that is because the "hype" that eventually leads to higher google searches (showing up in google trends) is just getting started and it would take a couple of months of FOMO before it picks up.

also don't forget that we are in holiday season, literary second day of the new year, so most people haven't even heard about this rise let alone want to FOMO buy

i mainly remember those who were waiting (and encouraging others to wait) for $1500.

i'm not yet convinced about this to be the main reason even though i keep hearing it used as the reason.
most institutional investors are already in and have bought the majority of the coins they wanted to buy. some of them did it months ago.
they also don't go to bitcoin exchanges to buy bitcoin, they go through other channels which means they don't really affect the price that we see in the market.

they were scammed by their own stupidity and this false narrative that have been fed to them that "bitcoin is too expensive".
we can't force people to use their heads.

today marks both a new price record for bitcoin in its decade long history and yet another case of a big FOMO that starts every time a major resistance is broken.
although we are going to see them quite often this year as this is going to be a bigger copy of 2017 as a fresh money starts coming into bitcoin once again.
similar to 2017 it could be expected that the trend continues all through the year with some slow down mid year with the real bubble at the end of the year.

what do you think?

that quote has two parts, and what you are focusing on is the second part ("not producing anything") but the first part which you ignored is the stupidest statement that anybody can make.
bitcoin does have value since it is providing a utility and it doesn't have to produce anything to have that value. and when he says it has no value he is saying it is worthless.

that is just another cointelegraph nonsense. there is no liquidity problem on exchange let alone be as dramatic as being a "crisis". in fact as the price grows the liquidity on exchanges increases by a lot and it becomes a lot easier to buy bitcoin as the order books become tightly packed with orders.

there are liquidity problems if for example you couldn't buy $10000 worth of bitcoin without causing the price to go up 10% which is obviously not the case. for example it currently takes near $6 million to buy the bitcoins enough to bring the price from $28528 to $29000 (less than $500 or 1.7% rise). and that's not even taking the shadow orders into account.
and that's just one small exchange (bitstamp) not all the bitcoin exchanges.

is the signing up mandatory and why can't i make the exchange without creating an account?
i don't have any problem giving my email to sign up but i am afraid the system may not stop there and ask for KYC documents, i just want to swap a small amount of bitcoin with OMNI USDT if that's possible.

those who bumped this old topic and are discussing the same stupid topic all over again are missing the fact that OP was already proven wrong 2 years ago when the bear market did happen and price of bitcoin fell from $20000 down to $3000 in the course of 2.5 years and during that time Tether printed a lot more tokens that they have ever printed specially compared to 2017 (the year bitcoin was rising).

if OP's arguments had any reality to it then price should have never dropped in first place and the bear market that he claimed "will never happen" would have never happened. but we know now that it did happen and Tether never had any effects on bitcoin price.

MIT license is not issued by MIT to projects! it is a license that originated at MIT and it simply defines certain terms and conditions for open source software that anybody can use.

that would work but since the numbers in OP_ADD are limited to 4 bytes and 4 bytes is considered small for seed the design can be considered a little weak.

you have to convert the 32 byte hash to a number and use OP_GREATERTHAN to compare them. there is no OP code for that initial conversion and has to be defined.

because i think that this way the design would be a lot safer since the rules are going to be enforced by the smart contract and can not be broken. the losing party can refuse to sign the transaciton too

Both parties can reveal hashes of their seeds. If anyone won't reveal its seed, then funds will be frozen on the winner's address forever. That's the same what will happen when they send these coins to 2-of-2 multisig address and the loser refuses to sign the transaction in favour of the winner. Funds have to be frozen to make sure they are assigned to the winner.
[/quote]
well this is a big problem. the loser is never going to get the funds anyways so if they don't provide their seed or sign the transaction they make it so that the winner also doesn't get the funds.

you are missing two important factors.
first altcoin traders are mainly trading them against bitcoin, so there won't be any capital coming to bitcoin when they dump XRP to get BTC directly. consequently it won't affect bitcoin price.

secondly when altcoins dump their value decreases a lot specially when something this big and negative happens to them. add to that the centralization of XRP and failure of the company is the failure of the shitcoin so it won't take long to reach zero which means selling XRP won't give people that much capital anyways.

good explanation, it is clickbait but i also think it is kind of an FUD specially since we have no proof of paypal having bought any bitcoins ever since nobody has ever withdrawn any bitcoins from their platform. they are basically trying to tell people that paypal is going to own the majority of bitcoins (and control the price) otherwise there is no reason to use "x% of newly mined coins" as a metric.

it is dumb because it is an answer to a dumb statement. it is not supposed to be wise/correct.
the dumb statement is that if you split 1 whole bitcoin into satoshis bitcoin supply is no longer scarce. among the bullshit tweets there were some points towards the shitcoin forks too which is yet another dumb statement.

---

my observation is that she is just another hypocrite like the rest of them that no one would be surprised when they learn in near future that she has been buying bitcoin.

where is the proof of this?
i have heard this before and the other user also provided no proof. it also doesn't sound like a reality either because miners are spread around the globe and they each receive their bitcoins individually. for paypal or any other company to buy this newly mined coins they have to contact millions of individuals and convince them to sell their  coins to them which is never going to happen.
if you said 7% it would have made sense.

it depends on what you have in mind when you say "drop further". it is perfectly possible to see price reach $30k and then drop to $24k which is a 20% drop.
but if you have a drop down to $19k or basically anything lower than $21k then no it is not possible and it is not a correction anymore.

it is speculation when you are talking about the possible direction price can go in!

this needs a bunch of new OP codes not just one OP_BET.
for starters we have no OP_hash function that takes 2 inputs like HMAC functions do. each hash removes one item from the stack and replaces it with its hash. there is also no OP code to combine the hashes either (like adding or XORing them). there is also no OP code that could take x bits out of a hash and convert it to number.
so that's at least 3 new OP codes apart from the OP_BET.
2 additional ones are also needed to check the amounts and the destinations.

there is also another issue here which is the revelation of seeds. lets assume player loses in the end. if the casino reveals its seed the player can take it and on his machine compute whether he can win or not. if he didn't he refuses to reveal his seed. of the opposite in case user revealed it and the casino was losing.
the reason why provably fair system works in centralized gambling sites is that casinos don't reveal their seed until the bet is over.

i also don't think we need OP_CHECKSIG in this script since there is no need for any pubkeys.

the effects that come at the next halving will only be temporary and purely hype based. just like the previous couple of halvings that we had.
the real effects of halving is what you are seeing NOW. the reduced production speed is not going to affect the price right away because the mined coins aren't finding their way to the market right away. but after a while (like a year) we start seeing how 50% less new coins being created feels like on the price.

this could work fine for something that is not as security critical as a bitcoin wallet that is to store all your money, something like a browser for example. but when the stakes are high you should also take all the precautions as you can. if everyone thinks they have the chance of verifying the code but never do projects end up never being reviewed by anyone.

funny thing is that the same questions was being asked back then too. like you could have bought bitcoin at $3000 a while back or $200 a while more back...

not at all because the price being higher than {an arbitrary amount of time} ago doesn't mean it is riskier now.
it is only risky to buy bitcoin in bubbles and i don't see any bubbles at all.

people always have dreams and you can have them too. you can sit behind your computer in the basement and keep on dreaming about bitcoin dying, dumping, ... while creating dozens of topics every week trying to FUD but the reality is that your dreams never come true when they make no sense at all.

even if you are getting paid to FUD i doubt you are making any amount of money from it and if you are trolling then its just worse because you are wasting your time for free