BTC feeling the realtive market Cap decline

[Pursuer]

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

how dare you lie to us. marketcap is so meaningful without a doubt.
don't believe me, take a look at this screenshot.


this very good, very useful altcoin which is marked here it is being used all around the world. people left USD for it, it had the 3rd place on market cap list which shows how it is very 100% meaningful. soon CUBE will replace bitcoin and then USD. now you wait. I just don't know why it is worth 0.1 satoshi (1e-9BTC) right now and keeps going down

[dinofelis]

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

how dare you lie to us. marketcap is so meaningful without a doubt.
don't believe me, take a look at this screenshot.


this very good, very useful altcoin which is marked here it is being used all around the world. people left USD for it, it had the 3rd place on market cap list which shows how it is very 100% meaningful. soon CUBE will replace bitcoin and then USD. now you wait. I just don't know why it is worth 0.1 satoshi (1e-9BTC) right now and keeps going down

Well, combined with low volume, market caps don't mean much.  However, when taking into account both market cap and volume, there is a non-deniable decline in bitcoin's relative importance in the crypto scene - which, as I said elsewhere, is a good thing.  After all, we're about decentralization, so monopolies and locked-in one-for-all rules are not a good thing.

[jubalix]

Good we are narrowing your arguments even more::

Your objection was must solve the quadratic problem for blocksize increase. Fair enough, I agree. I point out that segwit is not a condition precedent to that part of the code, you counter it is a condition desirable or precedent.

Segwit is the initial solution for quadratic validation time, ready, tested, deployed on several networks. Do you have brain damage? Don't whine about any ad hominem again.

Your stuck on a solution, and not addressing why you need to bring the rest of segwit with it. You best tested. Ok. but why do you need to bring all of it? You can just excise the quad scaling soln.

You then go onto name calling, which appears to be a stereotypical response for you.

Yes there are often trade offs, but TPS solutions have market appeal and there are superior ones to the current state of BTC was the contention.

There is no indicator of market appeal for mimblewimble besides it being a Bitcoin sidechain.

This was not the reason for introducing mimblewimble to the argument. Rather it was you proposition that other coins face worse scaleing than BTC at BTC usage levels. I agree many do. But some don't, NEM and mimblewimble seem to offer better options. Maybe even Dash due to the structure of their insensitive scheme to run nodes

 

So this example can not be raised [by you] with any confidence so end of that argument for you

It is a valid argument and destroys yours in a jiffy. The rest of your mambo jumbo is not worth responding to. You've lost on every single point raised by "clarifying, complaining, whining or misusing fallacies".
Enjoy your shitcoins:

[/quote]
its "Mumbo jumbo".

Also comparing tulips a perishable plant, that can't really be deved or forked on github, is at best anachronistic.

Your appear to occupying almost the exact position of anti bit coiners on speculation or FIAT holders on BTC.

[Lauda]

Your stuck on a solution, and not addressing why you need to bring the rest of segwit with it. You best tested. Ok. but why do you need to bring all of it? You can just excise the quad scaling soln.

You can't just take Segwit and pluck out parts of it at your whim. Not only does that not work, it won't be Segwit anymore either. It truly does look like you have brain damage. I suggest consulting with a nearby doctor as soon as possible.

This was not the reason for introducing mimblewimble to the argument. Rather it was you proposition that other coins face worse scaleing than BTC at BTC usage levels. I agree many do. But some don't, NEM and mimblewimble seem to offer better options. Maybe even Dash due to the structure of their insensitive scheme to run nodes

Mimblewimble has downsides. NEM has a huge premine, and don't even get me started on the DASH MLM scam. You haven't provided a single valid example yet (hint: I'm still waiting).

Also comparing tulips a perishable plant, that can't really be deved or forked on github, is at best anachronistic.

You can both engineer tulips and *fork* them. Looks like you're still living in the past.

Your appear to occupying almost the exact position of anti bit coiners on speculation or FIAT holders on BTC.

You appear to be a covert enemy of Bitcoin. It won't work.

Well, combined with low volume, market caps don't mean much.  However, when taking into account both market cap and volume, there is a non-deniable decline in bitcoin's relative importance in the crypto scene - which, as I said elsewhere, is a good thing.  After all, we're about decentralization, so monopolies and locked-in one-for-all rules are not a good thing.

State sponsored shill is here for decentralization by promoting centralized coins? How cute.

[Pursuer]

Well, combined with low volume, market caps don't mean much.  However, when taking into account both market cap and volume, there is a non-deniable decline in bitcoin's relative importance in the crypto scene - which, as I said elsewhere, is a good thing.  After all, we're about decentralization, so monopolies and locked-in one-for-all rules are not a good thing.

of course.
put a good advertising team behind that altcoin, it gets enough volume!
put some good pumpers on the project, it gets higher volume!
list it on exchanges such as poloniex that pump the coins and have crazy volume, the volume grows!

in the end that is just trading volume of speculators pump and dumping the coins to make more money.

[dinofelis]

Well, combined with low volume, market caps don't mean much.  However, when taking into account both market cap and volume, there is a non-deniable decline in bitcoin's relative importance in the crypto scene - which, as I said elsewhere, is a good thing.  After all, we're about decentralization, so monopolies and locked-in one-for-all rules are not a good thing.

of course.
put a good advertising team behind that altcoin, it gets enough volume!
put some good pumpers on the project, it gets higher volume!
list it on exchanges such as poloniex that pump the coins and have crazy volume, the volume grows!

in the end that is just trading volume of speculators pump and dumping the coins to make more money.

Why is this only happening to alt coins then, and why would bitcoin's numbers be "true" ?  What indication is there that bitcoin is "the market champion" if we can't count on volume, market cap, or what else ?  Because every indicator that has indicated that bitcoin was the "leader" (since about 8 years, that was "market cap" and "volume") is now NOT valid when it is applied in the same way to other crypto currencies ?
Yes, there is ONE indicator, which is merchant adoption and usage.  But the indicators on that place this at a few percent levels of actual volume.  (bitpay covered about 3% of the bitcoin volume end 2016: its monthly volume was about the daily traded bitcoin volume).  So this is not bitcoin's main usage, by far - unless we have to understand that bitcoin volumes on Poloniex and others have been fake since ages too, at which point, we have strictly NO IDEA whether bitcoin was actually a leading crypto currency the last few years at all.

No, if you are serious, you see that bitcoin is losing market share (in cap and volume) at a staggering pace, and that it doesn't have a "single competitor" but the entire alt coin space.  And it's about time that this monopoly is finally broken, and that we get competition in the crypto scene, competition which was held back by bitcoin's absolute monopoly.   

Now, it is very well possible that all of this is a huge pump and dump in the alt space - but the chances of this diminish as time goes by.  It would much more be the case if a single crypto did so.  But you cannot consider ALL OF THEM simultaneously to get pumped by the same entities, unless we have a very powerful Polo bot running and nobody is seeing it.

I think the market finally realized that crypto is not a currency, but a speculative asset, and that speculative money is diversifying over many similar assets with more growth potential than the somewhat clunky market monopoly as of now.

That said, there's no reason to assume that bitcoin will lose its market leader position soon.  You can have a market leader with 10% market share.  Then, as I said elsewhere, you have a healthy, competitive market.  Not when there's a monopolist with 80% of the market share.

Having a largely diversified market in crypto has other advantages: no single whale on the "big" crypto can decide to pump the smaller ones, because there simply isn't a "big" crypto any more.  Pumping a smaller one in a very diversified market may turn out a very bad idea, because the money has many places to go, and your pump could easily blow in your face.  This is like trying to corner a market in a mature, competitive environment: chances are you gamble your fortune.

Moreover, having a diversified market of crypto makes it much more decentralized as a whole.  If there's one crypto, like bitcoin, especially if it has mainly been centralized in China, the danger of it being put under control are real.  Thinking that the WHOLE crypto market can be put under control is much, much harder.  If one chain fails or gets corrupted, that is not the end of crypto.  One would even hardly notice it.  If there's a market monopoly and the monopolist's chain fails, crypto is given a deadly blow.

Finally, concerning "security".  Only PoW chains have cryptographic weaknesses of being easily attacked if their PoW is weak - but if their market cap grows, their PoW will grow too of course.   So the bigger a PoW chain value grows, the more secure it gets.   

Also, different PoW algorithms mean that the PoW power on one chain is useless on another chain.  Bitcoin's huge PoW power is totally useless to attack, say, ETH.   Even though ETC is "vulnerable" wrt ETH miners, we see that miners are rational entities that don't waste their money on attacking, but rather use it to gain profits. 

And finally, PoS coins are absolutely not suffering from any cryptographic weakness PoW coins are exposed to.

Also, there's no reason to attack a SINGLE COIN when there's a whole market.  An "enemy coin" won't get any benefice at attacking a single adversary, because there are 20 others ready to take its place.

All this goes in the direction of a more and more diversified crypto market of speculative assets.

[Pursuer]

I don't know if you realize this but I have been around long enough to see all the same arguments be repeated by different people at the similar times in history about different or similar coins and they are always the same.
and the future of all these arguments always end up the same.

you see history loves repeating itself.

I did some quick and dirty screenshots of this "history" and drop percentages are calculated based on the top of each bubble and the bottom of the price when they burst each time. mostly taking a long time to reach the bottom as these coins have a "big market cap"





and none of these are a one time thing. they have all been repeated multiple times. I just showed one of them that I could find quickly without wasting much of my time.
each year or at least every couple of months we see the same patterns. sometimes small bubbles, sometimes big and throughout all the altcoin market.

[dinofelis]

and none of these are a one time thing. they have all been repeated multiple times. I just showed one of them that I could find quickly without wasting much of my time.
each year or at least every couple of months we see the same patterns. sometimes small bubbles, sometimes big and throughout all the altcoin market.

What you have been showing, is single, individual alt coins being pumped and dumped, very often by their own whale brigade, or by a bitcoin whale wanting to make some money with an altcoin where he could lure in many believers in the coin at hand.

The only time I remember having seen a simultaneous rise in many altcoins and bitcoin together, was the 2013 event, but bitcoin was the leading pump.  This time, the market is showing a totally different phenomenon, where MANY altcoins pump much harder than bitcoin, with volumes that outpace bitcoin's volume entirely.  We all know that the boom in 2013 was a bot on a single exchange.  It is true that Poloniex is about the most important alt coin exchange, and maybe they are doing MtGox's willy bot over on many alt coins at once.   Who knows.  That said, the volumes on other exchanges augment in commensurate ways too, so this speaks against a single exchange bot.

I could show a similar chart for bitcoin between december 2013 and february 2015 where you have a 78% drop in value too.

The fact that bitcoin as well as alt coins undergo pumps and dumps, doesn't invalidate what I'm saying: that bitcoin is not fundamentally different from any alt coin, and is not a currency, but is a highly speculative asset (which, by definition, undergoes pumps and dumps and never stabilizes).  Now, as a speculator, you're rarely interested in joining the "big ones".  They have less potential short term gain, even though they are somewhat more secure on the longer term.  In fact, the less they are interesting as a short term asset, the more they give a feeling of security on the longer term.  But speculators don't want security, they want gains.  Now, the gains are to be made on smaller crypto, and the whole family of crypto is a whole spectrum of potential gains vs risks: the dream for speculators.  The more you go down on the list of market cap/volume, the higher the risk, but the higher the potential gains.

All this means that speculative capital will "flow down" on the market cap/volume table, hence pushing coins upward the more they are down on the list (statistically !  That's the whole idea: this is not deterministic, some will fail miserably, others will grow).

But if many coins are pushed upward, the more they are down on the list, they will all get "compressed" against the highest coins on the list.  The higher they are on the list, the slower they will grow, because the bigger their market cap is, the more mature, and hence the less "greater fool early adopter" gains there are to be expected.

You can expect a coin on rank 50 to go x100.   You cannot expect that of bitcoin, and now, you cannot expect that any more of ethereum either.
As such, we will get an ever-growing list of big-market cap coins near the top, spreading out the total market share more and more.  Some of them will erode again.  Others can maybe stay there quite a while.  As I said, that doesn't mean bitcoin has to plunge.  It could.  But it could remain there still for a long time.

[paul gatt]

Your thinking is very much correct. It's completely absurd that scams or things with no use-cases can have any kind of value yet alone have market caps worth millions. This is all orchestrated by Poloniex and the group pumping with it.

It seems that the crypto market is being taken over by some power, perhaps, here, you are the most knowledgeable person on the crypto market. We know that everything has been arranged, they are trying to push the market their way, it's bad when we are like the puppets are controlled. How to put an end to that? Or will it never end?

[hankyulpark]

I believe that we are living one extraordinary moment in cryptocurrencies market. There are a lot of new ICO with exciting new features, and several already stabelished coins having ATH. Media coverage also is increasing and the name "Bitcoin" is reaching people that are not technological at all. All of this is setting the perfect enviroment for a sustained increasing in price.

[cellard]

"I only believe in miner consensus" is nonsense. If miners form a cartel that changes the supply to 42 million coins, you agree to it? What when those miners agree to censor your transactions, do you also agree with them then? UASF can and will work. You should educate yourself on this matter (and this is not something that we should discuss in this thread but rather UASF threads):
1) http://uasf.co/
2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue. The problem we are facing is a more complex one. We are looking at a change that would require a PoW change, because otherwise you risk an attack, and with a PoW change, problems arise: What happens to all the miners that wanted segwit? You leave their millions worth of gear useless in the new chain. Are you sure that they will respond positively to that? They may keep mining the old chain just to keep using their mining gear.

The game theory is so complex, this can end up really bad if there is not 100% consensus with all big merchants and payment processors, exchanges etc. Ultimately those dictate who gets to keep the BTC token. So we need everyone on board before any attempts to UASF. We want to do this as conservatively as possible. And yes i've read all the documentation on UASF, the risks are still there unless we get a pretty broad consensus on all big players wanting to do this.

Meanwhile, LTC continues to enjoy his segwit agreement with no drama.

[dinofelis]

Coinmarketcap is now showing also other crypto as "market share":

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

[dinofelis]

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue.

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

A very simple way to do so, which would also *automatically* solve the scaling problem, is by freezing the difficulty (or severely cranking the difficulty increase down) and freeze the block reward.  That would give rise to an ever increasing bitcoin emission, stabilizing its price around the difficulty cost, generate more and more blocks per 10 minutes, solve the fee pressure and solve so many other things.

But it is against bitcoins' religion.  Even though it would have been a great way to turn bitcoin into a currency one day.

[ownageplocks]

Regardless of how mad you are that you didn't buy in when you should have you can't blame the coin for it! It's not in a decline whatsoever from my viewpoint, it's been on a steady increase for DAYS now(not hours). I don't see any large pools of people sitting at a sell off anytime soon. My speculation is that you're just mad you didn't buy when the time was ripe, I'm mad too

[dinofelis]

My speculation is that you're just mad you didn't buy when the time was ripe, I'm mad too

No, but it is quite ironic that an "anarchist currency" turns into a speculative fest full of seigniorage because it adheres to an erroneous idea of sound money.  Normally, one shouldn't "become rich" with a CURRENCY.  There's normally no money to be made with a currency.  Crypto had criticism on the finance world and becomes 100 times worse itself.

BTW, I think that the sky is still the limit, now that crypto is clearly just like the derivatives market.  But with such behaviour, of course soon regulation will set in, and every hope of having a true underground currency for subversion is totally blown up.  Big finance will soon entirely put its hand on this crypto world and you can say goodbye to any form of individual liberty in this domain.

For those who want to get rich with crypto, I think there's no better time than now !  But one shouldn't.  That wasn't the idea.

[cellard]

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue.

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

A very simple way to do so, which would also *automatically* solve the scaling problem, is by freezing the difficulty (or severely cranking the difficulty increase down) and freeze the block reward.  That would give rise to an ever increasing bitcoin emission, stabilizing its price around the difficulty cost, generate more and more blocks per 10 minutes, solve the fee pressure and solve so many other things.

But it is against bitcoins' religion.  Even though it would have been a great way to turn bitcoin into a currency one day.

Everyone would dump their coins because we like the limited supply. It's better to leave BTC as gold, and use another coin for the currency part. We need some sort of limited supply standard in the crypto world and BTC is just as good as it gets for that, got the biggest network effect, it's very difficult to change (as we are seeing)

So BTC as gold, then another currency that (somehow) has a stable price pegged to BTC.
This could be LTC.

[dinofelis]

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue.

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

A very simple way to do so, which would also *automatically* solve the scaling problem, is by freezing the difficulty (or severely cranking the difficulty increase down) and freeze the block reward.  That would give rise to an ever increasing bitcoin emission, stabilizing its price around the difficulty cost, generate more and more blocks per 10 minutes, solve the fee pressure and solve so many other things.

But it is against bitcoins' religion.  Even though it would have been a great way to turn bitcoin into a currency one day.

Everyone would dump their coins because we like the limited supply. It's better to leave BTC as gold, and use another coin for the currency part. We need some sort of limited supply standard in the crypto world and BTC is just as good as it gets for that, got the biggest network effect, it's very difficult to change (as we are seeing)

The "limited supply" thing is only good for speculative assets.  It has not much to do with gold ; it has to do with pure speculation, hence, instability.  It is a great way to gamble on, and to try to get money out of the pockets of peers.  The simplest version is a greater-fool game: a pyramid game, but it can be much more complex of course with booms and busts.  But it can never be used, nor as a currency, nor as a reserve currency, exactly because it is an unstable system.

My biggest open question is, whether such a thing needs to come down entirely or not at a certain point.  There's something totally "absurd" in crypto, which is the absolute non-uniqueness of it.  Anyone can start a crypto.  Bitcoin's uniqueness is of course that it was "the first", but apart from that, there are many others around - in fact, there's an unlimited supply of crypto.  I have a hard time imagining that this game can go on for ever, because it becomes then quite obvious how to make a huge amount of money: start a crypto !  Just ANY crypto.  If the hunger for deflation is unlimited (that is, if the amount of money willing to gamble on crypto is unlimited), then ANY coin will end up taking off, because "early adopters" make a lot of money.  But then this game becomes obvious, and the "sponge" of cryptos will absorb every new form of capital until no penny is made on an existing coin any more.

In other words, instead of having a single "greater fool" game with a single chain ; instead of having a multiple greater fool game (which I think we are now witnessing) ; we would have an "infinite number of greater fool games".  That cannot exist, because there aren't enough greater fools.  We'll burn through the stock of greater fools quite quickly if the number of greater fool tokens becomes unbounded.  Something will have to give in.

So BTC as gold, then another currency that (somehow) has a stable price pegged to BTC.
This could be LTC.

Well, first of all, there's no need for a "gold" if the idea was to have a freedom currency.  And if that "gold' isn't stable, it cannot be used to peg anything against it.  Moreover, LTC is just as "autonomous" as BTC, and doesn't need any "reserve" ; but LTC suffers exactly from the same problems of having an economic model that is purely a speculation tool.  Almost no existing crypto can function as a general currency, because none has a stabilizing mechanism and kills seigniorage.

[Lauda]

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue.

False generalization. My statement pretty much destroyed your argument that "miner consensus" is above else.

The problem we are facing is a more complex one. We are looking at a change that would require a PoW change, because otherwise you risk an attack, and with a PoW change, problems arise: What happens to all the miners that wanted segwit?

You don't understand UASF apparently. You are also at risk of an attack every single day. Nothing changes and UASF has nothing to do with a PoW change either.

So we need everyone on board before any attempts to UASF. We want to do this as conservatively as possible. And yes i've read all the documentation on UASF, the risks are still there unless we get a pretty broad consensus on all big players wanting to do this.

No. UASF works with even <50% of the miners. Both LTC and Vertcoin primarily ended up getting miner consensus due to their fear of UASF. In both cases miners caved in pretty quickly, as per the idea of the game theory behind it.

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it.

[U2]

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it.

[/quote]

What the fuck is this garbage? A true currency? Much like every single fiat that has failed in the past? Why are there no old fiats you ask? Because they are all the same. Infinite supply controlled by a government. How would that ever work for bitcoins? There's no central king pooba to tell us that rates should be this or that and that and no one that joined bitcoins will agree with it.

[Clement Kaliyar]

Everyone would dump their coins because we like the limited supply. It's better to leave BTC as gold, and use another coin for the currency part. We need some sort of limited supply standard in the crypto world and BTC is just as good as it gets for that, got the biggest network effect, it's very difficult to change (as we are seeing)
So BTC as gold, then another currency that (somehow) has a stable price pegged to BTC.
This could be LTC.

Lets use bitcoin as digital gold,digital asset and commodity ,use as a currency or a transaction platform ,we can use according to out choice and so is the beauty of bitcoin. @OP, if you look at the price of bitcoin you would not feel any decline in anything and if you are not aware that people are using alt coin to convert back to bitcoin.