bst game plan for you. for next time
if you have $10k fiat
break it up into 5 allotments of $2k
buy bitcoin with one allotment. wait for 1-3% and sell it. then buy again and wait for 1-3%
the price tanks. dont worry. leave that allotment set to sell at 1-3% profit as you still have 4 allotmnts to take the next dips

dont hold for 10-100% jumps. just grab 1-3% and rinse and repeat.
think about it. if you can make 1% a day thats 365% a year
dont be greedy waiting out for how high a price can go. just grab your 1-3% and keep repeating

firstly. when people are panicing and selling. there are buyers.
in a market for every seller there is a buyer. thats how markets work

dumb invstors buy high and sell low.
smart investers buy low sell high

right now people SHOULD be thinking its discount week. not panic sell week.

 but im probably guessing ther isnt much real panic selling going on.let me explain

if you imagine there being a buyer with 100btc. i could use one of my play money stashs of just 20btc and fill that guys order twice over.
yep thats right..
yep using real funds and using real legal trading techniques. it can be done

its simple imagine we have a big exchange that other exchanges follow when there is "panic"
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-eth.. then on the eth-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-bch.. then on the BCH-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-eth.. then on the eth-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-bch.. then on the BCH-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it

this is called arbitraging. and can be achieved in many ways. by using different alts, you dont impact their markets which means it doesnt hurt you next round
..

any way


that said a few people could easily move prices LEGITIMATELY (no spoof/ghost acounts) when volumes are low
and without having to risk 200btc to move the price down by 200btc.

and yes the same can be done in the opposite direction to move the price up

if it was just miners. then when the pico pools make a block that deviates from the rules the bitcoin cash network has, the network would just reject the block.
it would need to be a node AND pool attack.. but the end result is the same. they just hash blocks only their system accepts.
its not disruption. its just altcoin creating and social distractions.

anyone can create an altcoin from any network. it does not even need to be 5000 nodes and 51% of hashrate to achieve it.
thus its just distraction drama to keep the "lets keep fingers pointing at ver" drama alive. much like kardashian drama, in the end


the core supporters have already done damage to the community with things like
"blockchain cant scale". meaning they are saying that satoshi's invention has failed
saying LN is the only solution. which is not an immutable ledger network and not even a network thats uniquely going to be used purely for btc
plus they are saying with factories. the users never have to resettle to a blockchain ever again...
showing that it can fork into altcoins

the revolution has been CORE-poratised

funny part is.
ver, bloq(segwitx2) samson mow/lukejr(USAF) and core devs are all paid by the same investors

which is why fee priorities, onchainscaling, trust of zero confirms, bypassing consensus and soon even PoW were/have/will damage the origiinal 2009 ethos of bitcoin

so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium

more social drama distractions.

nerds get excited about number patterns.
anyway its old news now.

moving on

bitcoin monopoly (market term not board game)

bitcoins mining algo is PoW in which it actually costs users funds to maintain the network and create the coin. this mechanism puts a lump of value underlying the price a miner is willing to sell at as they wont want to make a loss.
bitcoins hashrate is more than other networks because the community have put effort into mining it and caused a good underlying value (bottomline value support) for the bitcoin price.
bitcoin has monopolised the mining industry as it has the highest amount of hashrate compared to other coins

unlike PoS coins that create coin and maintain the network at virtually no cost. which is where these PoS coins will not surpass bitcoin. unless bitcoins mining costs deminish substantially

that said, since 2013 bitcoin has LOST other unique benefits that could have strengthened its monopoly (top position) so things to need to be fixed if bitcoin wishes to remain in its top spot and not be replaced by another network that may surpass it if all the mining pools jumped ship and the merchant tools/'we accept crypto' stores swappd networks

we are already seeing signs of the merchant tools monopoly to bitcoin die. just look at coinbase and bitpay. which used to only offer merchants bitcoin as payment. they ave recently added other coins.

we are starting to see other PoW coins use the same ASICS as bitcoin for mining. and there is a chance if those other coins include some of the benefits bitcoin is missing. that mrchants and miners will jump ship.

so never think that bitcoin is "too big to fail". instead demand the devs re-concentrate their efforts on the main bitcoin protocol and fix th mainnet issues instead of being financially incentivised to scream out mainnet cant scale, mainnet shouldnt be used as a currency. just to push people into other networks that are not unique to bitcoin

block times is not the issue. its the trust of zero confirms that has been lost since ~2013
but it really is funny that people, instead of demanding devs fix zero confirm trust or fix onchain scaling. they try to tell people to just use another coin or use another network... (facepalm)

P.S LN is not a solution for bitcoin. scenarios have proved this. and also LN is not a feature that is only utilised for bitcoin, so its not something thats unique to make bitcoin better. othr coins will use LN and thus bitcoin has lost more unique benefits that separate it from other networks

1. visa takes seconds because they DONT settle the transaction in seconds. they just see you have balance available and sign that funds will eventually reach the shop LATER. visa is like a zero confirm transaction. its signed but not settled. shops dont get the funds until 3-5 business days later. check your bank account you usually see 2 lines. one 'available balance' one 'pending'. then even once the funds leave your account the next day they dont arrive at the shops account for another couple days. and even then are still reversible(chargebacks)

2. originally people could trust zero confirm transactions. but the down side to the core devs decisions of functions like 'replace by fee' and 'child pays for parent' is that some zero confirm transactions can be swapped out even when the network has them in the mempool waiting for confirm. even lightening transactions have this issue where users can abuse the system of replacing out an signed transaction with another before its comfirmed onchain thus changing its amount/destination at a whim. and lets not forget their 'penalties' (chargebacks). so even lightening is not a solid system

3. i do agree that devs have put in stupid loops holes and not bothered fixing issues onchain to strengthen it as thier way of pushing people to use the mainchain bypass (LN), but these devs have been given over $100m to create a system to make corporations money by making blockchain look bad. by saying blockchain is slow, untrusted, cant scale.. (facepalm) and that putting funds into 'managed accounts' (multisig channels) is the only way forward(facepalm)

if bitcoin price depresses you. then you are not seeing the signs
here are the signs
"70% off"
"special offer"
"spring/summer Sale"

dont worry about selling.
remember buy low sell high
so the price is low. meaning its time to buy.

registered 2 years ago
yawn .. old news then

i wonder why people ar bringing up old out of date crap that does not affect the code.
usually this occurs as a distraction from something that does matter that people dont want people talking about..

EG
craig wright craig wright drama was brought up the time of the 2015 consensus roadmap.. then a few months later at the consesus backtracking roadmap. then again as the blame of cash.. when in reality it was a push forward of the core segwit split.

CW is a fraud and not even a coder. so have no clue why people even talk about him. but every time there is a big consensus conference or some new bip that core wants to be trojaned in.. social drama about things unrelated to new code is brought up to distract the community.

all i can guess is that people have lost desire for the CW social distraction and now a new foe has to emerge as the distraction.....
but again this ronald guy.. is just that.. a pointless distraction.

if bitcoin core did not change from the legacy rules .. bitcoin core would still only be using only the legacy rules

core split from the legacyrules by enabling weight to get the 4mb weight. and bitcoin cash just increased the base block to get their 8-32mb block buffer

they BOTH changed at the same time..
2 networks.. 2 different rules compared to the rule pre august.  = bilateral split.

as to WHO orchestrated it.. you could argue that is was not core... but then in 2015-2016 Luke JR backtracked out of a consensus agreemnt by saying he was not part of core.
so you can play the social drama of who is or is not part of the core supporters all you like. but if you follow their salaries, you follow who they prefer to side with and who they play these silly social games for. you will see which side was which. and.. guess what

the UASF was not to continue legacy. and was not to create clams 2.0(unnilateral) it was to to be part of a mandatory planned consensus bypassing split where at the exact same block 2 separate rules came into play and the legacy blocks got killed off on that date

after all it it was a whole network of pools wanting segwit and a whole network of nodes wanting segwit.. it would have got activated in december 2016-june 2017.. but the only supporters of it were those tight to a certain team.. but ill let you play around arguing the team game social games as all i care about is code that got implimented without true consensus.

put it another way

a few years ago. some dude copied the code and set up his own network that continued a blockchain from a certain bitcoin block in a different dirction while bitcoin core changed nothing.. that was called a unilateral slit (simple fork) and that guy named his alt CLAMS

but the whole BSCartel of the bitcoin core team, Barry silbert blockstream bloq all converved the august plan where BOTH bitcoin cash began and segit began

learn #478558 its an important number
bitcoin core network starting rejecting blocks that showed a legacy flag instead of a segwit flag and banned nodes that relayed such
so yes core nodes/network did change too

again if nothing changed and bitcoin core didnt fork/go in a new direction. segwit would not have activated
learn about #478558

as for advocating to change the PoW. that is foolish
first of all it will affct EVERY POOL and EVERY block. causing block hashing time delays

also making it a mandatory thing like the core advocates done to get segwit initiated is not consensus. ther would need to be a period of time to get a real true no banning/no rejecting consensus vote.. and then if there is enoughh advocation then a long period of transition to allow both algos to be acceptable to the rules before finally cutting off the old algo when the hashrate of the new algo is good and strong enough to work alone.

P.S no matter what algo is chosen big pools will be inncentivise to pool their rsources to get the biggst slice of the pie they can. so no mattr what do not think it will ever go back to a 1 cpu 1 block situationwhere everyone with a laptop has an equal chance.

a PoW change will not destroy ASICS. as ASIC manufacturers will just redesign and release a new asic and strangely enough they will actually make mor money out of it. while costing average joe more money having to replace old gear.

a PoW change should only happen if there is a flaw to current PoW. eg if sha256 was broke

more social drama to cause community to ruin bitcoin security by changing the mining algo... (facepalm)

funny part is to achieve changing the algo. core would need to do yet another 35% mandatory attack, threatening the network with IP bans and block rejections.. oh but there will be baseball caps available again. (facepalm)

remember this though folks.
one positive lesson about the august 2017 mandatory split.
if blocks dont fit the rules of the network it doesnt matter what they produce, they will get rejected.

the fear is not that a pool can just magic money up 50 billion bitcoins simply by having enough hashrate. their blocks will gt rejjected in 2 seconds no matter what the hashrate is.

the only thing that will happen is that if a pool with large majority does something that does not fit the rules. then the blocks get rejected and the only result is slower block solutions frrom the remaining pools.

changing the algo is DEFINETLY going to cause not only a risk to security but also delays in block solutions from all pools because ALL pools use the same algo.

so a change in algo affects EVERY POOL and will delay EVERY BLOCK
dont let yourself get fed into the fud of what pools can do to blocks(data). and realise the blocks would get rejected if they try..
wise up to the reality that if the network(CODE) changes. it affects everyone

minable coins have an actual cost to create them. thus they have something holding up the value.
miners would be stupid to sell coins at a loss. and so they are a huge part of the support line that keeps prices above a certain level

yes there is speculation above that level that causes the ups and downs. but knowing there is something holding the price up behind it is good.

PoS has virtually no cost of creation so the speculation is nearer to 100% based on emotion and desire and not on cost.
PoW has at present low 90% cost and 10% speculation.. yes last december the $20k rate meant it was 25% cost 75% speculation but atleast people can quantify a bottomline cost value and see where support is roughly set. not the same can be said for PoS coin

for rough math

and because an S9 is 14thash. and uses nearly 1.4kwh (i rounded for easy pen and paper math)
for every 10thash=1kwh
for every 1000thash=100kwh =1peta=100kwh
for every 1000phash=100mwh  =1exahash=100mwh

so with a block being made ~6 times an hour and the network hashrate ~35exa

3.5gwh/6= 583mwatt/block
with 12.5btc a block = 46mwat/btc
= ~$2333 at 5cent/kwh  to mine 1 btc

now for the big question
its the same argument as a farm that produces 10,000 potatos a season but the supermarket only buys 9000 perfectly shaped potato.. the farm then has 1000 potatos that go to rot.. he cant resell them next year.. they are just deemed as rot/waste produce.
so having a family store or a neighbourhood co-op asking to buy 350 'wonky veg' potatos. means the farmr gets more sold and less goes to waste

power plants can produce many gwh.. and once it hits the electric pilons. its gone.. whether its used by resident or industry  or whether the electric is unused. it cannot go back to the power station to then be reused later

EG if a power plant produces 100gwh  but the country/state only USES 80Gwh
the 20gwh does not return to be reused. so its actually good that a industry is buying3.5gwh that would have gone to waste anyway.
yes there is still 16.5gwh that a power plant produces that is being wasted/lost. but atleast now a power plant is getting more utility

id say a good 80% of exchange "hacks" are actually insider retirement plans.

and as long as people stupidly use an exchange as a long term bank account where they are not day trading. then the owner will see a big neon total holdings that will tempt them at one point to retire and run off to a island somewhere, because they can earn more by faking the "i been hacked" scheme, than they could earn by continueing their service for years

so if you have funds in an exchange and you dont trade/use it daily. GET IT OUT of the exchange.

if the only funds an exchange holds is the funds on a daily order book. the exchange will make more money staying alive and allowing trades. instead of running off with the hoards of coins that are not on orderlines but just held in wallets.

put it this way. if there was only 10k coins on orderbooks and daytradres rinse and repeated 5 times a day(at 0.3% fee on 50k vol=150btc/day)
means that in 66 days the exchange can make 10k coins, which is ~55k btc a year  or steal 10k once and forever watch over your shoulder
where as
if 10k coins are on orderbooks. but 300,000 are held on the exchanges wallets like a bank account store.
an exchange would see it will take 6 years to earn 300k. or steal it in one day which is more worthy of looking over your shoulder.

in short dont have more coins doing nothing on an exchange than what an exchange could earn in a reasonable time so its not a temptation

as for the other 20% (well all 100%) of "hacks" xchanges need to stop storing private keys on their webservers. then theres nothing to take from outside hacks because the hackers cant find the privat keys when hacking the webserver

peer to peer is one person to another person.   NO middlemen

not sure what those people above are on about trying to make it sound like peer 2 peer involves intermediaries(middlemen). not sure if they just dont know or they are trying to redefine it to suite some narrative

banks (account wire transfers) are not peer to peer..
cash hand to hand are peer to peer

EG
bitcoin onchain does not need a middle man or the reciever to sign your transaction along side you.(permissionless)
LN does require a multisig authorisation and hopping payments through .(permissioned)

augmented reality.. Pfft
yet another company using buzzwords to make something simple seem complex

the reality is that the IP address attached to a website domain is not the IP of the server hosting the website.
instead its a man in the middle server

think of it like cloudflare. but more intense
with more substance on a cloudflare server than a data push algo, where it will hold thousands of no risk files, code to emulate a real website to waste a hackers time searching lots of files on the cloudflare website and to give cloudflare enough time to back trace the hacker..

here is a simple solution that has been told exchanges should be using as standard for years, but stupidly exchanges dont learn this lesson.
stop putting private keys on the webserver

the complaints were not about the risie/drops of prices causing losses.
the complaints were about not receiving funds/balance when withdrawing/depositing

regulations do not mean that a business is better policed.
regulations mean that the business is following its own policy to police its customers.

consumer protections. which is a completely different category is where policiing the business comes into play.

i truly hate it when people scream businesses need to be regulated, without those screamers actually understanding what rgulations do.
taking the banking crises of 2007-2008. banks have multiple regulations. but ask yourself who got hurt most.. it certainly wasnt the banks

after testing the $6 bottom boundary dozens of times since october and it held well.. it seems that some foolish sellers are going out of the norm. and pushing the limit.
very odd.

even mining pools are now going to start re-evaluating their cost/risk levels as the price is now going lower than the 'deemed value' area

anyway.... DISCOUNT DAY