It was just an idea that was thrown on the table so it has not much weight at all, but I am actually quite against a reduction of the block size as proposed by LDJR. Bitcoin might be doing fine with its current block size, but we shouldn't exaggerate in the sense that it can be fine too with even less block space. We don't know that. What we know is that 1MB works and thus shouldn't be touched.

Segwit is the right path forward. I often looked at the rate of adoption and was kinda disappointed, but looking back now, it brings gradual growth in transaction throughput, which is actually a healthy form of growth. It makes people more aware of how important it is to use the block space more efficiently.

If you're not using native Segwit, you're pretty much robbing yourself. People should take some responsibility and stop using platforms who are not on board with this.

Of course whales exist in the financial world. People have turned the term whale into one that's continuously associated with manipulation and whatnot. It can be an institution or a person like you and the rest of the people here, but with a lot of money. In reality it's just the difference in account balance.

I think you're referring to bullish formations that have a certain time frame within they are expected to break? These formations occur organically and can break well before the formation comes to an end. Nothing is scheduled here.

I can't however think of any good news in the last 12-24 months that made the price either break up or down after selling the news. Perhaps that Bakkt will be the first sell the news event since CME went live in 2017. We'll find out before the end of this month.

People said the same thing last year. Just because the prior price action has been bullish doesn't mean it can't top out and reverse. Be wary of those who make it look like that we're definitely going to see bullish continuation. Trends do reverse and the current formation is bearish by nature and very much indicative of a looming reversal.

I tried to look at the market from a bullish perspective, but the more time goes by the more evidence there is that we hit the exact support and resistance points confirming a descending triangle. It doesn't by default mean that we will go down, but the probability favors a bearish outcome. Last year we capitulated from a descending triangle too. Result was a 50% crash to $31xx.

I don't think we'll get an actual block size increase at all. I'm not being overly negative here, but just look at where we are going with Bitcoin.

If Segwit adoption keeps increasing, which it seems to be doing slowly, it means there are more transactions that can fit into one single block. In other words, less incentive to increase the block size. Another very important on-chain upgrade will be Schnorr, which will then free up block space that can be utilized to process even more transactions.

On top of that, with how Tether is moving its activities from Bitcoin's Omni to Ethereum, it frees up some block space as well, hence the lower daily transaction count. Ethereum on the other hand is currently choking on all the Tether demand. Currently there are 140,000 unconfirmed transactions in the mempool and people complain about waiting hours and some even days for a confirmation.

It's not really settled. Coinbase just moved the dude's coins from the hacker's account back to his own account, which is how it should be done.

I'm actually more stunned by what seems to be stupidity of the hacker who left 60BTC on the Coinbase platform instead of taking them off. If you can get 20BTC off the platform, why not take the rest off too? All I can find about Coinbase is a $10,000 daily withdrawal limit, which would have prevented the majority of the other coins to be withdrawn, so the limit must have been higher if you can take out 20BTC.

Big money in relation to what they have, but it's a joke compared to what they would be able to get out of it if they could do everything themselves. No well developed country pays big money for a piece of ground when it isn't at least worth hundreds or even thousands of times more than what they put in.

These countries need to invest in themselves more so that they don't sell themselves for cheap to developed countries. I however doubt that they even realize it because this has been happening for decades. It's nothing new. Not sure where all that money goes, but it certainly doesn't seem to be going there where it's needed the most.

Purely from a technical perspective, it's actually well oversold to use that term.

I expect the USD-ARS ratio to come back to 40-45 if nothing really changes in the short term, which would then be an interesting trade opportunity with how the general trend has been to lose more value against the dollar. Not sure how long you plan to hold that trade, but I for now wouldn't bet against the Peso unless the situation there gets even worse.

Investors tend to front run everything just to be ahead of the rest, and I think that's actually what happened here looking at how much value the Peso lost last month alone. If you want to take the trade anyway, use a well placed stop to reduce potential losses.

If that happens, then you can say goodbye to the forks as well, and all the other top crypto currencies, because according to the conspiracy theories, Kim Jong-un owns billions worth of altcoins too, obtained through hacking exchanges.

It's however more likely for the countries to blacklist the coins they think belong to Kim, because enforcing a ban on something that can't technically be banned entirely is a waste of resources. If that happens, I think it would be quite a pumpy news event because that means close to a million coins are never to be used again in the US, large part of Asia and the EU.

Sounds like a scam. No way the cost of mining is below $3000. It would have incentivized miners to unload a large chunk of their coins OTC, which isn't happening looking at activity of their mining addresses in the last couple of months.

The sole reason for the hashrate to go through the roof is that miners are speculating on even higher prices. Last year the hashrate went through the roof as well, but we saw what happened when the price took a dive. It's not out of the ordinary to see the same happen again when the price breaks out of its descending triangle southwards.

Regulation-wise, perhaps, but Bitcoin's decentralized nature doesn't have much to do with central banks not buying and storing Bitcoin. The 12.5KG bars they hold in a bunker are decentralized forms of money too.

The real problem central banks will face when buying Bitcoin is that there isn't much of it readily available, while they can get billions worth of Gold at any time of the day without effort. They can't just print x$ billion and then decide we'll buy a few hundred thousand BTC. They can perhaps do it once and empty the OTC market, but that scarcity will definitely be felt and people will value their coins even more.

I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been raided yet with so many factors pointing at not only manipulation, but also excessive issuance of non-backed Tether tokens.

Governments in the past have been pretty swift with shutting down any attempt of centralized entities creating a new monetary system allowing people to circumvent traditional currencies, but they are sleeping on this one big time. How many Tether does there need to be in circulation for them to finally wake up? $100 billion?

People don't even care anymore about the backing as they started valuing it a dollar a pop regardless of what they think about it.

I like how they briefly explain what Bitcoin is, which is pretty cool. Usually big companies just show you a Bitcoin logo and that's it, so in this case it's getting an extra bit of marketing. 

https://www.watfordfc.com/club/bitcoin-confirmed-new-sleeve-partner

Football stadiums are pretty cool and crowded locations for a Bitcoin ATM. If they can get it sorted legally, then that would be the next step forward. Perhaps that Sportsbet can help them with that, or at least make sure Watford is aware of their existence.

What he tried to explain is that CMC lists every coin price and volume metric on their site, but they can exclude individual or combined metrics so that they don't get calculated into their price and/or volume index. This is done to prevent unnecessary inflation, even though they still are inflating price and volume metrics by a lot. 

When CMC excludes metrics they use */**/*** to point out what metric is exactly excluded;

Most people don't know better because the ordinary user isn't familiar with his anti Bitcoin politics. If people are so easy with giving their personal documents to a scam ICO (of which they mostly already know that it is a scam) that is asking for KYC verification, then they surely will with an exchange that seems rather normal.

Definitely so. Plenty of exchanges to use. And it's not just because the Bitcoin community isn't happy with the people behind that exchange, but there actually is clear evidence that they are trying to not only mislead people, but also scam them.

I would never recommend anyone to use that exchange. Don't enrich this fucker. Every penny he makes from you will be used to finance his propaganda.

Thanks for the screenshot. I wonder why the exchange is referring to the volume generated through the BCH/USDT pair as BTC. Probably one of his many attempts to confuse people.

TheMoonCarl is just a wannabe click-bait slut. Alessio is somewhat decent, but is an overly conservative trader who sees risks everywhere, regardless of how bullish or bearish the market is.

I somewhat follow multiple of these technical analysis youtubers to measure their sentiment and potentially trade against them if there is an interesting enough set-up. Carl was overly bearish before we had the run to $14,000 not that long ago, and that for quite a long period of time. The moment youtubers like him started to get bullish, the price went the other way.

I do however genuinely enjoy Krown's Crypto Cave. I don't always agree with his analysis, but he's at least someone who understands how technical analysis works, which can't be said about many other youtubers, and he brings a dose of fun to the table that cracks me up all the time.

Six digits isn't really that much. We have hit $20,000 with just a fraction of the fiat onramps that we have today. Also don't forget that back then exchanges took weeks to process verification requests, temporarily halted the signup feature, weren't able to keep their platforms up and running without problems, and so forth.

Today we have an ecosystem that's upgraded to handle all that traffic. Seriously, some people act smart and say that they were sure the price would tank when reaching $20,000, but it could have gone to $30-$40,000 with some more momentum and properly functioning exchanges. It was an intense year in almost every aspect, nothing like the 2013 bull run.

That doesn't surprise me. People are just too overly obsessed about institutions and think they'll pump billions in a product that has little appeal to them.

If we look at the fees of this half baked 'ETF', it's a whopping 2.9%, and that's not even taking into consideration the fee the brokerage firms charge on top of it. If we add their fees too, we're looking at ~4% on average, which isn't too appealing. Institutions are better off waiting for Bakkt and use their service, which is much cheaper.

I honestly don't really care much about banks adopting blockchain or new database technology as long as they aren't socializing the benefits so that their clients can finally enjoy a better service at lower cost. Banks have more incentive to not share the efficiency benefits with their clients so that they keep paying the full price for the services they are already familiar with.

More broadly speaking, the blockchain technology isn't a wonder pill that solves every problem in the world. It really seems that people have jumped on the buzz without even realizing what it actually is. The blockchain is more a buzzword that companies use to attract capital than it is something that enjoys much real world use.

Gold being scarce is very subjective and definitely a common point of discussion. By today's standards there may only be x amount of Gold available to mine profitably or just below that, but that doesn't mean we don't get to see new technologies making it easier to mine and detect Gold. Bitcoin is factually scarce, and we actually know how many coins haven been minted last week, month, year.

I do however agree that there is no way to figure out beforehand what the demand will be in the future, but in Bitcoin's case, the fundamentals are improving, the regulatory framework in the US is taking shape, we're at a point where US regulators have already approved financial instruments, and so fort. The trajectory towards a $1 trillion market cap is promising.