Can Bitcoin Rebound?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

...What don't I know?

Hard for me to say, stranger.
What you should know is that, for the first time in a coon's age, we had two consecutive difficulty drops.  Two.
The only way for difficulty to drop is for hashrate to drop.
The only reason for the hashrate to drop would be miners taking their gear offline.
The only reason for miners to take gear offline is ... ?

..is it has become unprofitable for them. I get it

[1714737158]

1714737158

[1714737158]

1714737158

[1714737158]

1714737158

[1714737158]

1714737158

[brg444]

Rebound from what, even if 1 BTC = 1 USD Bitcoin still works and solves a problem.

Seriously bro you are not that naive are you? I should have self moderated this thread for stupidity like this!

He's right.

Here's the thing.  You, and everyone like you, need to stop looking at the market price of Bitcoin.  Do you realize that the whole "market" thing is just a bunch of speculators and hoarders playing a gambling / betting game?  It literally has NOTHING to do with what Bitcoin is.  Or does.  Bitcoin - the Protocol - the technology - the infrastructure - etc ... this is what Bitcoin is.  The market price is a bunch of enthusiasts playing and hoarding in hopes of future riches.  The bitcoin market is its own little world.  Off to the side.  "Over there" ----->  

<---- While bitcoin is over here, doing its thing.

That's why its both relevant and intelligent to point out that Bitcoin could go to $1.00 and still be 100% transformative in the world.  Because NOTHING changes "out there" if Bitcoin drops to $1.00.  Bitcoin still solves a problem, provides myriads of services, and remains unaffected.  Market price is irrelevant.  

$1.00 obviously wouldn't be the price if Bitcoin was starting to transform the world, but the point is simple: you shouldn't give a rats ass what the market price of Bitcoin is.  It has nothing to do with Bitcoin in the real world, until the real world starts using Bitcoin.  Then *organic* price will begin to rise.  Right now?  This $320 Bitcoin price is the Bitcoin community.  Hoarding and playing their arbitrage.  Whales playing their games.  etc.  Nobody else is using Bitcoin yet.  So for now, the market price is irrelevant. And everyone needs to stop talking about it.

-B-

No he's wrong. And you're wrong.

It's quite amazing really that it's nearly 2015 and you people still want to entertain that line of thought.

The price of Bitcoin is arguably all that matters because it is reflective of the trust people have into it. We should all very much be concerned with what Bitcoin's price is. Now, is it possible to be confident and believe it is inevitable for the price to increase in the future? Of course, but there is no such thing as what you call *organic* price. The speculators/gamblers you so despise are the reason we have this "infrastructure". They are in fact very much part of this ecosystem and are vital to its survival. We owe most of the actual "organic" growth to them.





Bitcoin at 1$ doesn't work. It is neither transformative nor does it solve a problem, provide a service and much less "remains unaffected". At a 1$ market cap the network is not secure and therefore useless.

We need Bitcoin to increase its market cap by several orders of magnitude before it can be of real use to people in the "real world".

[brg444]

...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...

That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance.  What in the world made you say that?  

1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well.
2. ? ? ?
3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either.

Bitcoiner logic.

The confidence thing

Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails.

When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust.

[brg444]

...What don't I know?

Hard for me to say, stranger.
What you should know is that, for the first time in a coon's age, we had two consecutive difficulty drops.  Two.
The only way for difficulty to drop is for hashrate to drop.
The only reason for the hashrate to drop would be miners taking their gear offline.
The only reason for miners to take gear offline is ... ?

..is it has become unprofitable for them. I get it

No, it has become unprofitable for some.

Mining is a man's game nowadays. What's happening is the hobbyist are being driven out because they can't compete in the big leagues.

[NotLambchop]

...What don't I know?

Hard for me to say, stranger.
What you should know is that, for the first time in a coon's age, we had two consecutive difficulty drops.  Two.
The only way for difficulty to drop is for hashrate to drop.
The only reason for the hashrate to drop would be miners taking their gear offline.
The only reason for miners to take gear offline is ... ?

..is it has become unprofitable for them. I get it

No, it has become unprofitable for some.

Mining is a man's corporate game nowadays. What's happening is the hobbyist are being driven out because they can't compete in the big leagues.

FTFY
Centralization will continue until morale improves.

[NotLambchop]

...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...

That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance.  What in the world made you say that?  

1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well.
2. ? ? ?
3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either.

Bitcoiner logic.

The confidence thing

Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails.

When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust.

No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails.
The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin.
Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it.

Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young

[brg444]

...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...

That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance.  What in the world made you say that?  

1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well.
2. ? ? ?
3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either.

Bitcoiner logic.

The confidence thing

Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails.

When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust.

No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails.
The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin.
Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it.

Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young

I see you didn't address the trust issue.

You know.. "that confidence thing" is much more important than the math or the code

If Bitcoin fails the whole ecosystem suffers enormously. The mainstream doesn't give a shit or make a difference between your shitcoin and Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails then in the eyes of the public all cryptocurrency is a failure.

Sure the idea might survive in the long run it will take tremendous innovation and efforts to rebuild the public's confidence.

[NotLambchop]

...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...

That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance.  What in the world made you say that?  

1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well.
2. ? ? ?
3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either.

Bitcoiner logic.

The confidence thing

Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails.

When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust.

No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails.
The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin.
Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it.

Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young

I see you didn't address the trust issue.

You know.. "that confidence thing" is much more important than the math or the code

If Bitcoin fails the whole ecosystem suffers enormously. The mainstream doesn't give a shit or make a difference between your shitcoin and Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails then in the eyes of the public all cryptocurrency is a failure.

Sure the idea might survive in the long run it will take tremendous innovation and efforts to rebuild the public's confidence.

Currently, fiat money has the first-mover advantage & confidence behind it.  If Bitcoin is going to compete, it's going to be on the strength of the code.
You're also unjustly limiting cryptocurrency.  Cryptocurrency doesn't need to be just another reitteration of Bitcoin code, it doesn't need to be "trustless" or even decentralized.
If it is backed by a major firms like Google, people will trust it--TRUST ME

[brg444]

...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...

That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance.  What in the world made you say that?  

1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well.
2. ? ? ?
3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either.

Bitcoiner logic.

The confidence thing

Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails.

When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust.

No, if Bitcoin fails then Bitcoin fails.
The math behind the code doesn't fail, and other crypto can be built on the ruins of Bitcoin.
Like a new plant taking nourishment from the rotting remnants of the ones that came before it.

Things will work out, brg444, the day's yet young

I see you didn't address the trust issue.

You know.. "that confidence thing" is much more important than the math or the code

If Bitcoin fails the whole ecosystem suffers enormously. The mainstream doesn't give a shit or make a difference between your shitcoin and Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails then in the eyes of the public all cryptocurrency is a failure.

Sure the idea might survive in the long run it will take tremendous innovation and efforts to rebuild the public's confidence.

Currently, fiat money has the first-mover advantage & confidence behind it.  If Bitcoin is going to compete, it's going to be on the strength of the code.
You're also unjustly limiting cryptocurrency.  Cryptocurrency doesn't need to be just another reitteration of Bitcoin code, it doesn't need to be "trustless" or even decentralized.
If it is backed by a major firms like Google, people will trust it--TRUST ME

 

That's why there is no point arguing with you. You are seemingly an intelligent (yet deranged) man but so clearly lack understanding of the fundamentals it is a lost cause.

Googlecoin is not cryptocurrency. It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Major firms like Google will never launch any sort of proprietary digital currency. See the case of E-Gold to understand why this is not likely and inevitably doomed to failure.

If Bitcoin is going to compete it is because of its economic model and decentralized structure, not the "code" which, quite honestly, doesn't mean much anyway.

[NotLambchop]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

[brg444]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer.

[NotLambchop]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer.

Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc.  Governments can get behind it
Remember, open ledger!

[brg444]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer.

Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc.  Governments can get behind it
Remember, open ledger!

Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers.

Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network. 

It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is  

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer.

Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc.  Governments can get behind it
Remember, open ledger!

Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers.

Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network.  

It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is  

Sounds like Ripple scam.

Edit: In fact NLC is a brilliant critic and 'troll'. If he is not employed by Ripple Labs, maybe he should be

[NotLambchop]

...
Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers.

Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network.  

It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is  

Software doesn't need to be proprietary to be centralized.
Payment processors can, and do rely on cryptography.
Your inability to conceive of cryptography benefiting payment processors?  Why, it strongly hints at you lacking that outside-the-box thinking, the daring to dream in paradigm-shifting, disruptive black swannish visionary manner of a truly exalted Bitcoiner

[brg444]

...It would be considerably less efficient to use cryptography in a centralized model.

Why?  Remember, it doesn't need to be a proof-of-work coin, so doesn't need to rely on burning tons of electricity on high-speed thumb twiddling.  No reason for V2.0 distributed ledger to be wasteful

Why bother with crypto in a centralized model? There's no risk of double spending or option for pseudonymous transactions with a central issuer.

Transparency, improved security, ease of maintenance, ease of KYC/AML enforcement, etc., etc.  Governments can get behind it
Remember, open ledger!

Transparency & openness are not features of proprietary, centralized ledgers.

Also, crypto has nothing good to offer in terms of security or "ease of maintenance" for a centralized network.  

It's like you're suggesting Paypal integrates cryptography, do you realize how stupid the idea is  

Sounds like Ripple scam.

Edit: In fact NLC is a brilliant critic and 'troll'. If he is not employed by Ripple Labs, maybe he should be

I can't wait for him to come around during the next rally. He'll be a fantastic Bitcoin evangelist