Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bassclef]

Litecoin in a death spiral:

Not picking it up before USD 2.

It probably won't go that low. LTC spiraled last year until $1.50 while BTC was flat, then it followed its big brother upwards in November. The historical price connection between the two biggest coins in crypto is hard to deny--a rally in BTC usually means a rally in LTC.

[1713864483]

1713864483

[1713864483]

1713864483

[1713864483]

1713864483

[1713864483]

1713864483

[1713864483]

1713864483

[1713864483]

1713864483

[thefunkybits]

Not picking it up before USD 2.

It probably won't go that low. LTC spiraled last year until $1.50 while BTC was flat, then it followed its big brother upwards in November. The historical price connection between the two biggest coins in crypto is hard to deny--a rally in BTC usually means a rally in LTC.

Yup +1

I have my buy orders set at 0.009 LTC/BTC and I plan to at least triple my BTC invested from that point

[cypherdoc]

Not picking it up before USD 2.

It probably won't go that low. LTC spiraled last year until $1.50 while BTC was flat, then it followed its big brother upwards in November. The historical price connection between the two biggest coins in crypto is hard to deny--a rally in BTC usually means a rally in LTC.

Yup +1

I have my buy orders set at 0.009 LTC/BTC and I plan to at least triple my BTC invested from that point

even if it does survive by some miracle, LTC will always be relegated to a trading tool for BTC.  we still can't buy anything with LTC and scrypt mining is an unsolvable problem.  with that in mind, i don't think it has a chance.

[thefunkybits]

Fair enough, by those metrics I don't think it has a chance either...

But as it's the most liquid and highly-traded altcoin, I think it has another bubble 

[Peter R]

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

I wonder how many coins they could get if they started doing this today. 

I'm guessing a good chunk - 1/3 of all in existence at least.  A lot of people would sell their coins before it was clear who was buying them.  And then it would take a bit to realize the CB's intention.  It would take some very high prices before everyone knew what was happening.  Over $100k, I'd guess.  We could hit $10k and nobody would even suspect it was any different than previous bubbles.

the risk for them doing this would be enormous.

reputational risk would include a market perception of fear of Bitcoin and lack of confidence in USD.  it would be a clear signal that they believe their future is doomed.  just "being in the game" would not facilitate monetary policy manipulation which is the raison d'etre for their existence in the first place.

if ppl found out they were doing this, everyone and their mother would pile in driving the price even higher to stratospheric levels.  i suppose they could find a proxy buyer to accumulate coins but if they accidentally pick a Snowden-type, they'd be screwed.

CB's aren't smart investors as far as i'm concerned.  look at Gordon Brown's faux pas.  during the noughts, CB's in general were selling gold for the most part.  the recent buying by Russia and China, i believe, will go down in history as yet another mistake.

no, i think the CB's, especially the Fed, are "all-in" with fiat.  that's not good; for them.

Cypher, I thought you believed that bitcoin could serve as a sort of reserve currency that enforced discipline.  If central banks hold gold on the asset side of their balance sheets, why can't they one day hold bitcoin?  If our world is truly going to transition from fiat to cryptocurrency, would this not be a natural step in the process?  

To me the relationship between central banks and bitcoin is a high-stakes game of chicken--viewed together as a cohesive system, it's in their best interest to ignore bitcoin; but viewed individually, it's in each CB's best interest to support bitcoin sooner than all the others if the end game is inevitable.  

In a bitcoin future, I also think they'll still be able to conduct monetary policy (albeit to a reduced extent).  They'll be able to lend from their huge bitcoin reserves when the economy slows, and increase the interest rate on those loans when the economy improves.  The beauty with bitcoin is that if they make poor decisions, their reserves will dwindle right alongside the notion that "wise men at the Fed" make better decisions for the economy than the free market.  

[justusranvier]

I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltime

That would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania.

It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first.

[bassclef]

Not picking it up before USD 2.

It probably won't go that low. LTC spiraled last year until $1.50 while BTC was flat, then it followed its big brother upwards in November. The historical price connection between the two biggest coins in crypto is hard to deny--a rally in BTC usually means a rally in LTC.

Yup +1

I have my buy orders set at 0.009 LTC/BTC and I plan to at least triple my BTC invested from that point

even if it does survive by some miracle, LTC will always be relegated to a trading tool for BTC.  we still can't buy anything with LTC and scrypt mining is an unsolvable problem.  with that in mind, i don't think it has a chance.

Sure you can buy things with it, but the number of merchants isn't nearly as big. I do believe there is a giftcard service although I haven't tried it. After using it for awhile I do like the faster confirm times. As a trading tool to transfer value between exchanges it is useful, so for instance a LTC arbitrage bot might be more profitable deposits confirm much more quickly. Still, in the short/medium term it will rally with Bitcoin barring unforseen problems.

[bitsmichel]

I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltime

That would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania.

It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first.

I didn't know about this site, seems pretty good.
LTC price is still going down, I wouldn't say its death.. but it seems to be on a downward trend

[justusranvier]

but it seems to be on a downward trend

...just like it did from April to November of last year.

If it drops below 0.005 and/or keeps going down while Bitcoin is making a new ATH, then it will be safe to call it dead.

[cypherdoc]

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

I wonder how many coins they could get if they started doing this today. 

I'm guessing a good chunk - 1/3 of all in existence at least.  A lot of people would sell their coins before it was clear who was buying them.  And then it would take a bit to realize the CB's intention.  It would take some very high prices before everyone knew what was happening.  Over $100k, I'd guess.  We could hit $10k and nobody would even suspect it was any different than previous bubbles.

the risk for them doing this would be enormous.

reputational risk would include a market perception of fear of Bitcoin and lack of confidence in USD.  it would be a clear signal that they believe their future is doomed.  just "being in the game" would not facilitate monetary policy manipulation which is the raison d'etre for their existence in the first place.

if ppl found out they were doing this, everyone and their mother would pile in driving the price even higher to stratospheric levels.  i suppose they could find a proxy buyer to accumulate coins but if they accidentally pick a Snowden-type, they'd be screwed.

CB's aren't smart investors as far as i'm concerned.  look at Gordon Brown's faux pas.  during the noughts, CB's in general were selling gold for the most part.  the recent buying by Russia and China, i believe, will go down in history as yet another mistake.

no, i think the CB's, especially the Fed, are "all-in" with fiat.  that's not good; for them.

Cypher, I thought you believed that bitcoin could serve as a sort of reserve currency that enforced discipline.  If central banks hold gold on the asset side of their balance sheets, why can't they one day hold bitcoin?  If our world is truly going to transition from fiat to cryptocurrency, would this not be a natural step in the process?  

i do think Bitcoin could easily serve as a reserve asset.  and they can hold Bitcoin on the asset side.  it's just that gold already went thru it's 10-11 yr bull market with it's peak in 2011. China & Russia are trying to add gold to their asset side but i think they're living in the past.  there's no need to have 2 reserve currency assets.  the internet now enables seamless communication of money whereas gold/silver never did.  with such a super-money as Bitcoin, gold and silver are doomed, imo.  sure, i suppose there could be a transitional, interim period where both fill that role but i think it's dangerous to ignore the peak in 9/2011.

To me the relationship between central banks and bitcoin is a high-stakes game of chicken--viewed together as a cohesive system, it's in their best interest to ignore bitcoin; but viewed individually, it's in each CB's best interest to support bitcoin sooner than all the others if the end game is inevitable.  

In a bitcoin future, I also think they'll still be able to conduct monetary policy (albeit to a reduced extent).  They'll be able to lend from their huge bitcoin reserves when the economy slows, and increase the interest rate on those loans when the economy improves.  The beauty with bitcoin is that if they make poor decisions, their reserves will dwindle right alongside the notion that "wise men at the Fed" make better decisions for the economy than the free market.  

i see no way for CB's to conduct monetary policy via Bitcoin.  the protocol replaces them and their functionality and they know this.  it's a do or die situation for them.

[cypherdoc]

Not picking it up before USD 2.

It probably won't go that low. LTC spiraled last year until $1.50 while BTC was flat, then it followed its big brother upwards in November. The historical price connection between the two biggest coins in crypto is hard to deny--a rally in BTC usually means a rally in LTC.

Yup +1

I have my buy orders set at 0.009 LTC/BTC and I plan to at least triple my BTC invested from that point

even if it does survive by some miracle, LTC will always be relegated to a trading tool for BTC.  we still can't buy anything with LTC and scrypt mining is an unsolvable problem.  with that in mind, i don't think it has a chance.

Sure you can buy things with it, but the number of merchants isn't nearly as big. I do believe there is a giftcard service although I haven't tried it. After using it for awhile I do like the faster confirm times. As a trading tool to transfer value between exchanges it is useful, so for instance a LTC arbitrage bot might be more profitable deposits confirm much more quickly. Still, in the short/medium term it will rally with Bitcoin barring unforseen problems.

this is a good site.  look at the all-time chart of LTC:



the unforeseen problem is already here.  is this an all-time low?  looks to me like the BTC/LTC relationship has forever changed to inverse.

[cypherdoc]

I keep saying that central banks get one final kick at the can: they can "sell out" by purchasing bitcoins with newly-created fiat until all confidence in fiat is lost.  Central banks would still have a big pile of coins to continue with monetary policy.  

I wonder how many coins they could get if they started doing this today. 

I'm guessing a good chunk - 1/3 of all in existence at least.  A lot of people would sell their coins before it was clear who was buying them.  And then it would take a bit to realize the CB's intention.  It would take some very high prices before everyone knew what was happening.  Over $100k, I'd guess.  We could hit $10k and nobody would even suspect it was any different than previous bubbles.

the risk for them doing this would be enormous.

reputational risk would include a market perception of fear of Bitcoin and lack of confidence in USD.  it would be a clear signal that they believe their future is doomed.  just "being in the game" would not facilitate monetary policy manipulation which is the raison d'etre for their existence in the first place.

if ppl found out they were doing this, everyone and their mother would pile in driving the price even higher to stratospheric levels.  i suppose they could find a proxy buyer to accumulate coins but if they accidentally pick a Snowden-type, they'd be screwed.

CB's aren't smart investors as far as i'm concerned.  look at Gordon Brown's faux pas.  during the noughts, CB's in general were selling gold for the most part.  the recent buying by Russia and China, i believe, will go down in history as yet another mistake.

no, i think the CB's, especially the Fed, are "all-in" with fiat.  that's not good; for them.

Cypher, I thought you believed that bitcoin could serve as a sort of reserve currency that enforced discipline.  If central banks hold gold on the asset side of their balance sheets, why can't they one day hold bitcoin?  If our world is truly going to transition from fiat to cryptocurrency, would this not be a natural step in the process?  

To me the relationship between central banks and bitcoin is a high-stakes game of chicken--viewed together as a cohesive system, it's in their best interest to ignore bitcoin; but viewed individually, it's in each CB's best interest to support bitcoin sooner than all the others if the end game is inevitable.  

In a bitcoin future, I also think they'll still be able to conduct monetary policy (albeit to a reduced extent).  They'll be able to lend from their huge bitcoin reserves when the economy slows, and increase the interest rate on those loans when the economy improves.  The beauty with bitcoin is that if they make poor decisions, their reserves will dwindle right alongside the notion that "wise men at the Fed" make better decisions for the economy than the free market.  

the other thing is that the Fed represents the ultimate in monetary corruption.  they are the banks Mothership.  Bitcoin is a poison dart directed at this heart of the problem.  for them to adopt Bitcoin as an asset and then claim they have any role in a future monetary system based off it is anachronistic.  The Chairman represents the ultimate form of centralization.  i've posted many times on here how the interest rate decisions really are made by him/her.  the board is irrelevant.  the banks like it this way so that they have to keep only 1 phone # in their rolodexes.  yes, they still use them.  how many direct phone calls, the content of which still remain a secret, went btwn the primary dealers and Bernanke during the crisis?  dozens, if not hundreds. 

they really need to go.

[cypherdoc]

BTC already bouncing

[Peter R]

they [central banks] really need to go.

Agreed.  

I'm just trying to guess the way in which that might happen.  I think the end game is the same in any case--bit by bit these institutions become irrelevant until they're powerless shells of their former glory.

[cypherdoc]

Cypher, I thought you believed that bitcoin could serve as a sort of reserve currency that enforced discipline.  If central banks hold gold on the asset side of their balance sheets, why can't they one day hold bitcoin?  

when gold was at it's peak as a world reserve currency, it free floated btwn individual actors/players on the global scene.  it wasn't housed in CB warehouses.  there was some centralization in gold warehouses/exchanges back then but it could be freely redeemed to cross international borders so as to bring a country's balance of payments/and interest rates into line.  if banks lowered interest rates too low, everyone supposedly would know about this, and then withdraw gold from the abusing country.

[rocks]

when gold was at it's peak as a world reserve currency, it free floated btwn individual actors/players on the global scene.  it wasn't housed in CB warehouses.  there was some centralization in gold warehouses/exchanges back then but it could be freely redeemed to cross international borders so as to bring a country's balance of payments/and interest rates into line. 

This.

What central banks and governments did was they made it illegal and/or difficult to use gold in transactions directly (for example FDR's 1933 exec order and ban on private possession on gold). They then backed paper money with gold since people then saw gold as money. Then after generations people no longer saw the underlying asset (gold) as money and instead just saw the currency, it's probably the biggest switcheroo in the modern era.

The advantage for bitcoin is it is both 1) every easy to use directly and 2) impossible to ban. This should hopefully prevent CBs from doing the same thing.

It is also why it is so important to get more adoption and transactions by merchants to encourage direct peer-to-peer usage of bitcoin as money. Otherwise if CBs end up storing all of them on behalf of people and issuing paper, bitcoin will go the same way as gold already did.

[counter]

I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltime

That would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania.

It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first.

I'd say it's very premature at this time to expect LTC to die.  Not saying price is gonna go up but if it's still maintaining it's overall trend lines then that alone tells me LTC has a long ways to go.  It would be nice to see some things happening along the lines of development.

[cypherdoc]

I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltime

That would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania.

It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first.

I'd say it's very premature at this time to expect LTC to die.  Not saying price is gonna go up but if it's still maintaining it's overall trend lines then that alone tells me LTC has a long ways to go.  It would be nice to see some things happening along the lines of development.

can u show us your trendlines?

[Wekkel]

I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltime

That would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania.

It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first.

I'd say it's very premature at this time to expect LTC to die.  Not saying price is gonna go up but if it's still maintaining it's overall trend lines then that alone tells me LTC has a long ways to go.  It would be nice to see some things happening along the lines of development.

Since the march of Crypto has only barely started, I expect LTC to remain in the game for a while. I want to see it touch $250  

[justusranvier]

I want to see it touch $250

Comparing the price of altcoins to fiat is broken and wrong.

The only thing that matters is if you're better off holding Bitcoin or the alt, and to determine that you compare the alt/BTC exchange rate.

Otherwise you'll end up in situations where the altcoin appreciates 10x vs the USD and you think you've done well, but at the same time BTC appreciated 100x so you've actually lost 90% of your purchasing power.