Institutional investors. Wall Street bonuses. ETFs. Chinese New Year. Thanksgiving. Black Friday. Christmas. We've heard nonsense like this pretty much on a weekly basis all year.
We've also seen charts comparing bitcoin to bitcoin in 2014, to gold, to dotcom, to whatever you like. Past performance does not predict future results, and past performance of something completely different to bitcoin like gold or dotcom definitely does not predict future results.
I'm completely bullish long-term for crypto, but posts like this are really getting old.
BAKKT is coming December 12th. We may keep falling down for the rest of November and we may bounce again for Christmas propelled by BAKKT. Remember that BAKKT is backed by the underlying asset (so in this case, they need to buy actual bitcoin). It's only a matter of time and someone with big pockets may see this dip to below $5k as a lifetime opportunity to enter in bigly. If I was 100% on fiat I wouldn't gamble and I would start buying monthly no matter how low it goes, because it can revert at any time and you would miss the boat. |
|
|
|
I don't want to spread some "FUD". But..
First, what if we are standing not in front of cryptowinter, but the "crypto ice age" itself. Seriously, the adoption process is freezed. I started to worry then Stripe refused bitcoin few months ago. It was a real sign for me. Not so many companies are ready to accept payments in Bitcoins. And I have no proof (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that this number is growing. Second, because of that, Bitcoin became more a speculative issue, but not a new age world currency. And, as we all understand, global financial-industrial groups are natural enemies of Bitcoin itself. Satoshi started Bitcoin as a global alternative to them. But now we pray that these people, these organizations will invest in Bitcoin. in fact, we are hoping, that they will buy the whole conception. And we will be ritch. But.. we estimate everything in $(!). We want dollars, not new age currency. If I am the only person, who concerned, that their ultimate goal is to destroy bitcoin?
Bitoin has many enemies, but only few friends among the powerful people or institutes now (many of them are only pretending for now). So, I'm really worring that we can see a $3000, and then $2500, and even less.
So, to answer the TC question - holding is a great way, but what if they will win? Of cource, Bitcoin will not die. But it will be an underground currency. Foe geeks, for criminals. But it will never be as expencive (in fiat) as in Dec 2017, even as in today. So, in that case holding strategy will fail.
Bitcoin doesn't need to be used as fiat by the average joe to do groceries with in order to go to the so called moon. If Bitcoin gets a % of gold's marketcap we would go to $100k easily, and Bitcoin is already a better gold, so it's undervalued at any rate. If you are going to be waiting for the average joe to use Bitcoin then keep waiting, it's not going to happen until they are forced to do so because fiat collapses, but like I said, we don't need that. And if Bitcoin was "an underground currency. Foe geeks, for criminals." and 1% of all that trade happened on Bitcoin then we would be way past $250k already. There's billions moved daily on the "black market". Add in money moved via luxury art and so on and get the math. Bitcoin is TINY, anyone not buying at current prices is insane and increasingly insane as it goes lower. |
|
|
|
|
Basically, you have to factor in 3 things:
1) The possibility that you are selling the bottom. Everyone thinks to be a trading genious of themselves, but it's very often that people sell literal bottoms in panic. It's too hard to guess where a market like Bitcoin bottoms, so hence just hold it throught the storm and end up victorious. We have been through this many times.
2) The possibility that you don't sell the bottom, and as you sell, it continues going down, but all of a sudden there are very bullish news out of nowhere and you wake up to an huge green candle at a higher point where you left, or perhaps not quite there but close enough that it doesn't become profitable and you end up in loses because:
3) Taxes and trading fees. When you sell and fiat shows up in your bank account, you better be paying all of your taxes and reporting all of your trades and be sure you don't go bankrupt in the process.
|
|
|
|
I still can't believe two sides of this war trying to win by no matter what the outcome would be. They are fine with losing millions of dollars on this war, they are fine with destroying life savings of many people, they are fine with almost any result except them losing.
Craig is really a crazy person and he should be really outed by the community, people giving him all the credit he has so far and letting him really do whatever he wants and still interviewing him and letting him speak on conferences and all that is really idiotic. This person is really a mental patient and he should be locked and reevaluated by a professional but here instead dude is a bitcoin billionaire with means to wage war against others and destroy the market we have been trying so hard to keep afloat.
Craig Wright said on a recent interview that he is ready to dump money into his shitcoin at a loss until 2026 or so. And as far as Craig Wright being a billionaire, I really doubt it, he is the conman to play the role of the leader and Calvin Ayre is the the actual billionaire... if we are to believe that as well. A lot of trolls these days call themselves billionaire, like that Richard Heart guy, but they've got a couple million at best. |
|
|
|
The most likely scenario for me is a 2019 of a boring sideways price, which is going to be very similar to 2015. We'll see tons of people selling because "bitcoin is dead". We'll see mainstream media forgetting about bitcoin as it does nothing that could give them clickbait Adsense money for their websites. It's going to be fun how instead of taking that year as an opportunity to accumulate sub 5 figures BTC ever again. I see it playing out like this again:  '14 was 2018, we are now entering '15 in 2019, and in 2020 for the halving we'll start going up with a massive peak that will (once again) dwarf everyone's predictions. |
|
|
|
It seems that the absurdity of the past week "BCH fork" due to greed led to this decline and then altcoin dump could cause more losses in the short term "this week."
I expect that whatever happens $ 4,200 will be the bottom but things are not so bad "the price will recover quickly."
If it was the Bcash drama causing this decline, people would dump their BTC and park their funds in altcoins, which isn't happening. It's panic of the purest form that takes the price down. This is crypto. Welcome. The bottom isn't what people think it will be, because remember, the market doesn't repeat if the mass expects it to repeat. The bottom will be known by the time we're going back up again. People panic but don't realize how much of a buying opportunity these dumps are. I'm sure they'll get back in, but that will be on the way up, where they always find themselves enter the market at the wrong time. The BCash drama has as an impact on Bitcoin the moment they start extracting hashrate from Bitcoin to put it into the BCash fork, whatever it is (I think ABC in this case, the bastard scammer Roger Ver was allocating hashrate from Cloud Mining contracts in his Bitcoin dot com pool to mine the ABC scam). If these guys keep scamming people with their shitcoins I really hope someone with the resources makes them pay. They must pay the price of screwing up people's money with their experiments. |
|
|
|
Such a scenario is not impossible at all. BTC market regulation will help to get SEC permission for bitcoin ETF registration and then big money will flow in and cause the price to rise. Its a matter of time.
Last halving pump trxs took forever and were way too expensive. The only way it's going to continue up to anywhere near $1m is if scaling solutions are in place and functioning. If not, price will be slammed down again when faced with a failure to scale as before. How do we know that those were real trxs and not just spam by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu and the usual suspects? Obviously there was increased organic traffic happening and the mempool went up, but the blocksize was also obviously cluttered by bad actors. Tx batching was not in yet and segwit wasn't as well. The question is: was the rise stopped because of tx fee being too high, or it crashed because it just had to crash as it went out of hand? Shall we risk a another hardfork drama to find out? |
|
|
|
I doubt it that we'll see bitcoin goes on $1,000,000 by 2020. Someone shared this chart on how its possible to happen. https://bircoin.top/Its impossible by looking at the market right now and few years from now we're already on 2020. Unrealistic price as it is but who knows? We were 296 ahead of the prediction on 16th december 2017 when the $20k peak happened. We are now 298 days below.. it's not that far fetched. The longer time period we are for more than 296 days below the higher % that it will not happen, but the next peak will dwarf $20k and we may be days ahead again. Here is the chart:  If we see a big bullrun that tests the MtGox peak upper channel line, we could reach $1,000,000 before 2021 (remember that his prediction is valid until Dec 31th 2020). Im not saying it will happen, most likely case scenario is around $100k, but if moons align it could happen. |
|
|
|
People may change their predictions but $15k is still three times the amount we are at right now.
I mean I can definitely see bitcoin being at $15k at one point but not at end of the year. That is just too close. Does he really think that bitcoin will triple in price in one and a half months ? That sounds a bit too far fetched price estimate if you ask me.
I think the more reasonable answer would have been if he said the price of bitcoin could go up until the end of the year. Do I think bitcoin will go to $15k ? No, there is no way that happens in the next month, however I believe it will go higher than this unless something big happens like what happened a week ago.
This is just pure speculation of course and Tom Lee is entitled to share his own point of view.
It's perfectly possible. Looks like people forgot that in November 12th 2017, the price dipped to current prices (around $5500). So We went from there to December 17th's peak of $19666 by Bitstamp prices. How is it not possible to go for $15k then? BAKKT is around the corner, Fidelity will follow and ETF will follow. FOMO happens before the events actualy take place sometimes, so it's possible. Unlikely but possible. BTC is super undervalued and tiny as long as it isn't $7trillion marketcap like gold so $10k increase in a month is factible, still a tiny move in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
They could have attempted to bring the price down when the hashrate went down as well to create a chain spiral of events. CSW was FUDding hard on twitter all day claiming that, if needed, he would bring the price to 2013 levels. The fact is, CSW has already failed. ABC team did the cheeky move of adding arbitrary checkpoints, so as far as I can tell right now they cannot reorg the chain as they wanted, so it's a failure. He said there would be no split, but the reality of the situation is, they have lost a lot of money, and we now have $BCHABC and $BCHSV fighting with each other for who is the real "Bitcoin Cash", which "is the real Bitcoin". Imagine having to defend that narrative  Checkpoints are useless against replays and double spends Unless they want to put them after each block. But in that case they wouldn't need an overhead in the form of miners confirming transactions, just a server processing payment in a perfectly centralized way. The implication is that the ABC chain should at all times have higher hash rate to prevent such things from happening. That basically means they are in a losing position by default and have to keep up a safety margin. Otherwise they instantly render themselves vulnerable to a 51% attack and all kind of ugly things that CSW can try to pull off. I don't know how that can be considered a failure on the SV side They promised no split by the end of the 15th and there is a split, we have 2 coins, 2 price tickers, 2 chains. So it's already a failure. I thought CSW and Calvin were shadow mining but at this point it isn't the case. Hashrate is also not keeping up: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/hashrateCSW so desperate that he bought satoshi twitter handle to shitpost and he got banned short after: http://twitter.com/satoshiBunch of clowns on both ends that will end up bankrupt for good. |
|
|
|
They could have attempted to bring the price down when the hashrate went down as well to create a chain spiral of events. CSW was FUDding hard on twitter all day claiming that, if needed, he would bring the price to 2013 levels. The fact is, CSW has already failed. ABC team did the cheeky move of adding arbitrary checkpoints, so as far as I can tell right now they cannot reorg the chain as they wanted, so it's a failure. He said there would be no split, but the reality of the situation is, they have lost a lot of money, and we now have $BCHABC and $BCHSV fighting with each other for who is the real "Bitcoin Cash", which "is the real Bitcoin". Imagine having to defend that narrative |
|
|
|
1. MimbleWimble is actively developed, but not for Bitcoin. It lacks support from Bitcoin community, mainly because it's not popular and not compatible with bitcoin script 2. TumbleBit already available today on Breeze Wallet3. Schnorr Signatures is actively developed, but it took long time since there's no standard for it 4. Confidential Transactions won't coming to Bitcoin since it has scalability trade-off (bigger transaction size and longer verification time). Most privacy-based cryptocurrency use it though Also, there are few upcoming proposal which are interesting - Dandelion
- MAST
- Eltoo
- Bulletproof (useless unless CT is used as well)
Edit : looks like Pmalek already answer your question while i verify my memory I remember reading that Bulletproof proposal solved the block space cluttering by bigger CT transactions. Peter Wuile said on reddit that he was working on it and tests look good but is far too premature to add in Bitcoin. I think the nearest around the corner addition will be Schnorr sigs. Apparently it should be easier to add than segwit so no miners drama. You can also look for the most "crazy" stuff (requires a hardfork) in here: https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/ |
|
|
|
I wouldn't use it, it's known buggy.
Older versions shouldn't work any better on Windows XP. I'm not aware of us removing anything needed to make XP work, XP is unsupported because it is buggy, insecure, and abandoned by microsoft. Bitcoin developers got tired of wasting their time on bug reports from XP users which were due to bugs in XP.
And Windows 7 is soon going to end getting further updates, by January 2020 specifically:  So this will force Windows users to move to Windows 10, and we all know Windows 10 is NSA ware on steroids. I think there are some unofficial patches out there to disable some of the spying stuff but I wouldn't count on it. Not that Windows users were ever safe, but 10 is way worse than 7. It keeps getting worse with each version. It will be interesting to see what happens by then. Will sanity finally check in and we'll see more people moving into Linux? we'll have to find out. |
|
|
|
You can't really know if "the vast majority of the network" is on the same page or not until the D day actually comes. We have already seen miners voting supposed "intention" to support something with their hashrate, then when the day come some of then backpeddle. You would also need all exchanges on board. And ultimately you would need all whales on board, and many of them may not bother to say their opinion at all, then the day of the fork comes and you see an huge dump on your forked coin.
You basically need 100% consensus for a hardfork to be a success and not end up with 2 coins, and I don't see how this is even possible ever when a project gets as big as Bitcoin is (I mean it's still small in the grand scheme of things, but open source software development/network effect wise, it's big enough to not be able to ever hardfork seamlessly again. Maybe im wrong and there is a consensus in the future for a hardfork, but again I don't see how.
What's this fear of having 2 coins? We already have hundreds of coins, most of them being more or less hard forks off of BTC. The free market will decide which coins persists and which coins go by the wayside. BTC has already demonstrated over and over again that it is the honey badger. If we honestly have faith that BTC is anti-fragile, pesky minority coins are nothing but a mere nuisance. Well, isn't it obvious? Ask to someone with a decent amount at stake in Bitcoin if they want to see say, their 100 BTC, crash in value because someone decided to hardfork with the same hashing algorithm, which means that you will see miners speculating with the hashrate while they can. See the recent dip in hashrate, which is the biggest loss of hashrate on adjustment time of the year:  I guarantee you that Bitcoin holders don't appreciate this bullshit. Not that they pose a systemic risk for Bitcoin, but they are annoying and slowing down the rocket. Anyhow, the real question should be: what's the fear of starting your own altcoin if it's such a good idea, instead of constantly trying to milk 5 minutes of fame for your altcoin by forking it off Bitcoin? If your idea is so good, start it as a an actual altcoin and compete. |
|
|
|
The main problem is that most of these scaling solutions that are being proposed will first require a hardfork. This means we'll have the drama of 2 competing bitcoins trying to claim that they are the real one (see the BCash ABC vs BCash SV ongoing war right now). This will not end well. Without consensus we will just end up with 2 bitcoins which are in sum of lesser value than before the hardfork happened.
Most bitcoin whales don't support any of the proposed scaling solutions so far so your scaling fork will end up dumped by tons of coins.
Unlike, BCH, the BTC network already has consensus mechanisms in place that they are willing to use in order to ensure the vast majority of the network is on the same page before proceeding. As demonstrated by the UASF, we can also implement ways to ensure the miners can be persuaded to go along with the wishes of the non-mining users. If someone doesn't want to wait for a high consensus in order to implement their "improvements," they are free to go fork off. That's why we already have hundreds of alt coins right now. As I have already acknowledged, the "bigger block" solution probably won't be practical for at least a decade or so. I have also acknowledged that the second layer solution would probably end up being more efficient with the resources. However, it is nice to know that there is a plan "B" to the scaling solution, just in case the problems with the LN cannot be overcome. You can't really know if "the vast majority of the network" is on the same page or not until the D day actually comes. We have already seen miners voting supposed "intention" to support something with their hashrate, then when the day come some of then backpeddle. You would also need all exchanges on board. And ultimately you would need all whales on board, and many of them may not bother to say their opinion at all, then the day of the fork comes and you see an huge dump on your forked coin. You basically need 100% consensus for a hardfork to be a success and not end up with 2 coins, and I don't see how this is even possible ever when a project gets as big as Bitcoin is (I mean it's still small in the grand scheme of things, but open source software development/network effect wise, it's big enough to not be able to ever hardfork seamlessly again. Maybe im wrong and there is a consensus in the future for a hardfork, but again I don't see how. |
|
|
|
So Bitcoin is designed so that the value of it will increase over time as opposite to traditional money in which the value of it will go down. But won't that make it more like gold instead of actual money?
By the prices of stuff going up in traditional money, it encourages keeping the goods and trading them, for example if someone owns a house that house's value won't just go down with time, it can go through time. But if goods were to keep getting lower in prices then it can as a result discourage buying them and trading. Which makes Bitcoin unusable as money. To keep your money safe of course you can store in a bank as they give you a small amount of interest.
Bitcoin has a limited supply and as time goes by and its popularity increases the prices can go higher and higher, making it less effective to be used as usual money. Imagine how would a shop keeper feel as their good will only decrease in price. And like traditional money which has banks Bitcoin doesn't offer much solution to this.
So even if bitcoin prices were to stabilize, wouldn't it be more like gold than a currency to use like traditional money? Gold is very similar in those terms to Bitcoin.
No,Bitcoin isn't "designed" for that.There's no guarantee that the bitcoin price will increase over time. The price of bitcoin depends of the market demand for btc,there's no guarantee that the demand will rise. The limited supply of BTC doesn't mean anything,because bitcoin can be divided into 1M satoshis. Just read Satoshi's original whitepaper and don't ask questions that are already asked 1000 times. Even satoshi said here in the forums that bitcoin will either be worth "a lot" or nothing at all in the future. So far he was right, since it only keeps going up long term. Bitcoin is not a currency, it's more like gold. The only way that bitcoin can be used as a currency is if the entire world uses bitcoin or at least the most relevant economies. So when 1 BTC = 1BTC there's no need to check it against fiat currencies. Until that day comes, Bitcoin is a better gold, and therefore undervalued at all times for as long as it's marketcap is less so than gold. |
|
|
|
|
There's still hope for a christmas bullrun similar to last year's. Remember that we went from $3000 to $2000 in no time, now we are at $5500 so there's less distance.
Also don't forget BAKKT launches in December 12. So it could start picking traction fast if the platform gets a lot of contracts early. It all could align for another x-mas bullrun.
However I would love to have a bear market or stable price for another year. Cheap coins = unique opportunity to accumulate. It's the only way to get rich long term. Once the next bullrun happen we can say goodbye to sub-5 figure coins ever again.
|
|
|
|
Craig Wright is back with his Bitcoin SV fork, and is showing strenght thus far with the amount of hashrate that is going to support the Bitcoin SV fork.
Apparently Roger Ver and Jihan Wu aren't supporting it, hence why the "hash wars" terms. With Jihan's empire against Craig Wright's 70% current hashrate it's going to be interesting.
The reason I ask about BTC price is because if Jihan wants to ensure CSW doesn't win, he may be forced to allocate BTC hashrate into this developing clusterfuck in BCash.
Will this be a non event or speculators will try to get some BTC out of it from noobs that fall into it?
Why is this fork thingy happening again? I know nothing of what has been going on with the crypto market scenario for the past two months at least, so someone PLEASE explain, cause the internet is well ...being the internet.  I really need to catch up with things around here. And also fuck Craig Wright and Roger Ver and Jihan Wu(whoever the hell he is). It began with a split on CSW and Calvin Ayre's roadmap conflicting with the plans Roger Ver and Jihan Wu had for BCash. As a result, we are watching an ego-trip of 2 wealthy sides that will end up bankrupt or lossing a ton of actual bitcoins in the process, which is good for Bitcoin. Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Cash community said that, nodes do not matter, and the miners decide. Well the miners have decided. Bitcoin SV will be the real Bitcoin Cash! Hahahaha. What now? Will they say that non-mining nodes matter, and that users should decide? Or that Bitcoin SV is an attack?  No. ABC redirected 4Ehash from BTC mining to Bitcoin Cash ABC mining in order to show mining strength. Thereby demonstrating the fact that non-mining, fully-validating clients (often mistakenly called 'full nodes') are irrelevant against the non-sybillable mining power. Which broke some contracts as they used cloud mining of people into their shitcoin. There's a lot of people complaining about how they saw their hashrate mining BCHABC when they bought BTC hashrate. This will not end well on both sides. |
|
|
|
|
The main problem is that most of these scaling solutions that are being proposed will first require a hardfork. This means we'll have the drama of 2 competing bitcoins trying to claim that they are the real one (see the BCash ABC vs BCash SV ongoing war right now). This will not end well. Without consensus we will just end up with 2 bitcoins which are in sum of lesser value than before the hardfork happened.
Most bitcoin whales don't support any of the proposed scaling solutions so far so your scaling fork will end up dumped by tons of coins.
|
|
|
|
The majority of the people around the world are expecting the bitcoin price to reach $10,000 at least but it is currently doing downwards maybe it will fall down to $3000.
Bitcoin likely isn't going to hit anywhere near 10k this year. That's just a magic number people like. Without some huge news driving demand bitcoin will likely stagnate or maybe even continue to fall during Nov/Dec. "The bitcoin price will go either up or down".
That's a great observation and I definitely agree. The price will either rise or fall, and at the end of the year bitcoin will be worth either more or less dollars than it is now.
 On another note, it really speaks volumes on how most people here have no prior experience in investment. Bitcoin goes down like 10% everyone freaks out and starts saying about how it's the end of cryptocurrency. Meanwhile the stocks of Activision Blizzard lost 40% in a month and I don't see investors freaking out and saying it's the end of video games. It's not really the same. Those are companies not video games as a whole. There will always be a market for video games, but not necessarily from those companies. Same with bitcoin. There will always be a cryptocurrency but it certainly doesn't have to be bitcoin. That's where the huge issue lies for me. There's nothing really stopping any other currency from taking over bitcoin, but bitcoin still has the name and media behind it but that may not always be the case. None of the PoW cryptocurrencies out there offer any solutions to the classic scaling problems of Bitcoin. And none of the PoW alternatives are safe enough to go and dump your bitcoins over it. Those alts that haven't had the problems Bitcoin has faced it's simply due them being irrelevant and not hosting any value worth attacking. Scaling or not Bitcoin remains a better gold, and that use case alone is worth trillions of dollars. So how in the f*ck isn't Bitcoin insanely undervalued at $20k or $3k again? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
