It seems that 2018 will go down in the history of the development of cryptocurrency as not the most successful.
Lol? Firstly, the price doesn't represent what's happening in the background. Secondly, we have had years far worse than 2018 in terms of price action (look up the charts). People only see what they want to see. They completey disregard that what's happening in the OTC markets. In the last 24 hours there has been more than $3.6 billion worth of transaction activity on Bitcoin's network. Considering that we're going through a bear market and the global activity is on the lower side, these on-chain value transfers indicate a booming off-exchange industry. Interesting on-chain value activity over the last 24 hours; Bitcoin $3.6 billion. Ethereum $407 million. BCash $93 million. Litecoin $85 million. XRP's data can't be fetched. Source; https://bitinfocharts.com/Novogratz is one of these Wall Street guys that has no idea about the actual tech and just goes on television repeating whatever latest buzzwords he has learned lately to pitch his bags. I mean the guy was holding big ass bags of Ethereum and other altcoins. He has no idea about the fact that Ethereum is deep trouble with a blockchain that is impossible to sync a full node from scratch anymore and goes offline when people are trading whatever latest meme of the hour (crypto-kitties or whatever). The whole thing is a ridiculous clusterfuck and still a top5 altcoin. I may agree with not seeing much action until 2019, the graph needs to stretch a bit this period of a stable price for a while, then it will look nice and ready for the next bull run. Of course, fundamentals rule and Bakkt may put higher speed on this rocket, but I believe we'll see a delay on the impact it will have on the price for a while. |
|
|
|
The governments were not controlling their country's money,it was controlled by their central banks. the government has no control over it so, why are they allowed? This sytem was founded in the 18th century and the system hasn't changed that drasitically as they are still following this system and they are making all the money to decrease in value over time. I could be wrong now and there could be even more factors playing a big part in this and if so, that can be further discussed.
The situation is now worse than ever. In the past at least we had a period of gold-backed money. Keynesians may point at how we've had so much growth in the past few years. But at what costs? The whole system is now out of hand because of the money printing helicopter QE's, governments don't want to let banks fail and they will keep getting bailed out which will just keep delaying the inevitable (and making it worse). When we had gold backed money we didn't had these ridiculous fluctuations in unemployment we are seeing. We need a culture of long term planning and not mindless consumerism which is what Keynesian politics deliver since money can just keep getting printed as needed instead of acknowledging limited resources and time, but this doesn't matter for deluded Keynesians. |
|
|
|
I would like to know the rate of cmc is adding alts and the cap of those alts.
its up to 2112 now, and was 2000 not so long ago, I feel this is distorting market cap, as a very long tail is developing.
This would be a good graph to look at. Unfortunately it seems coinmarketcap is not keeping track of this Maybe we should send the admin an email and hopefully he has saved all the stats in a log, so we could create a graph and correlate with other variables. I believe altcoins were going up at an exponential rate until the 20k peak, then when all the noobs started selling I assume new alts started going down in % of new releases. It definitely distorts the reality of things. Most altcoins are dead, but bots and irrelevant amount of trading still happens. The sum of all these zombie-coins creates a delusion of value in the altcoin market and diminishes bitcoin % domination, when the reality is bitcoin may be near 80% marketcap again if you don't count all the shitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
It's awesome, we need all these big names that pop up on television turning bears, this is how markets bottom, big bulls turning bears, big drop, a flash crash, and then we start turning. Sometimes there isn't even a flash crash but a long period of a boring stable price were nothing happens.
Just remember for instance the Mike Hearn moment, that is how typically markets bottom in this space. A Novogratz/McAfee/Ver etc giving up would be excellent (again, assuming we haven't bottomed already).
|
|
|
|
|
The main problem is we would need a hardfork to implement any of these changes, which ultimately are changes on the fundamentals on bitcoin, so expect a ton of opposition.
We may need to be under actual attack for people to wake up and align against attackers with a ton of hashrate. Sadly this is how humans seem to work, we may need to be pushed into the cliff first to actually make it happen, however it's not a waste of time to have the plan B prepared.
As far as China does, as long as the cheap labor and cheap electricity is mostly there, then things will stay there I guess. But the Bitmain monopoly is alread showing big cracks, specially after being stuck with massive BCash bags.
|
|
|
|
Its a monopoly on the production of national currency, some might say well the government should command this facility to stop fraud and counterfeits. The problem is there is no set schedule to that system of money, its value is not tied to anything and ultimately the money is produced in line with political will.
The origins of the US dollar were eroded at various points that otherwise would have supported its value and stopped this descent. One of the most mentioned in the news is the fiscal budget ceiling, which is raised at every question. This ceiling should fixed but as money itself declines in value the costs also rise needing a constant raise just to stand still.
What should be happening is a fiscal surplus but there is no political will to force such a harsh change in climate to the current continual deficit spending policies. The only likely change will be external to USA and hence this failure of control represents a probable national threat.
Its not unknown or unrecognised by many parties but so far it has been unstoppable. This is not capitalism, the means of value and capital are with the people as is the production. It differs strongly with a nation guided by nationalised ownership of major assets and business. Fixing rates (and monetary production) is just one such dominant assets operated by government, theres no question they must continue to devalue dollar so long as the debt goes unpaid in deficit budgets.
Its part of the backdrop to crypto and the stressed importance of distributed ownership and operation to split vested interest and bias
It always seemed ridiculous to me how the whole point of government issued money is basically being forced at gunpoint to accept a product, that is, their product. They will shut down anything that challenges the status quo. There isn't even competing banks, everything is extremely centralized. If at least banks were able to compete with each others and decide on how the money is issued, but there's nothing to do, you either accept it or you are dead basically. The fact that they haven't put a war on bitcoin only leads me to two conclusions: 1) They will, but they haven't war mode against it yet, they still don't consider it a treat for the status quo because it's too small 2) They've realized they can't ever get rid of it and they will eventually adopt it as world reserve currency (after demoralizing everyone but hardcore hodlers into dumping coins to them for cheap prices) |
|
|
|
Last year's bull run.
No Bakkt.
No ETF.
No lightning network.
We will see on how will these going to fuel the next bull run.
True, however we had a halving, which at the end of the day is the real deal, since the supply is shrinking and it's a cold shower to remember that fact. Some people seem to forget that bitcoins are limited in amount. There's bitcoin for everyone, it's just a function of price. However, there is limited space that you can claim on the blockchain. When you understand this you stop fucking around looking for the next government-approved toy, be it in the name of CBOE Futures, ETFs or whatnot, and you simply start accumulating and holding. Then it's just a matter of time that the price goes up. The rest are just extras that may speed up the rocket. |
|
|
|
|
Both ETF and BAKKT are obviously bullish forces (just like the Futures were going to be used to manipulate the price on the bear side). As far as it getting approved, I think BAKKT doesn't go through the the same endless approval requests as the ETF proposals do, it will just go live on november and it's confirmed.
There are big names involved which will use the infrastructure. I even saw Goldman Sachs linked to it, however it seems the information was inaccurate, but they will talk about it and they may trade futures through it.
In any case BAKKT is a big deal because if I got it right they will need to actually buy bitcoin, it isn't like CBOE futures where it's just smoke and mirrors derivatives bullshit, here its supposedly all backed by real actual bitcoin, which means price going up.
|
|
|
|
|
You will need to prove where these 5000 ETH came from. As long as you stay within crypto they can't really track anything, but once you sell for fiat and it shows up in your bank account, they will most likely ask where these 100k bucks came from. Some have argued otherwise (that any generic explanation will do as long as you pay the tax). I don't really believe this, specially for 6 figure deposits, you'll get audited, and you better have the proof for your funds have a licit origin, and here is the problem, if the gains come from an illegal security (as far as I understand, most ICO's) you may be in trouble.
I have a big headache myself getting all of my transactions sorted, taking screenshots and anything I can find, because all of my coins are from legal origin and I want to be able to prove that if I ever cash into fiat (and even if you don't cash out and you want to buy a house directly with bitcoin, they will still ask)
|
|
|
|
Hope this good news will add positive trading volume to all cryptocurrency, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has set a late October deadline to begin reviewing proposed rule changes that would allow several regulated exchange operators to list bitcoin ETF products on their trading platforms. source of this news https://www.ccn.com/resurrection-sec-to-begin-reviewing-9-rejected-bitcoin-etfs/I'm sorry but I don't think it will bring any impact on the current price. Its just a review and nothing more. They have rejected everyone so I'm sure that we will get the same results here. I'm not against any ETF, it has both advantage and disadvantages, however, those who are in line for review is no different from each other, it still doesn't answer the universal question that SEC has been asking for "how can they prevent the market from being manipulated? I don't really see an ETF being officially approved before 2019, perhaps even 2020 or even 2021. These bureaucratic things take ages, which is why I don't really care about the ETF, I can't really take this seriously, I mean, if it's not actual bitcoins traded it's a bit of a joke to me but whatever. I cannot negate that it will have an impact on the price (a positive one). At the same time we have BAKKT around the corner, which basically does the same thing as ETF as far as im concerned, without the endless queue for approval on SEC's side. I can't wait to see what it does to the price, I think it was coming this November. If it pumps Tone Vays and other shorts may get rekt bigly. |
|
|
|
I think it's delusional to claim they don't care about the origin, otherwise people would be selling illegal stuff on the darknet and then putting it into some exchange, making some gains and reporting it as capital gains.
Let's say you put 1 BTC in some exchange, and this BTC was made with signature campaign posting for instance, across a couple of years or so. You then x100 that in some exchange, and then you put your 100 BTC back into your Bitcoin Core wallet or whatever.
In 5 years Bitcoin goes past $100k, so you are sitting on 10 $million now, and you want to buy a million dollar house. When you cash out this million, they will obviously ask where the money came from.
You may have screenshots and whatever proving you got paid to post in some internet forum, but then, if you lost your altcoin trading history in the exchange, you cannot prove how you made this BTC go x100.
How this isn't a problem?
Al Capone got busted for tax evasion. He didn't get busted for inability to prove where his income was derived from. That's not a coincidence. The IRS does not ask for the origin. They only ask for very general categories of income (including itemized capital gains). You're veering off into paranoia when you say that possessing money automatically means the presumption of illegal activity, and further that this warrants investigation by law enforcement agencies besides tax authorities. Do you have anything to support these theories, besides hypotheticals? It's been explained already that the threshold (at least in the US) is whether reporting was "reasonable" and in "good faith." For example, see this answer from a licensed CPA: Question: "If I have non-covered capital gains. and do not have a record of investment cost, how can I arrive at a cost for tax?"
Answer: "You need to enter a reasonable and good-faith estimate of cost basis. The IRS is receiving the 1099-B information from the broker, but is relying on you to report the correct category and/or cost basis. Otherwise the entire proceeds will be considered gain.
(It would be unreasonable for the IRS to claim you did not pay anything for the investment (Cost basis = "0", total proceeds taxable). It would be unreasonable for you to claim the total proceeds as the cost basis (no taxable income)." I'm really not sure where guys get these ideas about proof -- "if you can't prove the source, you'll lose everything or get dragged off to prison" etc. That sounds very outlandish to me. I've been filing tax returns on behalf of clients for many years as well as my own, and I deal with CPAs and tax authorities regularly. Anyway, personally, I would avoid talking to the IRS directly about your own case. Consult a qualified tax professional (or two) and follow their advice. That way, if the IRS ever comes after you -- highly unlikely IMO if you pay your taxes with reasonable accuracy -- you'll have formed the basis for a "reasonable cause and good faith" defense. Im not sure about the IRS, but you can ask about people from Europe, in certain countries you are by default a criminal unless proven otherwise (basically). You are delusional if you think you can put $100k worth of bitcoin in your bank account, and they aren't going to ask you were the money came from and you better be able to prove it. For instance, if you get paid in bitcoin for selling some product or service, they will ask for invoices, proof that the money doesn't come from illegal activity, or if you get paid to post on forums and your coins are eventually worth $100k, you can't put them on your bank and say some vague explanation, im sure they will want deeper details. Im not sure what exactly, perhaps screenshots of the threads or whatnot, I've never known anyone that cashed out big signature campaign-derived amounts. Also check this out US related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_StatesYou have your excuse already. If the government will really require your reports then tell them what happen, that the trading site should be held responsible for the transactions records that lose. Anyway, you are legal person and you hide nothing. In our country, we are not oblige to submit reports but the government will just review all of our transactions records in the exchanges.
Yeah the problem is governments don't see us as humans, but numbers, so "my excuse" (even if the truth) may not work out well. In my case it's the truth, but actual criminals could just claim that it happened to them too, so I understand that from that PoV. However what im supposed to do then, if not just hold these coins forever (alternative being to gamble my legal-activity earned money in some vague definition of "good or bad faith") |
|
|
|
|
Governments will not run a survery to their citizens asking: "Do you want us to regulate Bitcoin?" in fact, specially when it comes to the status quo of money, they don't care about the citizens opinions, they do what's on their agenda.
They are going to keep regulating all exchanges that fall on their jurisdiction and it will keep getting worse. Just look at Poloniex for a picture of what will happen to all exchanges within reach of big brother governments. I used to trade there with some fake name, I was free to trade any coins I wanted. Recently it seems its impossible to do anything without a picture of your ID, phone number, address and what not, and I never trusted crypto exchanges with my data so I left when I still had the opportunity and never came back.
Now the problem is, if I want to cash out some of these coins to buy a house, the government will ask for the origin. I hope it's not a problem that I used a fake name, I mean years ago it was the wild wild west.
Even if I don't cash out and buy it directly with bitcoin a couple years from now, they most likely still ask for origin of funds, you must be able to prove that your coins don't come from illegal activity. Obviously all of my coins are legal, but the trace is not clear since I lost some trading history on some exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Latest news point to Khabib refusing a $15 million deal for a McGregor rematch, that was the offer that Dana White made to him recently it seems. He has said that he doesn't want to fight Conor again, and he will fight Tony Ferguson then retire.
If I was Conor I would be really pissed. It must suck getting beaten and not getting a rematch, but I would try to look forward and focus on the next opponents. If Tony beats Khabib and Conor beats Tony, Conor will get somewhat of a vindication, specially if he manages a to do it in a spectacular fashion like one of the quick KO's we've seen before. Tony is known to have a rather wobbly chin, but he is a killer that doesn't give up easily.
Maybe if Conor wins against Tony Khabib will be back for the rematch. It's also possible Dana White offers him an higher deal and keep making it as high as needed for the inmediate Conor rematch.
There will be a Khabib vs Mcgregor rematch, there’s too much money & too much interest for it not to happen. It’s all part of mind games & negotiating tactics to turn it down at first. Dana will make them both an offer that they’ll be unable to refuse. They’re in this game to make money & Dana/UFC has lots. Actually I just found this video here with Dana White: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV3jWSpMiEULooks like everything is in good standing now and Khabib will continue fighting on the UFC. How many fights he has left it's yet to be seen. The money will surely be huge for a rematch, but I believe Khabib is increasingly scared to lose his undefeated status with each fight he takes, I think he feels like he is starting to gamble with it. I think he could really retire after Tony, and maybe actually go for the Floyd match for an huge payday. Conor is going to be active nonetheless, he signed a 6 fight contract I think. I hope we get to see the rematch in one of these. |
|
|
|
What I mean is, something similar to what these guys are doing in Foldincoin, Gridcoin, etc: https://www.foldingcoin.net/https://gridcoin.us/http://www.trnicely.net/dense/dense1.htmlThere are many critics of Bitcoin that argue how "Bitcoin's PoW wastes too much energy". I can easily refute that by pointing to how it secures your bitcoins being safe. However, what if we also had hashes being solved that were relevant in other contexts (see examples provided). We could make multiple points of the hashrate usage. Did satoshi avoid this in purpose to avoid possible game theoretical incentive problems so he made it strict bitcoin without side use cases? |
|
|
|
|
Latest news point to Khabib refusing a $15 million deal for a McGregor rematch, that was the offer that Dana White made to him recently it seems. He has said that he doesn't want to fight Conor again, and he will fight Tony Ferguson then retire.
If I was Conor I would be really pissed. It must suck getting beaten and not getting a rematch, but I would try to look forward and focus on the next opponents. If Tony beats Khabib and Conor beats Tony, Conor will get somewhat of a vindication, specially if he manages a to do it in a spectacular fashion like one of the quick KO's we've seen before. Tony is known to have a rather wobbly chin, but he is a killer that doesn't give up easily.
Maybe if Conor wins against Tony Khabib will be back for the rematch. It's also possible Dana White offers him an higher deal and keep making it as high as needed for the inmediate Conor rematch.
|
|
|
|
Okay, what I need to understand is why are we suddenly talking about stability and stablecoins a lot in recent weeks? I know anything Bitcoin speculation tends to go in cycles, but I thought we'd already ridden the last stablecoin wave, moved on to crypto index and stable baskets... Volatile patterns aren't going away anytime soon, and speculators aren't going to wish it away anytime soon.
Seriously, what's the big deal? We know Bitcoin is like this and we've known it for years.
Because a lot of people are new and have only been through the period of bubble-burst and not throw the period of a stable-ish (in bitcoins standard), which is precisely when the smart people are paying attention, that means, no mention of bitcoin on most mainstream local media, since they only report on bitcoin when: 1) It's going up a lot 2) It's going down a lot They miss the long periods of a stable price, this stable price being an higher floor than the previous stable price, which as a result points to a long term bull that never stopped. Most people are too short sighted to see that and accumulate when the noobs aren't around anymore (until the net moon rocket which is when they will flock back in) |
|
|
|
Well, Satoshi did not create Bitcoin for the so retail and wholesale people. He created Bitcoin for you & I to hold, be our own bank and trade Bitcoin Peer-to-peer. Stuff like this are pure deviation that will likely centralize Bitcoin in the long run. And once it is centralized, ideological crypto enthusiasts will have something to criticize about. However, if bitcoin price is not stable within a range there is not going to be adoptions No, there is going to be adoptions. And Bitcoin is not designed to be stable. A stable price means it becomes inflationary like mere fiat. Finally centralized/ Institutional adoption will destroy the ideals of Bitcoin because they will buy Bitcoin and sell to people just like centralized exchanges do. Bitcoin was meant to be different from PayPal but it seems they are gradually turning into PayPal in the name of adoption. I don't know what satoshi had in mind when it comes to retail usage/adoption, but (again assuming he was a real person and not some team with hidden agendas and whatnot) he was smart enough to know that the price would be either "a lot" or "0" in the long term, as quoted in one of his posts here or perhaps in the mailing list. Anyway, the point is, he knew the price would keep going up, which gives an incentive for people to hoard it. Whether he saw that this would make it less interesting to use to make your groceries with or not I don't know. Im sure he did know but may not have mentioned it explicitly. The point is, your local fiat must collapse for people to spontaneously start using bitcoin out of necessity, until then, it's a better gold (which is more than enough for it to be awesome, I mean c'mon, we didn't had this only less than 10 years ago). By the time fiat actually collapses, we will hopefully have fast, cheap transactions for retail payments, and all long term holders will be rich and ready to spend their coins. |
|
|
|
Conor seems to be back on instagram not too bothered about to the fight. He was partying with celebrities again, Migos and other rapers, and he's also seen with Jerry Jones in the Cowboys games. Win draw or lose Conor is going to continue being a massive name in sports and entertainment.
I think even if it doesn't seem to bother him much, he really hates that he lost and he will be back into the gym soon motivated for the rematch, perhaps not making it public to make them think he is just partying. I saw good things in the fight, he was able to counter some of the elite grappling by Khabib, the big problem again is that his gas tank got emptied.
Big technical mistake too with that right overhead hand landing on Conor. Looks like Khabib tricked him into pretending a takedown and threw that right instead.
A lot of haters or deluded Khabib fans now think Khabib is a better striker than Conor because of that.
I think there will be a rematch and it will be better than many are assuming. I just hope that Khabib doesn't leave the UFC as per latest news. To me it will just look like him dodging the Tony fight.
He cannot decide for a rematch, the public already know it's a convincing win by Khabib, he needs to move on, look for a fighter that he has a chance of winning so he will be back in the winning path again, that is when the excitement will come and maybe people will again pushing a rematch against Khabib. In the end, it's just a speculation because lots of unpredictable things happen in the world of sports, because money talks afterall. I think he can certainly push for a rematch. He already called Dana White, and im sure Dana is going to give him a rematch and is going to try as much as possible to get it done. The big brawl after the fight made it perfect for a rematch, the story would sell a lot, and contrary to what most people are saying, some legit MMA fighters and jiu jitsu guys stopped some really good work by McGregor on there. If he can make the necessary adjustments I think he could win. Im not saying I would put my money on McGregor, but there is a chance, and the money will be too good to say no. However Khabib is threatening UFC to leave if they don't unban his 2 friends involved in the brawl so who knows, maybe Khabib leaves, which would mean a big question mark on his record since he dodged Tony Fergusson. Also worth mentioning rumors of Khabib vs Mayweather in boxing for another boxing-MMA hypejob. Once again a lot of others on this one, but I would sure watch that. |
|
|
|
|
All these guys saying all the time how "we need a stable price to increase adoption" get exposed when the price is actually stable, but guess what, people keep using bitcoin mostly as a gold alternative, which means we must put store of value as number one priority.
I haven't studied this data deeply but I would like to see some correlation charts of periods of time of stable price and % increase of use in retail. I would guess that there's no correlation at all because as I said, people will hoard bitcoin regardless and keep using fiat which is the deprecating asset.
For bitcoin to replace fiat it needs to become everything, people must think in terms of bitcoin and not dollars, euros or whatnot. We are still far from that, but we don't really need to get there to see massive price increases.
|
|
|
|
|
Conor seems to be back on instagram not too bothered about to the fight. He was partying with celebrities again, Migos and other rapers, and he's also seen with Jerry Jones in the Cowboys games. Win draw or lose Conor is going to continue being a massive name in sports and entertainment.
I think even if it doesn't seem to bother him much, he really hates that he lost and he will be back into the gym soon motivated for the rematch, perhaps not making it public to make them think he is just partying. I saw good things in the fight, he was able to counter some of the elite grappling by Khabib, the big problem again is that his gas tank got emptied.
Big technical mistake too with that right overhead hand landing on Conor. Looks like Khabib tricked him into pretending a takedown and threw that right instead.
A lot of haters or deluded Khabib fans now think Khabib is a better striker than Conor because of that.
I think there will be a rematch and it will be better than many are assuming. I just hope that Khabib doesn't leave the UFC as per latest news. To me it will just look like him dodging the Tony fight.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
