I appreciate the feedback franky, let me comment on some of your points.
#1 agree, mayor multiple. but i would also add the miner multiple too.. the cost of creating new coins via mining is also at a low profit margin which indicats price is not at a bubble, but also at a close to the real underlying value. thus furthr strengthns the concept that the price is at a good low/buying oppertunity
Good point about the miner profitability. Indeed I have seen that hash power is rising significantly even though the price has been on a downtrend, I would consider this a good sign.
segwit utility is NOT at 40%
I'd say this is very much a subjective matter. Objectively speaking 40% of the transactions in the network ARE in fact SegWit transactions. You can't dispute this. What inputs they may have and how this affects your subjective view of what is effective SegWit utility, is another matter. I personally think the metric I used is much more useful - many SegWit upgraded wallets still have funds in legacy addresses (unless they have deliberately consolidated everything to a SegWit address) and at this stage it is quite expected to see many legacy inputs. But those will be reduced as time goes on.
lightning is a separate network but its impact is negligable. plus LN is not a network solely to be used for bitcoin. thus advertising it as bitcoins solution is the same as advertising an exchanges internal 'send to member offchain' of any crypto.. your over selling its stats and over selling its benefits for bitcoin alone to dominate due to it. LN is not a feature solely for bitcoin. and should not be advertised as something that makes bitcoin better than other coins because LN will be used by many coins.
try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver)
.. also. lightning LOSES bitcoins ideology. research channels and routing a little more(multisig). realise the multiple parties ARE needed to authorise payments. and that unlike bitcoin mainnet which is a PUSH payment. LN is a handshake payment. yep evn the recipient has to be online AND sign a TX to agree to receive payment aswell as all users along the route have to sign a tx to agree to act as a route. so becareful how you overpromise and under deliver the features description
Rest assured I have researched lightning quite a bit, but had to keep it fairly simple in the article due to the intended audience (general).
- First of all, I clearly said in the article that LN's impact on congestion right now is negligible, however I do believe that the potential impact of LN is absolutely massive.
- LN is not only for Bitcoin, true, but arguably one of the only real reasons to even own any other coins would be if it became difficult to transfer bitcoins. If BTC is, as I strongly believe, the most reliable, stable, secure and most used cryptocurrency, it will be the one that people want to *own*. Owning, or hodling, is all that matters. Why would someone hodl something else? Well, I mentioned privacy problems in the article. Another one is if you can't move BTC quickly/cheaply and need other means to do it. LN helps with this. The fact that it can be used with other coins is not very relevant in my opinion, everything that enables BTC is a negative for all other coins as it reduces the reasons to hodl any other coins in the first place.
- With other points about LN you're going completely off the rails. LN does not change the ideology of Bitcoin one bit, and let me explain that. First I will debunk the whole notion that mainnet transactions are direct p2p transactions: THEY ARE NOT. You push a transaction to the network, yes, but you will likely need other nodes to route the transaction. To whom? The miners. Then the miners will record the transaction to the blockchain (hopefully). In a normal confirmed transaction use case you will need other nodes AND miners to be able to complete a transaction, which is very far from direct p2p. These parties do not have the means to steal your funds though, as only you hold the private key and the ability to sign the transactions in a valid way. LN is not really different, arguably it is simpler. You simply need other nodes and their channels to route the payment, but once again none of them have the ability to steal your funds as only you hold the key.
so LN could actually be the knife in bitcoins back that maks people move over to other coins due to the headache of settling tx's being more costly/slower on btc compared to other blockchains.
As LN usage grows, the settlement cost will not be a very significant factor eventually. The way I see it, most small payment hot wallets will have a channel up all the time, almost permanently (unless a need arises for some reason to close it). Currently as LN is mostly there for testing purposes, channels are short lived, but eventually they will be very long lived. Thus you'll be making a huge amount of LN transactions with the cost of 2 settlements and thus the cost of the settlement is divided to a large amount of tx, making it less relevant. Although I must remind that at times recently BTC has actually been cheaper than BCH, and a lot cheaper than ETH.
and lastly try not to use the "market share" as that number actually has no real meaning.
I do agree with this critique, I don't think the market share / market cap is a good indicator. It's just something people generally use a lot, and look at, and that's why I wanted to add my perspective on it.
securities and ETF are not going to affect real bitcoin trades. they are just hoarders of coins that then separatly OFFMARKET sell SHARES of their company. thus thee dollars and valuation of the company increase without those funds actually even touching bitcoin exchanges.
This is not true at all. Most funds will need to actually buy BTC either from the exchanges or OTC to match whatever is happening at fund level. Our company is actually launching a fund of our own soon. Regardless of if the purchasing is happening at exchanges or OTC it will affect the price. Futures securities are a bit different though, and may not have a direct effect.
but all the stuff like LN and blockchains can be used by govrnment to make their own crypto. i envision. governments shift over to a crypto of their making.
This is missing the point of Bitcoin, which is 1) fixed money supply and 2) censorship resistant ownership and payments. Neither of these two can be replicated by any central bank / government based currency, regular or blockchain based. Bitcoin will have value over them regardless.
this also includes LN. which REQUIRES multiparty authorisation.
In LN only the sender and the recipient knows exactly what is going on. The ones routing the transaction will know something, but not everything (as in, they know the amounts). Nodes not part of the routing of the specific transaction, or any outside observers, can't know anything about the specific LN transaction! So it has some quite significant privacy enhancements.
be cautious when talking about monetary supply. economists are learning quickly that although bitcoin WAS limited to 2.1quadrillion sharable units, developers are actually envisioning moving to there being 2.1 Quintillion sharable units.
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. The divisibility of the asset has nothing to do with the actual scarcity of the asset. Divisibility helps in using it and a good money must have sufficient divisibility. It is a fundamentally (very) good thing to come up with "microsatoshis", if they are required. As LN is about micropayments, it can indeed be useful to be able to send smaller units. This does not change the fact that there are max 21 million BTC. Simply makes it more usable for the whole world economy if we have even smaller units, to potentially become a universal currency.
you have mentioned the mayoral multiple a few times. but anyon can select a number and make it look good. for instance if we took a 200 day average.. like you did.. but then if you take a 250 day average.. you will see a major difference. so this week you might b screaming 20day avrage.. but then when a 200 day average does not fit a positive narrative. you may scream a new number of 150 or 250 day that does fit a narative. so be careful of just doing trend anals.. instead of explaining technical analysis
The Mayer Multiple has been around for many years (Trace Mayer is an early adopter and has used this method for years). The number doesn't just suddenly change, as that makes no sense. I have always looked at 200DMA specifically. Obviously can't explain why it is specifically better than 250DMA but one needs to pick a certain number and then track it historically. In anycase looking at a longer term average price is quite useful, regardless of if the number is 200 or 300. 20 day average would make no sense in this context.
