Yo creo que tengo unos restos de BCH y BSV en algún lado O sea, estos son los que activamente transferí a otra cartera. El precio cuando vendí la mayoría de mis BCH era similar al de ahora, así que la estrategia de Don Pedro Dinero era mucho más conveniente (hablamos del precio de 2017, je ... creo que el BTC estaba en $5000 o $6000).

Para BTG no se si no había que registrarse activamente. Siempre me pareció más bien un scam.

Una de la que me enteré hace poco es ECash (XEC). Es una bifurcación de BCH, antes conocida como "Bitcoin ABC".  La unidad que se muestra en Coingecko ahora equivale a 1:1000000 del fork original, es decir que para 1 BTC de 2017 se debería conseguir valor para unos $30 si no me equivoco.

También existe Bitcoin Diamond, pero está todavía peor, el precio está debajo de los 10 centavos. Sin embargo, para un BTC se emiten 10 BCD, es decir para un BTC de 2017 se conseguirán 70 centavos de dólar o algo así. Igual aún así solo le importará a los hodlers "muy" antiguos.

Me acuerdo además de Bitcore. No es una fork tradicional sino que había airdrops para hodlers de Bitcoin. El precio: 3 centavos por unidad. Llegó a valer $40. Algo similar ocurrió con Byteball, ahora renombrado a Obyte. Vale $7 aproximadamente, pero no me acuerdo como era la relación entre BTC y los coins.

Para otros forks encontré la página https://forkdrop.io/how-many-bitcoin-forks-are-there. Los únicos de los que me acuerdo son Clams ($0.28) y Bitcoin Candy ($0.02, 1:1000). También existe un Bitcoin 2 ($0.32).

Unser Elliott-Freund aus dem Spekulationsforum glaubt inzwischen, dass tatsächlich noch ein Drop kommt.

Seine Begründung ist nicht der "zu hohe" Preis, sondern: Die Elliott-Wellenstruktur wäre sonst unvollständig, da Bewegungen nach unten laut Theorie in drei Wellen vonstatten gehen, also runter1 - hoch1 - runter2 (Welle A, B und C) und das wars. Das war auch der Grund, warum ich nach den 53k eigentlich kein lower low erwartet hatte. Wir hatten aber runter1 (56k) - hoch1 (72k) - runter2 (53k) - hoch2 (70k) - runter3 (49.5k) (selbst erfundenes ELI3-Elliottwellenjargon ). Laut dem User würde die Struktur aber wieder ausgeglichen werden, wenn wir jeweils mehrere Wellen zusammenfassen. Dann würde aber noch ein Drop nach unten fehlen.

Ich quote mal seinen Post, Quelle ist hier:

Wie gesagt, die Prognose wirkt sehr bärisch, ist aber eigentlich über-bullisch, weil sie bestätigen würde, dass der Bulle gerade erst beginnt.

Mir sind diese Erklärungen dann doch etwas zu mathematisch. Es kann natürlich sein, dass viele Tradingbots so programmiert sind. Gerade bei einem Drop, der aber wesentlich von externen Ereignissen beeinflusst wird ("katastrophaler" Nikkei-Einbruch und Nahost-Kriegsangst in diesem Fall) dürfte man meines Erachtens diese Regeln etwas aufweichen. Außerdem sind auch andere Interpretationen möglich. So könnte man auch den ersten Drop unter 60k als Welle A bzw. "runter1" bezeichnen. Dann würde die Struktur passen.

Ein Argument, dass sehr dafür spricht, dass die Region um 50k der Bottom sein könnte, war das sehr hohe Volumen, das fast so hoch war wie beim ATH im März und bei den Zwischendrops nicht auch nur ansatzweise erreicht wurde. Außerdem befindet sich in dieser Region auch das Januarhoch von knapp unter 49k.

Ich glaube also, bei Ruhe in Nahost liegt die Wahrscheinlichkeit über 50%, dass wir den Bottom erst mal gesehen haben.

En la semana pasada vimos otra vez que los movimientos de las bolsas del mundo pueden influir bastante en el comportamiento del Bitcoin.

Lo que me interesa de estos movimientos es la lógica detrás, para saber si algún día nos podamos desacoplar. El oro por ejemplo es un ejemplo de un activo relativamente "desacoplado" de los mercados.

Hay algunas explicaciones que a simple vista "tienen sentido":

- El Bitcoin es un "activo de riesgo", al igual que las acciones, entonces se mueven con la disposición de la gente al riesgo. Cuando hay miedo en el mundo, el precio del Bitcoin puede bajar.
- Cuando las bolsas bajan, es una señal de que la economía anda mal. En el corto y mediano plazo la gente también tendrá menos dinero para invertir en Bitcoin.
- Hay indicadores que influyen tanto a las bolsas como a la disposición o aversión al riesgo, como la tasa de interés. Es lógico que estos indicadores también puede influir al Bitcoin.
- Uno que leí hace poco en otro hilo: Cuando inversionistas que apostaron a una suba de la bolsa se equivocan, y también tienen Bitcoins, pueden vender los BTC para cubrir sus pérdidas (ver acá un post de Silberman, pero creo que también lo decían en el Wall Observer o algo así).

¿Qué piensan ustedes? Yo creo que hay algo de lógica detrás de las explicaciones pero algo no cierra.

Lo que no me cierra es que estos indicadores son todos indicadores que hablan, de alguna manera, del estado actual del mundo. El Bitcoin sin embargo es más bien un activo cuyo gran potencial está en su futuro. Sea como activo de reserva, o como "divisa" para pagos alrededor del globo. ¿Qué importa entonces el "estado actual"? (Creo haber leido esta opinión también en otro hilo reciente.)

Adjunto encuesta para estimar en qué año será que las bolsas del mundo se desplomen y el Bitcoin ... explote O al revés.

What about an own basket of goods?

In Argentina there was rampant inflation manipulation in 2007-13, and in these years an "independent" index was created by a group of economists, called "Inflación Verdadera", with a basket of goods similar to the estimated average household consumption. It was later merged with a similar US project called the Billion Prices Project. It is no longer active but PriceStats, a project collecting prices online, is still there, and it has indices for 25 countries.

It would be interesting to know your idea

Mine would be approximately:

Step 1: If I don't trust the inflation index of my country, create an own index (or search for alternative indices).
Step 2: Compare the different money supply indices (M1, M2, M3) with the GDP and the price index.

Say for example:

(nominal) GDP delta / price index delta => real GDP delta (this is the "real" GDP growth or degrowth based on our own price index)
real GDP delta / M1 [or M2, or M3] delta => debasement

(delta = differences between two points in time we want to compare, e.g. from one year to another, or 2019 and 2024)

About gold standard: I don't know if it's a good idea to return to that, because gold is volatile as well ... A better idea would be a basket e.g. of energy, basic edibles like cereals (prices are widely available), construction materials, metals (precious and non-precious), real estate, and maybe some important end products but the last point would be already probably too complex.

It's ok for me if two conditions are met:

1) the reserve is limited to an amount which don't enable the government to major market manipulation. See my concerns in this thread. The example used in that OP to use market manipulation to implement an address blacklist is perhaps a bit exaggerated, but for example if Bitcoin Core decided to implement more privacy into the protocol there is potential for resistance (governments threatening to sell their coins if Core doesn't "obey" them). Other areas where a government may try to interfere are the PoS or big blocks discussions.

2) if the move is accompanied by a coherent cryptocurrency policy. This means for me that at least there should be acceptance to pay taxes with Bitcoin, a tax policy and regulation not causing major burden for crypto users, and no restrictions regarding the use as a payment means. Recognition as legal tender is not necessary.

3) the reserve is meant to be permanent, this means that it should not be sold. So the goal should not be "hold for 20 years", but "be part of Bitcoin's ecosystem".

A million BTC for the US would violate #1.

The Monero community is preventing this by creating an infrastructure independent from the big exchanges, with specialized exchanges operating in friendly jurisdictions, and P2P exchanges/markets.

And my expectation is exactly the contrary than yours: The price increase from Binance's delisting on is showing that Monero is worthy as an investment. The recovery versus Bitcoin and other altcoins is gradual but quite steady -- a slight return to lower XMR/BTC levels (but never reaching the lows just after the Binance delisting) in July was recently countered by new XMR/BTC highs in the 0.0028 region during yesterday's dip. 0.003 looks very likely soon, and 0.004, where Monero already traded often before Binance's delisting, is also within reach in a couple of months. If people were only using Monero to increase privacy on BTC and other coins, then this move wouldn't be explainable.

In reality Monero is showing the world how Bitcoin for example could continue to exist if the governments were employing increasingly unfriendly regulations.

Monero should be added to the UN Intangible Heritage. Alongside BTC of course

As I wrote in my last post mitigation strategies for 51% attacks were already discussed, like the switch of the mining algorithm. In 2017, for example this was discussed as a last resort action against Asicboost, even if this wasn't really a 51% threat but an efficiency improvement with a patented technology many Bitcoiners rejected. This would stop the attack and leave the attackers with worthless hardware, so it would also influence negatively the incentives to carry out the attack. It would harm the original miners, but a change to PoS would have an even worse effect, as they wouldn't even be able to re-use their installations with other hardware (staying in the Bitcoin business).

Bitcoin could even improve with this move, e.g. switching to a then more modern hashing algorithm.

The attackers, of course, can try to prevent (e.g. investing in botnets for a "second-line" attack too) but the costs would increase drastically.

So my proposed mitigation strategy would be:

1) General measure against any 50+% attack: Leave the door open for a change in the mining algorithm. Don't concentrate on a single algorithm like Scrypt, making it more difficult for any attacker to prepare for this event. Perhaps even maintain a fork of Bitcoin code with several other algorithms, so the switch can happen rapidly.

2) Specific measure against a "rival blockchain attack": Identify a third blockchain directly competing with the attack blockchain (in the case of Ethereum being the attack chain, for example Solana, Cardano or Avalanche). So those invested both in the attacked and the attacker blockchain can dump their stakes on the attacker blockchain buying the third chain's coins, reducing the attacker blockchain's value and increasing the third blockchain's value. The third blockchain's whales will very likely not participate in the attack, because they will benefit much more if the attack blockchain crashes and they can get the market share.

3) Extreme last resort: I would not be against just preparing the ground for a fork with PoS (e.g. with a proof of concept or even a testnet "what could happen" if PoW really fails), which would be never enacted. But the possibility alone should disincentive any attack based on supposed specific PoW vulnerabilities. If #1 is a standard nuclear bomb (can be employed in rare cases like Hiroshima/Nagasaki), this would be the H bomb (will never be used but it's advantageous to have it).

Tampoco es un invento mío eso de la incidencia de los conflictos bélicos o de los eventos globales.

Tiene mucho que ver con lo que llaman la "aversión al riesgo" de los inversionistas. Cuando parece que el mundo está en llamas, es decir en tiempos de incertidumbre, mucha gente en la actualidad no piensa en "apostar" en el "casino" de las criptomonedas (lamentablemente todavía está este estereotipo), sino que se inclina más a formas de ahorro más tradicionales, como el plazo fijo. Por eso el precio del Bitcoin también sufrió mucho durante el inicio de la crisis del Covid.

Es más bien una cuestión del "sentimiento". Y justo en el caso de Bitcoin, sin indicadores como ingresos brutos o ganancia en el caso de una acción de una compañía en los que nos podríamos "apoyar" para evaluar el "estado fundamental", el "sentimiento" es lo que guía el precio. ¿Acaso el Bitcoin era menos seguro o menos útil en 2022 qué hoy, o qué en noviembre de 2021 (para comparar con un período con precios similares a los actuales, pero con hashrate similar a 2022)?

O sea el impacto es más bien indirecto. Y justo el Covid también es un buen ejemplo para un evento que solamente incidió en la época de "máxima incertidumbre". Me acuerdo que en marzo de 2020 había mucha gente, también en este foro, que temía escenarios apocalípticos que podrían ser causados por la pandemia, como guerras civiles, o bien que el virus "nos matará a todos". Una vez que el virus se conoció un poco mejor (mediados de 2020 para adelante) ya las bolsas del mundo y también el Bitcoin nuevamente subieron, porque bajó la incertidumbre.

Ahora bien podría ser que en el futuro eso cambie y el Bitcoin se mueva más como el oro y empiece a subir cuando hay conflictos y crisis en el horizonte, justo porque sus "propuestas de valor" no cambian.

I think our slight disagreement here is that you are generally more optimistic with respect to the future "reserve currency" status of Bitcoin. If we could "bet" that no government would bet against Bitcoin in any time this could prevent them from attacking it.

For me, this is one possibility of many. My "bullish" prediction is that Bitcoin could compete with gold but not replace it completely - i.e. not "the", but "an" important reserve currency. But there are also slightly less bullish scenarios which could also be a good outcome, e.g. an international trade and minor reserve currency.

A point we could mention is that Bitcoin's main virtue, censorship resistance, is irrelevant for reserve currencies, at least of democracies. In the case of sanctioned dictatorships this may be different. But most countries would hold Bitcoin only to participate on its value evolution. This is however similar to gold's case.

I'd almost bet that the consequences of a "Satoshi sale event" would be far less dramatic that some people fear. My prediction would be a flash crash but of less than 50%, and mostly after Satoshi moved the first coins and not as a consequence of the sales themselves (Satoshi would be probably intelligent enough to not use a big market order, but proceed like the LKA Saxony with mostly OTC trades, almost not influencing the price at all). After the fact Bitcoin will have a better distribution and one reason for bear FUD will be gone

The problem is that we can't predict the same thing about a government or state which wants to do harm and thus sell the coins on the "wrong fork" in an aggressive way. The scenario I fear is very similar to the ETH-ETC conflict in 2016. Maybe a "FATF blacklist" would be an extreme measure (I may actually have only mentioned this one as a click/postbait ). But we can speculate about many protocol changes which would be far more subtle and "sound correct" for some user groups, for example another big block discussion, or a slight PoS addition like Ethereum's original PoW/PoS plans. They would not sound like they could destroy Bitcoin but could, for example, erode censorship resistance slightly, and move in a "certain" direction.

As I wrote I'm not totally against the "reserve currency" idea but in my opinion it's not intelligent to promote a too high state involvement.

Der gestrige Dip auf sogar knapp unter 50k bestätigt, dass die Korrekturwelle, die im März begann, noch in Kraft ist.

Im Spekulationsforum gibt es einen Elliott-Wellen-Fan, der behauptet hat, mit einer Korrektur runter auf mindestens 51k könnte die Korrektur abgeschlossen sein. Es wäre aber noch ein tieferer Dip etwa auf 44k möglich. Grund wären die Fibonacci-Retracements.

Interessant ist aber, dass dieser Forist glaubt, dass wir uns nicht in der zweiten Korrekturwelle (Welle 4), sondern in der ersten (Welle 2) befinden, denn alle vorherigen Korrekturen seien nicht stark genug ausgefallen (z.B. Mitte 2023, Anfang 2024 nach der ETF-Zulassung in den USA). Das wäre ein sehr bullisches Szenario: Wir wären dann erst im beginnenden Bullenmarkt, und die Preise könnten in der Welle 5 dann auf weit über 100.000 steigen.

Ich bleibe weiter bei meiner etwas vorsichtigeren Einschätzung, dass wir in der Welle 4 sind. Denn die FOMO war wie glaube ich schon mal geschrieben Anfang des Jahres schon ziemlich stark, und es zeigt sich ja immer noch, dass trotz der vorherigen Abstürze immer schnell wieder Kurse nahe des ATH dran waren. Möglicherweise waren die ~50k dann die finale Kapitulation der Korrektur, ähnlich wie etwa der Dip 2016 im August nach dem Halving. Mit rund 30% wäre sie etwa so stark wie vergleichbare Korrekturen in vorherigen Bullenmärkten. Ob die 5. Welle die 100.000 übertrifft wäre dann nicht ganz sicher, wenn auch doch recht wahrscheinlich, denn das ist ja erst der "richtige Bullrun", den viele erwarten

Dass doch noch etwas Spielraum auch nach unten entstanden ist, liegt wohl an der internationalen Situation, insbesondere am Pulverfass Nahost. Vielleicht gibt es also Bitcoin noch mal im Sonderangebot in ein paar Tagen oder Wochen oder wir gehen ganz auf Tauchstation. Besser wäre es für die Welt, wenn es nicht zu größeren Turbulenzen dort käme. Aber leider ist das Risiko einer größeren Katastrophe meiner Meinung nach dort nicht ganz auszuschließen.

@cryptosize: In general I agree that Bitcoin should be resilient against government attacks until a certain point. But a point, or an amount, where government intervention becomes problematic, in my opinion does exist. 30% of all Bitcoins owned by governments, or 20% by a single nation like the US, would be definitely too much. The manipulation potential is simply too high.

The "problematic amount" however has also to do with the, let's call it "ethical maturity" of the Bitcoin community. If most users would support changes to the protocol which go against privacy and censorship resistance, because they don't care about these values, then the manipulation potential is higher than if the community is aware of these issues and would fork away always if there is any manipulation attempt to the protocol.

I don't rule out Bitcoin's community can reach such a high resilience that even a threat by governments owning 30% of all BTC could be repelled in the way you described (UASF, alternative implementations etc.). But judging from the current state of Bitcoin, with many speculative investors, I remain cautious.

Interesting aspect, but I think I disagree here. Government reserves would be mostly hold in cold storage and not intervene much in the transaction activity. So the simple fact that they own the Bitcoins don't really give them an advantage for chain analysis, I think.

It would be different if there is a government-sponsored wallet software, for example to pay taxes and other stuff. Well, we had that already: Chivo in El Salvador. And they had massive privacy problems, unfortunately. For me Chivo is the main problem in El Salvador's Bitcoin policy, followed by the intransparency of the Bitcoin purchases until last year.

El tema es que hoy a la mañana se había hundido el Nikkei japonés un 12%. Igual esa fuerte baja (extrema, diría yo para una de las grandes bolsas del mundo) se dio más que nada por problemas locales, magnificados por el panorama pesimista en las bolsas del mundo. Y la "bajada" comenzó ya en horas de trading de Asia.

Pero creo que más importante fueron dos cosas: primero, antes de la apertura de la bolsa de EEUU algunas acciones tecnológicas como Nvidia se habían desplomado un 10%. Luego se recuperaron las bolsas de EEUU durante el día y esto creo que también se reflejó en el precio del BTC cuando se pudo finalmente alejar nuevamente de los $50.000. Segundo, el temor al ataque iraní, ayer por la noche se hablaba de que "podía comenzar en cualquier momento". Ahí también hay un poco de alivio ahora porque hay muchas negociaciones para prevenir algo más grande.

En cuanto a eventos "internos al mercado cripto", me pregunto si la decepción por el desempeño de los ETFs de Ethereum, con la pérdida del soporte de $3000 hace pocos días, habrá acelerado algo la bajada. Ethereum bajó más del 25% en un momento. Y los mercados cripto están conectados uno con el otro, así que puede ser que sin este movimiento extremo de ETH la caida de BTC hubiera sido más leve. Sin embargo otras alts se mantuvieron más firmes, como Solana, y algunas casi escaparon el crac, como Monero que bajó menos del 10% en el punto más crítico y ahora ya está "en verde" otra vez.

Reviving this thread because Monero did it again: it largely escaped the big crypto dip. In the last month it only lost 7%, and in the particularly bearish last 7 days less than 9%. Trading currently at 145-150, with daily highs and lows between about $138 (in the moment of maximum panic today morning) and $155.

I believe this happens because Monero is now partly disconnected from the big CEX markets. Most heavy speculation probably takes place on Binance. I don't know where the big drops originated but for sure Binance holders were among those most prone to panicking. And being less exposed to these folks can be an advantage

El "cisne blanco" (=evento esperable) que los precios de remate fueron aprovechados por los traders para comprar. Así de fácil.

El tema es que la situación como expliqué más arriba tampoco es tan mala para el Bitcoin. La situación en EE.UU. probablemente presionará a Powell a una baja de las tasas de interés en septiembre, lo que ayudaría a los "activos de riesgo". Además, las bolsas cayeron un 2-4% (con excepción de la de Japón, que cayó 12%), si bien es significativo, el Bitcoin como siempre "exageró". Y es posible que las bolsas se den vuelta pronto, aunque probablemente estarán un tiempo muy por debajo de los máximos.

Queda la situación en Medio Oriente como posible disparador de precios aún más bajos. Según todos los análisis que leí, Irán no quiere una guerra con Israel y por eso el ataque esperado probablemente se parecerá al de hace unos meses. Pero el tema es que Netanyahu aparentemente no le teme a la guerra con Irán, o al menos sus jugadas (atentados a líderes de Hamas) son de alto riesgo (por razones de política interior - está siendo investigado por corrupción, y entonces apunta al nacionalismo).

Estaría interesante ver los inflows de los ETFs mañana. A principios de julio con el dip de 53k, habían aprovechado para comprar en grandes cantidades. ¿Habrán entrado en "modo pánico" ahora o también aprovecharon?

I get where you're coming from and from a game theory perspective you could be right that an actively buying government could have incentives for an even more crypto-friendly policy.

However, I don't agree that a seizing-based strategy would be automatically "hostile". The advantage to build the reserve from seizing is to bypass the market, its fees and other costs like slippage. If it's clearly defined by law when you can seize and which goal you have, then it can be a "friendly" strategy as well.


I would actually argue that this is countered by the issue that if the government wants to accrue value with its Bitcoin reserve, its stance can't be hostile to crypto. So my guess is that the government would be incentived to clearly lay out its "seizure" policy and limit it to criminal proceedings that would also result in seizures of any other asset they seize, and not trying to find more reasons to seize.

Also a government is not a monolithical entity. The authority responsible for seizures (judicial system) and the authority responsible for the Bitcoin reserve will probably not follow the same goals.

About the poll: the option of an actively buying government is obviously legit, but actually less popular than I thought ... that might have to do with the bias of my first post in this thread.

That's interesting, do you know any example? I've still not seen it.

Agree. Services and above all digital items (say videogames, music downloads etc.) are perhaps the most convenient categories of goods for this strategy, however also those you would sell for a discount anyway (those not selling well), as I wrote in the OP

That's of course true, but a 2% drop (even a 1.5% may be enough to make this work) occurs every couple of days, so the merchant can benefit from this opportunity quite often. More often in bear markets of course (however then he would have to hedge better.) Of course this "promotion" would only work when there is a dip, so the best option would be an automated process in your shop software (you can previously assign the items you like to offer for this "discount").

My point of offering this kind of "discount" is that the opportunity for the customer may look bigger than it is really and the merchant can benefit from that. For example, many people could already panic in a 3-4% drop like today and take the opportunity to buy items offered at a $61k Bitcoin price, but if you offer a 3-4% discount not many would care (5% is the absolute minimum, 10% is better).

Take the example I gave in the OP: Someone staring at the chart seeing the price dropping from 60k to <58k and fearing it could go to zero or at least to $50k or so. Now an ad pops up offering products taking the BTC for $61k. I think the click rate would not be bad for such an ad

Those people like you describe (those carefully considering to spend their BTC) may exist but there are also more "compulsive" buyers/sellers.

(By the way I think this would even work better with LTC or XMR, or Lightning [no LN discussion here please] as the user hasn't to care about fees and it would also be possible to offer low-cost items.)

No, I meant 2% intraday. 20% intraday is very rare except in deep crashes (FTX, Terra/Luna for example). I would guess even if there's a continuous slide of 1% every day (e.g. 63000 - 62400 - 61800 etc.) this tactic could work.

I wrote already in the OP that this tactic is not meant as a general principle, but as an alternative to e.g. discount coupons, and normally would be limited to certain products. Items that don't sell well (and you want to empty your deposit), digital goods where volume is more important than margin, services that aren't selling well but convenient for you, et cetera. The e-commerce space is full of discounts. So why not offering one targeted to Bitcoiners?

Most merchants who accept Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies automatically adjust the price in Bitcoin of their goods or services when the BTC/fiat price changes. A good which was worth 1 BTC one day would thus be priced 1.05 BTC the next day if the BTC/USD price went down 5%.

Perhaps sometimes an exception for this rule makes sense when the price dips significantly (say, 2% or more), like today.

Merchants often need to empty their deposits from goods which sell worse than expected. So they often reccur to promotions, like 10% discounts or coupons.

A Bitcoin price dip gives the opportunity for a special kind of price promotion: Sell the goods to yesterday's Bitcoin price!

The idea is to benefit from the sense of urgency of Bitcoiners when they fear the price could go down further. They can't sell their Bitcoins for yesterday's price. And often people stare on the charts seeing the price dip lower and lower, regretting they didn't sell yesterday. But with such a promotion, they can buy things for their BTC - for yesterday's price!

This could be a good idea for several reasons:

- First, it's an opportunity to increase sales volume (above all for goods which didn't sell that well) with a relatively low discount. Discount coupon codes often have to offer 10% or more to attract people's attention, and a 10% BTC/USD crash a single day has become rare (even if it still occurs).
- Second, while you of course can use your usual hedging strategies to protect from further drops, you can also to chose to hodl the coins entering from these promotions. The long-term price evolution of Bitcoin has, until 2024, been positive. And often the dip is over quite fast (although you have to be aware of potential of further drops).
- Third, you can market this promotion as a "backing" of Bitcoin's price, making Bitcoiners happy!

Does this make sense? Write your opinion

In den letzten Tagen habe ich drei weitere Projekte hinzugefügt: Polkadot, NEAR und ICP. Damit sind alle "Ethereum-Killer" abgedeckt, die derzeit in den Top-25 bei Coingecko zu finden sind, bis auf wie gesagt Toncoin, den ich hoffentlich bald nachholen kann (Edit: auch Tezos möchte ich dann einbringen, auch wenn er tiefer gerankt ist). Polygon (MATIC bzw. bald POL) war noch so ein Grenzfall, er wird aber als Ethereum-Layer2 vermarktet, und die will ich hier erst mal rauslassen. XRP hat meines Wissens nach keine turingmächtige Smart Contracts, genauso wenig wie Chainlink.

Ich habe zwei kleine Änderungen bei der Punktzahlberechnung hinzugefügt, die aber die ersten Coins nicht betreffen:

- Einmal gibt es Coins, bei denen am Anfang Token/Coins gegen Leistungen von Drittentwicklern ausgeschüttet werden, z.B. für dApps und Exchange-Plattformen, was auf Englisch gern als "Ecosystem" bezeichnet wird. Diese Coins werden der ICO/Vorverkaufs-Kategorie hinzugefügt, denn es handelt sich auch um eine Art Verkauf (einen Tauschhandel).

- Dann gibt es Coins mit einer "Treasury"-Fee, die jedoch nicht direkt den Gründern oder Entwicklern zugute kommt, sondern von einem DAO verwaltet werden. Auf diesen Fall bin ich bei Polkadot gestoßen. Ich habe mich dazu entschieden, bei solchen Coins den Strafzuschlag auf 1.5x abzuschwächen. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die Gründer auch in diesem DAO stark vertreten sind, theoretisch ist jedoch eine graduelle Dezentralisierung möglich.

Well, two things:

First, I don't really understand your problem with the poll. It's three different options: two with a government only keeping seized coins, and one with the government actively buying coins. The "holding seized coins" is more likely in countries without an extreme pro-Bitcoin strategy (say El Salvador) -- even Trump's proposal is "only" hold seized coins, not to buy actively. Maybe you mean that I should have included an option with the government actively buying, but only a limited amount, so the poll is more complete? (Yep, if this was a scientific study, I probably would have designed the poll with that option ... but for a forum post I think it's better to simplify sometimes.)

Second, I don't see such a large difference between both strategies. Not selling seized coins is basically accruing opportunity cost, because if you auctioned the coins (like the LKA Saxony did) you would have an income in fiat, but holding them means renounce to that income. Basically it's the same thing like buying coins actively for the same amount.

The only real difference in my opinion is predictability. The amount of seized coins is difficult to predict. However, for example the first El Salvador buys were also not really systematic - Bukele wrote always he "bought the dip", but the dip went deeper and deeper in 2021/22 ...

El Salvador shows also other options for a country to get the coins, like BTC income from taxes and fees, like in the case of El Salvador's residency and investment programmes.

Your post seems to imply that you've not too many problems with these countries holding Bitcoins, but what if their policy changes? Even if it's not an aggressive anti-crypto stance or a "intervention" like I posted in the OP, there are scenarios where governments could change to another asset in the future. One idea could be some kind of "AI managed resource-based currency" (=not the current AI altcoins, most are probably scams). The possibility is always there.

Or is your post meaning that governments could disappear, or at least reducing their importance? That would be a more interesting scenario (perhaps worthy another thread)

Medio Oriente nuevamente nos trae Bitcoins baratos, je. Esta vez en una extraña sinergia con la situación económica estadounidense. [1] Posiblemente también habrá algunos de los 100K "gox coins" recién devueltos que están paniqueando.

Se especula que mañana (lunes) Iran atacará a Israel, y se espera un golpe más potente que la última vez. Es decir: si hay un día para que retestear el rango debajo de 55k, probablemente será este lunes.

Si el ataque nuevamente no llega a mayores, podría ser una buena oportunidad de compra.

---

[1] Digo "extraño" porque la mala conyuntura laboral en Yanquilandia en realidad no debería ser una señal tan bearish: Sube la probabilidad que las tasas de interés de la Fed bajen en septiembre. Y hasta le da probablemente más chances de ganar a Trump, si realmente EE.UU entra en recesión.