has some inside information before making investing decisions but anyway I respect him very much. It seems me that he describes 2 stages of market. The first in is an oversold stage where you need to buy to reap some later and the second one is an overbought stage which is usually named as ephoria where you need to sell all your assets before a crash or a deep correction phase.
You must understand that there are different levels of inside information, inside information is not illegal in itself, so there is nothing wrong with what he or anyone is doing, in fact if you are a fundamental investor you want to have as much information as you can before making any kind of investment in a company, and with his reputation it is obvious to me that even if he forgot everything about how to invest he will still very successful since he will have trusted people to him giving him hot tips about which company to select to invest. Inside information actually is illegal. Information is either public or it is not. If it is not public, it is inside information, and inside information is illegal to use for trading purposes. Just because a particular person doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not public though. If the information is obtainable and someone doesn't know how to find it or doesn't, that doesn't mean it's inside information. But information that IS insider information is without question illegal to trade on. |
|
|
|
it seems you are wrong to say bitcoin as a bubble because it means bubbles after rupture will not be able to recover again while bitcoin can still do the price recovery so bitcoin can be said as a wave, and yes the waves that occur when the end of 2017 is very high.
That is so true, people just don't know what bubble means, after downs like we had so many times bitcoin showed that it could go up again and people are still saying that is is a bubble... 1) That's not what bubble means. A bubble is something that drastically changes in value without substantiation or a particular reason, especially because of hype. This can happen when the bubble is inflating as easily as when it is popping. 2) Eventual price recovery doesn't mean it wasn't a bubble. Housing prices in the US have largely recovered from the housing crisis, but housing in 2008 was undoubtedly a bubble. 3) Bitcoin hasn't come close to recovering what it lost anyway, so your example is wrong in this particular case. Bitcoin was a bubble last December and the fact that it hasn't recovered the still 50% of value it lost, it only further illustrates how much of a bubble it was and by your own logic. |
|
|
|
Lets say crypto completely and utterly replaced fiat. Fiats don't exist anymore. All governments have seen the advantage of using digital currency and have completely changed their fiat into crypto, like dollar to dollar token(obviously not tether). How viable is this? For example anyone can see how much I am holding using the public ledger and track me down and force me into sending them the cryptos I hold. I wanna discuss in reality if cryptos actually replace fiat how life will be and what are the problems we are gonna face and the immediate effects of it.
There's no reason to expect that anyone would be able to tell which address belongs to a particular person. Additionally, most people will have their holdings dispersed among hundreds or perhaps thousands of addresses. Lastly, this isn't likely to happen anyway, so it's kind of a moot issue. Crypto is not going to replace fiat, it's just not viable as a currency. |
|
|
|
I will tell you the secret to getting rich on Wall Street. You try to be greedy when others are fearful. And you try to be fearful when others are greedy.
-Warren Buffet This quote is constantly bandied about as justification to invest in Bitcoin, and especially now that there has been some nice price movement in the upward direction. But this Warren Buffet quote is only relevant with the proper context, which is that Warren Buffet only invests in things he has a fundamental understanding of and can quantifiably value. You can confidently be greedy when others are fearful if you have a sound investment thesis and are a fundamental value investor. This is how he turns his investments into home runs, he knows what he's buying and what it's worth and can weather the negative sentiment until the market learns what he already knows. This doesn't apply at all to a speculative investment like crypto. Following this advice willy-nilly is gonna get you burned because you're misunderstanding the intent and the application. Don't not buy Bitcoin if that's what you want to do, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're following Warren Buffet's advice. Warren Buffet doesn't speculate, and if you're buying crypto, you're speculating. Keep in mind, the price is what you pay, and value is what you get—pay too high a price and returns are decimated. To elaborate on this, the value of a stock is relative to the amount of earnings it will generate over the life of its business. In particular, this value is determined by discounting all future cash flows back to a present value, an intrinsic value. Pay too high a price and the return that arises as a stock gravitates back to its intrinsic value over time will erode. Act greedy when others are fearful and reap enhanced returns, under the right set of circumstances: predictability must be present, and short-term events that create the subsequent downgrade in prices must not be moat-eroding. Quite right. This is essentially the problem with applying any kind of traditional investment thesis to crypto: it has no intrinsic value because it doesn't have cash flow or produce income. So there's nothing to base the value off of when there's no intrinsic value, and all valuations are arbitrary and speculative. I don’t know why this sentence can’t be applied to bitcoin. The fact that Buffet said it, doesn’t make him the exclusive owner of the sentence. Also, the fact that Buffet doesn’t buy bitcoin doesn’t mean it can’t be applied to bitcoin either.
He doesn’t understand high tech companies and the sentence can be applied to them.
Buffet is the best traditional investor but the world is constantly changing, and at a fast pace nowadays.
If you have done your research and you buy an asset because you strongly believe it has good fundamentals, that sentence applies. It doesn’t matter if you buy bitcoin, google shares or KO shares: when everyone is scared and selling, buy; and when everyone is so very happy about the investment because it goes up non-stop, sell.
See the explanation above. This is why Warren Buffet's quote can't be applied to crypto. Because when he says something like this, it takes as a given that you have a sound investment thesis and are investing based on the fundamentals of the company. Eventually, the market will realize what you already know and will correct the price. This doesn't apply to Bitcoin because there are no fundamentals. Applying this advice in a crypto context is no better than just guessing. |
|
|
|
What escape path for Bitcoin?
The value of Bitcoin is still very high . Some problems of bitcoin are difficult to solve as :
- Slow transaction speed
- consumes a lot of energy
- It is banned in some countries
- Price manipulated
Is there a sustainable future for bitcoin and cryptocurrency ?
Bitcoin will become the coin of payment as its purpose is created. Or is it just a game of whales? A financial game with winners and losers
The problem with the transaction speed and the fees is about to be solved so do not worry about it, second the issue of the energy is grossly exaggerated if you were to add all the energy consumed by the financial sector and if we were to scale bitcoin to that size bitcoin will be a lot more efficient than the financial sector, third bitcoin is banned in some countries but, who cares about that? And finally the price can be manipulated but that happens in all the markets. What does this even mean? If you were to add all the energy consumed by the financial sector? What energy does the financial sector use? Second, the criticism on Bitcoin is that it uses all this power for virtually no good reason. It is necessary based on the way it is constructed to consume all this power to run the decentralized network, but essentially nobody needs the decentralized network because it's not solving a real world problem that was needing to be solved. Centralized systems do what Bitcoin does for such a fraction of the power needs it wouldn't even be measurable. That's the criticism on the power front. The analogy to the financial system is puzzling because the "financial system" isn't a defined network like Bitcoin is, and the power consumption by Bitcoin relative to the utility is so overkill that the comparison on the face of it seems ridiculous before you even look at any numbers whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
No. First, they're not bubbles, and second, no. Both Facebook and Twitter's declines this week are attributable to very specific challenges in their business. Facebook missed on revenue expectations, which caused analysts to re-evaluate their assumptions for future growth, and because stocks are forward-looking and trade relative to future earnings, this causes the price in the present to decline as the previously-assumed potential shrinks. On top of that, Facebook is ramping up spending related to monitoring the spread of fake information on its platform, which reduces profitability.
Twitter is removing millions of fake accounts which is causing its user numbers to decline, and since Twitter is fairly cryptic about the types of information they release, investors don't have very much information to judge user engagement on, so the uncertainty of declining "users" causes them to view the stock as riskier, hence the price decline. On top of that, this quarter Twitter suffered an unexpected decline in the active user base (which they said the fake accounts were never included in), so the very small decline in active users when analysts were expecting a small increase causes them to also re-evaluate the future profitability of the company.
Tech, more than perhaps any other industry, is prone to large price swings because technology is so prone to disruption and more speculative than other industries. These swings this week are big, they're not the demise of the tech industry or a harbinger of things to come.
|
|
|
|
It's important to understand that experts or gurus in certain parts of an industry don't necessarily mean they are as knowledgeable in other industries.
Warren Buffett has done extremely well in his life, which I respect him for, but we shouldn't overexaggerate his investment skills.
Everything with fundamental value will keep going up, and the only thing he's doing is position himself in companies offering that fundamental value. You only need patience here, which is quite an easy task if you during the years scoop up dividends that you can reinvest directly to generate more income.
You know what he's doing when his favorite stocks are going down? He buys more because he knows that their value will go back up.
What do people here when Bitcoin is going down? They sell because they are too afraid to just let the market correct naturally.
Bitcoin has that fundamental value and we have enough years functioning as evidence. It doesn't matter what price you buy at, you'll profit later on anyway.
Shouldn't over exaggerate the investment skill of who is widely credited as being the greatest investor of all time? I don't know if that's exactly possible, but if it is, I don't think anything said of him so far would qualify as over exaggerating his investment skill. When he took over Berkshire, the company stock was worth $19. It now trades for over $300,000. I don't know of another case where a public company has seen such sustained and massive wealth creation. It's a bit of an unfair comparison given the respective time frames, but those returns are better than Bitcoin's numbers, even for the HODLers! |
|
|
|
I will tell you the secret to getting rich on Wall Street. You try to be greedy when others are fearful. And you try to be fearful when others are greedy.
-Warren Buffet I don't know how I feel about that quotation. Warren Buffett didn't invent that concept or mentality. Its a fundamental observation many investors, traders and businessman have repeated over the centuries. Some of the best investment opportunities were to be found during the crisis of 2008 when bank stocks were severely underpriced--before the bailout bill was announced. Bitcoin would have been a good investment around 2014 when silk road was closed and china cracked down on exchanges. The idea that opportunities abound under circumstances where people are fearful like the 2008 crisis or bitcoin's 2014-esque crash is a common theme throughout history. AFAIK Buffett made his fortune utilizing long term HODL investment strategies based on market and business fundamentals. He wasn't someone to make spur of the moment deals or profit from times when the market was at its lowest and future prospects were bleak. What happens when people are both greedy and fearful? That's a question which interests me. It could be something to be answer in order to accurately anticipate which direction markets and economies are headed. I think in this context, greedy and fearful are mutually exclusive. If you are acting greedy, you are acting without fear of loss. If you fear loss, you aren't acting greedy. Greed ignores risk while fear inhibits risk taking. As for the previous points, acting greedy doesn't mean your decision is spur of the moment. It just means that you're going into positions that others are fleeing. This can, and should be, a well-deliberated investment decision. Also, the investment opportunities you highlighted about the 2008 financial crisis are only evident in hindsight. In that moment, the world financial structures were crumbling. There was no indication there was going to be a bailout, or that if there was one, that it would work. In that moment, there was no confidence in the system and risk of loss was everywhere. There was contagion and systemic collapse, and everything unfolding was pretty unprecedented. Now as it turns out, anyone putting money into certain companies made a killing, but don't forget that speculators were putting money in Bear Sterns on the way down too, and they lost everything. Same for Lehman. Looking at the landscape 2008, risk of loss - not just loss, but total loss - was everywhere. It is only 10 years later with the benefit of a great deal of hindsight and context that can look back at 2008 and say, man, there were some good opportunities out there. At the time, that was an incredibly uncomfortable thing to say. |
|
|
|
It is not going down. If you look closely at the charts, then you can easily see that the prices have remained stable within the $8,000 to $10,000 per coin range for the past two months. And they are likely to stay there until the end of this year.
People sometimes don't know the truth and don't have the knowledge to see it. If you want to speak about something you must know it about 99%. There are several reasons for the downfall of price of bitcoin.Firstly the forces of demand and supply play a very important role in determining the prices.If the demand increases then the price also rises and vice versa will occur if the demand falls.But still people have faith in bitcoin and that is why they still hold their bitcoins for future rise in price.The amount of investments done in bitcoin also determines the price of bitcoin.The market of bitcoin is reducing due to the fall in price. I think people over emphasize supply and demand these days as it relates to Bitcoin. Supply and demand for legitimate usage is far different than supply and demand for speculative purposes. There is a far greater number of people who buy Bitcoin only because they are trying to get rich off it as compared to the number of people who buy it to use it for any commercial purpose. Supply and demand for trading purposes is easily manipulable and subject to sudden spikes in order to manipulate the price in an effort to create volatility, which is what traders profit on. Demand for commerce is rather slow-moving and not subject to wild swings. |
|
|
|
Warren Buffett doesn't believe in gold either, and that while gold has a proven track record of thousands of years. The thing with Buffett is that he likes to invest in things he can generate revenue from in form of dividends or interest. Bitcoin obviously doesn't produce anything in that way. In order to earn from crypto is to have a fundamentally strong POS coin with low annual inflation, but where are they? I haven't seen one single POS coin that maintained its value -- they all crashed hard and will keep crashing hard because they don't know shit. Ethereum plans to become somewhat of a POS coin, so we'll see how that goes....
It's important to understand though why Buffet doesn't believe in gold: because it's not a productive asset. It doesn't produce income, it doesn't have cash flow, it merely is an asset that is worth what large groups of people agree on and doesn't generate any return outside of that. Also, the proven track record of thousands of years for gold isn't as a wealth-producing asset, but as a wealth-protecting asset, and this is a HUGE difference. People don't get rich buying gold because over very long periods of time, gold largely tracks inflation; no new wealth is created, it only preserves what wealth was put into it over time. |
|
|
|
Forecasts for bitcoin in 2018 are rather ambiguous. On the one hand, some analysts predict a rather gloomy future of the current unstable situation.
On the other hand, optimists predict bitcoin a rapid increase in quotations, which next year must exceed its maximum threshold in the history of the existence of cryptology.
Although Bitcoin is still in a state of uncertainty. So many of you were wondering what to invest. Therefore, I had the idea to write several alternatives for investing.
1. Bonds
A good alternative to deposits is bonds. The plus of this instrument is the absence of taxation. And from the same deposits, the tax on income of natural persons in the amount of 18%. But here's a percentage of different countries different.
I think generally a very small proportion of bonds are "tax free" bonds. Income from bonds is largely taxable. On top of this, investors are traditionally warned to stay away from bonds when interest rates are rising, as is the current situation. As interest rates rise, bonds are less attractive as a result because there are far less risky places to put your money for the same return, so bond prices tend to suffer while interest rates rise, largely wiping out investment gains from the income derived from the bonds. |
|
|
|
as we know, the dollar is now rising, from the rise in the dollar it turns out that the price of Bitcoin is also rising, so what I ask here is that this is related to the dollar increase? or just coincidence?
Coincidence. There's no direct measurable impact, especially considering how quickly the price of Bitcoin moves and how slowly the price of the dollar moves. Two weeks ago they were moving in opposite directions, and in two weeks from now they may be again. There's no rhyme or reason or coordination, merely coincidences that aren't attributable to anything. Any actual impact is going to be completely drown out by the magnitude of the BTC price swings and wouldn't be measurable except perhaps on a timescale of decades. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
