Ether was briefly at 10 cents today during a flash crash.
Ether was briefly at 10 cents today during a flash crash.
That is false. Ether has not dipped under ~$320 on any exchanges today.
0.05303289 BTC. About $143 at present exchange rates. Currently generating about 0.0053 BTC/day.
I'm mining using NiceHash across three GTX 1070s (one of them only part-time) I bought just before the recent surge in demand/out-of-stock-ness/price-gouging.
Ether was briefly at 10 cents today during a flash crash.
That is false. Ether has not dipped under ~$320 on any exchanges today.
Bloomberg is reporting that it did: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-23/buffett-deals-and-blockchain-crashes?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=bd&utm_campaign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-23/buffett-deals-and-blockchain-crashes?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=bd&utm_campaign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo)
NiceHash automatically mines whatever is most profitable given present market conditions and efficiency of your hardware with different hashing algorithms. It's been mostly having me mine ETH and Zcash. It pays out in BTC once a week.0.05303289 BTC. About $143 at present exchange rates. Currently generating about 0.0053 BTC/day.
I'm mining using NiceHash across three GTX 1070s (one of them only part-time) I bought just before the recent surge in demand/out-of-stock-ness/price-gouging.
Very cool! Have you considered mining other coins? Bitcoin miining is very competitive but there are other coins you may receive higher USD gains from (unless your plan is to hold the BTC after you get it, of course).
YESTERDAY - There was market manipulation on one exchange which caused a quick crash and recovery within seconds, technically yes it touched the price for a split second. The price quickly recovered.
It's unfortunate. I personally lost my trading stack ($15,000) but had friends lose much more (over $200,000 for one friend). It's unfortunate and there will surely be lawsuits due to gross negligence of the exchange and a breach of their own Terms and Conditions and Terms of Service.
But, ETH price is stable across all platforms. This was a Black Swan due to market manipulation. It's horrible but part of the game as this is an entirely new world of trading.
0.05303289 BTC. About $143 at present exchange rates. Currently generating about 0.0053 BTC/day.
I'm mining using NiceHash across three GTX 1070s (one of them only part-time) I bought just before the recent surge in demand/out-of-stock-ness/price-gouging.
Very cool! Have you considered mining other coins? Bitcoin miining is very competitive but there are other coins you may receive higher USD gains from (unless your plan is to hold the BTC after you get it, of course).Ether was briefly at 10 cents today during a flash crash.
That is false. Ether has not dipped under ~$320 on any exchanges today.
Bloomberg is reporting that it did: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-23/buffett-deals-and-blockchain-crashes?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=bd&utm_campaign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-23/buffett-deals-and-blockchain-crashes?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=bd&utm_campaign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo)
YESTERDAY - There was market manipulation on one exchange which caused a quick crash and recovery within seconds, technically yes it touched the price for a split second. The price quickly recovered.
It's unfortunate. I personally lost my trading stack ($15,000) but had friends lose much more (over $200,000 for one friend). It's unfortunate and there will surely be lawsuits due to gross negligence of the exchange and a breach of their own Terms and Conditions and Terms of Service.
But, ETH price is stable across all platforms. This was a Black Swan due to market manipulation. It's horrible but part of the game as this is an entirely new world of trading.
Huh? $15K (or $200K) of alleged value of cryptocurrency gone? Sorta makes one wonder...
Who is going to be sued and where and by whom and what sort of recovery would be sought?
Since these currencies are not a real thing and the account values are not backed by, or legal tender according to, any country's government, I suspect that if a suit were somehow brought against a responsible party the court would consider these cryptocurrency regimes to be essentially Ponzi schemes. Basically a system where new money is used to pay prior "investors" when the cash out. I mean, not everyone could sell at once and get the cash market value of their cryptocurrency in actual cash right? In such situations, recovery -- if any is granted at all -- is usually limited to the actual amount of cash that one brought in and not to the amount of any paper (imaginary) gains that may have been reported to the dupe in the interim.
With any sort of investment scheme its always important to remember that the cash is gone at the point when one buys -- the investment or asset can be sold for cash again but to the extent there is a market.
YESTERDAY - There was market manipulation on one exchange which caused a quick crash and recovery within seconds, technically yes it touched the price for a split second. The price quickly recovered.
It's unfortunate. I personally lost my trading stack ($15,000) but had friends lose much more (over $200,000 for one friend). It's unfortunate and there will surely be lawsuits due to gross negligence of the exchange and a breach of their own Terms and Conditions and Terms of Service.
But, ETH price is stable across all platforms. This was a Black Swan due to market manipulation. It's horrible but part of the game as this is an entirely new world of trading.
I'm so confused here. You lost $15k yesterday, but it's just unfortunate?
Yes sir, very unfortunate. Given that the lost ETH is currently $15k in value, it will most likely be worth around $100,000 in a year or two.
Oh well, live and learn!
0.05303289 BTC. About $143 at present exchange rates. Currently generating about 0.0053 BTC/day.
I'm mining using NiceHash across three GTX 1070s (one of them only part-time) I bought just before the recent surge in demand/out-of-stock-ness/price-gouging.
Geez... look I hold BTC and ETH and I have to tell you... all ETH guys do is pump, pump, pump.
All investments have risk, and all of the crypto space is immature from a technological standpoint. It does hold a tremendous amount of potential for solving many of the world's problems related to finance and property ownership. But investing in it is ONLY for people who have a strong stomach and a willingness to ride it out for a long period of time.
Yes sir, very unfortunate. Given that the lost ETH is currently $15k in value, it will most likely be worth around $100,000 in a year or two.
Oh well, live and learn!
I don't believe in crypto-currencies. I don't think they are real.
I'd rather invest in something more stable and reliable than cryptocurrency. Like beanie babies.
It's unfortunate and there will surely be lawsuits due to gross negligence of the exchange and a breach of their own Terms and Conditions and Terms of Service.
BTC doesn't have these questions.
The unfortunate: I started mining BTC back in 2012/2013 and also bought a few coins for fun when the value was under $20 USD but quickly gave up and sold because it seemed pointless and there was little immediate value to doing so. If I would have left my PC chugging along back then I would have thousands/hundreds of thousands $$ at this point.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. There is a big difference between mining cryptocurrency and purchasing cryptocurrency, at least as far as investing.
How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Note that my only other step was to move the coins to your own wallet. You should never keep coins at an exchange, because they can be, and are, hacked.
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Note that my only other step was to move the coins to your own wallet. You should never keep coins at an exchange, because they can be, and are, hacked.
I'll have to figure that part out. Any opinions on the Gemini exchange? Seems more regulated and doesn't appear to support lite coin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is coinbase what everyone uses? Is there a chance someone can run off with customers funds on that platform?How would one even go about buying ethereum coins (on a mac)?
Step 1 is google "how to buy etherium".
Probably setting up an account at coinbase is the easiest way. Make sure to move them off to your own wallet after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Note that my only other step was to move the coins to your own wallet. You should never keep coins at an exchange, because they can be, and are, hacked.
Tonyahu, sorry about your 15k. If you don't mind my asking, does that leave you in a net gain or net loss position for your cumulative investments in crypto-currency?
I don't have any, so just curious. Best of luck!
Geez... look I hold BTC and ETH and I have to tell you... all ETH guys do is pump, pump, pump.
All investments have risk, and all of the crypto space is immature from a technological standpoint. It does hold a tremendous amount of potential for solving many of the world's problems related to finance and property ownership. But investing in it is ONLY for people who have a strong stomach and a willingness to ride it out for a long period of time.
Good thing I didn't buy in yet, I'd hate to have been wiped out right after I started. This is obviously an investment opportunity where one has to anticipate losing all and being called a fool - that's OK, I don't plan to put my life savings into it.
I am interested in Ethereum, mainly because from what I've read so far it has a lot more potential than bitcoin, which seems to be a one trick pony. Not that I really know what I am talking about - but I am setting aside a little fun money for crazy investments that I feel have potential. For me it falls under the category of risky investments, but hey, nothing ventured - nothing gained.
So where and how is the best place to begin?
Yes sir, very unfortunate. Given that the lost ETH is currently $15k in value, it will most likely be worth around $100,000 in a year or two.
Oh well, live and learn!
Would you care to share how exactly you lost $15K in ETH? Did someone hack your account and stole them. Isn't the whole point of blockchain so that people cant modify the chain and steal your money? They would have to hack all the nodes to modify the transactions on who owns the currency right?
MOD NOTE: About a dozen posts removed discussing whether or not crypto-currency counts as an "investment" or "speculation."
This thread is not for discussing semantics of what makes an investment, or if crypto-currencies count.
If you want to start a new thread to argue about this, feel free to do so, or look up one of the other crypto-currency threads that already has this same back and forth. Please not derail this thread with this argument yet again.
Cheers!
happy bloody monday!
anyone buying the market on discount?
People need to quit doing these stop losses. A mentor of mine who is about 65 lost $17,000 during that stock market flash crash back in 2015. It's even stupider with the crypto currencies since they are free from any SEC-type regulation.
This past weekend I didn't check the prices at all and my grand total of 2 ETH's and 1 litecoin lost about $200 in value. Boo-hoo. My intention is to hold these until one year from their purchase date.
Back when people were buying illegal drugs and paying out bonuses the IRS couldn't track with bitcoin, it was actually being used as a currency. Now that you can't really buy anything with bitcoin or ETH that you can't with regular cash, they have no special use and everyone's just speculating.
I'm just going to leave this link here for all of the "Vanguard Index Funds or Bust!" people coming in here and blabbering that cryptocurrencies are a joke. That's because there's more to Blockchain technology that you haven't educated yourself on. I can only give you my opinion and suggestion that you should, at the least, learn about them.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/ (http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/)
Blockchain Technology will have a very large effect on many industries. IMO this is one of the greatest investment opportunities of a generation. But there will be risks, scams, and security measures we will have to wade through.
I'm just going to leave this link here for all of the "Vanguard Index Funds or Bust!" people coming in here and blabbering that cryptocurrencies are a joke. That's because there's more to Blockchain technology that you haven't educated yourself on. I can only give you my opinion and suggestion that you should, at the least, learn about them.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/ (http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/)
Blockchain Technology will have a very large effect on many industries. IMO this is one of the greatest investment opportunities of a generation. But there will be risks, scams, and security measures we will have to wade through.
The block chain is great.
That doesn't mean the currencies will necessarily have any value.
Etherium the block chain will be successful. That doesn't mean ETH the currency will, they're two separate things.
(Obviously you know this, but it makes me wonder why you bring up block chain in a digital currency thread except to confuse. Yes, block chains are useful. That's not an argument that a corresponding digital currency will be, or will last.)
Don't post here much but since I've gained so much valuable information from the site, though I'd give back a little.
Blockchain technology is possibly the next paradigm shift in technology. Everyone wants exposure to the next internet/mobile phone/integrated circuit/assembly line. The problem with blockchain technology is that it isn't clear how to get financial exposure to it. Buying BTC or ETH may get you there, it may not. Think of it as believing cell phones being the next big thing and buying stock in Nokia. The difference is that if the cell phone failed, you still have an investment in a real company making other products. With cryptocurrencies, you're presumably going to be left with a worthless digital asset.
I have around 10% of my portfolio in crypto right now and plan to hold for at least a few years.
Blockchain technology is possibly the next paradigm shift in technology. Everyone wants exposure to the next internet/mobile phone/integrated circuit/assembly line. The problem with blockchain technology is that it isn't clear how to get financial exposure to it. Buying BTC or ETH may get you there, it may not. Think of it as believing cell phones being the next big thing and buying stock in Nokia. The difference is that if the cell phone failed, you still have an investment in a real company making other products. With cryptocurrencies, you're presumably going to be left with a worthless digital asset.
The generation scheme seems crazy to me. Just burning up electricity to compute useless hashes.
The generation scheme seems crazy to me. Just burning up electricity to compute useless hashes.
not every token is mined (ie. XRP (ripple) - their protocol is based on consensus. depending on who you talk to (99% of the "crypto-anarchists"), they're considered a travesty to this "new world", despite having the fastest and most innovative technology.
Please don't come and shill XRP in here bud...lol just kidding!
Do you guys have any resources to learn more about the different cryptocurrencies?
i like / visit:
bitcointalk.org (messageboard and great place to learn)
bitcoinmagazine.com (news)
coindesk.com (news)
cointelegraph.com (news)
I am interested in this post and while I am not currently invested in any cryptocurrencies I have started following the market through coinbase. I will probably start a position but I wanted to learn a little more about it. Perhaps some kind soul could answer a few questions for me:
Is it too late to invest in Bitcoin? Have I missed the train and should focus entirely on something like Eth? Or is it worth starting a small stake?
Obviously I would recognize that this is speculative and there are no guarantees. Of course like any Mustachian I would prefer not to lose my money entirely. Can I use stop/losses effectively to hedge against risk? If so what % do you set them for so that they're not constantly triggering in response to market volatility?
Do stock strategies apply to this market? For example should I dollar cost average a set amount every month?
Is it worth learning about the lesser known coins or do you have to be a computer expert to understand them?
Back when people were buying illegal drugs and paying out bonuses the IRS couldn't track with bitcoin, it was actually being used as a currency. Now that you can't really buy anything with bitcoin or ETH that you can't with regular cash, they have no special use and everyone's just speculating.
Also, as I mentioned previously, the cryptocurrencies can't really buy you anything right now that cash or paypal or whatever can't. Bitcoin was actually being used as currency when Silk Road was up and during the brief period of time when the IRS didn't notice companies paying bonuses with Bitcoin. At any moment some new window might appear and the cryptocurrencies will be able to do something cash can't. Or it might never happen.
As for #1, I have no first-hand experience. I am acquainted with people who did use silk road and because of the working knowledge they gained a few years ago they were early adopters of Ethereum and one bought $5,000 back in early March that is now worth about $30,000. However I don't think any of them are actually using Bitcoin or Ethereum to buy or sell stuff anymore.I know someone still using Bitcoin to purchase things online that they shouldn't. It's definitely still being used for that.
However I don't think any of them are actually using Bitcoin or Ethereum to buy or sell stuff anymore.
2) Cryptocurrencies have apparently been useful in countries with massively fluctuating, hyperinflating, or restricted currency (e.g. Venezuela) or places that have eliminated cash (e.g. India). That's a use for it that cash can't do, because cash doesn't exist or is close to worthless.
I had not thought of #2. Probably useful in some situations for people in unstable areas, but then again, relatively few people have much money in poor countries to begin with, and those that do are more often than not up to no good.
India runs on cash. According to Bloomberg, “India has among the highest usage of cash across global economies,” accounting for up to 98% of all transactions. Modi’s bill ban took 86% of it out of circulation, instantly. When he announced the ban on October 8, he gave just four hours notice.
But as a poster just noted, if there is no "blockchain company", then there is no specific place in which to invest.
Example: A big bank has 1,000,000 clients. Every day the bank needs to time stamp the status of its clients’ accounts, in an immutable way, with the possibility of segregating that data afterwards. Let’s assume 1 EC allows one to store the data of 1 client. You need 1,000,000 EC = 1,000 USD = 111 FCT. Over a month time, 111 * 30 = 3,330 FCT are burned for this sole purpose. As the supply is 73,000, you need only 73,000 / 3,330 = 22 entities to operate at this scale to consume the full 73,000, causing the total number of FCT to shrink substantially. To this example, add the demand for FCT triggered by the Bill & Melinda Gates project, and also the DHS security project, the Chinese smart city initiative, the dLoc project, etc. And this is only the beginning!
Of course, this exercise is done by keeping the price constant. The huge amount of demand for FCT will make the price skyrocket. In fact it has to, in order to prevent deflation. Keep in mind that very large institutions are in discussions with Factom and about to sign contracts. Plus, the Harmony suite was probably made with the help of big actors in the industry to get a tailor-made product. (Factom has a number of former exec-level real estate movers on their staff.) The take-away is this: the more companies that use the Factom protocol, the higher the price of FCT must climb.
I'd been debating whether or not it made sense to start a thread about my experiment with crypto currency, but since I came back to the forum to discover there's already going on, here's my first update on my less than three week old old experiment with both mining (ZEC) and currency appreciation (BTC + a little ZEC). The numbers will seem quite low compared to folks like Tonyahu, but patterns should hopefully be representative.
Currently running 4 GTX 1060s (purchased for the experiment) and 1 GTX 970 (in the computer I use for VR). Have a 5th 1060 out of commission at the moment, potentially this is just an issue with a bad riser. 1060s are a bit slower than the cards a lot of folks run, but due the demand driving up the cost of 1070 on up, when I pulled the trigger these had the shortest payback time. Currently mining ZEC and getting paid in BTC through NiceHash but I've also experimented with mining ZEC directly through flypool.
I wanted to separate out the idea of "mining crypto currency for profit" from the idea of "owning crypto currency for price appreciation" in my records. "Mining income" assumes I sell everything for dollars at the prevailing price on the day it was earned. "Capital Gains/Losses" tracks the difference between mining income and the actual net worth of the cryptocurrency. I jumpstarted the currency appreciation half of my experiment with ~0.44 bitcoins I found leftover on an old computer. Since if I wasn't doing the experiment I would have cashed that out, I reset my starting value on those coins to the price they would have received on the day I started the experiment.
My sunk costs would be lower if I built a second machine (by $200, or $400 if I subtract out what I spent on the last 1060 that may still come online at some point), but the only way I could have gotten to the point of knowing how to build the second machine was to build the first one. Currently 3 weeks in. Averaging about $13.50/day in mining income and $4.30/day in capital gains. If I can keep that up I'm 58 days from my break even point overall and 84 days away from my break even point considering only income from mining.
The rate at which the difficulty for ZEC mining is increasing has me a little concerned about the likelihood of success for my little experiment. From the start of my experiment to today, difficulty has increased from ~2M to ~3.5M. So far the price of ZEC has increased roughly proportionately ($240/ZEC->$360/ZEC, so I'm not seeing a big decline in my average daily mining take but it looks like the price may be starting to level off.
(https://i.imgpile.com/nNz0KW.png) (https://imgpile.com/i/nNz0KW)
Anyway, lots of things could go wrong, but it continues to be a fun experiment, the rack I built could easily scale to 24 total graphics cards if I ever decide to put real money into this, and worse case scenario, I've got everything I've spent so far down in my monthly accounts as entertainment/hobby spending, not investment.
t's a good question. Electricity is a bit messier to track but based on my back of the envelope calculations I should be only spending an extra $25/month on electric if I achieve 100% uptime.
But as a poster just noted, if there is no "blockchain company", then there is no specific place in which to invest.
There are many blockchain companies, trying to create and apply technology in different fields (mainly financial), they are mainly (or all) privately held startups, small businesses, etc. And most will probably die before you hear of them.
You could invest in them and many would like funding but you would be investing in the private market (And you may have to be an accredited investor)
Almost have all my rigs built. My goal is $100 day. So far so good...
Little scared when I look at the stack of empty video card boxes in the corner. I really hope I can make enough to pay off the initial investment and let the rest ride. Current estimates is about a 4 month break even.
I see a lot of potential in Sia.
Question for Canadians with a crypto-currency portfolio. I opened a coinbase account, but for methods of purchasing, it only lets me use Visa or MasterCard? There is a 4% fee, and i'm not sure what my credit card will charge (like a cash-advance fee) if i use it to buy. Also, how do i get my money out? Back through my credit card?
if you're talking about holding established coins for multiple decades, as opposed to trying to catch a newish coin make 10x gains in a single year, you should be able to watch the trajectory for each coin. whether it's seeing how that coin's mining system works over several years, how quickly security problems get patched, how chain forks and upgrades are handled, if scalability appears to be on track, how/if the coin is being regulated by governments, how the coin's price responds to stock/bond market crashes, etc., it probably won't be a big surprise if a particular coin positions itself for long-term survival. also, the network effect could theoretically lead to several coins gaining a large user base and becoming entrenched.
Question for Canadians with a crypto-currency portfolio. I opened a coinbase account, but for methods of purchasing, it only lets me use Visa or MasterCard? There is a 4% fee, and i'm not sure what my credit card will charge (like a cash-advance fee) in addition if i use it to buy. Also, how do i get my money out? Back through my credit card?
I used a prepaid debit card to buy and my bank charged me an international fee of $9 or something like that. I haven't sold yet so I don't know what happens.
And i just checked, coinbase doesn't support the selling of digital currency in Canada. So, i can buy, pay 4%, plus possible cash advance charges, and I can't ever sell it. What the hell?
And i just checked, coinbase doesn't support the selling of digital currency in Canada. So, i can buy, pay 4%, plus possible cash advance charges, and I can't ever sell it. What the hell?
Can you withdraw to Paypal account? Then from Paypal to Canadian bank.
I'm interested in this. I could see it being 5% of my total portfolio, which I would automatically rebalance out of if it doubled (nonopled?) to be sure of a profit but did not rebalance back into except within a narrow range. I would do it like ARS suggested and equally weight 10 currencies (or so) because even if nine break even, if a single one rises 1000% I have it made. Dollar cost averaging should be very effective for building a large position in something that is crazy volatile.
The problem is convincing myself to sink the money. I'd prefer to go the mining route. The even harder problem would be convincing my wife to let a few thousand go for either of those purposes.
I'm interested in this. I could see it being 5% of my total portfolio, which I would automatically rebalance out of if it doubled (nonopled?) to be sure of a profit but did not rebalance back into except within a narrow range. I would do it like ARS suggested and equally weight 10 currencies (or so) because even if nine break even, if a single one rises 1000% I have it made. Dollar cost averaging should be very effective for building a large position in something that is crazy volatile.
The problem is convincing myself to sink the money. I'd prefer to go the mining route. The even harder problem would be convincing my wife to let a few thousand go for either of those purposes.
But that's exactly my point. You wouldn't "have it made"... if 1/10th of 5% of your portfolio (or a half a percent of your portfolio) went 10x, you'd suddenly be up 5% on your whole portfolio. Whoopee!
Is it worth risking 5% of your portfolio for that chance to gain... 5% on your portfolio?
Sure doesn't seem like it to me.
And yes, maybe there are more massive gains, or maybe you make nothing at all, and get wiped out. But a reasonable scenario just doesn't excite me. You'd have to take massive risks (large % of your portfolio) and/or get very lucky, and at that point, if you think you will get very lucky, why not just go to the casino?
Or do you think it'll gain 2500x like maze mentions? And if so, does it have a 1 in 2500 shot to do that, basically?
I don't feel like anyone talks about amounts, or odds. They're just like "well, i think it'll go up. i think cryptocurrencies have a future."
okayyy... and?
But if you pick one of the coins that "make it", that is, their protocol gets adopted by some industry or the world, then you definitely aren't looking at x10. You're looking at 100x...1000x...more.
Someone else mentioned earlier in the thread that if you are interested in the possibility of the technology, one of your best bets might be to educate your self on those skills and sell your abilities, i.e. your personal capital. This seems somewhat consistent with what I've seen on the consulting / freelancing job sites with the posts of people looking for people skilled at blockchain development, creating a new cryptocurrency, applying existing toolkits, etc. I haven't dug far enough to see what the hourly consulting rates are, but I imagine they'd be lucrative? Anyone dug in?
In a gold rush, it doesn't hurt to be the one selling shovels.
I have seen billrates from $150 to $250hr depending on the skills needed. Others are just offering profit sharing (percent of profits). It is a GREAT time to be a software developer, I never seem to have enough time to do all the work that seems to float by.
Sure. Let's talk about Maize's 2500x gain for a second.
Let's stick with Bitcoin, to start with.
Bitcoin, over six years, went from ~1, to ~2500. Cool.
Now let's say you buy, or mine, or have, some Bitcoin. Are the same gains feasible?
I don't think so, and here's why. Each coin would be worth $6,250,000. If that doesn't sound absurd, consider this.
Every person who bought at least $400 worth of Bitcoin (or mined enough) when it was cheap ($1 or less) is now a "Bitcoin Millionaire." If the coin 2500x again, they'd each have 2.5 billion, or more (if they had more coins, so they had more than exactly 1MM right now).
Can we have that many bitcoin billionaires? Well, why does bitcoin rise in value? For the same reason gold might rise in value; it's what people are willing to pay. It's not producing an income, the way a stock market investment might. It's just what people are willing to pay.
The problem with valuing a bitcoin at 6.25MM is that people can't afford to drive the prices that high. You can't make that many billionaires out of a speculative item, because not only do you hit a point where people don't want to pay that, you hit a point where there's literally not enough money in the world to make each one worth that*.
*Yes, if massive inflation happens, but then those billions aren't worth much anyways; I'm talking real dollars.
Good comments.
I think the further problem will be the continued proliferation of new-and-improved cryptocurrencies. So if $3T+ in cryptocurrencies are in used in 10 years, that value will be spread across dozens of major currencies and hundreds or thousands of lesser-used currencies.
I do think that mass chaos is possible very soon if individual banks or even individual retailers start their own currencies. For example, Macy's and Target and everyone else could take the store credit card one step further by having a store currency. Maybe it could be cheaper to administer than a store credit card or gift cards, if only because it would mitigate security issues.
It's crazy to think that an exchange might trade Macy's Coins and Target Coins. It would also take a lot of traffic out of the traditional credit card system, so it would be bad for credit card points and the various card routing services that have been skimming every transaction since the 1960s. The more credit cards decline in use and benefits the more Store Coin activity we'd see.
I think the further problem will be the continued proliferation of new-and-improved cryptocurrencies.
...an estimate of a maximum of 70x additional growth in the price of bitcoins.
...an estimate of a maximum of 70x additional growth in the price of bitcoins.
i'm no economist, but for a hypothetical upper-bound scenario, wouldn't you have to take into account the other markets bitcoin would likely take a large slice of, in addition to the US dollar? what about the gold market, international real estate, and other fiat currencies?
another thing to consider is that only ~100k bitcoins are traded daily, out of the current 16.4M bitcoin in circulation. i believe this shallow market drives the market price up significantly. assuming bitcoin in cold storage aren't being somehow traded in the far future, if we say the day-to-day exchange rate is double the "true" value of a bitcoin, that 266x could become 500x at the exchange. this would be my rainbows+unicorns 30 year outlook.
Pure opinion. My BIL put Most of their savings into Etherium at close to 300$. I think that was incredibly foolish and voiced my opinion as such. That is the only reason I ended up reading this thread.
My BIL put Most of their savings into Etherium at close to 300$. I think that was incredibly foolish and voiced my opinion as such. That is the only reason I ended up reading this thread.
The mainstream is just barely dipping in. This is almost like 1995 when the public started their investments in internet stocks and the market went beyond crazy and invested in any company that said they may create a webpage.
The mainstream is just barely dipping in. This is almost like 1995 when the public started their investments in internet stocks and the market went beyond crazy
Yeah, possibly. But stocks are stocks and invented currencies aren't ownership and don't pay a dividend.
...if people started to sell gold to buy bitcoin in significant numbers, the price of gold would drop rapidly so you wouldn't have $8.2T available to buy bitcoins. I'm not sure how to model this one...
I don't see how owning bitcoins is a substitute for owning your home or other real estate. Could you elaborate on that point?
The number you're using is 100k trades day/16.4M coins = 0.006 trades per coin per day. If you're right, then the velocity of bitcoins is only 1/3 of what I used above, and that would mean the final potential value of bitcoins if they completely replaced the USD would be 3x higher than what I calculated, which is in the same range of multipliers as what you estimate above.
No sell near 400$. Still has it, and I believe its at a lower value then when purchased. And yes, I assume the same thing you assumed. The overall value probably isnt a very large amount.
Also after looking at AMD and Nvidia - I dont think either is a good buy at their current price. In fact I think they are both terrible buys... My opinion again...
Okay, so if Bitcoin can't 2500x any more, the vast majority of its gains are gone. What about ETH, the second most popular coin? Well, being at ~250 (+/-... ~190 as of this typing, but as high as ~400 a month ago), it's just a factor of 10 below BTC. It'll have the same problem that it can't grow that much.
Question for Canadians with a crypto-currency portfolio. I opened a coinbase account, but for methods of purchasing, it only lets me use Visa or MasterCard? There is a 4% fee, and i'm not sure what my credit card will charge (like a cash-advance fee) in addition if i use it to buy. Also, how do i get my money out? Back through my credit card?
I used a prepaid debit card to buy and my bank charged me an international fee of $9 or something like that. I haven't sold yet so I don't know what happens.
So, as a Canadian, is there another site i should use if i want to buy and sell from my bank account?
Update on the mining experiment.
(https://i.imgpile.com/nwUxK1.png) (https://imgpile.com/i/nwUxK1)
(click to zoom in)
The recent decline in cyptocurrency prices has essentially halted the growth in difficulty for ZEC mining, but the difficulty isn't going down at all either. Presumably everyone who bought new graphics cards during the recent runup is trying to recoup as much of their investment as possible even if the decline in price is great enough that buying new graphics cards for mining doesn't make financial sense at the moment (and since all the other currencies seem to be moving down in concert people cannot simply switch over to mining a different currency). So unless the price decline continues to the point where mining drops below the cost of the electricity to run the cards or the value of another currency that's mineable with GPUs spikes, I don't expect mining difficulty to actually decline.
I'm having a lot of fun gaming out different people's incentives and the possibilities in different future scenarios. However, it seems like this might be a stressful time if I had sunk real money into my mining hardware.
Nope. I'm just earning money more slowly if you account for the extra charge on my electrical bill. If I was losing money (after electricity) the slope of the blue line would be negative.
Right now I'm still making approximately 4x as much from mining as I pay for the extra electricity, which is a reasonable profit margin if you don't worry about paying off the cost of the mining right. A few weeks ago it was 10x.
(I am losing money right now on the value of the bitcoins and ZEC I haven't converted to USD, but that's a completely separate issue from whether mining makes money or not.)
I haven't messed around at all with underclocking. Do you find that it makes a significant difference in your power consumption?
Back when electricity was only 10% of my mining income, it seemed like it wasn't a great trade off to spend time trying to optimize power consumption, but if current trends continue I imagine it's something I'll want to explore more.
My biggest problem is that I don't understand the true fundamentals behind it. I would have no idea how safe any coin is or how easy it would be for them to split etc... thus its extremely difficult to hold as it drops.
Any helpful info on that?
There seems to be something like this here: http://www.bittwenty.com/bit20.php
I haven't given it much of a look yet, and I'm not sure I trust them over doing it myself. It's worth noting that the do exclude certain coins like Ripple and Tether, and they also cap each coin to 10% of the index to avoid dominance.
Question for Canadians with a crypto-currency portfolio. I opened a coinbase account, but for methods of purchasing, it only lets me use Visa or MasterCard? There is a 4% fee, and i'm not sure what my credit card will charge (like a cash-advance fee) in addition if i use it to buy. Also, how do i get my money out? Back through my credit card?
I used a prepaid debit card to buy and my bank charged me an international fee of $9 or something like that. I haven't sold yet so I don't know what happens.
So, as a Canadian, is there another site i should use if i want to buy and sell from my bank account?
JAYSLOL, for what it is worth, when I purchased Bitcoin with a credit card through Coinbase, the credit card company (Barclays) treated it as a regular purchase. That means I earned points on the purchase of my Bitcoin. With about 2.1% earned back from my credit card in cash with these miles, that essentially reduced the fee I had to pay through Coinbase to about 2% on the purchase of Bitcoin which is almost what the fee is for a bank transfer purchase.
YMMV, but if you can't find another purchasing alternative, then purchasing through Coinbase with a credit card that earns you decent miles is an option.
I purchased 16 ethereum coins in november at ~$12 a coin then got fed up with the price moving sideways as btc took off from $600 to $2k+ and sold out at $12 or $13 then it took off to nearly $400..... If only I had put a couple thousand on eth at $12/coin.... thats a life changing amount of gains...
My biggest problem is that I don't understand the true fundamentals behind it. I would have no idea how safe any coin is or how easy it would be for them to split etc... thus its extremely difficult to hold as it drops.
Any helpful info on that?
consider looking back through history with how every market downturn resulted in a market come back at some point.
those who kept buying (dollar cost averaging) or just held on, ultimately fared better than those who panicked and sold.
Well that's not true.
Nor that.i'm not talking about a single asset, i mentioned markets.
Well that's not true.
well, it is. financial markets ultimately recover at some point.QuoteNor that.i'm not talking about a single asset, i mentioned markets.
Tell me how the tulip market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) is doing.
consider looking back through history with how every market downturn resulted in a market come back at some point.
Well that's not true.Quotethose who kept buying (dollar cost averaging) or just held on, ultimately fared better than those who panicked and sold.
Nor that.
Do you think there's never been any assets that went to zero?
Tell me how the tulip market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) is doing.great, my tulip portfolio is up 8.7% over the last 24hrs.
The interesting question is why did it go up 8.7% in one day?
Was there a major announcement?
Have the fundamentals changed?
Where do we expect the value to go tomorrow or next week?
I believe this kind of growth/speculation is damaging in the long run. I experienced the dot com hysteria and subsequent crash - this feels very similar.
I purchased 16 ethereum coins in november at ~$12 a coin then got fed up with the price moving sideways as btc took off from $600 to $2k+ and sold out at $12 or $13 then it took off to nearly $400..... If only I had put a couple thousand on eth at $12/coin.... thats a life changing amount of gains...
My biggest problem is that I don't understand the true fundamentals behind it. I would have no idea how safe any coin is or how easy it would be for them to split etc... thus its extremely difficult to hold as it drops.
Any helpful info on that?
regarding ETH, keep in mind that there is NO SUPPLY CAP. they were smart to capitalize on the enterprise aspect, which was extremely smart and IMO is the reason why they've managed to hold on.
even though cryptocurrencies are a new asset class, i would study investing psychology and fundamentals as most of them probably apply. many people have panicked and sold (some at huge losses), assuming the market will never come back. consider looking back through history with how every market downturn resulted in a market come back at some point. those who kept buying (dollar cost averaging) or just held on, ultimately fared better than those who panicked and sold.
*to add, when choosing a token to invest in/buy, look at tokens which have a real use case that could result in widespread adoption and active dev teams. with the proliferation of ICO's, read that company's white paper, and engage with the general crypto-community (bitcointalk.org for instance). good luck.
There currently isn't a single ICO with real world value. The ICOs are not equity in the company but based on some future value of utility. They are really dangerous instruments compared to Bitcoin/Ethereum that have at least some proven themselves with at least one use case currency
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tell me how the tulip market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) is doing.great, my tulip portfolio is up 8.7% over the last 24hrs.
The interesting question is why did it go up 8.7% in one day?
Was there a major announcement?
Have the fundamentals changed?
Where do we expect the value to go tomorrow or next week?
I believe this kind of growth/speculation is damaging in the long run. I experienced the dot com hysteria and subsequent crash - this feels very similar.
Actually yes, there was pretty good news yesterday that a large number of Bitcoin miners have begun running the new code release yesterday that supports Segwit adoption. That's very good news. The recent drop in prices was related to concern about whether or not there would be a chain split come August first. The fact that so many miners are now adopting SegWit means that a chain split is less likely and users of Bitcoin are more confident. I think the August 1st upgrade date will be a non-issue and Bitcoin will be able to facilitate a lot more transactions than previously and this will result in a large price increase by the end of August.
There currently isn't a single ICO with real world value. The ICOs are not equity in the company but based on some future value of utility. They are really dangerous instruments compared to Bitcoin/Ethereum that have at least some proven themselves with at least one use case currency
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is so much wrong with this statement. To make a bold claim that there isn't a single ICO with real world value is vastly ignorant to the technology and what ICO's represent and the benefit they provide.
No, they're not equity in any company themselves, but they are equity in a protocol that a company could build itself completely off of. ICOs give developers the opportunity to develop protocols while giving incentive to users to adopt the protocol by giving them a share of the monetization that the protocol provides. Previously it was always a "chicken or the egg" scenario when trying to develop a new technology protocol. A developer might want to create a brand new protocol that would provide a huge benefit, but it might rely on a vast amount of early adopters to get the protocol off the ground.
A great example of this is decentralized cloud storage (ie, Siacoin and Storj). To get a new decentralized cloud storage solution off the ground, it would require a large number of users in the system to ensure there are enough nodes to decentralize the storage of files for new users looking to store their files. But, if there is no incentive to give people to put their hard earned free space up for rent, then it would be very difficult for a solution like that to ever get off the ground. ICOs provide an immediate stake into the solution by creating an incentive in the form of a crypto-currency to those individuals that become a part of the protocol. This allows a system like this to immediately build the framework needed to bring users and adoption to their new protocol. To say that this has no real-world value is insane. These solutions could dramatically shake up the cloud storage market that is in need of one desperately. A decentralized cloud storage solution you can trust is exactly what the market needs.
There currently isn't a single ICO with real world value. The ICOs are not equity in the company but based on some future value of utility. They are really dangerous instruments compared to Bitcoin/Ethereum that have at least some proven themselves with at least one use case currency
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is so much wrong with this statement. To make a bold claim that there isn't a single ICO with real world value is vastly ignorant to the technology and what ICO's represent and the benefit they provide.
No, they're not equity in any company themselves, but they are equity in a protocol that a company could build itself completely off of. ICOs give developers the opportunity to develop protocols while giving incentive to users to adopt the protocol by giving them a share of the monetization that the protocol provides. Previously it was always a "chicken or the egg" scenario when trying to develop a new technology protocol. A developer might want to create a brand new protocol that would provide a huge benefit, but it might rely on a vast amount of early adopters to get the protocol off the ground.
A great example of this is decentralized cloud storage (ie, Siacoin and Storj). To get a new decentralized cloud storage solution off the ground, it would require a large number of users in the system to ensure there are enough nodes to decentralize the storage of files for new users looking to store their files. But, if there is no incentive to give people to put their hard earned free space up for rent, then it would be very difficult for a solution like that to ever get off the ground. ICOs provide an immediate stake into the solution by creating an incentive in the form of a crypto-currency to those individuals that become a part of the protocol. This allows a system like this to immediately build the framework needed to bring users and adoption to their new protocol. To say that this has no real-world value is insane. These solutions could dramatically shake up the cloud storage market that is in need of one desperately. A decentralized cloud storage solution you can trust is exactly what the market needs.
Cloud storage market won't be shaken up from this. If you are technical you will realize that the extra redundancy requirements and high chance of data loss. Means they will never be competitive with Amazon. I worked for a large cloud hosting company and it's difficult even at massive scale to come to pricing parity with Amazon. Having some random people host it and with many more copies is a joke. It will never be in the same price realm. Each of these ICOs is hyping some future vaporware.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And i just checked, coinbase doesn't support the selling of digital currency in Canada. So, i can buy, pay 4%, plus possible cash advance charges, and I can't ever sell it. What the hell?
Can you withdraw to Paypal account? Then from Paypal to Canadian bank.
I dunno, the site just automatically knows im in Canada, and only gives me the option to link a credit card and as far as I can tell, no paypal or other options
And i just checked, coinbase doesn't support the selling of digital currency in Canada. So, i can buy, pay 4%, plus possible cash advance charges, and I can't ever sell it. What the hell?
Can you withdraw to Paypal account? Then from Paypal to Canadian bank.
I dunno, the site just automatically knows im in Canada, and only gives me the option to link a credit card and as far as I can tell, no paypal or other options
Should have the option when you go to sell, if you click through "add payment method"
Something like the following screens:
1)
(http://i.imgur.com/GeVWAjO.png)
2)
(http://i.imgur.com/75iA5W1.png)
3)
(http://i.imgur.com/JX3GdyX.png)
I can imagine not linking to a Canadian bank account, but would be surprised if Paypal was not supported for Canadians
Barring that, you can always send me the Bitcoin and I could send it to you. I'm totally trustworthy. On an unrelated note, everyone, I might have found an even better way of getting bitcoin than mining :)
Cloud storage market won't be shaken up from this. If you are technical you will realize that the extra redundancy requirements and high chance of data loss. Means they will never be competitive with Amazon. I worked for a large cloud hosting company and it's difficult even at massive scale to come to pricing parity with Amazon. Having some random people host it and with many more copies is a joke. It will never be in the same price realm. Each of these ICOs is hyping some future vaporware.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cloud storage market won't be shaken up from this. If you are technical you will realize that the extra redundancy requirements and high chance of data loss. Means they will never be competitive with Amazon. I worked for a large cloud hosting company and it's difficult even at massive scale to come to pricing parity with Amazon. Having some random people host it and with many more copies is a joke. It will never be in the same price realm. Each of these ICOs is hyping some future vaporware.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe not immediately, but it will become a major competitor I believe. How is it vaporware? The Storj network infrastructure is usable today. I used it the other day to store files and those files were stored redundantly, encrypted (with a private key that I own), and split into small fragments across 5+ geographically diverse nodes. If you were technical, you'd know why your statement is ridiculous. The only downside is that it isn't as usable at the moment. You need to use some cli scripts to upload and download files and the commands used require specifying unfriendly file and bucket IDs to upload and download files. So technically, the system works as designed, they just need to work on the usability of it so that it can appeal to a broader market.
Because the files are fragmented across many nodes, download speeds are high because the bandwidth is split across those nodes similar to how Bittorrent achieves its high download speeds.
Decentralized cloud storage will be way cheaper than what any other cloud storage provider. The cost of Storj is about $0.015/GB per month. Amazon is $0.023/GB per month and Microsoft is $0.030/GB per month. It is way easier to achieve scale when it is distributed and decentralized as opposed to one single entity trying to match those costs at scale.
Just look at Bitcoin itself. It is capable of achieving processing speeds that are more than 500 times more powerful than the top 500 supercomputers on earth combined. No single entity could ever achieve that. The reason is because the costs are distributed across the network and share among the network's users. The same thing happens with any decentralized solution. Whether it is Bittorrent, cloud storage, computing, etc.
Why do you think that even some larger providers choose to host larger downloads via Bittorrent as opposed to trying to serve those downloads themselves? Because it is simply cheaper to do it in a distributed/decentralized method as opposed to paying the higher costs of hosting it centrally.
EDIT: Just noticed OneCoolCat responded similarly. Kudos.
Tulip mania is an interesting analogy because it's a story of a failed alternative currency. Tulip bulbs experienced explosive growth in a short time and attracted many speculators.
Items that attract speculators and have their value driven irrationally upwards are at high risk of major crashes. The explosive growth in value could be the trigger that invalidates the currency. The value must stabilize for the currency to be useful.
The interesting question is why did it go up 8.7% in one day?
I agree cryptocurrency is different, and I wouldn't even say it's necessarily in a bubble. But it's a good ridiculous counter to ridiculous statements like these:
Those who kept buying always do better? What about when it goes to 0? No market has ever gone to 0? Tell that to the currency market for the Zimbabwe dollar.
What about when they sell (yes low) and put it into a market or asset that performs better going forward? The opportunity cost going forward is all that matters, and you can't say that someone who held always did better than someone who sold (and invested in something else).
Cryptocurrency has a lot going for it, possibly. We don't need hyperbole and inaccurate statements to muddy the waters.
The interesting question is why did it go up 8.7% in one day?
i have a large / diversified crypto portfolio, so some fared better than others. the volatility in general is ridiculous...
The interesting question is why did it go up 8.7% in one day?
i have a large / diversified crypto portfolio, so some fared better than others. the volatility in general is ridiculous...
up 26.5% today!
Centralized system will have better pricing, the core costs are hard drives and electricity. Both are cheaper at scale. P2p file sharing has been around for 20 years. This is great for piracy, not if you want to have consistent reliable storage. There is a whole thread on hacker news where people go into more detail here, this is actually a technical forum https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14806440
If you want to look at pure underlying economics, one of our competitors has a great post detailing how much it costs to run a storage costs.
* From https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/ 1TB of storage cost around $25. * I'll assume 3 year life-span for a drive. * Add 50% costs for the infrastructure and electricity to support the storage. * Add another 17.6% due to redundancy (17 data shards + 3 parity) - https://www.backblaze.com/blog/vault-cloud-storage-architecture/
Gives a minimum cost (before employee costs, marketing etc) of $1.22/TB/month.
If we do the same with Siacoin (which I believe stores 3 copies of your data) we get $3.12/TB/month.
I know the company I'm at has a few million clients and even at our scale competitions with Amazon on price is nearly impossible on the storage side. It's not where the margins are
I think people are just hyped about ethereum so just trying to find any valid usecase to use blockchain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My question is what are the coins for, particularly with the applications of the technology that don't seem like they want to be an alt-currency. For example, two of the coins mentioned up thread, Sia and Storj. I checked both websites, generally understand what they are trying to do with the distributed storage and content access, but don't understand why anyone would want to own the coins.
Anyone have an explanation for amateur?
Thanks.
How do people feel about SegWit and this august 1 possible change/fork whatever you want to call it? This seems like a huge risk to any stability from BTC. BTC's widespread actual use (compared to other alt-coins) is its big advantage and this seems like it could mess up that real work use.
I've sold enough BTC to be net ahead on everything I bought about a year and a half ago so I can hold the last couple coins with Coinbase for the long haul and feel like I still did ok. In the libertarian spirit of alt currencies, the most recent BTC sale proceeds will be put into physical silver and stored in a secure, non disclosed location. I hope I am on the correct side of the fork!
Even if one is on the majority side of a Fork, the fork splits users and it would seem the two halves will always be worth less than the sum.
Wondering if someone can clear something up for me. Bitcoin is supposed to be inherently deflationary, correct? Presumably good as a store of wealth if that all works out, however isn't having a predominately deflationary currency (in the case of the depression, a gold-backed us dollar) a good part of what caused the Great Depression to be so severe? Aren't we setting up what could be the largest global depression in history if Bitcoin goes mainstream and everybody hoards it because it always goes up? Spending and real investing stop, economy tanks, causing a deflationary feedback loop making everything worse. Thoughts?
it ultimately comes down to the choice of whether the merchant prefers the properties of the dollar versus bitcoin
Regarding deflation, I actually think that property of bitcoin will help its adoption as a medium of exchange. If a merchant has a choice to make a transaction in dollars or bitcoin, it ultimately comes down to the choice of whether the merchant prefers the properties of the dollar versus bitcoin. If the merchant understands that after making an exchange in bitcoin the result of that transaction will hold its value for a longer period of time, then it makes sense for the merchant to want to accept bitcoin as a payment option. If more merchants see the value in bitcoin as a payment option, then it will end up being adopted quicker in the marketplace.
On the consumer side, deflationary spirals are bad in a traditional economy because they are unexpected. But, deflation with bitcoin is expected and static. It is a property of the currency and cannot be manipulated. Therefore the concept of a traditional deflationary spiral doesn't apply to bitcoin. If someone wants a TV today, then they'll purchase it when they can afford it knowning that the next bitcoin they earn will have the same deflationary property as the one they just spent. Traditional deflationary spirals can't provide that assurance when the government controls the currency because there is no telling when the currency supply contraints will fluctuate. Therefore, currency hoarding takes place under those circumstances.
Because it's really not money, it's more like electronic gold. It's designed to be hoarded, not spent.
-W
Because it's really not money, it's more like electronic gold. It's designed to be hoarded, not spent.
-W
See, the thing is that's totally cool with me, i don't really care if people hoard an electronic asset designed to preserve wealth, i'd probably participate. I'm also totally cool with a crypto currency designed to make digital commerce easier/cheaper/better, i'd definitely participate. The problem comes when the asset being hoarded ALSO becomes the global mainstream currency on which commerce depends on, then it seems to me we'd be up shit creek soon after.
I still don't get why that couldn't happen with Bitcoin. If it goes up consistantly and there is a limited supply, why wouldn't people hoard it? Its not even mainstream yet and people are already hoarding it and paying exponentially higher amounts for it practically every day.
As long as that stays the case, the deflation of bitcoin doesn't really present any economic challenges. The deflation issue would only be a problem if contacts started specifying future payment amounts in bitcoins:
If a hypothetical person took out a mortgage where the monthly payment was 3 bitcoins a month back when bitcoin was $900/coin, that person would be in trouble right now (actually so would the bank if they made a lot o these mortgages and no one could pay them anymore).
If a cryptocurrency startup had hired a super programmer at 20 bitcoins/month hack when the price was $900/coin the startup would be in trouble right now.
Because it's really not money, it's more like electronic gold. It's designed to be hoarded, not spent.
-W
See, the thing is that's totally cool with me, i don't really care if people hoard an electronic asset designed to preserve wealth, i'd probably participate. I'm also totally cool with a crypto currency designed to make digital commerce easier/cheaper/better, i'd definitely participate. The problem comes when the asset being hoarded ALSO becomes the global mainstream currency on which commerce depends on, then it seems to me we'd be up shit creek soon after.
I think that the two functions can largely co-exist at least the way things are right now.
Generally folks selling things in bitcoin don't have fixed bitcoin prices. They have fixed prices in euros or dollars or RMB or what have you. If you pay in bitcoins you send them however much of a bitcoin corresponds to the price in the local currency at that particular moment. Similarly, lots of folks paying for things in bitcoins aren't keeping a lot of bitcoin around, but go out and buy some (either personally or the program they're using to send money does it for them) depending on how much they need to spend on a particular transaction.
As long as that stays the case, the deflation of bitcoin doesn't really present any economic challenges. The deflation issue would only be a problem if contacts started specifying future payment amounts in bitcoins:
If a hypothetical person took out a mortgage where the monthly payment was 3 bitcoins a month back when bitcoin was $900/coin, that person would be in trouble right now (actually so would the bank if they made a lot o these mortgages and no one could pay them anymore).
If a cryptocurrency startup had hired a super programmer at 20 bitcoins/month hack when the price was $900/coin the startup would be in trouble right now.
I still don't get why that couldn't happen with Bitcoin. If it goes up consistantly and there is a limited supply, why wouldn't people hoard it? Its not even mainstream yet and people are already hoarding it and paying exponentially higher amounts for it practically every day.As long as that stays the case, the deflation of bitcoin doesn't really present any economic challenges. The deflation issue would only be a problem if contacts started specifying future payment amounts in bitcoins:
If a hypothetical person took out a mortgage where the monthly payment was 3 bitcoins a month back when bitcoin was $900/coin, that person would be in trouble right now (actually so would the bank if they made a lot o these mortgages and no one could pay them anymore).
If a cryptocurrency startup had hired a super programmer at 20 bitcoins/month hack when the price was $900/coin the startup would be in trouble right now.
First, it should be noted that the rapid price increases we are seeing today with bitcoin are not related at all to deflation. Bitcoin at the moment is a very inflated currency. The increase in price has more to do with an extreme increase in demand because it is so new.
The discussion about deflation isn't relevant to bitcoin until demand has stabilized, new bitcoins are no longer created (or at at least created at a much slower pace than today), and bitcoin becomes the primary currency of society. These three 3 won't happen for a very long time. When they do happen, the value of bitcoin will rise at a slow and gradual rate, not like the rate that we're seeing today. This means that there will still be an incentive to invest that currency into businesses who would be able to turn that investment into profits better than if that currency were to just sit around idle in a wallet. At the time of this slow transition, the economy will likely contract as it adjusts, but over time it will lead to a slower growing economy that is more resilient to recessions.
If those three things do occur, then it will likely be a very slow process to get there. We're so used to the inflationary nature of our currency, that many things are just tailored to an inflationary economy. For example, as Maizeman mentioned, things like wages are designed around today's inflationary nature of our currency. Every year people receive wage increases (hopefully) to help their earnings keep pace with inflation. With a deflationary currency, we'd no longer need these wage increases annually. Naturally, lower and middle class earnings would rise with the economy instead of stagnating today relying upon our governments to increase earnings for the poor. This will provide higher buying power for people who currently lack it today.
As far as lending goes, interest rates are part of the lending process because the government manipulates those rates along with the currency supply. With a static deflationary currency, we'd no longer need interest rates when lending. Instead, if you take a loan to purchase something and that something costs 5 bitcoin, then you simply pay say 5 bitcoin back over the course of 5 years. Because the currency is deflationary in nature, the lender will make their money through the lending process simply because of the fact that the currency is deflationary, unlike today where lenders make money through interest rates. Or, in the case of borrower risk, the lender can simply measure the interest rate based on that risk without the need to adjust that rate based on the government prime rate. The borrower won't have any problem paying it back because the payments are steady as well as their wages. Nothing would really change there. The only thing that would change is no longer requiring manipulated interest rates by the government to artificially inflate the economy.
Also, because the government can no longer artificially inflate the economy through the money supply, recessions wouldn't be as common as they are today and our economy would become more resilient. This will result in less of a wealth gap because recessions lead to increasing wealth gaps in society. Combine that with a lower and middle class who's wages increase naturally and you have a much healthier financial economy and society.
These things won't happen for a long time. We're a long way off from ever being paid by our employers in bitcoin. In the mean time, prices for goods sold in bitcoin will be continued to be measured in fiat currency and thus the government will continue to control the price of goods, the monetary supply, wages, etc and bitcoin won't have much of an impact on any of that.
Any wallet where you have access to your own private keys would mean you'd be able to spend on both blockchains if there really is a fork.
I looked more into the ethereum fork and it turns out that even some places like coinbase where your coins aren't stored in a wallet where you control the private key and didn't support "ethereum classic" still allowed people who had ethereum deposited with them to withdraw the forked currency for several months after the split (although there is no guarantee that they'd do that again).
What should I expect if another digital currency supported by Coinbase experiences a future hard fork?
The industry is evolving rapidly and we expect that best practices will develop over time on how to handle hard forks. Right now we are handling each one on a case by case basis.
"Customers who wish to access both bitcoin (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCC) need to withdraw bitcoin stored on Coinbase before 11.59 pm PT July 31, 2017. If you do not wish to access bitcoin cash (BCC) then no action is required."https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinbase-advises-users-to-transfer-btc-
In a somewhat suprising move, Coinbase explicitly said they would not support Bitcoin cash.
I went ahead and built a mining rig. Parts as follows:
...snipped...
I had a spare SSD laying around. I'm not counting the $19 that I spent on the Kill A Watt Electricity Usage Monitor that is in the photo or the tools and parts that I needed to run Ethernet to the garage.
I'm running Ubuntu 16.04 and Calymore's dual miner 9.7. I'm getting ~122Mh/s at Ethereum while simultaneously getting ~3675Mh/s at Sia. I'm drawing ~1320W which seems on the ragged edge of the power supply that I chose. Dual mining Sia increased power consumption by about 30% and decreases Ethereum production by ~3%. I pay $0.08/kWh.
I'm curious because I don't have any experience mining alt-coins with GPUs, but I do mine Bitcoin. What is your profitibility in mining alt-coins with GPUs? Your upfront costs seem pretty hefty for such minimal mining power (MH/s). How does that hashrate translate with alt-coin profitibility taking into account your upfront cost of $1800?
A year from now [Bitcoin Cash] could be worth $0 or $5000 per coin. It has all the same characteristics of bitcoin with bigger blocks, and more exchanges are starting to support it. ... From where I stand though I don't see how one can be a believer in bitcoin and not think the same price increases can happen for bitcoin cash.
It looks like coinbase is ooching towards supporting bitcoin cash. Anyone have any thoughts on what to do with the new cash-coins? Is bitcoin cash actually getting used out there in the real world?
my current thinking is as soon as I can, I will dump the bitcoin cash coins and be happy with whatever I get for them as its essentially free money.
From what I see bitcoin cash is like getting in on the ground floor of bitcoin. Why not hold or add to your bitcoin cash position? A year from now it could be worth $0 or $5000 per coin. It has all the same characteristics of bitcoin with bigger blocks, and more exchanges are starting to support it.
I'm watching from the sidelines, not willing to speculate with my own cash in any crypto. From where I stand though I don't see how one can be a believer in bitcoin and not think the same price increases can happen for bitcoin cash.
I'm curious because I don't have any experience mining alt-coins with GPUs, but I do mine Bitcoin. What is your profitibility in mining alt-coins with GPUs? Your upfront costs seem pretty hefty for such minimal mining power (MH/s). How does that hashrate translate with alt-coin profitibility taking into account your upfront cost of $1800?
As of right now (current difficulty and price) I am mining $6.89 worth of Ethereum and $1.86 worth of Sia per day while spending $2.53 on electricity ($0.08/kWh). So, that's $6.22 per day after electricity. Obviously as prices and difficult change that can change a lot. So, I guess that's $189 after electric costs per month.
I'm not sure that this is a great investment, but I max out my 401k every month with equities. To me this is a fun side project that *might* earn me some money. Obviously, I don't just want to burn $1800, but I know just how risky this is.
EDIT - I hope to use the parts for 3 years.
How many watts is your rig running on? AMD or Nvidia?
This new rig, x8 1060 6gb is running just under 800 watts which is pretty amazing really. All cards have memory overclocked and power turned down to 60% using MSI afterburner.
Kaby Celeron,
Asus Prime Z270 (this mb is amazing)
4gb whatever was cheapest
60gb ssd (Windows 10)
Mix of 1060 6gb (stupid limits, have to mix and match brands and sizes).
EVGA G2 1000W PS
The best thing about building rigs, I am getting pretty good with aluminum which is a really useful skill to have I am finding out. It is so strong, light, looks cool, and is very cheap if you buy the right size.
For those who are wondering how digital currencies will be used as a form of money:
- Bitcoin is designed to be a store of value (fixed, decreasing inflation rate and limited total supply)
- Litecoin is designed to be a medium of exchange (also with a fixed, decreasing inflation rate but with a much larger total supply and faster transaction confirmation time)
- Ethereum is designed to be a token that is used to power decentralized applications that run on top of the Ethereum blockchain
Zcash, Monero, and Dash (and a handful of other, similar coins) are designed as mediums of exchange but offer a privacy-oriented transaction mechanism that makes it nearly impossible to identify a user by their transaction history (which is what Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ethereum currently allow). I see government regulation as a huge hurdle for these privacy-oriented coins, so I plan on watching from the sidelines for the time being, and learning more about them as the digital currency market grows legs.
Now that the digital currency market has ballooned to $100 billion+ in total capitalization, there seems to be a coin for everything and everybody. Some of these have very interesting use cases that may or may not disrupt entire industries (Ripple, Sia, etc..). But since we are investors here on the Mr. Money Mustache forum, we need to be able to separate the signal from the noise. That is why, in my opinion, it really only makes sense to buy Bitcoin, since you are looking to put your money into an asset that will consistently gain value over time. Ethereum is also worth considering as the demand for its applications outpaces the supply of Ether tokens. However, as other users have mentioned, it does not have a clear monetary policy.
I put together this little document for those who are interested in getting started with digital currencies but aren't sure where to start. Comments are enabled!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11FSUczla4BOxpLfirYoc7PhFgAlUOQMvjwSL0lmJ2IM/edit?usp=sharing
Full disclosure: I mine Ethereum in the Ethermine pool (12x 1060 GTX 6GB @ ~238 MH/s) and buy Bitcoin during price drops (I transfer $500 or so per month to GDAX where it sits until I decide to buy in).
For new people, coinbase has an Auto invest feature you can setup weekly/monthly in the 3 major coins. It is by far the easiest way to get started. Just sign up for their website, link a checking account, and turn on auto invest for the coin(s) you want. No need to learn all this complex mining if you don't want to. Until there is an official ETF, this is a good start.
Yup! Things have been very good lately. I've made several times more in bitcoin the last two months than I have in my real job.
I predicted that Bitcoin would hit $3500 in August and continue going up from there, so this has well blown past my predictions.
I think a number of factors are at play. I believe how well Bitcoin handled the hard fork has given a lot of investors a lot more confidence in bitcoin knowing that any contention to the main chain isn't likely to be very successful. Also, Japanese adoption continues to be going bonkers. Combine that with all the worldwide uncertainty of war with North Korea and the traditional markets declining and bitcoin seems to be emerging as a very nice safe haven.
The future of bitcoin looks even brighter.
I do predict a somewhat downturn come November as investors get nervous again when the second phase of SegWit2X comes into play. This time miners of the main chain will actually need to upgrade software in unison as opposed to simply doing nothing avoid a chain split. But after a successful upgrade the price surge will continue up again.
Please do not predict, our ability to predict dwarfs the whims and fancies of the whaler. If a whaler wakes up with epiphany and starts selling, then it's the big dump. Early holders have way too much holdings to make any technical analysis stands.
maizeman I was thinking about your mining experiment, what would it look like if you added a line to account for mining income minus opportunity cost of the hardware? Not sure what the fair equivalent would be, if you sunk the equivalent cost of the hardware into the same coin you mine at the beginning and let it appreciate perhaps
Does opportunity cost really work this way for mining? One can buy one BTC for x dollars or etc or bannanas or babbage coins today. At least for BTC, difficulty keeps going up and the reward steadily goes down with each Halving. So going forward one doesn't really know what one can get from mining. As a year or two go by its likely your miner may no longer be cutting edge/competitive. Maybe one can say that one must be willing to switch to a more profitable crypto currency?
For new people, coinbase has an Auto invest feature you can setup weekly/monthly in the 3 major coins. It is by far the easiest way to get started. Just sign up for their website, link a checking account, and turn on auto invest for the coin(s) you want. No need to learn all this complex mining if you don't want to. Until there is an official ETF, this is a good start.
I'm very new to this, so I apologize if this is a dumb question. I bought 8 ETH using coinbase this week. My plan is a long term hold just in case it goes crazy like BTC and its a small part of my portfolio I'm willing to risk big losses with. My question - is it safe to keep in coinbase?
Thanks
Any sentiments on BTC v. BCH re: hash rate?
maizeman I was thinking about your mining experiment, what would it look like if you added a line to account for mining income minus opportunity cost of the hardware? Not sure what the fair equivalent would be, if you sunk the equivalent cost of the hardware into the same coin you mine at the beginning and let it appreciate perhaps
How does one justify the environmental impact of mining? I've read that processing BTC transactions takes 1000x+ the power of processing a credit card transaction. It seems like an anti-mustachian way to make money for this reason.
I've thought about that myself with my own mining as well. With the huge gains that Bitcoin has seen over the last several months, it is hard for mining to keep up with compared to if you had simply investing the up front costs in Bitcoin itself instead of the equipment (I think that's what your getting at).
However, it is hard to (or at least unfair to) calculate in the short term because in the long term mining will win out so long as you are able to mine back all the Bitcoin you spent on the equipment and then some. As long as you can mine back all the Bitcoin spent on your equipment plus a little more, then you'll be able to realize the gains you originally missed out on plus all future gains of the asset if you continue to hold.
@CanuckExpat, it's a good question. I'm out of town all week but would be interesting to run the numbers once I am back on my home computer. Could compare to putting the same amount of money I spent on mining equipment right into the cyptocurrency (right now I know I'd come out way behind just because bitcoin has been on a big run up in price), or into stock/bond index funds.
One important question to resolve, would you say it makes more sense to only consider the potential increase/decrease in value of the investment, or the total value of the investment? The money I spent building my miner is gone (maybe I could get a couple of hundred bucks for the parts if I wanted to mess around on ebay), which my charts show me starting off more than $1,000 in the hole. For an investment in the currencies themselves (or a stock index fund) I'd still be able to get my original investment out at any time (less any capital losses).
@lifeanon
Your analysis assumes that the mining is being uses as a method of buying bitcoins (or other currencies) which lumps together two very different financial questions: whether it makes financial sense to mine BTC/ETH/ZEC/etc and whether it makes sense to hold BTC/ETH/ZEC for appreciation. I'm currently doing some of both, but it could very easily be that once we're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, one (either one) will have made financial sense and the other did not. So I'm trying to separate out the two effects as I go along.
What happens if you lose or break your hardware wallet?
If it drives technology and creates some new inventions or faster processors then the energy consumption might be worth it in the long run anyway.
I don't think the ends will justify the means in this case. I think many don't understand the massive scale of power going into cryptocurrencies right now. That's why I wrote the above post.
Currently, bitcoin accounts for a tiny but growing piece of the worldwide currency usage. Imagine what could happen as transaction volume grows by 10x, or 100x? (Transaction volume is what consumes the power, not the price of a Bitcoin). This seems entirely possible, if not likely, given the hash rate has grown by 4x in the past year alone.
I would agree with all of that with the caveat that Bitcoin isn't (and probably never will be) "money" in the sense that it's widely used for transactions. The inherently deflationary design IMO ensures that it will instead be a gold-like store of value (assuming it's anything at all in the long run, it could of course be abandoned for some other crypto system).
So the proper comparison, environmentally, is probably to physical gold.
-W
Regardless, Bitcoin is a LONG way from being used as a currency in any meaningful sense. The recent rise in popularity/price has certainly caused a lot of folks to buy fancy mining rigs and hoard their bitcoins, but that's not the same as walking to the store and getting a bag of apples. I know a few folks (normal folks who aren't interested in buying illegal Chinese drugs or whatever) who have bitcoin holdings and they look at me like I'm crazy if I suggest they could *purchase* something - there is no chance in hell they'll spend them, ever (though if the price drops enough, they'll panic-sell them!)
That's not a great setup for widespread adoption as currency. But I've been wrong before.
-W
Lifeanon, would you mind pointing me towards the service that provides your bitcoin denominated debit card?
I was not going to bring the great depression into this, but yes, Maizeman makes my point quite well. There are advantages to not having a central authority control the money supply (no hyperinflation) but we need to recognize that there are also HUGE disadvantages WRT the business cycle and the ability of a central authority to mitigate downside risks through currency manipulation.
Yeah, agree to disagree. IMO anything used as "money" (for exchange) needs to grow in supply sufficiently that hoarding it is never a good strategy (encourages investing, which is good, and consumption, which has positives and negatives). If you use your extra money to invest in... itself, that's not especially useful economically.
Bitcoin as constituted is mostly being hoarded, and the design of the system encourages this behavior.
Lifeanon, would you mind pointing me towards the service that provides your bitcoin denominated debit card?
The card I use is the Shift card. They have a partnership with Coinbase that allows you to spend your bitcoin residing in Coinbase using this card. So I just keep my small amount of spending money each month in Coinbase (the rest in a private wallet) so that I can spend my bitcoin just like I would with a checking account. The awesome part is that there are no transaction fees involved. There is a one time $10 fee to purchase the card and then there are $2.50 ATM withdrawal fees (just like about every VISA card out there), but I don't really use it at any ATMs so that is not a big deal. That's it. No annual fee either. The cool thing as well though is that it functions just like any other debit card. So in cases where I'm at the store and pay with the card as "debit", then if the store allows it, I can ask for cash back if I need it. That allows me to instantly turn my bitcoin back into USD cash without paying any conversion/transaction fees at all.
https://www.shiftpayments.com/card/ (https://www.shiftpayments.com/card/)
There are a few other bitcoin debit cards out there, but most of them are prepaid cards that store the value on the card in USD as opposed to bitcoin. So you only receive the value of your bitcoin at the time you load the card. I didn't like that approach and most of those have many additional fees to them as well.I was not going to bring the great depression into this, but yes, Maizeman makes my point quite well. There are advantages to not having a central authority control the money supply (no hyperinflation) but we need to recognize that there are also HUGE disadvantages WRT the business cycle and the ability of a central authority to mitigate downside risks through currency manipulation.
WRT to inflation/deflation, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to oversimplify the economy down to just the money supply policy alone. There are other factors for sure that come into play when it comes to what contributes to market ups and downs. But the argument that there are outside forces that contribute to the effective money supply (such as fractional-reserve banking) is hardly an argument against having a decentralized non-manipulated deflationary currency. Any given type of currency isn't going to solve all the woes of a very complex economy.
The thing about bitcoin however isn't that it is necessarily forever static and can't be changed. It is the fact that it is decentralized and gives the power to a majority of its users instead of a powerful minority. In other words, if we got into a situation where the currency itself was what was holding our economy back (again, highly unlikely), then the currency (bitcoin) could only be changed if the benefit of that change received support from the community as a whole. This is where the idea of social good comes from with regards to bitcoin. But as was stated, it is highly unlikely that bitcoin's inherent nature will be the root culprit of any future economic perils and it will be more than likely that other destructive economic forces will be at play. Those other forces could be everything from fractional-reserve banking (that inherently leads to recessions at regular intervals), horrible lending practices, large-scale speculative bubbles, etc.
Finally, for what it is worth (since the depression was thrown out there), economists looked throughout American history and found that, outside of the Great Depression, there is no correlation between depression/recession and deflation (Atkeson, Andrew and Kehoe, Patrick. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Deflation and Depression: Is There an Empirical Link? January 2004). Yes, deflation made what took place with the Great Depression worse, but it wasn't and can't be the cause of it. For example, defaulting loans during an economic hardship can have the same effect as a contracting money supply that presents itself in a recession, but that doesn't mean that the resulting deflationary pattern was a root cause that gave way to that recession. The idea that deflation hinders economic growth is completely baseless.
Hey all, glad the discussion is going well.
I want to let everyone know that IOTA is something you want to do some research on while the market cap is still under-valued.
Cheers!
Hey all, glad the discussion is going well.
I want to let everyone know that IOTA is something you want to do some research on while the market cap is still under-valued.
Cheers!
The problem with IOTA is that noone actually knows how it works. WTF is tangle?
Hey all, glad the discussion is going well.
I want to let everyone know that IOTA is something you want to do some research on while the market cap is still under-valued.
Cheers!
The problem with IOTA is that noone actually knows how it works. WTF is tangle?
A graph with a start and an end (but not necessarily followed in sequence).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graph
My first thought about IOTA is that, holy shit, it would gobble up RAM like nothing else.
So on here IOTA has a volume to market cap ratio of <1%, while a lot of other currencies in the top 10 seem to be more in the 2-4% range. Does anyone know of structural reasons for this to be the case or is it just a random piece of statistical noise?
So on here IOTA has a volume to market cap ratio of <1%, while a lot of other currencies in the top 10 seem to be more in the 2-4% range. Does anyone know of structural reasons for this to be the case or is it just a random piece of statistical noise?
Ya, that's one of my biggest concerns with IOTA. It isn't very liquid at the moment and almost all trading for it (> 90%) takes place on just one exchange. I would never feel comfortable putting more than just a few bucks in it. That being said, a few bucks in it might totally be worth it.
That exchange does not let me register. I have no way to trade for it even if I wanted to.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
I built an iOS app recently to help ppl track their cryptocurrency portfolios easily. Would appreciate any feedback on it. Thanks!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/coinbuddy-track-your-cryptocurrency-portfolio/id1271644974?mt=8
I built an iOS app recently to help ppl track their cryptocurrency portfolios easily. Would appreciate any feedback on it. Thanks!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/coinbuddy-track-your-cryptocurrency-portfolio/id1271644974?mt=8
Nice! I see you showing Neo in your screenshots. Cheeky way to tell everyone the app is up to date :))
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Litecoin is just highly undervalued IMO. Same technology as Bitcoin but faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees...etc.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Litecoin is just highly undervalued IMO. Same technology as Bitcoin but faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees...etc.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Litecoin is just highly undervalued IMO. Same technology as Bitcoin but faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees...etc.
The same could be said about just about every other cryptocurrency.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Litecoin is just highly undervalued IMO. Same technology as Bitcoin but faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees...etc.
The same could be said about just about every other cryptocurrency.
Hey man, you must be new to the whole sphere. There are few coins that are as fast as Litecoin right now. The only one that would edge it out is a private coin like XRP, possibly Dash and the GOAT (Ethereum).
Do a transaction with UBIQ (still love the platform) and let me know how long it takes to get 25 transactions.
I'm using coinbase for ETH
I'm in the U.S.
Is there a good place that buys and sells all of the cryptocurrency with usd ?
I'm using coinbase for ETH
I'm in the U.S.
Is there a good place that buys and sells all of the cryptocurrency with usd ?
I also use coinbase to deposit/convert $USD into BTC, ETH, or LTC, then send some of those to Bittrex to buy some of the other coins. I have been able to find most coins that I am interested on there, and have had no major problems. Just be careful to transfer the correct currency into the correct wallet.
Any ideas as to why Litecoin is pushing higher? I bought exactly one Litecoin for about $25 back in May and it's now at $65. Obviously, I wish I had bought more, since the Ethereum tokens I bought as part of the same round of purchasing have barely budged.
Litecoin is just highly undervalued IMO. Same technology as Bitcoin but faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees...etc.
The same could be said about just about every other cryptocurrency.
Hey man, you must be new to the whole sphere. There are few coins that are as fast as Litecoin right now. The only one that would edge it out is a private coin like XRP, possibly Dash and the GOAT (Ethereum).
Do a transaction with UBIQ (still love the platform) and let me know how long it takes to get 25 transactions.
You misunderstand. I replied just about every other crypto has faster block times, bigger blocks, cheaper transaction fees than BTC.
I am new.
I'm using coinbase for ETH
I'm in the U.S.
Is there a good place that buys and sells all of the cryptocurrency with usd ?
I also use coinbase to deposit/convert $USD into BTC, ETH, or LTC, then send some of those to Bittrex to buy some of the other coins. I have been able to find most coins that I am interested on there, and have had no major problems. Just be careful to transfer the correct currency into the correct wallet.
I have not done this yet, if I buy BTC
And it goes up in price. I take it and and buy another Côin from bittrex.
Will coinbase send me paperwork on profits ?
I'm just confused on how you keep track of all this if I was buying 3-4 different coins.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
just speculation, but a lawyer employed by the firm representing the Winklevoss bitcoin ETF will now be in charge of ETF approvals at the SEC. this could explain the recent bitcoin price surge (just about to reach $5k).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/getting-that-etf-approved-may-grow-easier-as-sec-shakes-up-team
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170831/FREE/170839978/sec-names-dalia-blass-director-of-investment-management
ETFs are another step in the right direction for legitimizing cryptocurrencies and giving everyday investors access to them. i expect a huge bubble to form when this happens, whether it's sooner or later. long-term crypto holders will be fine but i think a lot of folks new to cryptos will get burned.
I decided to to buy some cryptocurrency I started through Coinbase and bought ETH
Now I'm trying to buy some other coins through bittrex.
The biggest thing I'm trying to do is not leave the coins in either exchange. I am not the best with computers.
I'm just trying to find the easiest way to move it and what is the cost to take it out of these exchanges and into a wallet
Thanks for the help
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I decided to to buy some cryptocurrency I started through Coinbase and bought ETH
...
I'm just trying to find the easiest way to move it and what is the cost to take it out of these exchanges and into a wallet
Same question.
How easy is it to buy and sell a Bitcoin or Ethereum?
For instance, let's say BTC is $4k each and ETH is $500.
Can I just go on coinbase with $10k and purchase 2 Bitcoins and 4 units of Ether?
Then transfer them to an external hardrive wallet and disconnect it from my PC.
Then 1 year from now the prices double (BTC - $4k each / ETH - $1000). How easy it to sell and walk about with $20k (10k profit)
I decided to to buy some cryptocurrency I started through Coinbase and bought ETH
...
I'm just trying to find the easiest way to move it and what is the cost to take it out of these exchanges and into a wallet
there are fees involved when buying/selling on coinbase, but it's not a big deal if you're only buying occasionally. the ETH fee for transferring your ETH to an offline wallet for storage is minimal.Same question.
How easy is it to buy and sell a Bitcoin or Ethereum?
For instance, let's say BTC is $4k each and ETH is $500.
Can I just go on coinbase with $10k and purchase 2 Bitcoins and 4 units of Ether?
Then transfer them to an external hardrive wallet and disconnect it from my PC.
Then 1 year from now the prices double (BTC - $4k each / ETH - $1000). How easy it to sell and walk about with $20k (10k profit)
yes you've got the basics down. you will need to prove your identity to coinbase first though, but you can do simple identity verification for the amount you're looking to buy. withdrawing to a wallet on an external hard drive is probably fine for keeping the coins safe for a year. for storing coins longer than that there are a bunch of options out there depending on your needs and risk tolerance.
to sell on coinbase you'd simply have to send the coins back to your coinbase wallet, wait for the transaction to confirm, and then click 'sell' and withdraw the USD to your bank account.
you'd then need to report the USD gains as capital gains for your taxes. keep your own records for dates/prices/quantities bought and sold and then make sure the tax documentation coinbase provides matches your records.
The one that is getting me the biggest problems understanding because I'm not the best with computers. It's how to protect the different altcoins in a wallet or cold storage. It just seems to be going over my head because you can't put them all in one place. I believe every coin has its own wallet I'm just not sure if they are safe to leave there also.
I did all the verification on coinbase and still only at 5k
So I am hitting my limits on CoinBase and I want more. I heard GDAX was a good place to buy with lower fees once you get comfortable with wallets but I think I want to diversify into my 401k.
Now I am not sure this is a good approach to buying bitcoin, but for me I am willing to take the risk. I have most investments in tax sheltered accounts which would be great for trading bitcoin in. Unfortuntaly the only game in town right now seems like GBTC you can buy with fidelity. It seems to have a .0928 backing for every share kind of like IAU or GLD for gold, so at right nows price the value of BTC they hold is worth $405.88 a share and it costs about $750 a share. Huge premium.
I am going to take the plunge anyway and here is why.
- I am trading with pretax money, and no taxes on the trades
- No other options in my tax advatage accounts that I know of to hold btc
- It is uncorrelated to all my other assets which makes my golden butterfly portofolio overall potentially better
- The price could look inexpensive 5 years from now, good chance of amazon like growth
If another better priced fund comes a long that is a risk for the premium I am paying and could take some losses, but I will just switch to the other fund. I rather have an ETF that tracks the top coins, but this is what we have right now.
Most of my money is currently in Bitcoin and Ethereum. But lately, it's has been really tough (especially yesterday) to stay calm with my positions. I have almost all the time the urge to check it, how both BTC and Ethereum are doing, it's almost like some sort of addiction :D Even though I have invested them because I believe in the long term rise.
I can feel that way at times, 80-90% of my net worth is tied up in Crypto-Currencies and I have a portfolio consisting of 20+ companies / coins which I keep up to date with. I am effectively a part-time analyst.
It's worth it, but I wonder if this is how stock pickers felt during the the early 1900s on Wall Street
Robert Shiller calls bitcoin a classic bubble:
https://qz.com/1067557/robert-shiller-wrote-the-book-on-bubbles-he-says-the-best-example-right-now-is-bitcoin/
From some of the comments here we see the sort of emotion that drives bubbles. I have a hard time believing that we're still going to be talking about bitcoin specifically (blockchains yes and perhaps one or more cryptocurriencies) in 20 years, which makes the business of putting it in an IRA a bit ridiculous.
If you are in a bubble, what percent of people know about/are investing is a good metric to judge how close you are to having the bubble pop.
But it isn't a particularly good metric to distinguish between what is and isn't a bubble. For example many people know about and invest in the stock market, yet it is not a bubble. OTOH the Rhodium bubble of 2008 certainly WAS a bubble even though the vast majority of people didn't participate and probably couldn't even point to the element on a periodic table.
It is risky for sure, but 9 years is a long time in the technology world, it has endured longer then most tech companies. Do people hold Google, Facebook, etc in thier IRA?
Some do, but those are stocks, not tokens. Stocks are regulated. Tokens are not. Real currencies are regulated. Cryptos are not.
The success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.
Few things from the 90s have survived.
regulation has nothing to do with how well or poorly an asset performs. national currencies and stocks have plenty of problems.
The success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.
many foundational technologies from the 90s, 80s, and 70s have survived, including the internet and public key cryptography which cryptocurrencies are based on.
If you are in a bubble, what percent of people know about/are investing is a good metric to judge how close you are to having the bubble pop.
But it isn't a particularly good metric to distinguish between what is and isn't a bubble. For example many people know about and invest in the stock market, yet it is not a bubble. OTOH the Rhodium bubble of 2008 certainly WAS a bubble even though the vast majority of people didn't participate and probably couldn't even point to the element on a periodic table.
I agree. So, I'm curious of your opinion Maizeman... where are we at?
If you are in a bubble, what percent of people know about/are investing is a good metric to judge how close you are to having the bubble pop.
But it isn't a particularly good metric to distinguish between what is and isn't a bubble. For example many people know about and invest in the stock market, yet it is not a bubble. OTOH the Rhodium bubble of 2008 certainly WAS a bubble even though the vast majority of people didn't participate and probably couldn't even point to the element on a periodic table.
I agree. So, I'm curious of your opinion Maizeman... where are we at?
I'm honestly not sure at all. I've been following bitcoin off and on since stories about it started showing up on slashdot 6-7 years ago as a curiosity, and had an actual bitcoin wallet since before the mid-2013 price bubble burst. And I'm pretty sure I'm not better at predicting what the price is going to do than you'd get from flipping a coin. But it's awfully fun to watch.
Helps that the only money I've put into mining/crypto was drawn from my entertainment spending, not investment.
I too have owned Bitcoin since before the 2013 "bubble." There's really no telling what Bitcoin can do, BUT that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion :) .... I'm leaning towards Bitcoin itself failing* at some point. (When? Much harder to tell.) I believe it has flaws that will make it be pushed aside for an improved "digital currency." What I'm really interested in, are blockchains that solve real world problems like, for example, data authentication without having to trust a central organization.
It's wading through all of the hype, scams, and bubbles that's going to be the challenge.
As far as the entire crypto-currency space, while we will go through hype cycles and "bubbles" bursting and corrections, (as seen when Bitcoin skyrocketed to $22 and then a bubble burst and when Bitcoin skyrocketed to $1200 and a bubble burst and when Bitcoin skyrocketed to $4900 and then....) the total market cap of cryptocurrencies WILL continue to go up in time.
*By failing I do not mean the protocol itself. I mean it has problems with scaling and it will become obsolete to an improved blockchain coin designed to be a digital currency. It would probably still remain more as a souvenir type thing.
So filecoin just raised $250M USD and kept another $250M USD in premined coins for themselves, for a premarket, precustomer product. If this doesn't scream bubble I'm not sure what would. Read the analysis below
https://tokeneconomy.co/the-analysis-filecoin-doesnt-want-you-to-read-e60d5243f17c
I'd personally bet on either a government or big international company (or group of companies) entering with a currency (actually designed well for the purpose of exchanging goods and services), backed by a big publicly known entity, and marketed as such, and that currency displacing everything already out there.
-W
The beautiful thing about this chat is it will be a good historical placeholder. In a few years when these technologies are thriving and taking over those who took the risk will be rewarded heavily and those who nay-sayed without doing their due diligence will see what they missed.So filecoin just raised $250M USD and kept another $250M USD in premined coins for themselves, for a premarket, precustomer product. If this doesn't scream bubble I'm not sure what would. Read the analysis below
https://tokeneconomy.co/the-analysis-filecoin-doesnt-want-you-to-read-e60d5243f17c
Reward? $250M for zero equity. The ICOs seem like no reward. There may be reward in Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
QuoteThe success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.
it won't be random. as you say, it's an unregulated free market and the best cryptocurrencies will win.
To clarify, I do believe that 70%+ of these currencies will fail but we still have much larger valuations to hit before any "bubble talk" can be had. Eventually, yes, the bubble (2019-2020ish) will deflate and only those with unique value propositions will remain.
https://hackernoon.com/why-everyone-missed-the-most-mind-blowing-feature-of-cryptocurrency-860c3f25f1fb
regulation has nothing to do with how well or poorly an asset performs. national currencies and stocks have plenty of problems.Of course it does. All of the things the SEC does (or your county auditor for real estate transactions) is a response to the abuses that existed before those regulations were enacted. Any call you hear for an "elimination of regulations" is usually a shyster who recognizes how he can swindle someone when that seemingly onerous regulation is lifted.
QuoteWell Litecoin, et al., are all "better" than bitcoin, yet bitcoin reigns supreme, several years after these better competitors appeared. There are endless examples throughout history of a lesser product winning over a better one. Better salesmen and better luck. Bitcoin has the Winklevoss Twins and other high-profile champions. Litecoin does not.QuoteThe success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.it won't be random. as you say, it's an unregulated free market and the best cryptocurrencies will win.
Blockchain will be around for a long time. We're obviously going to see some changes in how digital banking transactions are carried out. The specific stew of cryptocurrencies that are attracting speculation at the moment probably won't survive for more than 10 years.
QuoteThe success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.
it won't be random. as you say, it's an unregulated free market and the best cryptocurrencies will win.
Yeah. The unregulated free market always picks the best technology to win. That's why betamax destoyed VHS. Wait . . .
QuoteThe success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.
it won't be random. as you say, it's an unregulated free market and the best cryptocurrencies will win.
Yeah. The unregulated free market always picks the best technology to win. That's why betamax destoyed VHS. Wait . . .
and VHS, DVD, and BluRay have all been abandoned in favor of streaming and DVRs.
right, but only temporarily until superior competitors came along. it appears random in the short term, but it's not random. if you zoom out you can clearly see that VHS, the temporary "winner," is long gone and deservedly so.
regulation has nothing to do with how well or poorly an asset performs. national currencies and stocks have plenty of problems.Of course it does. All of the things the SEC does (or your county auditor for real estate transactions) is a response to the abuses that existed before those regulations were enacted. Any call you hear for an "elimination of regulations" is usually a shyster who recognizes how he can swindle someone when that seemingly onerous regulation is lifted.
do you not believe in free markets? there are many examples of inferior products that only exist because they are protected by regulation and lobbying. one example is the crumbly old slow internet-averse global financial system. another example is the fossil fuel automotive industry.QuoteWell Litecoin, et al., are all "better" than bitcoin, yet bitcoin reigns supreme, several years after these better competitors appeared. There are endless examples throughout history of a lesser product winning over a better one. Better salesmen and better luck. Bitcoin has the Winklevoss Twins and other high-profile champions. Litecoin does not.QuoteThe success or failure of these currencies and tokens will be totally random.it won't be random. as you say, it's an unregulated free market and the best cryptocurrencies will win.
bitcoin was invented first, luck has nothing to do with it. litecoin (and other coins forked from bitcoin's source code) are cheap clones backed by way weaker mining networks. that's why bitcoin reigns supreme. litecoin was a failed attempt to make an ASIC-proof coin.
To clarify, I do believe that 70%+ of these currencies will fail but we still have much larger valuations to hit before any "bubble talk" can be had. Eventually, yes, the bubble (2019-2020ish) will deflate and only those with unique value propositions will remain.
https://hackernoon.com/why-everyone-missed-the-most-mind-blowing-feature-of-cryptocurrency-860c3f25f1fb
You are making some absolutely wild assumptions that no one on this Earth could humanly know, to the point that it's starting to make the opposing view's case even stronger.
And I'm for Blockchain technology.
right, but only temporarily until superior competitors came along. it appears random in the short term, but it's not random. if you zoom out you can clearly see that VHS, the temporary "winner," is long gone and deservedly so.
Right. But figuring out which technology will be the winner is not possible at the time that it matters for investing . . . because sometimes the market chooses the worst option.
Truly no one seems to have any idea what this stuff is actually worth! That's a source of excitement as well as stress. But if investment is about accepting volatility in exchange for a return, I cannot see how the return would be worth the volatility here. I suppose investing 1% of your stach would be defensible. If it triples next year, you got 2% more than you'd have with gold. But that other 99% of your portfolio is giving you 9.9%/year, amiright?
I feel that bitcoin and the technology behind it represents a huge shift in how currency is handled by humans. I see bitcoin as revolutionary as the internet itself. Therefore I am willing to put some of my money into bitcoin based on this idea without taking into consideration any risk or reward by doing so.
I feel that bitcoin and the technology behind it represents a huge shift in how currency is handled by humans. I see bitcoin as revolutionary as the internet itself. Therefore I am willing to put some of my money into bitcoin based on this idea without taking into consideration any risk or reward by doing so.
Nobody was really talking about it being "the future" until its value started getting ridiculous in the last year.
Bitcoin is almost 10 years old. Nobody was really talking about it being "the future" until its value started getting ridiculous in the last year. Yeah, there was that push back in 2012 or 2013, but after the crash, it returned to being the butt of jokes.
I keep my BTC and LTC on a Trezor wallet and ETH on a web based wallet via Trezor. But I just picked up a few Monero through Kraken and am not sure what to do with them. Any ideas?
A lot of the crypto trading scene reminds me of aspects of the penny stock scene 15-20 years ago, except more liquidity, more volatility and 24hr trading. Can be a bit wild out there as proven by the past 6 months.
What does its age have to do with anything?
Not sure what you mean by nobody, unless you're only following bitcoin based on what the media is saying at any given moment. Why did you put "the future" in quotes? What jokes are you referring to when you say that bitcoin is the butt of them?
Back when Bitcoin was invented, nobody was talking about the actual coins being a buy-and-hold investment. The coins were used as currency for a time, although most of it was either tax evasion (paying bonuses in bitcoin, for example) or to buy illegal drugs. People who heard about bitcoin but had no reason to do that stuff had no reason to figure out how to buy bitcoins, so they didn't.
Also, the "dream" held out there that bitcoin will be a tool for the little guy is very much a be careful what you wish for situation. There has been a dark side to all of the so-called disruptive innovations of the last decade -- downsides that blind proponents refuse to acknowledge. Uber, airbnb, etc., have all caused as many problems as they have solved, and cryptocurrency and tokens are no different.
China is moving forward with plans to shut down Bitcoin exchanges in the country, starting with trading platforms in key cities. All Bitcoin exchanges in Beijing and Shanghai have been ordered to submit plans for winding down their operations by 20 September. ... All exchanges are required to send regulators a detailed "risk-free" plan of how they intend to exit the market before 18:30 local time on Wednesday 20 September.
Fundamentals are good and team is good, HYPE hasn't hit it yet.
Cheers
Fundamentals are good and team is good, HYPE hasn't hit it yet.
Cheers
I'm honestly curious - what "fundamentals" do cryptocurrencies/exchanges/companies have?
-W
I'm honestly curious - what "fundamentals" do cryptocurrencies/exchanges/companies have?lol
Fundamentals are good and team is good, HYPE hasn't hit it yet.This kind of comment is what I'd expect from a PUMP & DUMP kind of investor. The statements made about future value have no basis. It would be more productive if you give some review of this new coin you just bought and how it's better than others rather than a shameless pump.
We must accept the fact that the cryptocurrency is the future of currency as the blockchain technology is far better than the traditional way followed by the central banks.
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.
Saying that institutional banks utilizing blockchain technology to become more efficient is a threat to an open and decentralized bitcoin is like saying that a gas powered pickup truck model increasing its miles per gallon from 15MPG to 25MPG is a threat to Tesla. Bitcoin is such a huge paradigm shift that an efficiency improvement for centralized financial institutions utilizing fiat money will not be what impacts its success.
Well, as a sort of normal non-aligned person who uses money, I'd be much more likely to use (for actually buying stuff) a crypto currency issued by a major bank or government than Bitcoin or some other free-range crypto. The various horror stories of exchanges disappearing, people having their crypto stolen, etc all add up (for me, and probably for most folks without a strong preexisting opinion) to total distrust of any of them.
When ordinary people (not rich Chinese trying to hide money or speculate) start buying and selling actual stuff with Bitcoin on a large scale, you could convince me.
-W
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers.
Saying that institutional banks utilizing blockchain technology to become more efficient is a threat to an open and decentralized bitcoin is like saying that a gas powered pickup truck model increasing its miles per gallon from 15MPG to 25MPG is a threat to Tesla. Bitcoin is such a huge paradigm shift that an efficiency improvement for centralized financial institutions utilizing fiat money will not be what impacts its success.
market share has nothing to do with it, i believe the point was that the markets don't overlap. that's why it's not earth-shattering for the crypto community. people who buy teslas don't care about the latest models of gas-powered pickups. likewise, people who believe in the future of non-government cryptocurrencies don't care about a new way banks are going to be transacting with fiat currency.
market share has nothing to do with it, i believe the point was that the markets don't overlap. that's why it's not earth-shattering for the crypto community. people who buy teslas don't care about the latest models of gas-powered pickups. likewise, people who believe in the future of non-government cryptocurrencies don't care about a new way banks are going to be transacting with fiat currency.
That was exactly my point.
If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought.
Now, if you'd excuse me, I am off to demand that I purchase a Ferrari for a few bucks while their marketshare is negligible.
If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought.
First off, marketshare of what? Second, in what world is the price of anything ever dictated by marketshare? By that measure, any new product, asset or commodity that comes to market would automatically start with a value of $0. It is no different for currencies.
The value of something in an open market is strictly determined by supply and demand. The more demand for something with a limited supply, then the greater its value. The market determines the value. Bitcoin is one of the few completely open and unmanipulated marketplaces out there, so if this economic principle were ever true for anything, it would be for bitcoin. You can argue that some people are purchasing bitcoin at today's price on the premise that its future marketshare of the gold market (for example) will be a certain amount, but that doesn't change the fact that today's value of bitcoin is based on today's market forces (supply/demand) of bitcoin, not tomorrow's. So the given price of bitcoin today is strictly based on today's supply and demand for it. So long as people continue to view it as a good store of value, then there will continue to be new people looking to bitcoin to store some of their wealth. The premise that it is a good store of value has a direct relationship with how well the network operates and whether or not it is technologically stable, which for the last almost 10 years, it has been so incredibly.
Now, if you'd excuse me, I am off to demand that I purchase a Ferrari for a few bucks while their marketshare is negligible.
Invested in my first ICO. It was painless. I feel like I am on the ground floor of an amazon, microsoft, or pets.bomb. I am ready for moon or total loss. So exciting. I still rather have a highly diversified crytpo ETF that spreads out the risks.
I didn't invest at Google IPO because I didn't quite understand how it all worked.I hate the feeling I have now looking at what could have been.
The mind is kinda selective though. You remember Google because they were the winner. There were a lot of losers, and picking the winner was not easy to do...
If you are based in the USA, you are either not "getting in on the ground floor" or the companies you are investing in through ICOs are going to end up in big trouble with the SEC. At best, companies in the USA are able to offer kickstarter-like ICOs where you are prepaying for a product that may exist in the future, potentially at a discount to its ultimate market price.
To understand the difference between these two transactions, ask anyone who helped kickstart the Oculus Rift with $2.4M in funding what their share of the profit was when Lucky Palmer went on to sell the company to facebook for a sweet $2.3B less than two years later (1000x return in two years).
Outside the USA you could indeed be getting in on the ground floor with various business ventures with something like an equity stake, but keep in mind that many VCs and Angel investors end up losing money, even the ones that make money expect to lose money on between 9/10 and 19/20ths of their investments, and that's after careful review of business plans and assessing the qualifications and personal qualities of the founders. As long as you really are prepared for a total loss though... here's hoping you shoot the moon!
One thing I've noticed when discussing cryptocurrencies elsewhere is that actual discussion of things that can materially effect the future of cryptocurrency is almost totally absent among crypto boosters.
For example: by the end of 2018, it's quite likely that the single biggest cryptocurrency on earth will be one developed by a consortium of six banks for the purposes of simplifying cross-border transfers. This project was announced about two months ago, and doesn't make use of any existing cryptocurrencies; instead it uses blockchain technology to simply make the existing system easier. If you think crypto has a future beyond fringe uses, this should be genuinely earth-shattering: we've just been shown that existing cryptocurrencies will be irrelevant to perhaps 99.9% of the world's money market activity. And yet, the day this appeared in the Financial Times, bitcoin's price simply kept going up. Even here, I don't believe there's been a single mention of it. At the very least, crypto is limited to interpersonal transactions that can't be done using existing currencies: at the most, even that is potentially under threat as it's now clear that banks can build their own systems for these purposes. And yet there's nothing; no acknowledgement of what this means, no acknowledgement that it's even happening.
Fair points ICO's should not be considered an "investment", but they have potential for making you real money. I'm not sure how a kickstarter does that.
My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea.
Further to that, an index fund runs the risk of building false confidence. Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry.
My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea.
Further to that, an index fund runs the risk of building false confidence. Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry.
So your stance is essentially that the crypto-currency industry as a whole does not have any worthwhile future at all? Wow, that's quite the bearish stance. Even some of the most bearish of bears on crypto-currencies yield to the fact that crypto-currencies in general are here to stay.
My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase. There may be cryptocurrencies in the future (although it's instructive to note that perhaps 99% of the population of the US have never once used cryptocurrency, and perhaps 99% of the remainder haven't used it for anything except speculative investment or illegal activity), but there's no reason to assume that what's currently popular will be what turns out to be any use whatsoever.
There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be. There's nothing stopping organisations which like blockchain technology from simply using that without reference to existing cryptocurrency. A gigantic chunk of the money that's currently in cryptocurrency is only there because of the promise of massive gains: if we believe the market will crash (and I have very little doubt that it will), we have no basis for trying to figure out what cryptocurrencies will be worth when the dust settles. Nothing. Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty, putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless.
My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase. There may be cryptocurrencies in the future (although it's instructive to note that perhaps 99% of the population of the US have never once used cryptocurrency, and perhaps 99% of the remainder haven't used it for anything except speculative investment or illegal activity), but there's no reason to assume that what's currently popular will be what turns out to be any use whatsoever.
There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be. There's nothing stopping organisations which like blockchain technology from simply using that without reference to existing cryptocurrency. A gigantic chunk of the money that's currently in cryptocurrency is only there because of the promise of massive gains: if we believe the market will crash (and I have very little doubt that it will), we have no basis for trying to figure out what cryptocurrencies will be worth when the dust settles. Nothing. Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty, putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless.
It is clear from what you've posted you have your biases and misunderstands of the technology and how it works. The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous and for someone who denounces speculation, you sure are doing an awful lot of it yourself.
Also, I don't think you understand how the crypto indexes work (such as BTWTY and Crypto20). They reallocate themselves to the top twenty crypto-currencies every month or so. So unless the crypto-currency market completely dries up (extremely unlikely), then a crypto-index fund has a lot of value. Plus, unlike mutual funds today, they're low maintenance with non-existent fees (driven by programming) and can't be manipulated and you don't have to worry whether or not your institution is gambling your money away behind the seasons. This is the power that mathematics, openness, and programmable money will bring to the financial industry.
One of the things I find odd about the crypto currency folks is how emotional they are about it (not you Maizeman!)
I own lots of stuff - stocks, bonds, a couple houses, many big fancy tools, etc. All of those things have some intrinsic value to varying degrees.
When I want to sell or buy something, I could care less what I use to make that transaction as long as it's easy, relatively secure, and that the currency is stable in value and accepted pretty much everywhere. I have no interest in whether or not that's dollars, bitcoins, dirty socks, you name it. I'm agnostic on the specific currency as long as it has those basic attributes.
As of right now, none of that applies, and the "success" of crypto looks more to me like failure, since none of them have managed to become commonly used or even stable in value. I have no interest in buying something that has no use and is only transacted with itself (I don't go out and buy a bunch of dollars to stick under my bed either, and those at least are easy to use for buying stuff I actually want).
So an index fund to me seems more like the cherry on top of a speculation sundae than evidence that the markets are "mature" or that you can "invest" in the technology as a whole by buying such a fund.
-W
What's with the furiously emotional response?
You asked about my position, and I explained it. I specifically avoided discussing the specifics of the technology, because the reasons I believe cryptocurrencies will collapse have nothing to do with the technology itself.
Regarding the rebalancing: I don't think you've read what I've written. I argued that indexing cryptocurrencies is futile, because they're all exposed to the same major risks, and explained that I expect to see a severe crypto crash. I do expect to see a drastic shrinkage in the crypto market, so monthly rebalancing and near-zero fees make no difference. Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value? If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates.
On the subject of my numbers: yes, I guessed, because real figures are hard to come by. That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency. And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto.
-"If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought."
-"The risks involved in investing in Bitcoin are almost identical to the risks involved in investing in Ethereum, or Ripple, or Monero"
-"they all have wildly volatile price swings, they're all more or less completely unusable as actual currency, and they're all effectively in the same mode characterised by Robert Shipper as indicative of a bubble."
-"Building an index fund does nothing to negate those risks, which are vastly bigger than the risks specific to individual altcoins."
-"My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase."
-"There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be."
-"Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value"
-"If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates."
-"Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty, putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless."
-"My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea."
-"Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry."
-"That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency."
-"And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto."
I'm unable to follow this. Is blockchain the protocol? So investing/trading in the currency (e.g. bitcoin) will result in adoption of blockchain technology as a standard? I don't understand how that in turn would make the tokens more valuable.
I know all the protocols listed above and have a working understanding of how protocols are developed and evolve through consortiums and standards bodies like IETF. So I get about half of your comment above, but I don't think it ties together like you suggest.
My understanding is that blockchain is the protocol, like TCP/IP or HTTP are protocols. The coins are what travels over the protocol, like a particular webpage or Netflix show would. Now that we have this new protocol, companies (like banks) are starting to put it to all kinds of new uses. Recording the transfer of digital tokens is a nice proof of concept, but it seems the protocol can move on to bigger things without the original tokens that got it started.
What's with the furiously emotional response?
You asked about my position, and I explained it. I specifically avoided discussing the specifics of the technology, because the reasons I believe cryptocurrencies will collapse have nothing to do with the technology itself.
Regarding the rebalancing: I don't think you've read what I've written. I argued that indexing cryptocurrencies is futile, because they're all exposed to the same major risks, and explained that I expect to see a severe crypto crash. I do expect to see a drastic shrinkage in the crypto market, so monthly rebalancing and near-zero fees make no difference. Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value? If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates.
On the subject of my numbers: yes, I guessed, because real figures are hard to come by. That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency. And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto.
What was it about my post that was "furiously emotional"? I don't think I posted anything or wrote any sentence that exuded any emotion at all, in fact. Was there something specific about my post that led you to believe it was furiously emotional?
I did read what you wrote and to be honest I didn't really see much of any specifics other than your opinion on the matter...Quote-"If there are people who think Bitcoin's price shouldn't necessarily bear any relation to market share, we're in an even bigger and more ridiculous bubble than I thought."
-"The risks involved in investing in Bitcoin are almost identical to the risks involved in investing in Ethereum, or Ripple, or Monero"
-"they all have wildly volatile price swings, they're all more or less completely unusable as actual currency, and they're all effectively in the same mode characterised by Robert Shipper as indicative of a bubble."
-"Building an index fund does nothing to negate those risks, which are vastly bigger than the risks specific to individual altcoins."
-"My personal opinion is that the cryptocurrency industry as it's currently comprised is in a spectacular bubble phase."
-"There's no day-to-day use case for crypto as it stands, and ten years in it doesn't look as though there ever will be."
-"Why would I mention monthly rebalancing when discussing a fund I fully expect will lose perhaps 90% of its value"
-"If I have absolutely no faith in the underlying asset class, then it doesn't matter how the index fund operates."
-"Bitcoin could fall to a dollar; Ethereum could fall to a cent. With that kind of uncertainty, putting money in a crypto index is close to pointless."
-"My personal opinion is that a crypto index fund is a very bad idea."
-"Someone who invests in a crypto index fund may well think they're properly diversified, but they're still entirely exposed to the vicissitudes of what remains a very immature industry."
-"That said, though, I'd be pretty confident that less than three million Americans have actually possessed cryptocurrency."
-"And I'd be outright astonished if thirty thousand Americans have managed to actually pay for a legal good or service with crypto."
These are all the things from the last several posts of yours and most of it is either just speculative itself, misinformed and opinionated, or just outright false.
Investing in a crypto index fund allows an individual to diversify among crypto-currencies as a whole. It is no different than someone who feels that technology companies will do well, but rather than investing in specific companies, they invest in a fund that diversifies among the largest tech companies. You don't invest in a fund like that unless you're already comfortable investing in the underlying market itself. The same goes for a crypto index fund. Clearly, for someone like you who doesn't think crypto-currencies will be around in 10 years, then its not a fund targeted toward an individual like yourself. But, to say that they're a bad idea when they're clearly designed for individuals comfortable with the idea of crypto-currencies fails to understand the benefit they provide. They're for the individuals who feel that crypto-currencies have a place in the world, but aren't comfortable picking a winner just yet. If a particular crypto-currency fails and loses market cap, then it will fall out of the index fund and another currency will take its place. Overall, however, if one feels that the overall market will continue to grow (so far it has), then the index fund will as well.
I don't mind debating crypto-currencies and one look back at my previous posts throughout this threat and others regarding crypto-currencies will show that I enjoy a good debate and will always keep things cordial and free from personal attacks. However, looking at your previous quotes above, it is difficult to have an adequate debate regarding a topic when one side fails to talk about anything specific or outright uses false or exaggerated information.
"The blatant bogus statistics that you spout out are ridiculous."
This is what I was referring to as an emotional response.
Regarding the statistics I mentioned (and freely admitted were very rough guesses): it appears as though I have severely overestimated the number of American cryptocurrency users. This item of research from Cambridge University (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-highlights-growing-significance-of-cryptocurrencies) indicates that the total number of users worldwide is three million, so my estimate of the same number for America alone was off by quite a distance. Cryptocurrency is in fact a good deal more niche than I had thought.
Regarding my estimate of 1% of transactions being for the purchase of legal goods or services: I freely admit that this is a shot in the dark. There's very little data on this at present; the best I could find just now was a survey done at a Chinese conference, where the self-reported figure for such transactions was 5%. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to share; I'm happy to recant in the face of better data.
On the specific subject of cryptocurrencies as a method for monetising protocol adoption: I have to say, I've been discussing cryptocurrencies with ardent advocates for a while now, and you're the first person I've seen coming in with this as a potential use case. It makes for interesting reading, and makes sense of some of what I've read elsewhere that was poorly explained. I'd still be extremely wary of investing in crypto at the moment, as I'm convinced prices have bee badly inflated by speculative investment, but I'm a good deal less cynical about its uses in ten to fifteen years than I was yesterday.
Would I be right in saying that this effectively means buying Siacoin is equivalent to putting money into an early-stage startup?
Interesting example on Sia. On the surface it looks like a valid concept and real use of digital currency for decentralized cloud storage.
I did some digging and have some concerns though. This thing could be just taking off, or it could be failing - I'm not sure. The coin itself had a spike in July, but now is down about 75% from the peak. I guess this was due to speculation? It seems that speculators driving up the price could effectively kill the whole thing before it gets off the ground by driving up the price too high.
I see the top hosts are offering storage for free now as well. So in effect, the coin is not being used at all for it's intended purpose right now? There is so much over-capacity in the network and so few early users that hosting storage is not profitable (income=0).
I did some digging and have some concerns though. This thing could be just taking off, or it could be failing - I'm not sure. The coin itself had a spike in July, but now is down about 75% from the peak. I guess this was due to speculation? It seems that speculators driving up the price could effectively kill the whole thing before it gets off the ground by driving up the price too high.
The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?
The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?
- Banker friendly coin: XRP
I personally do not like the thought of centralized coins, but this is a hedge more then anything that banks like control and will start using this platform.
- Banker friendly coin: XRP
I personally do not like the thought of centralized coins, but this is a hedge more then anything that banks like control and will start using this platform.
Limiting myself to the terms of the thread: going by the announcement from the six-bank consortium, financial institutions are going to skip the middleman and build their own cryptocurrency rather than use someone else's.
When I want to sell or buy something, I could care less what I use to make that transaction as long as it's easy, relatively secure, and that the currency is stable in value and accepted pretty much everywhere. I have no interest in whether or not that's dollars, bitcoins, dirty socks, you name it. I'm agnostic on the specific currency as long as it has those basic attributes.
As of right now, none of that applies, and the "success" of crypto looks more to me like failure, since none of them have managed to become commonly used or even stable in value. I have no interest in buying something that has no use and is only transacted with itself (I don't go out and buy a bunch of dollars to stick under my bed either, and those at least are easy to use for buying stuff I actually want).
In the spirit of the original post I thought I'd share a bit of my personal experience with crypto for those interested.
I've been doing the Mustachian method of index funds, slow-and-steady, etc. for 20 years. It has served me well. I kept a couple percent of my money reserved in cash for opportunities and then put a small percentage of that money into active investing (we're talking at most $2000 or so) mainly for entertainment. Trading individual stocks got me more active in something I enjoy so I played with it in a low-risk manner for a while. Good, wholesome, nerdy fun.
I learned about Bitcoin back when it was around $200 or so and bought $5 worth on a paper wallet from a friend. I just wanted to know how the technology worked, really. I set it aside and then learned more, bought a little more, etc. I went to a Crypto conference in August, 2014 and listened to a very compelling talk given by Vitalik Buterin about this new thing he was building called Ethereum and I immediately saw potential - if he and the team were able to pull it off, of course.
I put a few hundred dollars worth of my speculative "play" investment money into it and promptly forgot about it for a year and a half or so. I didn't even realize that people were trading it in any serious way until I looked up Ethereum and my $0.30 Ethers were trading at over $1 each. Crazy ROI especially for something so speculative. It went up so fast after that that I didn't know what to do. I sold enough to recoup my investment and to realize a little profit and let the rest ride. It was all safe money now.
Fast forward to a few months ago and what was left had gone up to be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. It went from "price of a new car" to "price of a decent house" so quickly that I was gobsmacked. My wife and I decided to get out while the getting was great and realized enough gains to pay off our house! We're in our late 30s and there's enough left to buy another house with... all from a speculative bet 3 years ago.
I don't want to get anyone's hopes up nor do I want to proclaim that I'm some kind of investing genius. I won the lottery and I know it. This was a once in a lifetime speculation done entirely with money that was outside of our normal investment plan. Had I lost the few hundred dollars, fine - not a huge setback.
As to current holdings, I remain fascinated by the space. I hold Ethereum (inside and outside of an IRA), a little Bitcoin inside an IRA, and a few smaller startups (LINK, QTUM, NEO, MTH, OMG) that I managed to purchase at their ICO or close to it. Some are up, some are down. I doubt that I'll strike oil again like I did with ETH though.
Now I'm trying to reconcile just how far out of whack my overall asset allocation is. I never intended for crypto to be such a large portion of my portfolio and I'm trying to slowly divest. The tax situation is such that I want to do it slowly because of the capital gains. Come January 1st I'll be liquidating some more and moving it into good 'ol VTSAX. :)
I am not suggesting anything other than the OP's initial post. Personally I love debating the pros/cons/hype/potentials/scams/ etc just not here on this thread.The OP was pretty clear that this was not a thread to debate if crypto currency is legit/real/of value/etc. But to discuss crypto portfolios, unfortunately it has been hijacked pretty hard.
Can you all stop now?
The name should probably be changed then . . . currently it reads "Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion". You're suggesting that something like "Re: OFFICIAL: Blockchain / Crypto-Currency - Only Promotion And Good Words Allowed" would be more apt.
New day, new all-time high.
Scared money don't make money!
BTC over $5200! This little crytpo thing is 3% of my total portfolio but 90% of the gains. Pretty insane. Triggered another rebalance.
I believe omg to be the strongest contender despite the omg blockchain not yet existing, as compared to the current top 12 in coinmarketcap.com.
....
If anyone has questions, I'll share what I know.
Being MMM, low cost passive index funds are well proven. Applying the same to crypto currencies is what the Crypto 20 (C20) token provides. The fund contains the top 20 coins, is autonomous, and rebalanced weekly.
https://crypto20.com
If you feel that crypto will grow over time then this is a great way to have exposure to the top 20 coins in the market.
Just to be clear, I'm a longterm holder of eth as well.
I think that much of the value for those crypto comes from the fact that they are existing and functioning blockchains.
Iota is currently centralized and using a coordinator to springboard the network until it achieves enough network effect where it no longer needs to rely on the coordinator. I'm not convinced that it will be able to effectively remove the coordinator. In addition, there is the controversy surrounding it regarding cryptographic vulnerabilities.
The zksnark zero-proof in zec is planned for use in eth, and I don't see why it won't be adapted into omg.
From an empirical perspective, eth has a more foundational infrastructure, greater developer mindshare, and superior ecosystem over dash.
As for omg, once it goes live, it can integrate into an existing payment network infrastucture and allow various payment networks to transact with each other. Exclusive loyalty or reward programs, in-game currencies, etc, have the potential to be unlocked and transacted as value into a greater network. Also, an advantage omg will have over many of the existing blockchains is that a standardized onboarding cash in/out process is expected to be unveiled before year end; instead of relying on other crypto to get it, people will directly be able to trade for it with cash at supporting establishments (possibly convenience stores). Merchants and consumers will have a reason to use omg (reduced transactional barriers, lower overhead costs, trustless trust standard, etc).
So if I'm reading correctly the elevator pitch is that omg (once it is up and running) should be much easier to transfer into and out of (either from normal currencies, other cryptocurrencies, or game/reward program points) without requiring the use of 3rd party exchanges?
OMG will be huge, I have about 2% of my total crypto portfolio in it and expect great returns over the next few years.
my current portfolio
AEternity
IOTA
ART
SNGLS
GNT
BNT
ANT
my current portfolio
AEternity
IOTA
ART
SNGLS
GNT
BNT
ANT
Interesting, most of your choices are platforms built on Ethereum.
What makes you feel that you can pick the winners (essentially stock picking) out of a blooming new field with thousands of new developments as opposed to just picking Ethereum (essentially holding the index)?
my current portfolio
AEternity
IOTA
ART
SNGLS
GNT
BNT
ANT
Interesting, most of your choices are platforms built on Ethereum.
What makes you feel that you can pick the winners (essentially stock picking) out of a blooming new field with thousands of new developments as opposed to just picking Ethereum (essentially holding the index)?
Touching on this, there are alot of shilling, misinformation, and pump-and-dumps in crypto. Projects get intensely hyped and made out to be extremely promising.
Most of these projects are purely whitepaper! They have no product. The idea-makers have no inkling of the pitfalls and challenges of the business world or getting a product to market and adoption. Even if they have code to show for a product, or actually launch a product, it's not a guarantee of success. There is also a very subtle form of scamming, where the ico projects put on the front of actively working on a product and releasing continuous updates, knowing the product will never pick up momentum.
If you are in the cryptoworld, be very conservative where you put your money.
my current portfolio
AEternity
IOTA
ART
SNGLS
GNT
BNT
ANT
Interesting, most of your choices are platforms built on Ethereum.
What makes you feel that you can pick the winners (essentially stock picking) out of a blooming new field with thousands of new developments as opposed to just picking Ethereum (essentially holding the index)?
Or literally holding an index of the top 20 crypto currencies using C20 - https://crypto20.com
A good overview of C20 with links to YouTube interviews -
https://cryptocurrencyinvesting.news/crypto20-offers-peace-of-mind-with-the-first-crypto-index-fund/
Thanks for the input man. Can you please avoid posting that anymore? I don't know your affiliation but mentioning it twice in such a short amount of time is coming off as self seeking. If not, I apologize but I just wanted to get this out in the clear.
Oh man. This is a millennial train wreck.
You guys are going to lose your asses.
Bitcoin really hitting new highs, currently at 5963.01 dollars per unit, looking for a spot to buy few coins, but the price is too high right now.
Crypto currencies are to investing what a brand new GM truck is to Mustachians.
Isn't this the opposite of what this blog preaches ? Do any of you ever experienced an extended bear market? Where you lost hundreds of thousands in equity value in a matter of months?
If so, do you feel comfortable with things like bitcoin? Yes? How?
I want to hear from the 40+ crowd who have experienced these kinds of events.
Crypto currencies are to investing what a brand new GM truck is to Mustachians.
Isn't this the opposite of what this blog preaches ? Do any of you ever experienced an extended bear market? Where you lost hundreds of thousands in equity value in a matter of months?
If so, do you feel comfortable with things like bitcoin? Yes? How?
I want to hear from the 40+ crowd who have experienced these kinds of events.
Lifeanon269-
Have you purchased a tangible good or service with your bitcoin?
I'd like to know if you've used it for its intended purpose, or if it's only an investment vehicle for you.
All my spending money is in Bitcoin (I've stated this in past posts here as well, so I'm not just saying this in response to you). I'd rather have my spending money in Bitcoin as opposed to USD as this allows me to further increase my savings.
Lifeanon269-
Have you purchased a tangible good or service with your bitcoin?
I'd like to know if you've used it for its intended purpose, or if it's only an investment vehicle for you.
All my spending money is in Bitcoin (I've stated this in past posts here as well, so I'm not just saying this in response to you). I'd rather have my spending money in Bitcoin as opposed to USD as this allows me to further increase my savings. If my spending money goes up 10% one month, then that allows me to put more into savings than I otherwise would have. Its volatility isn't as painful when it comes to my spending money since 1) I don't spend much each month and 2) my monthly spending is spread out over the course of the month, therefore Bitcoin's price volatility evens out for all my expenditures.
In case you're wondering, I have a Bitcoin debit card that allows me to make purchases using Bitcoin. My money is stored in Bitcoin until the time of the transaction where it is converted to USD without any transaction fee. This is what I referred to above where I said that Bitcoin is extremely liquid. I can have my money in Bitcoin and at any moment, I can spend it. I also do make purchases directly with Bitcoin on a few websites that support it (Amazon purchases through Purse, Overstock, NewEgg, etc).
With that said, I would like to question why the question was posed in the first place. Were you questioning its use as a currency? Its current adoption level matches its current merchant acceptance. That is to say it is very low. The reason why it has been such a good investment hinges solely on the fact that it is such a young market. At the point at which we see its value as currency being realized (ie, merchant acceptance and widespread use), its value as an investment will have diminished. Irregardless of any of this, however, its value as a store of value will always remain since that is mostly dependent upon the soundness and stability of the technology itself.
Irregardless of any of this, however, its value as a store of value will always remain since that is mostly dependent upon the soundness and stability of the technology itself.
Crypto currencies are to investing what a brand new GM truck is to Mustachians.
Isn't this the opposite of what this blog preaches ? Do any of you ever experienced an extended bear market? Where you lost hundreds of thousands in equity value in a matter of months?
If so, do you feel comfortable with things like bitcoin? Yes? How?
I want to hear from the 40+ crowd who have experienced these kinds of events.
Can you further explain your analogy? The comparison you make to a GM truck doesn't really make sense at all.
Being "mustachian" is more about living a simple frugal life to achieve a high savings rate and become financially independent than it is about any one particular investment strategy. Even Mr. Money Mustache has invested in high risk/high reward investments.
So I don't think being "mustachian" excludes one from investing in crypto-currencies.
I feel very comfortable investing in bitcoin for numerous reasons.
1) It isn't correlated with any other investment class and it has so far shown itself to be disassociated with most other markets. Therefore it is a good investment option for diversifying against my other index funds.
2) I work in the technology field (Information Security) and I understand the technology of bitcoin deeply. Therefore, investing in a technology that I firmly believe has a bright future makes sense to me. I think it is one of the greatest technological achievements since the Internet. For the first time, we can now create something that is both digital and scarce and can't be copied.
3) I invested in bitcoin early on and therefore my investment has seen tremendous growth over the last several years. Even if bitcoin experiences an extreme drop from today's value or an extensive bear market for the foreseeable future, I will has still made more money had I just invested my money in any other traditional investment option.
4) I am extremely bearish on current traditional financial systems and think that we're in one of the largest debt bubbles ever. Until Bitcoin came along, there was really no way to hedge against something like this as just about ever other asset class is either manipulated and/or intertwined with everything else that makes up our economy. Bitcoin's true value won't be understood until we experience another financial crisis. While I continue to invest in my traditional index funds and max out all my pre-tax investment options, Bitcoin provides me a hedge against those in the event something horrible happens.
5) Bitcoin is extremely liquid and fungible, unlike many retirement investment accounts. This is a great benefit to someone who is planning to retire early, which is something that goes against society's norms. While I plan on retiring in my early 40's, sometimes life can throw a curve ball, so it is nice to have a decent chunk of money that is for retirement, but is available any time of day that can be accessed and used in any way I see fit. There aren't many good investments that I can be long on, while still having the ability to access it at any time without restrictions or penalties.
6) If crypto-currencies are seen as a "millennial" investment, wouldn't it make sense that I invest in something that has a growing number of young investors in the future investing in something that has a positive feedback loop relative to its adoption? If most millennials don't understand why gold is a store of value and yet are fully willing to adopt Bitcoin as such, then it makes sense that Bitcoin would have a stronger future market as those millennials begin choosing where to put their money.
I can go on digging further into why I think Bitcoin is a good investment option, but there are just some of the reasons why I choose to put some of my money in it and why it shouldn't just be seen as some obscure fad.
Irregardless of any of this, however, its value as a store of value will always remain since that is mostly dependent upon the soundness and stability of the technology itself.
It's quotes like this that make me extremely wary of cryptocurrencies. That's simply untrue. The only "value" that cryptocurrencies have as a store of value is completely and totally dependent on other people being willing to trade goods / services / other currencies for them. Same as anything else. The technology can be completely sound and stable, but if no one wants to buy your bitcoin then it has lost every bit of its value. Will that happen any time soon? I don't know, but "bitcoin has no real value so it's real value is potentially INFINITE" type quotes certainly don't make me want to trade my USD for your bitcoin.
Your debit card sounds absolutely amazing! I apologize for being so late to the discussion that I hadn't properly read other posts of yours.
Indeed I am trying to figure out whether Bitcoin is a currency, or if the emphasis on investing through it has transformed it more into a commodity a la gold.
My big concern about websites like overstock is that they still quote the prices in $$ until the very end, then they give you the option to pay via Bitcoin. I'm worried that until we start thinking about prices totally within Bitcoin (and you sound like you've built the infrastructure--personally--to do this), it won't be a currency, but more a medium of exchange will be something more akin to payment processing that credit cards are currently providing, rather than being something like the Euro.
Essentially what you're suggesting is that all the people who today feel that bitcoin is a safe and secure protocol and are willing to put their hard earned cash in it will someday cease to feel it is a safe and secure protocol...and thus its value would plummet. In order for that to happen, then the network would need to experience some type of hiccup or compromise [paraphrasing] or there would have to be a worldwide governmental clamp down.
For perspective, even if Bitcoin's market capitalization remained constant from here on out (about $100 billion), then its future value in the year ~2140 when all 21 million Bitcoins are mined would still be about $4760...
Also, my above statement was in regards to the fact that this is all true whether or not Bitcoin is ever used as an everyday currency or not. Bitcoin does not need to be used as an everyday currency for people to realize that it still has value because of the security it provides as a store of value.
All that's required for people to stop feeling safe and secure is for them to stop feeling safe and secure.
But there's no reason whatsoever to assume that the market cap will remain constant or close to constant. It could skyrocket, it could crash to zero. The one and only factor that differentiates these scenarios is people's willingness to continue pouring money into the bitcoin marketplace. It's all pure speculation on future behavior.
I mean, I know I'm being a downer on cryptocurrencies in a crytpcurrency thread. So by all means you do your thing. I will stick to government-backed currencies and investments backed by real appreciating assets.
All that's required for people to stop feeling safe and secure is for them to stop feeling safe and secure.
I agree, but people don't just change attitudes about things without some type of forcing. You do realize your statement sounds a little ridiculous, right? Why would someone change their opinion about something unless there was something that caused them to have a change of attitude toward it?
Take gold for example. People always argue how gold has "inherent value" given its uses in industry, electronics, medicine, etc. However, has the market cap for gold ever dropped all the way down to its base market value that only covered its uses for industry, electronics, medicine, etc? If the answer to that is no (which it is), then even during all the economic calamities that gold has withstood as a store of value, it still held value simply because people felt it did, not because of its uses or "inherent value".
You say that you'll stick with government backed currencies, but all the same critiques you've leveled against Bitcoin can be said of government backed currencies. Fiat currencies are backed by the government, but all that means is that they back them as legal tender under national borders. That doesn't mean that they guarantee their value.
In other words:
Its the technology that drives its value, not the speculation.
In other words:
Its the technology that drives its value, not the speculation.
Wow, you actually believe this right now?
The exact opposite is true, actually.
I'm for Crypto, and have money in various coins. But you are lying to yourself if you think blockchain cryptocurrencies prices aren't driven by almost pure speculation at this point. The majority of people that own Bitcoin are doing it for a ROI. Period.
And THAT is why this thing COULD come crashing down very fast. It's propped up on speculation, and could crumble, actually much faster, than the housing and tech markets did.
I'm sure I'll be written off as the tired old man here. I'm 49.
Was concerns me the most is that most of the under 35 crowd has only know an EXTREME period of market growth their entire investing lives. Not just extreme but unprecedented!
Twice I've seen my stash grow to unbelievable levels and lose its value in a matter of a year. I've seen friends lose homes, jobs, spouses, etc. over these market crashes .
I suggest you don't speculate a large portion of your net worth. Believe me
I'm sure I'll be written off as the tired old man here. I'm 49.
Was concerns me the most is that most of the under 35 crowd has only know an EXTREME period of market growth their entire investing lives. Not just extreme but unprecedented!
Twice I've seen my stash grow to unbelievable levels and lose its value in a matter of a year. I've seen friends lose homes, jobs, spouses, etc. over these market crashes .
I suggest you don't speculate a large portion of your net worth. Believe me
"All mass appeal technology adoptions follow an S-curve."
All mass appeal technology adoptions involve a drastic reduction in price as the technology is adopted. They would be utter failures otherwise.
If there are a billion people holding bitcoin, but none are buying, the value is nothing - you cannot sell your bitcoin. If there are 1.5 people selling for every 1 person buying, the value crashes precipitously until it gets low enough that an extra half-person decides to buy. Neither of those situations requires a technological problem, merely an economic or psychological problem are sufficient.
If there are a billion people holding bitcoin, but none are buying, the value is nothing - you cannot sell your bitcoin. If there are 1.5 people selling for every 1 person buying, the value crashes precipitously until it gets low enough that an extra half-person decides to buy. Neither of those situations requires a technological problem, merely an economic or psychological problem are sufficient.
Your scenarios are only half of it though. If a billion people own Bitcoin and no one is selling, that means that everyone values the Bitcoin that they own way above what anyone is able to pay for it.
In other words, they'd be priceless.
That would never happen because you're assuming that no one would ever put a price on the Bitcoin they own. Everyone always has a price. Therefore, if a billion people own Bitcoin, there will always be Bitcoin for sale.
Sherr didn't say a billion people owning and no one selling, Sherr said no one buying. That's a crucial difference. You're right that everyone values their bitcoin above what people are willing to pay in that scenario, and that value is (some amount of money -- e.g. 0.01 for lots of bitcoins) and no buyers are willing to pay any amount of money.
"All mass appeal technology adoptions follow an S-curve."
All mass appeal technology adoptions involve a drastic reduction in price as the technology is adopted. They would be utter failures otherwise.
That's true of the technology is a mass-produced good with no scarcity that can achieve production improvements over time. That's not true for a limited scarce asset that achieves critical mass adoption.
The adoption S-curve and the price of said technology are two different functions.
as far as I'm aware, the technology S-curve has historically been marked by an increase in supply that outstrips the increase in demand, hence the reduction in price.
What cryptocurrencies are doing is far closer in terms of supply/demand relationships to historical bubbles, which would indicate that we're better off looking at tulip bulbs and the Irish property market (where ever-increasing demand crashed against limited supply growth and triggered booms in pricing) than the iPod and the printing press (where supply continuously ramped up as demand kept increasing) for an idea of what the crypto market is likely to do.
This isn't a particularly controversial point: the guy who literally wrote the book on economic bubbles (and won a Nobel for it) has specifically argued that cryptocurrencies are in a bubble.
You've even acknowledged that the motivations of investors in the market is principally speculative.
The S-curve has less to do with supply and demand and more simply to do with the adoption of the innovation by the public at large.That just sounds like demand. How can the public adopt an innovation but not buy it? If they really are separate concepts, how do you measure the adoption rate/prevalence without looking at how many good and services are bought?
That just sounds like demand. How can the public adopt an innovation but not buy it? If they really are separate concepts, how do you measure the adoption rate/prevalence without looking at how many good and services are bought?
I agree that the price itself doesn't matter (you can just pay with tiny fractions of a bitcoin if it's worth $1,000,000).
Crypto currencies are to investing what a brand new GM truck is to Mustachians.
Isn't this the opposite of what this blog preaches ? ...
I want to hear from the 40+ crowd who have experienced these kinds of events.
Do any of you ever experienced an extended bear market? Where you lost hundreds of thousands in equity value in a matter of months?
If so, do you feel comfortable with things like bitcoin? Yes? How?
For those with the technical background to understand it
I understand the technology. I think it's probably nothing but a pyramid scheme
There seems to be a recurring dismissal of finance guys who are calling Bitcoin a worthless bubble as "just not getting it". I think they probably do, you don't get to be the CEO of JPMorgan or whatever by being a dummy. I think it's somewhat arrogant to dismiss all criticisms as "well they just don't understand as much as I do" (again, I know you're not doing this).
I understand the technology. I think it's probably nothing but a pyramid scheme
This seems to contradict the idea that you understand the technology of Bitcoin. Either you don't understand Bitcoin or you don't understand what a pyramid scheme is.There seems to be a recurring dismissal of finance guys who are calling Bitcoin a worthless bubble as "just not getting it". I think they probably do, you don't get to be the CEO of JPMorgan or whatever by being a dummy. I think it's somewhat arrogant to dismiss all criticisms as "well they just don't understand as much as I do" (again, I know you're not doing this).
There are plenty of valid criticisms of bitcoin and crypto-currencies that have been discussed throughout this thread (bogus/fraudulent ICOs, harmful regulations, competing currencies, scaling issues, etc). However, when Jamie Dimon, that CEO of JP Morgan Chase that you refer of, is in an interview and is asked a question about ICOs and that is literally the first time he's ever heard of the term ICO, then that makes me question his knowledge on the subject matter of which he is speaking. Therefore, when he makes the claim that Bitcoin is a bubble, I have little faith that he's actually done any analysis to come up with that claim. The same goes for Howard Marks, where as I mentioned before, in his memo that he released to his investors, he actually admitted that he doesn't understand the technology at all.
So I find it hard to agree with you on idea that some of these people that are claiming Bitcoin is a bubble actually have done a detailed analysis as to why they think so. No doubt they are very smart people, but that doesn't make them an expert of all things. They certainly haven't shared their analysis from what I've seen outside of a simple "yup, the price is too high too fast!" In fact, I rarely ever hear an analysis as to why someone thinks Bitcoin is a bubble, all I hear is that another financial person has claimed Bitcoin is a bubble and then it makes a news headline. When that's been going on for several years, it grows increasingly difficult to take them seriously.
I agree that you shouldn't invest any money in crypto-currencies that you aren't prepared to lose. I also think that the amount of money you put into crypto-currencies should be proportional to the amount of understanding you have of the technology. That same advice could be said of just about any investment. For example, I'd advise against putting money into the stock of a company that you have little understand of and don't follow on a daily/hourly basis. I also don't think you should invest in real estate if you don't understand the real estate market in which you're investing.
To clarify, when I say people should have the technical background, I was talking about the technical aspects of the bitcoin asset that make it difficult for the non-technically savvy to even use it safely. For example, it acts like cash or gold in that if it gets stolen or you forget your passwords it is gone. You can't call up someone and get it back.For those with the technical background to understand it
I know that this is not what you're doing, so don't take it personally because I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just going to piggyback on your comment to say something that's been on my mind.
...
Way to demonstrate exactly my point an hour and one minute after I posted.
I could imagine a hypothetical future where cryptocurrency is widely used to settle payments, but the tools for trading in and out of it on both ends are so fast/efficient that the total value of that cryptocurrency only needs to be a few billion to facilitate millions of transactions per day.
As it stands, if you want to pay for something electronically (with a debit card, we'll leave credit cards out of this) you swipe the card, and then the card processor charges the merchant a fee (~3%) in exchange for transferring the money between you and providing some level of fraud prevention/security.
At some point you start to wonder about the point of having the "currency" part of it at all, if you're just transferring dollars to dollars.
I think some of the recent debate brings up a good point. Bitcoin is touted as a currency, hell, coin is part of its name. But, by most definitions of true currency, Bitcoin falls short.
Bitcoin has all the hallmarks of what made gold so valuable before the advent of paper currency.
This is, to put it mildly, an extravagantly dismissive attitude. It's not an exact copy of a pyramid scheme (because if it was, it would be completely illegal), but the characteristics are not too dissimilar. In each case, you're seeing a progressively larger flow of money into a product, fuelled by the gains realised by prior investors, and fuelling a still larger flow of money into the product. There are enough characteristics in common that the comparison isn't unwarranted. It's not as tight a match as with Robert Schiller's description of a bubble, but it's still a reasonable comparison to make.
Why would a blockchain token having a backing tie to some foreign currency be particularly useful? Just use the foreign currency, they are already digital.
The value crypto brings is in how it is disconnected from any government/nation state and from banks. It can't be inflated by some government nor confiscated, nor devalued, etc. If you hold the crypto yourself it won't be loaned out by your bank, nor can it be taken out of your account due to legal demand. Understanding why this is valuable is difficult if you don't have much wealth. If you don't have much wealth you don't worry about protecting it, moving it, or it being locked down or taken away from you.
To get a idea what I mean, consider you held several million worth of crypto. A crypto wallet, including all crypto balances and historical transactions, can be completely encoded by a dozen secret words you can memorize. So now no matter where you go, those dozen words uniquely control your millions, and nobody else can touch it. If you get on a plane and fly to another country, when you land your millions went with you, in your head. You don't have to request a bank to send money to another country, no bank can put a hold on that wealth, no government can confiscate it, and no physical asset had to be shipped. The other people in the plane had to report even small amounts of cash they were traveling with, your millions already exist everywhere on the planet already. No other money or asset in the world has that ability. Crypto is like nothing else.
...
The only thing backing means is that the government honors exchanges of coins to their currency at a specific valuation. That provides price stability and intrinsic value.
I could imagine a hypothetical future where cryptocurrency is widely used to settle payments, but the tools for trading in and out of it on both ends are so fast/efficient that the total value of that cryptocurrency only needs to be a few billion to facilitate millions of transactions per day.
Yes, this is sort of where I see it going. As it stands, if you want to pay for something electronically (with a debit card, we'll leave credit cards out of this) you swipe the card, and then the card processor charges the merchant a fee (~3%) in exchange for transferring the money between you and providing some level of fraud prevention/security.
But they *don't* trade your dollars into Visa-Bux and back again to do that. And there's not really a reason that bitcoin/blockchain tech needs to have a "currency" attached to it with *any particular value* in order to facilitate transactions, if both parties just want dollars in the end. All the bitcoin on earth could be worth $500 million and you could use it for exchange that way (dollars instantaneously to bitcoin instantaneously to dollars) or it could be worth $500 quadrillion. Doesn't matter.
At some point you start to wonder about the point of having the "currency" part of it at all, if you're just transferring dollars to dollars.
So while I see the technology being a great thing and possibly a wonderful way to get the vampire squid credit/debit card companies from siphoning 2-3% of the every transaction, I *don't* think that means buying bitcoins (or any other crypto "currency") is a good investment or correlated to the potential of the technology.
What makes Bitcoin more valuable than Dogecoin?
I think I got off track on the intrinsic value piece. The point I was trying to focus on more was the vulnerability of the value and adoption of any one type of coin to be completely overtaken by another newer coin with some extra feature. We could argue about the intrinsic value of non-commodity backed national currency like the US dollar (which is backed by the value of the US economy, although susceptible to inflation/deflation), but that's more of a red herring in this context.
What makes Bitcoin more valuable than Dogecoin?
What makes gold more valuable than silver? People simply value it more. You can argue about gold's industrial uses, but gold was still held in high value long before those industrial uses came along. Personally, I like the look of silver or platinum more in jewelry than gold. Gold is simply valuable because a lot of people place value on it. Because of that value placed on it combined with its scarcity (you can't just go in your back yard and dig some up), it has a lot of value. There are some metals out there that are more scarce, have more industrial function, or even perhaps are better ornamentally, yet gold is still one of the better store of values. Gold historically has no "moat" against other precious metals outside of humans just blindly valuing it for what it is.
The same is true for Bitcoin. There may be better functioning alt-coins out there for specific tasks. There may be better alt-coins out there that are more secure or anonymous. There may be better alt-coins that are technologically or cryptographically better or easier to use. But, they're not better enough to overtake Bitcoin as a store of value. People simply value it more than all other currencies by a lot. Some reasons make sense as to why, some don't. However, unlike gold that is a static element, Bitcoin is not so static. It can be molded through consensus to become what the market needs it to be. There are other alt-coins that are similar enough where specific functionality can be tested within smaller markets to see how they perform and then those very same features can be added to Bitcoin if needed. Bitcoin's market lead along with the fact that new features can and likely will be added will keep Bitcoin as the #1 currency for the foreseeable future.
A new crypto-currency popping up out of the blue is no more of a threat to Bitcoin's value than a new metal being discovered is a threat to gold's value as a precious metal. That's not to say I wouldn't keep a close eye on the market over the next several years to see what's going on in the industry to see what new technology is out there. Anything is possible and if you're just blindly stashing away Bitcoin and turning your back on it, there is always a chance you'll get burned. But, I don't see the threat of other alt-coins as a reason to avoid Bitcoin altogether. I'd merely view other currencies as lively experimentation is a burgeoning new industry; definitely something to keep an eye on.
I'm not sure I agree with a lot of these points. There are some very specific reasons why gold is more valuable than silver. Two big ones are that 1) gold is more rare, and 2) it's chemically inert (whereas silver tarnishes for example). In fact, gold is extremely unique in its combination of softness and chemical stability. So right off the bat we have two good predictors on value: rarity and practicality. That does seem to make sense to me.
Bitcoin certainly gets to claim rarity on the grounds that it has a finite supply, but then so does any other crypto coin, so I'm honestly not sure how to factor that in. As for practicality, again it's hard to measure how Bitcoin directly compares to other coins as the comparison may be use-case dependent. But, you do see effects like Etherium (which maybe should be called Bitcoin-v2) coming out of nowhere and claiming a significant market share due to perceived practicality improvements.
And that's the thing. You mention that Bitcoin is not so static, but I look at it and see it as being very static. A coin is a token that can be anonymously exchanged with a way to verify the exchange. There are going to be a fixed number of coins, and that's that. I don't get this idea of it 'becoming what the market needs it to be'. They are what they are, and that's a secure distributed system for the validated exchange of tokens. But, anyone can pretty much on a whim fork/clone the code and create their own parallel system decoupled from the valuation of any other system.
And yes, I agree that most of Bitcoin's value is due to it being first-to-market, but if that's the main reason it's worth over 1,000 times more than equivalent (or even functionally superior) alt-coins, I don't see how that represents a stable system over a significant number of years. If at any single point in the near or distant future Bitcoin starts to lose market share to an emerging new technology, there will be nothing to stop its value from plummeting due to this feedback loop of its value being tied to its market share. If everyone's jumping to Super-coin and Bitcoin's market share starts dropping, who's going to be sitting there willing to buy Bitcoins at their current price when the value of Super-coin is exploding and there's possible reason to thing that Bitcoin will be come a completely outdated dominated implementation of the next big crypto-currency? If consumer confidence starts declining, the value of a Bitcoin could evaporate in a cloud of smoke as hoarders make a 'run on the bank' and try and offload their inventory in exchange for The Next Big Thing.
"Either you don't understand Bitcoin or you don't understand what a pyramid scheme is."
This is, to put it mildly, an extravagantly dismissive attitude. It's not an exact copy of a pyramid scheme (because if it was, it would be completely illegal), but the characteristics are not too dissimilar. In each case, you're seeing a progressively larger flow of money into a product, fuelled by the gains realised by prior investors, and fuelling a still larger flow of money into the product. There are enough characteristics in common that the comparison isn't unwarranted. It's not as tight a match as with Robert Schiller's description of a bubble, but it's still a reasonable comparison to make.
Dude, if you want intrinsic value, you want stocks, or land, or useful commodities, or something else that produces something. No currency (at least none that I'm aware of) has "intrinsic" value, bitcoin included. In fact you don't really even want currency to have intrinsic value, since you want it used for exchange, not hoarding.
-W
Does anyone have further advice?
Dude, if you want intrinsic value, you want stocks, or land, or useful commodities, or something else that produces something. No currency (at least none that I'm aware of) has "intrinsic" value, bitcoin included. In fact you don't really even want currency to have intrinsic value, since you want it used for exchange, not hoarding.
-W
is a 24/7 global, secure, cheap, fast, censorship-resistant payment network not producing value? are visa, paypal, and western union valueless as well?
Now if at some point in the future there is a switch to a proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work on a major cryptocurrency (I think that is still on Ethereum's roadmap), then the folks who just buy and hold the currency could, indeed, be producing value.
Now if at some point in the future there is a switch to a proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work on a major cryptocurrency (I think that is still on Ethereum's roadmap), then the folks who just buy and hold the currency could, indeed, be producing value.
i don't know how Ethereum's PoS will work but i imagine it would have to somehow involve spending money on electricity and computer hardware to process transactions and store the blockchain -- therefore a nonzero input to keep generating value via the payment network.
MystryBox, a good set of advice. I'm not sure about #3 on the what-not-to-do list just because I think assumed anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies was one of the things that got people really excited about bitcoin in the early days (before people realized how straightforward it would often be to link an anonymous "wallet" to a particular person). So I still think the anonymous cryptocurrencies are likely candidates if there ever is a significant switch from bitcoin to something else.
That said, even if I'm right about that, you certainly raise a very valid point about the difficulty of getting money back out of crypto without looking like a potential drug dealer if you've got a lot of money sitting in monero or zcash (or whichever other anonymous coins are out there).
I'm torn, I think the 2X fork is wreckless and poorly executed because it doesn't have replay protection, but I wouldn't mind seeing some hashrate go to another chain to allow BTCs difficulty to go down or at the very least hold steady for a while.
How do you manage your Crypto-Currency Portfolios?
On the basis of market capatilization I'm planning to invest in the top 5 crypto currencies and to rebalance every month.
Like a typical passiv index fonds. What is a cheap and simple way to do this?
PS. I haven't read every post in this threat, only the first pages and couldn't find an answer.
The 2X/1X fork is being executed this way on purpose by both sides. The value in bitcoin is no longer in its technology--it's not remotely leading tech anymore, and it's barely usable by comparison to other coins due to delays and fees--its value is in the Bitcoin brand. Neither side wants to implement replay protection because whoever changes and implements replay protection becomes the altcoin and arguably won't get the "bitcoin"/"btc" branding. So both sides are playing a game of chicken to see who will take majority hashing and usage to walk away with the brand and forcing the other side into vanishing or "altcoining" itself.
To me the whole thing is risking the value (and lead coin status) of BTC. Ethereum took a huge hit in value when it forked off classic without replay protection (though it eventually rebounded). No matter how it goes I think it's another nail in the coffin of bitcoin maximalism. The fault lies squarely with Core and its complete inability to cooperate with bitcoin mining, business, and user communities. Unfortunately I don't see Core improving its leadership abilities and even if 1X wins it only means there will be even more drama soon (or perhaps a defection of businesses and usage to Bitcoin Cash or Ethereum).
I've been observing the space before my mmm account age. It's highly political. Both sides are not without blemish and information distortion. However, I believe core is the greater evil.
We'll have to disagree on these points. I really want to avoid the politics here, but if you insist, I can provide a statement.
We'll have to disagree on these points. I really want to avoid the politics here, but if you insist, I can provide a statement.
Wait, wait, a cabal of self-interested people who are only slightly answerable to the participants is running the show?!?
Sounds sort of a like... government.
-W
Wait, wait, a cabal of self-interested people who are only slightly answerable to the participants is running the show?!?
Sounds sort of a like... government.
-W
The fact that Bitcoin is counterfeit proof gives it a leg up on the rest of the economy. At least the Bitcoin I own I know are real and legitimate Bitcoin.
That being said, I'd imagine that once derivatives trading starts becoming more popular with Bitcoin, then those derivatives would likely be vulnerable to the same counterfeiting which is why it is always good advice to just invest and hold directly in Bitcoin and not in any derivative markets.
Too bad core, who you seem to love, is busy killing the original design of bitcoin and turning it into a settlement system that they will then use to power higher level derivative networks like sidechains and lightning. I had a big argument with nullc (Greg Maxwell) a few years back about how they were moving away from the "digital property" breakthrough that bitcoin achieved to create a bunch of derivatives on top of bitcoin which would start right down the same road of the mainstream financial system. He didn't care, he's never cared about those aspects of bitcoin.
Their entire refusal to increase the blocksize is not what they claim, it is to obsolete the old bitcoin model and force any new usage into newer derivative technologies (which they of course profit from). So why bother posting about how great those attributes of bitcoin are when you are cheering the group that is killing those attributes?
First off, if you look through this thread and others on this forum, you'll see I am a big advocate of Bitcoin and its capabilities. I'm a firm believer in all that Bitcoin stands for...decentralization, cryptography, open source, consensus, deflationary, etc.
I do support increasing the block size, just not right now...
Third, increasing the block size is not a scaling solution ... Bitcoin as it is designed will never be capable of processing transactions at the same rate that VISA is capable of.
Fourth, that doesn't even touch on the fact that in order for the network to be able to support transaction rates that high, the network would end up being much more centralized. Which out of all properties for Bitcoin, its decentralized nature is probably one of the most important to have come from Satoshi's original whitepaper.
Also, sidechains are completely opt-in. No one is forced to use them... the Lightning Network is still backed by the same verifiable and counterfeit proof Bitcoin blockchain
sidechains ... allow Bitcoin to be much more responsive to what the market needs it to be.
If you want to have a debate with me, go ahead and do so. I'm capable of having a debate based on information without the need to be antagonistic or aggressive.
you are certainly an awesome advocate and you know your stuff. i am debating with myself whether or not to reply to your individual points -- but what the hell. this isn't r/bitcoin -- so we can have a debate! in fact, the exact same debate that's been had zillions of times since blocks have been full.
blocks have been full for a while -- it should have never even got close to this point. the block size limit should have been doubled to 2MB years ago, and probably doubled again at least once more by now. even if monetizing sidechains or the lightning network is the surreptitious goal, you need to raise the block size for it all to work.
VISA levels of tx/sec is a straw man argument. no one is trying to get that to work at this point. 2MB-8MB blocks are more than enough for the next few years.
the original unmodified white paper mentions that "server farms" would be nodes, not individual users. most folks don't run their own email server or web server, yet the internet remains decentralized.
also, the lightning network by design relies on centralization. if you're concerned the peer-to-peer qualities of bitcoin are at risk then you should be against the current lightning network proposals.
sidechains are not opt-in if the block size is 1MB and you're in a bidding war to even get your tx in a block.
the lightning network destroys the original alignment of incentives that give us the incredible security of the today's bitcoin mining network. if fewer people can make on-chain transactions, and the block reward has been halved a few times, why would the miners even mine any longer?
so do hard forks. any feature could be added to bitcoin. bitcoin's supposed to be a honey badger, not a deer in the headlights. increasing the block size limit to 2MB-8MB by the way isn't a "feature" -- it's a much simpler change than that: it allows bitcoin to perform the same way it's performed since 2009.
i think we're all on the same page with that here. agreed.
The mempool was completely empty this week, so that would go against the argument that the current blocksize is not sufficient to handle the current transaction rate demanded of the network.
If Bitcoin is to truly be a competitor to that, then it needs to scale way beyond just 60 tx/sec. That's especially true if the adoption rate kicks into high gear and becomes exponential again like it did this year. You talk about how the blocksize should been increased long ago. That can certainly be argued, but how can that be argued now and at the same time not argue for looking further down the road again and see the writing on the wall that Bitcoin might not be up to the task of handling transactions should adoption exponentially increase yet again.
Quotethe original unmodified white paper mentions that "server farms" would be nodes, not individual users. most folks don't run their own email server or web server, yet the internet remains decentralized.
There is a difference between trust-based centralization and trust-less centralization. ... The Lightning Network can (and likely will) lead to centralized "credit union" style hubs, but like I said, the Lightning Network is completely opt-in.
In one argument you're talking about blocks being completely full which would force users into sidechains. Then in the next argument you're talking about blocks being empty which would cause miners to stop mining. Which is it? You can't argue both.
I am advocating against the SegWit2X hardfork that is planned for November since it has been poorly planned, it's timing doesn't give SegWit a chance, it fails to implement replay protection, and doesn't have community support behind it.
you can't cherry pick data to fit your argument. blocks had been getting closer to being full for years, and now they have been full for some time: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7
it seems silly to have to say this but doubling the block size as needed and working on sidechains and lightning network are not mutually exclusive. it's pretty simple: if most of the network agrees that blocks are full, then double the block size limit if current technology can handle it. if the block size can't be doubled for technical reasons, then yes unveil the next iteration of whatever sidechain solution you have.
again i think the VISA argument is arbitrary straw man but just to clarify -- in your scenario on the order of 10-100s of tx/sec are on-chain with "trust-less centralization" and on the order of 10,000s tx/sec are off-chain on lightning network hubs with "trust-based" centralization -- and that's ok? where only a few percent of users can use bitcoin in a trustless manner?
nope, in my argument the tiny blocks are full as you say with lightning channel opening/closing tx, and the block reward is trending to zero. difficulty however is not trending to zero, so miners are now mining at a loss because they're not capturing fees for the bulk of transactions, which are off-chain. somewhere before this scenario occurs the miners and users will simply migrate to a chain with larger blocks so they can capture more tx fees.
the fork has had >80% support since mid-june. https://coin.dance/blocks/proposals
if segwit can't compete with 2MB blocks then perhaps the time isn't right for more intricate solutions, see my point above. if bitcoin will exist for years there will be plenty of time to introduce these new wrinkles. the conservative solution is simply increasing the block size now (by "now" i mean after segwit -- the really conservative solution would have been just 2MB) and in the meantime yes, by all means, continuing to work on all manner of "down the road" scaling solutions.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from and how you're evaluating it. Most of your statements, like above, are inaccurate.
Segwit did not have the support it needed for adoption until the majority of the business and mining community got together and signed the New York agreement to first upgrade the protocol to segwit and then later to 2mb. This was the only way segwit passed.
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
why are futures so worrying to you?
Sure, the futures contract for a given forward month may have a huge number of open contracts or a small number. There will be a self correcting effect if to many contracts are out there and traders are nervous about getting BTC to cover them, they simply buy/sell as appropriate to close the contracts. Most commodity contracts are closed out like this prior to delivery.
Derivatives are dangerous for the institution issuing them if a counter party cannot pay and they end up with a very very highly leveraged position on a security. This is neither good nor bad for the underlying security. When derivatives trigger indexes to be bought and sold, this creates volume that stock following computers pick up on and amplify. But, since the Merc future is the only place those kind of guys can trade, how can they wreck the underlying?
This all may be hyperbole and have no effect if the BTC future is USD settled off an index. If that's the case, institutions may not really trade the futures since they cannot hold underlying to offset positions.
IF they pass the law proposal that you can spend like $600 a transaction tax free, I might use it to pay my household bills or buy more mining hardware.
So what's the use case of buying or selling a bitcoin future rather than a bitcoin itself? The hedging purposes of futures make sense to me for things that are constantly being produced and where industrial buyers know they will need to purchase fixed amounts at regular timepoints (like oil or porkbellies), but I still cannot wrap my head around this for cytocurrencies.
Are they significant futures markets for euros or RMB? If so, what do people use them for?
The two main areas I know of.
1. Leverage... You can buy A LOT of bets for (call) or against (put) which sell in lots of 100 for very cheap. Most of the cost is time value... So if BTC moves $1 in an hour (very possible) you can make $100 with a relatively small investment. I am not sure what the premium is going to be since BTC itself is so scarce, but my guess is it will be fractionalized up the a**.
2. Gets around rules to allow trading on the main exchanges "pretend BTC" which is really cash based and has no real conneciton with reality without being an accredited investor so everyone can buy in.
This may either propel BTC to stupid crazy high prices fast because of the hype or stabalize the price... I am not sure which way it will go.
Bitconnect is a ponzi.
LMFAO, please watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbR1SXIje1U
The Segwit2X hardfork has been suspended this month. Bitcoin rallies! There was much rejoicing! I'm happy there will not be a split in the community.
i don't think we're out of the woods quite yet. we'll see if some group of miners goes forward with the 2x fork, we'll see what happens with the new BCH DAA, and the BTC mempool is getting huge.
things are even crazier than normal in the bitcoin world with BTC crashing and BCH going vertical (for the time being). from a bitcoin portfolios perspective i still think the safest option is to do nothing (don't buy or sell any bitcoin on any fork) and wait (weeks/months) for some sort of resolution. it seems too easy to me to publish a statement saying "2x is canceled" in an attempt to manipulate the market, miners are free to hop from chain to chain, exchanges still have to react to the 2x cancellation, etc.
the segwit2x fork bug is a good example of why we need miners and nodes to run bitcoin implementations published by multiple development teams. i believe some miners use their own bitcoin implementations, but this would have definitely broken many nodes and miners, shaken confidence, and probably caused a price crash.
sorry but core is plainly the opposite of conservative -- to support their business model they changed and added thousands of lines of new code rather than changing a single line of code for max block size. as a result bitcoin fees skyrocketed this week in the frenzy after the 2x cancellation... and the mempool is still at 90MB with tens of thousands of unconfirmed transactions.
Regarding fees, first off, one of the biggest factors in rising fees for bitcoin is simply due to the fact that the price of a single bitcoin has risen astronomically over the last 2 years. Rather than focusing on the fee paid in USD for any given transaction, it should be the fee rate that should be of primary concentration. When you look at fee rates on Bitcoin Cash, the median fee rate is somewhere around 60-70 satoshis/byte. That results in a fee of about 18 cents on the Bitcoin Cash network for a transaction of average size. That same fee rate would result in a fee of $1.15 if the price of Bitcoin Cash were equivalent to the price of Bitcoin today (~$7700). Now, the median fee rate on the bitcoin network today is around 90 satoshis/byte. With an average transaction size of about 230 bytes, this results in your median fee being around $1.60 on the bitcoin network. That's not too far from what the Bitcoin Cash network would look like now if its price were the same as Bitcoin's.
Regarding fees, first off, one of the biggest factors in rising fees for bitcoin is simply due to the fact that the price of a single bitcoin has risen astronomically over the last 2 years. Rather than focusing on the fee paid in USD for any given transaction, it should be the fee rate that should be of primary concentration. When you look at fee rates on Bitcoin Cash, the median fee rate is somewhere around 60-70 satoshis/byte. That results in a fee of about 18 cents on the Bitcoin Cash network for a transaction of average size. That same fee rate would result in a fee of $1.15 if the price of Bitcoin Cash were equivalent to the price of Bitcoin today (~$7700). Now, the median fee rate on the bitcoin network today is around 90 satoshis/byte. With an average transaction size of about 230 bytes, this results in your median fee being around $1.60 on the bitcoin network. That's not too far from what the Bitcoin Cash network would look like now if its price were the same as Bitcoin's.
Could you tell me a bit more about why you'd expect transaction fees priced in satoshis to stay constant as the price of the currency (in dollars/RMB/euros) increases?
Here's why I'm having trouble with that assumption: Transaction fees should be driven by supply and demand. Since the block size is currently fixed for both currencies, we can put aside the supply side entirely (technically I believe this is called having completely inelastic supply). If the price of the currency doubles but people are buying and selling the same goods (from cups of coffee to drug deals to purchases on overstock.com) for the same prices in USD, wouldn't you expect demand curve for bitcoin transactions to stay the same? For example, if I'm willing to buy a $5 cup of coffee with bitcoins if I have to up to but no more than $0.50 in transaction fees when the price of bitcoin was $3,500/bitcoin, I don't think it necessarily true that if the price of bitcoin doubles to $7,000 that I'm now willing to pay up to $1.00 in transaction fees to buy the same $5 cup of coffee.
What I suspect is actually happening is that as the price of conventional bitcoin continues to increase, it draws in more total people (whether they're using the currency as intended or buying in the hopes that the the price continues to increase), which creates more transactions trying to be confirmed, raising the minimum price people have to pay to ensure their transactions get included in a block. This still means that as prices (in USD/RMB/EURO) go up, transaction fees (USD/RMB/EURO) go up, but if I'm right then there is indeed a positive correlation between increasing cryptocurrency price and increasing transaction fees, however there is no reason to think the two increases are linked at a 1:1 rate. If bitcoin doubles in price it might bring in 50% more people (4:3), if bitcoin doubles in price it might bring in twice as many new people as are in the current user community (2:3).* But that 1:1 link is what you'd need for transaction fees to stay constant in terms of satoshis/byte.
*Technically it's not the number of people, it's the number of transactions. A single new user who is going to make 30 bitcoin transactions a month is going to increase the demand curve for bitcoin transactions more than twenty new users who are going to make 1 transaction a month each.
No, thanks that's a set of interesting thoughts.
I completely agree with you that relatively small transactions are going to be the first ones to be priced out of inclusion in blocks when demand for bitcoin (or bitcoin cash) transactions exceeds supply. The reason I focused on something like buying coffee is that these smaller commercial transactions also tend to be the marginal transactions which are more sensitive to transaction fees, and hence they play an outsized role in determining what the transaction fees actually end up looking like for everyone.
...
One thing to keep in mind is that transaction fees are only a relatively small part of the revenue miners get from adding to the blockchain at the moment. Right now the block reward is still 12.5 bitcoins (~$100,000). The average transaction fees per block are only 2.2 bitcoins (~$17,000). Even if there was some empty space in some blocks, I think there will always be lots of microtransactions or dust transactions which would be happy to pay lower but greater than zero fees to be included in the blockchain. However you won't see these in the mempool because people know they'd never get confirmed and so don't even bother to try to get them to go through.
To say that they were the opposite of conservative simply because the number of lines of code involved is a misunderstanding of a proper development lifecycle.
Regarding fees, first off, one of the biggest factors in rising fees for bitcoin is simply due to the fact that the price of a single bitcoin has risen astronomically over the last 2 years.
Rather than focusing on the fee paid in USD for any given transaction, it should be the fee rate that should be of primary concentration.
When you look at fee rates on Bitcoin Cash, the median fee rate is somewhere around 60-70 satoshis/byte. That results in a fee of about 18 cents on the Bitcoin Cash network for a transaction of average size.
That same fee rate would result in a fee of $1.15 if the price of Bitcoin Cash were equivalent to the price of Bitcoin today (~$7700). Now, the median fee rate on the bitcoin network today is around 90 satoshis/byte. With an average transaction size of about 230 bytes, this results in your median fee being around $1.60 on the bitcoin network. That's not too far from what the Bitcoin Cash network would look like now if its price were the same as Bitcoin's.
The percentage of SegWit transactions is only around 10-11%. This means that there is still potential to decrease these fees by not only freeing up block weight space for additional transactions and thus decreasing competition in the fee market (lowering the fee rate), but also by decreasing the average size of a transaction using SegWit enabled wallets/addresses.
But where does bitcoin cash go with an increasing load? Competition for block space is already low due to the low transaction volume and large block size. Therefore there isn't much capability for bitcoin cash to decrease the actual fee rate paid and fee of transactions in USD from where they are today. If bitcoin cash were to see the same load of the bitcoin network then that would mean the only option to keep the fee rate the same as it is today would be to increase the block size yet again.
If increasing the block size only allows you to maintain the fee rate that we have today, that means that if the price of bitcoin cash were to increase dramatically, then we'd be in the same position with high fees (in USD) while at the same time decreasing centralization immensely.
Finally, as far as unconfirmed transactions go, there was clearly a transaction spam campaign that occurred after the fork cancellation due to the enormous number of transactions that were broadcast that all had fees of 10 satoshis/byte or lower. This was a very anomalous event.
I hope this clears up some information as I feel like there is a lot of misinformation out there on fees, scaling, etc with regards to the bitcoin network.
I wasn't trying to imply that the increase in the price of bitcoin is the sole reason why transaction fees have drastically risen over the last year (as priced in USD), but I do feel that it is the largest driver thus far given the fact that the price in bitcoin has increased at a much faster rate than the total number of transactions has.
In the instance of bitcoin cash, since block size is essentially being used as the sole means of scalability, this means that the fee market is a delicate balance between ensuring that the mempool isn't always empty and that the blocks aren't always full.
Rereading your original response I see that you're comment was mainly in regards to the recent run up in fees and transactions related to the fork event. Like I said, this was highly anomalous. Taking out events such as the forks in August and November and things look much different with transactions in the 10-20 satoshi/byte range routinely getting processed each day.
So how would full blocks at 8MB be any different than full blocks at 1MB with regards to the fee market?
Once you increase the block size, you can't go backward. So it is absolutely critical that if it is chosen to go forward with such a decision, it is done when it is absolutely necessary and right to do so.
the size of the spike is anomalous... but spikes in the mempool size are NOT anomalous. you can see in the 3-month chart link below (the bottom chart on the page, "mempool size in MB") that the BTC mempool regularly spiked above 10MB throughout September and October (requiring users to wait 10 blocks for their transactions to clear):
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#3m
(or see attached chart to this post)So how would full blocks at 8MB be any different than full blocks at 1MB with regards to the fee market?
it's supply and demand. you make the point later with larger segwit bloks: with a larger supply of block space, given the same demand that can fill both 8MB and 1MB blocks, fees will be lower on the 8MB blocks.
this is not true. after you increase the block size, if a really good 2nd-layer solution is developed and actually gets traction and allows users to make small transactions off-chain, you could then theoretically lower the block size.
Waiting a day for a micro-transaction to be confirmed is not going to kill adoption. Especially given the fact that with credit cards, a merchant needs to wait 30 days to receive payment and payments are potentially reversible. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible and waiting a day to receive a small transaction to be confirmed on the network is not a problem.
Do you feel it is a problem that 30 cent fees for smaller transactions take a day to confirm?
The point I was making was that if 8MB blocks are full and transaction demand gets to the point where 8MB blocks are not sufficient, then the only option is to increase the block size yet again (I've talked about why that is not a good solution).
more snark. how enlightening.
what if one was to hypothetically sell just enough of their crypto holdings to simply take a nice profit on their original fiat investment... and leave the rest of their crypto holdings intact?
in fact i sold a portion of my bitcoin a few years ago for a nice profit on the original fiat... now that the "fiat profit" aspect is taken care of i can let it ride and watch the fork drama and mudslinging from a comfortable position. have any other holders here done this?
Agreed. When you're on a hot streak, the best thing to do is to keep gambling. It never ends poorly.
I want to point out that Bitcoin is up 296% since the original posting of this thread which was roughly 5 months ago.
Cheers to all who are in this market :]
I want to point out that Bitcoin is up 296% since the original posting of this thread which was roughly 5 months ago.
Cheers to all who are in this market :]
I want to point out that Bitcoin is up 296% since the original posting of this thread which was roughly 5 months ago.
Cheers to all who are in this market :]
This isn't terrifying to bitcoin holders? A commodity you're holding is rising in price at a 700+% annualised rate? That's about 25 times as fast as Google's share price has grown since IPO, and that was before even Gmail existed. That isn't concerning at all?
You probably already know this. Just a reminder for anyone else: if you plan to access your btg, move all your bitcoin variants into new addresses first, so you don't share private keys with btg. (https://bitcoingold.org/critical-warning-nov-26/). As an alternative, you can use coinomi.
what if one was to hypothetically sell just enough of their crypto holdings to simply take a nice profit on their original fiat investment... and leave the rest of their crypto holdings intact?
in fact i sold a portion of my bitcoin a few years ago for a nice profit on the original fiat... now that the "fiat profit" aspect is taken care of i can let it ride and watch the fork drama and mudslinging from a comfortable position. have any other holders here done this?
Your unrealized (opportunity) cost is the current fiat value, not what you originally paid.
If you wouldn't buy it, you should sell and all that.
does this also apply to everything i own that could potentially be sold for fiat currency?
does this also apply to everything i own that could potentially be sold for fiat currency?
Yes. Everything you own is costing you money. All the time.
-W
i agree it's probably wise to sell some portion of your holdings if you wouldn't take the same position again today. but where do you draw the line? sell half? and how often do you repeat this exercise? does this also apply to everything i own that could potentially be sold for fiat currency?
This is how I do it in the tax sheltered account since rebalance does not cause tax issues.
20% Total Market
20% Small Cap
20% Gold
20% Bitcoin
20% Long Term Treasury
5% swings trigger a rebalance.
When any one of these hits 25% I sell and buy the rest to get them back to 20%. Below 15% I do the same. My brokerage also does free trades on 3 of the 5 of these funds, and $4.95 for the rest so the costs are minimal. These assets have relatively low correlation so you buying low and selling high all the time.
EXAMPLE:
Today on 10/04/2017: 1 Bitcoin is $4,800, 1 Monero is $91, 1 Ether is $292, 1 Lisk is $5.45, 1 LINK is $.39 and 1 ARDR is $.16.
Unfortunately, there has been a security breach involving NiceHash website. We are currently investigating the nature of the incident and, as a result, we are stopping all operations for the next 24 hours.
Importantly, our payment system was compromised and the contents of the NiceHash Bitcoin wallet have been stolen. We are working to verify the precise number of BTC taken.
Clearly, this is a matter of deep concern and we are working hard to rectify the matter in the coming days. In addition to undertaking our own investigation, the incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and law enforcement and we are co-operating with them as a matter of urgency.
We are fully committed to restoring the NiceHash service with the highest security measures at the earliest opportunity.
We would not exist without our devoted buyers and miners all around the globe. We understand that you will have a lot of questions, and we ask for patience and understanding while we investigate the causes and find the appropriate solutions for the future of the service. We will endeavour to update you at regular intervals.
While the full scope of what happened is not yet known, we recommend, as a precaution, that you change your online passwords.
We are truly sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused and are committing every resource towards solving this issue as soon as possible.
As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method on our platform due to high fees and volatility in the value of Bitcoin.
In the past few months we've seen an increase in the volatility in the value of Bitcoin and a significant increase in the fees to process transactions on the Bitcoin network. For example, transaction fees that are charged to the customer by the Bitcoin network have skyrocketed this year, topping out at close to $20 a transaction last week (compared to roughly $0.20 when we initially enabled Bitcoin). Unfortunately, Valve has no control over the amount of the fee. These fees result in unreasonably high costs for purchasing games when paying with Bitcoin. The high transaction fees cause even greater problems when the value of Bitcoin itself drops dramatically.
Historically, the value of Bitcoin has been volatile, but the degree of volatility has become extreme in the last few months, losing as much as 25% in value over a period of days. This creates a problem for customers trying to purchase games with Bitcoin. When checking out on Steam, a customer will transfer x amount of Bitcoin for the cost of the game, plus y amount of Bitcoin to cover the transaction fee charged by the Bitcoin network. The value of Bitcoin is only guaranteed for a certain period of time so if the transaction doesn’t complete within that window of time, then the amount of Bitcoin needed to cover the transaction can change. The amount it can change has been increasing recently to a point where it can be significantly different.
The normal resolution for this is to either refund the original payment to the user, or ask the user to transfer additional funds to cover the remaining balance. In both these cases, the user is hit with the Bitcoin network transaction fee again. This year, we’ve seen increasing number of customers get into this state. With the transaction fee being so high right now, it is not feasible to refund or ask the customer to transfer the missing balance (which itself runs the risk of underpayment again, depending on how much the value of Bitcoin changes while the Bitcoin network processes the additional transfer).
At this point, it has become untenable to support Bitcoin as a payment option. We may re-evaluate whether Bitcoin makes sense for us and for the Steam community at a later date.
The Steam news is unfortunate. It just highlights the need to get these small transactions off chain. If anything, it is another kick in the pants for the solution to be completed.
It's just gone up $1000 in an hour :O
Just saw it at US$14,998 :O :O :O
Guys. I know we don't market time here. But I feel like Bitcoin isn't really an investment so I don't feel bad about it. I put about $180 ($200 with fees added) into Bitcoin back in September, and I told myself- "Self, when it reaches $1000 you will sell $750". I was expecting it to take years, but it happened today. The price of Bitcoin was over $19,000, my "investment" was over $1000, so I sold. And I chickened out a little and only sold $700. So with the fees taking a percentage, I have $689 coming into my account in the next week. But. About 5 minutes after I sold the price dropped $3000. So I'm feeling quite lucky!!! Made my money back, and now the plan is to hold what I have for years and years to see what it does. I think my new instructions to "self" are to sell when my current $300 remaining in Bitcoin reaches $10,000. (I picked a crazy number on purpose). When it hits $10,000 I will sell $7000. Lol. Thank you, self.
Price divergence between different exchanges continuing to expand. Bitcoin prices at bitstamp and coinbase are now $1,000 off from each other. I don't understand why it's taking so long for prices to converge. Shouldn't it be easy for people to buy bitcoins at bitstamp, transfer them over to coinbase and sell for an instant profit? Or do the exchanges impose long wait times on bitcoin deposits?Coinbase (and GDAX) have been a clusterfuck for the past hour. My guess is once the exchanges have ironed things out so that this stops happening, there will be minimal price discrepancies between exchanges.
I'd hate to be in Coinbase's IT department today.
The number of people with Coinbase accounts has gone from 5.5 million in January to 13.3 million at the end of November, according to data from the Altana Digital Currency Fund. In late November, Coinbase was sometimes getting 100,000 new customers a day — leaving the company with more customers than Charles Schwab and E-Trade.
....
Recently, every last inch of space has been pressed into action. The day after Bitcoin hit $10,000 last week, a training session for Coinbase managers was moved to the game room because the engineering team needed to set up an emergency war room in the regular conference room.
The engineering team was trying to get Coinbase back up after the company’s site was knocked offline, overwhelmed by a wave of incoming traffic. The number of visitors was double what it had been during the previous peak — two days earlier — and eight times what it had been in June, the peak until recently.
I have been expecting a correction for some time now, I feel a healthy point is anywhere between $5K-$8K USD.
How does everyone else feel?
Fundamentally I am much more bullish on Ethereum in the mid and long term but never underestimate the uninformed public.
I have been expecting a correction for some time now, I feel a healthy point is anywhere between $5K-$8K USD.
How does everyone else feel?
Fundamentally I am much more bullish on Ethereum in the mid and long term but never underestimate the uninformed public.
I agree -- I think bitcoin is too replaceable. Just like how if Uber disappeared 5 imitators could easily take its place in two months. If Ethereum catches any momentum it's going to be way bigger and less replaceable.
Hey all, glad the discussion is going well.
I want to let everyone know that IOTA is something you want to do some research on while the market cap is still under-valued.
Cheers!
Trying to get that entire ecosystem as a whole to suddenly switch and adopt another crypto-currency is going to be an extremely tough sell from the perspective of any individual company considering that their business is on the line.
I have been expecting a correction for some time now, I feel a healthy point is anywhere between $5K-$8K USD.$5k-$8k is healthy based on what?
How does everyone else feel?
Trying to get that entire ecosystem as a whole to suddenly switch and adopt another crypto-currency is going to be an extremely tough sell from the perspective of any individual company considering that their business is on the line.
Not really. Imagine Amazon coming up with a crypto-currency, Amazoncoin or similar. Bitcoin goes from $19,000 to $19 overnight.
I have been expecting a correction for some time now, I feel a healthy point is anywhere between $5K-$8K USD.
Trying to get that entire ecosystem as a whole to suddenly switch and adopt another crypto-currency is going to be an extremely tough sell from the perspective of any individual company considering that their business is on the line.
Not really. Imagine Amazon coming up with a crypto-currency, Amazoncoin or similar. Bitcoin goes from $19,000 to $19 overnight.
I have been expecting a correction for some time now, I feel a healthy point is anywhere between $5K-$8K USD.
Looking at chart that seems low...I think support would kick in before that price....I think support would be around the 10-12k range. Has short term support near $15k if it holds that for awhile thats a pretty bullish sign.
The smart money is buying BTC and selling over priced futures contracts. They will close the near contract and open the next. This will keep a buying pressure on actual bitcoin for the next few months at least. sure you have capital holding costs and some MESSY transaction costs, but there is over a 1300 spread between a coin now on coinbase and a January 17th coin on the CBOE.
Hey all, glad the discussion is going well.
I want to let everyone know that IOTA is something you want to do some research on while the market cap is still under-valued.
Cheers!
Just noticed IOTA has climbed into the #4 slot in terms of cryptocurrency market cap (ahead of Ripple, right behind bitcoin cash) on extremely high trading volume since Dec 4th. Congrats on the prediction coming true, @Tonyahu.
Trying to get that entire ecosystem as a whole to suddenly switch and adopt another crypto-currency is going to be an extremely tough sell from the perspective of any individual company considering that their business is on the line.
Not really. Imagine Amazon coming up with a crypto-currency, Amazoncoin or similar. Bitcoin goes from $19,000 to $19 overnight.
Back to the discussion of portfolios...
Anyone holding LTC? I've been following the recent rise. Any chance it actually makes it to 0.25 BTC down the road? Or hell, even 0.1 BTC (it is just over 0.01 BTC now)?
I know I'm late to the party but I'm thinking of about 10k in Bitcoin. My networth is about 150k. I wouldn't be happy if it all went poof but I understand you also have to take some risk to really get a jump forward. I'm just really scared about the storage and security of it. I'm researching paper wallets and all of that but it is as scary as hell.
Should I split up the 10k into two 5k wallets? Or smaller?
I know I'm late to the party but I'm thinking of about 10k in Bitcoin. My networth is about 150k. I wouldn't be happy if it all went poof but I understand you also have to take some risk to really get a jump forward. I'm just really scared about the storage and security of it. I'm researching paper wallets and all of that but it is as scary as hell.
Should I split up the 10k into two 5k wallets? Or smaller?
chop that into a quarter and that's about the right position size. This is a spicy meatball of a momentum play and the winner of the game gets off the train one stop before the derailment. You shouldn't take a position size that large without your own value model. unless of course its VTSAX :)
Back to the discussion of portfolios...
Anyone holding LTC? I've been following the recent rise. Any chance it actually makes it to 0.25 BTC down the road? Or hell, even 0.1 BTC (it is just over 0.01 BTC now)?
Nearly tripled my LTC value in 2 weeks. I'll take It! Insanity of cryptocurrency.
I know I'm late to the party but I'm thinking of about 10k in Bitcoin. My networth is about 150k. I wouldn't be happy if it all went poof but I understand you also have to take some risk to really get a jump forward. I'm just really scared about the storage and security of it. I'm researching paper wallets and all of that but it is as scary as hell.
Should I split up the 10k into two 5k wallets? Or smaller?
chop that into a quarter and that's about the right position size. This is a spicy meatball of a momentum play and the winner of the game gets off the train one stop before the derailment. You shouldn't take a position size that large without your own value model. unless of course its VTSAX :)
Are you suggesting I only invest 2.5k period or do it in 2.5k chunks and store those separately?
@shadow the problem with the Nano solution is they are expensive I wouldn't want to buy more then one.
I've come to the conclusion that a mere $10 trillion crypto marketcap won't suffice. We will most likely see a marketcap that dramatically surpasses that amount.
Old-thinking is stuck and mired in physical assets, while new paradigm ushers in an era of algorithmic and digital assets. There's alot of unknown unknown potential, but people recognize the potential nonetheless.
Anyone holding LTC? I've been following the recent rise. Any chance it actually makes it to 0.25 BTC down the road? Or hell, even 0.1 BTC (it is just over 0.01 BTC now)?
I know I'm late to the party but I'm thinking of about 10k in Bitcoin. My networth is about 150k. I wouldn't be happy if it all went poof but I understand you also have to take some risk to really get a jump forward. I'm just really scared about the storage and security of it. I'm researching paper wallets and all of that but it is as scary as hell.
Should I split up the 10k into two 5k wallets? Or smaller?
chop that into a quarter and that's about the right position size. This is a spicy meatball of a momentum play and the winner of the game gets off the train one stop before the derailment. You shouldn't take a position size that large without your own value model. unless of course its VTSAX :)
Are you suggesting I only invest 2.5k period or do it in 2.5k chunks and store those separately?
@shadow the problem with the Nano solution is they are expensive I wouldn't want to buy more then one.
Cover your expenses so you do not have any regrets and let the rest ride if you are still bullish!
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
Old-thinking is stuck and mired in physical assets, while new paradigm ushers in an era of algorithmic and digital assets. There's alot of unknown unknown potential, but people recognize the potential nonetheless.
I really can't believe that I'm now seeing non-ironic uses of this phrase on a regular basis.
I feel privileged to be a witness to the ongoing lesson of cryptocrazy, however it turns out.
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
No, it's ridiculously overpriced. Centralized. Ripple owns 50%+ of supply. Ripple doesn't even use XRP for their protocol.
It's a useless vehicle based purely on speculation, IMO.
What about GBTC? I don't see hardly anyone mentioning that on this thread.Tripled since thanksgiving.
What about GBTC? I don't see hardly anyone mentioning that on this thread.Tripled since thanksgiving.
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
No, it's ridiculously overpriced. Centralized. Ripple owns 50%+ of supply. Ripple doesn't even use XRP for their protocol.
It's a useless vehicle based purely on speculation, IMO.
Paper wallets are pretty straight forward, although not very intuitive. Make sure you understand them before going in big. Bitaddress.org is the most trusted site to generate them, but don't take my word for it: do your own due diligence.I know I'm late to the party but I'm thinking of about 10k in Bitcoin. My networth is about 150k. I wouldn't be happy if it all went poof but I understand you also have to take some risk to really get a jump forward. I'm just really scared about the storage and security of it. I'm researching paper wallets and all of that but it is as scary as hell.chop that into a quarter and that's about the right position size.
Should I split up the 10k into two 5k wallets? Or smaller?
Now the scary part: I'm torn between FOMO and FUD! I'd never invest this much in something this volatile if I wouldn't have it already (=the FUD part), but I also don't want to miss out on a possible x10 in the coming years (=the FOMO part). I realize this isn't rational, but it has kinda grown on me.My way of tackling this concern is cashing out a bit along the way. I'm already ahead (on a USD basis) after my mining experiment, what I have left in BTC/BCH is just extra gains. With what remains I think I'll cash out 25% of present holdings if it doubles from when I last sold (at $11,600), and if it keeps going, continue doing that. This way, I've already more than made back my investment, I get to keep riding it in case we get to $1M/BTC by 2020 like John McAfee wants, but I get extra cash out along the way in case this whole thing is a bubble that pops down to $1/BTC in a month or a year.
If I would never have sold any crypto, my net worth would be 8% higher now.
Let's say you had $10,000 of short term capital gains income in 12/31/17. So you get taxed on that. But then on1/2/2018 bitcoin crashes and your 10K (which you plowed back into BTC) then goes to 0. You still owe the tax from the prior year's gain right? Does the IRS offer some way to balance this out?
Let's say you had $10,000 of short term capital gains income in 12/31/17. So you get taxed on that. But then on1/2/2018 bitcoin crashes and your 10K (which you plowed back into BTC) then goes to 0. You still owe the tax from the prior year's gain right? Does the IRS offer some way to balance this out?
Let's say you had $10,000 of short term capital gains income in 12/31/17. So you get taxed on that. But then on1/2/2018 bitcoin crashes and your 10K (which you plowed back into BTC) then goes to 0. You still owe the tax from the prior year's gain right? Does the IRS offer some way to balance this out?
Let's say you believe John McAfee and wanted to buy a bit coin that today was trading about $16,000.
How do you recommend to buy it?
Let's say you believe John McAfee and wanted to buy a bit coin that today was trading about $16,000.
How do you recommend to buy it?
You could make a coinbase account, sync your bank account, and use use that to process the buy. I believe it takes about a week to actually "get" your bitcoin into your coinbase vault, but you will get it for the price it was the day you bought.
Let's say you believe John McAfee and wanted to buy a bit coin that today was trading about $16,000.
How do you recommend to buy it?
You could make a coinbase account, sync your bank account, and use use that to process the buy. I believe it takes about a week to actually "get" your bitcoin into your coinbase vault, but you will get it for the price it was the day you bought.
Comments:
- The week to get the bitcoin is because Coinbase for some reason takes around a week to process an ACH bank transfer. No clue why it takes them so long when bank to bank, bank to brokerage, etc is 24 hours. Note if you buy with a credit card (just a small amount) then I think you get the bitcoin right away.
- Don't use Coinbase to buy/sell any big amount (1 BTC certainly counts). Coinbase takes a ~1.5% commission when buying and when selling. Use GDAX (Coinbases actual exchange). Google their maker/taker fee structure on how to trade for free.
I read a lot of criticism of GBTC (disclosure: no position) because of the premium over NAV.
I think it's useful to think about what that premium buys you: same-day liquidity in an investment account. As long as the market continues to value that premium in a constant way, you buy it going in and sell it going out.
And if that investment account is tax-deferred, you get the ability to rebalance that money in a tax-deferred way.
I went ahead and built a mining rig. Parts as follows:
$$$ - Description
118 - ASRock H81 PRO BTC R2.0
53 - Intel Celeron G1840 Processor
33 - 4GB RAM
176 - EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 power supply
40 - 6 x PCIe riser cable
1380 - 6 x SAPPHIRE NITRO Radeon RX 470 4GB "video cards"
40 - Home made case/frame
20 - 15A surge suppressor
------------
$1860
...
I went ahead and built a mining rig. Parts as follows:
$$$ - Description
118 - ASRock H81 PRO BTC R2.0
53 - Intel Celeron G1840 Processor
33 - 4GB RAM
176 - EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G2 power supply
40 - 6 x PCIe riser cable
1380 - 6 x SAPPHIRE NITRO Radeon RX 470 4GB "video cards"
40 - Home made case/frame
20 - 15A surge suppressor
------------
$1860
...
I wanted to do a quick update. Since the beginning of August this hardware has mined 3.0 ETH which is currently worth (as of this moment) ~$2160. I think I have spent ~$250 on electricity to do so, so I've now broken even on my hardware investment. Also, it has definitely been fun.
Of course if you had just spent the $1,860 on ETH in August instead of mining hardware you would have about $7,000 worth right now.
After the crypto crash, is it time to buy again?
I guess that's a no
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
No, it's ridiculously overpriced. Centralized. Ripple owns 50%+ of supply. Ripple doesn't even use XRP for their protocol.
It's a useless vehicle based purely on speculation, IMO.
Ripple is centralized. Why will it be adopted over a decentralized crypto? What's the value proposition? What do you guys know that I don't?
I have no ripple. I would feel anxiety holding it.
Ripple is centralized. Why will it be adopted over a decentralized crypto? What's the value proposition? What do you guys know that I don't?
I have no ripple. I would feel anxiety holding it.
no, it's not (certainly not anymore than bitcoin).
ripple provides a utility asset which decreases transaction costs for banks regarding cross-border settlement. this is also accomplished within 3-7 seconds and at a cost less than $0.01. why exactly would you feel anxious about holding it? it's one of the most legitimate tokens in existence solving a real world problem. i would have more anxiety holding bitcoin.
there's a wealth of knowledge at xrpchat.com. you can learn a lot there.
I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
What are you using to buy Ripple? I am thinking of buying $1000 as well but can’t decide what to use to buy it.
Planning to use Kraken, but still waiting on final verification.I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
What are you using to buy Ripple? I am thinking of buying $1000 as well but can’t decide what to use to buy it.
In bitcoin, there is far greater distribution of the coins. In ripple, the creators own 60%.
I can't catch them all.
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
Planning to use Kraken, but still waiting on final verification.I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
What are you using to buy Ripple? I am thinking of buying $1000 as well but can’t decide what to use to buy it.
Planning to use Kraken, but still waiting on final verification.I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
What are you using to buy Ripple? I am thinking of buying $1000 as well but can’t decide what to use to buy it.
hope you were able to get in on the action today. Ripple up almost 50% to above $2 today !
Anyone buying XRP ? Supposed to be the next big cc
No, it's ridiculously overpriced. Centralized. Ripple owns 50%+ of supply. Ripple doesn't even use XRP for their protocol.
It's a useless vehicle based purely on speculation, IMO.
Forbes recommends Bitstamp, Kraken, and Gatehub to purchase Ripple. Anyone have a preference for any of the 3?
http://fortune.com/2017/12/27/ripple-buy-how-to-cryptocurrency-bitcoin/
Forbes recommends Bitstamp, Kraken, and Gatehub to purchase Ripple. Anyone have a preference for any of the 3?
http://fortune.com/2017/12/27/ripple-buy-how-to-cryptocurrency-bitcoin/
Binance is quicker apparently.
Kraken takes many days and is a PITA to set up but is US based, Binance is in Hong Kong. Fees at Kraken are smallish.
If you just want to sell your XRP open an account at Kraken, sell your XRP into BTC, then BTC to LTC ( quicker and less fees to send to other exchange then send to Coinbase ( open Coinbase account first) trade your Litecoin for USD direct deposit into your bank account.
Why not trade directly xrp to USD in Kraken instead of this convoluted and fee heavy method you ask? Even though I am tier 3 verified the bank deposit or withdrawl has NEVER worked, but Coinbase has worked every time, hence the run around.....yeah the exchanges need some serious oversight IMO, it 's the wild west out there, makes pink sheets look stable.
You could just open an account at Coinbase and wait and believe the rumor that XRP will be listed there soon. In which case you should wait for that spike. Heads up that opening any of these accounts takes numerous days and several hoops to jump through.
The claim that they hold 1/5 is disingenuous. If you want to be particular about semantics: they issued out less than 40% and control more than 60%. That they control it means it is still under their ownership. No matter how they plan to distribute it, at their whim, that's a huge percentage they retain control over.
Multiple sources indicate the percentage held/controlled by ripple founders:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/bitcoin-rival-ripple-is-sitting-on-many-billions-of-dollars-of-xrp.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/69emtr/question_what_of_all_xrp_are_now_being_held_by/
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/#charts
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@boxmining/dear-ripple-investors-do-you-even-know-what-ripple-is
There's nothing stopping people from joining or creating pools in btc and btc isn't premined. This is not an equivalent comparison with ripple's trust validator and premined. Ripple is not permissionless and it's concept of decentralization doesn't hold in crypto.
Is there really no way to convert XRP directly to USD with an organization that will actually pay out USD (you know, the most important part of a currency conversion)?
I think you must not be a true believer. I thought the whole point of internet currencies was that they were supposed to make holding USD irrelevant?No, you misunderstand. Let me clarify this for you: the whole point of crypto currencies is to sell your tulips to some one else at a higher price then what you paid for them.
Is there really no way to convert XRP directly to USD with an organization that will actually pay out USD (you know, the most important part of a currency conversion)?
I think you must not be a true believer.
Forbes recommends Bitstamp, Kraken, and Gatehub to purchase Ripple. Anyone have a preference for any of the 3?
http://fortune.com/2017/12/27/ripple-buy-how-to-cryptocurrency-bitcoin/
Recommendations on the best way to convert XRP to USD would also be appreciated. I got my XRPs for free and have never sold any.
Forbes recommends Bitstamp, Kraken, and Gatehub to purchase Ripple. Anyone have a preference for any of the 3?
http://fortune.com/2017/12/27/ripple-buy-how-to-cryptocurrency-bitcoin/
Recommendations on the best way to convert XRP to USD would also be appreciated. I got my XRPs for free and have never sold any.
Kraken verification will take a good week for the couple levels you need to sell your ripple. I used them when Coinbase finally gave out their BCH and managed to avoid the shnowzer show at Coinbase by immediately transferring them to Kraken and selling them off. So maybe not super fast but it works.
Forbes recommends Bitstamp, Kraken, and Gatehub to purchase Ripple. Anyone have a preference for any of the 3?
http://fortune.com/2017/12/27/ripple-buy-how-to-cryptocurrency-bitcoin/
Recommendations on the best way to convert XRP to USD would also be appreciated. I got my XRPs for free and have never sold any.
Kraken verification will take a good week for the couple levels you need to sell your ripple. I used them when Coinbase finally gave out their BCH and managed to avoid the shnowzer show at Coinbase by immediately transferring them to Kraken and selling them off. So maybe not super fast but it works.
How do you explain what @powskier said about Kraken's USD withdrawals not working? That seems like a major red flag to me, if them not giving you your money is something that they can do for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately no, still waiting. This is why I viewed the entire $1K as gambling. I have terrible luck in timing these things which is why I just buy/hold Vanguard for my FIRE money.Planning to use Kraken, but still waiting on final verification.I've been trying to buy some Ripple, but account verification is taking forever. I only plan to invest $1K and it I make that back I'll likely pull it out and keep some invested.
What are you using to buy Ripple? I am thinking of buying $1000 as well but can’t decide what to use to buy it.
hope you were able to get in on the action today. Ripple up almost 50% to above $2 today !
You guys see MMM's article on the front page? I'm not going to pass judgement on it but it was interesting that he threw in his 2 cents.
You guys see MMM's article on the front page? I'm not going to pass judgement on it but it was interesting that he threw in his 2 cents.
I think it's smart to tamp down enthusiasm in the masses who don't understand crypto - myself included. If you are a crypto-head and feel you know far more than MMM you can ignore him. However, for a lot of people that really want to FIRE taking a gamble on crypto just because it could short circuit years of accumulation the temptation needs to be tempered with the understanding that it's a huge risk as well that can do exactly the opposite if the bubble bursts at the wrong moment for them.
Yup. +1 to all of this. I find the tech really exciting, but I wouldn't buy it as an investment, and it's been scary seeing how many people who don't understand the tech at all are now either considering or actually spending significant fractions of their networth into buying bitcoin (rarely other cryptocurrencies).
Also, 6 out of the top 10 currencies have prices that are below $10 which confirms the theory that a lot of people are caught up in a frenzy to simply buy whatever currencies look "cheap" (as if the price means anything too).
Here's hoping this trend makes my Dogecoins go to the moon! They cost less than a penny right now.
Here's hoping this trend makes my Dogecoins go to the moon! They cost less than a penny right now.
I see, I see a vision of the future... a future in which every cryptocoin is a dogecoin.
Binance is quicker apparently.This is the route I took. I ended up buying BTC in Coinbase and then transferring it to Binance where I bought Stratix and XRP.
Kraken takes many days and is a PITA to set up but is US based, Binance is in Hong Kong. Fees at Kraken are smallish.
If you just want to sell your XRP open an account at Kraken, sell your XRP into BTC, then BTC to LTC ( quicker and less fees to send to other exchange then send to Coinbase ( open Coinbase account first) trade your Litecoin for USD direct deposit into your bank account.
Why not trade directly xrp to USD in Kraken instead of this convoluted and fee heavy method you ask? Even though I am tier 3 verified the bank deposit or withdrawl has NEVER worked, but Coinbase has worked every time, hence the run around.....yeah the exchanges need some serious oversight IMO, it 's the wild west out there, makes pink sheets look stable.
You could just open an account at Coinbase and wait and believe the rumor that XRP will be listed there soon. In which case you should wait for that spike. Heads up that opening any of these accounts takes numerous days and several hoops to jump through.
You guys see MMM's article on the front page? I'm not going to pass judgement on it but it was interesting that he threw in his 2 cents.
So foresight. Much wise. Wow.
It is a fact that ripple uses a system of "trusted validators" (node gateways). These node gateways can freeze or reverse transactions:
https://ripple.com/build/freeze/
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ripple-directs-bitstamp-to-freeze-funds-of-former-co-founder-jed-mccaleb
This is a permissioned network. Bitcoin is a permissionless network. Concentrated mining farms does not mean centralization; those farms can go down and bitcoin would still function. In ripple, a trusted validator goes down, and transactions sent to them don't get processed until they are back up. I'm not a fan of bitcoin or ripple, but ripple is a permissioned network.
1. Are any banks using xrp token and do they need it for their transactions?
2. Does ripple network need xrp token to function?
3. Does ripple have a functional decentralized economic model?
If you can definitely answer yes to these questions, we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, ripple remains what it is: a permissioned, centralized network with trusted validators, 100% premined xrp tokens, of which a majority are controlled by the creators.
1. yes. pt.2 - depends on what service they're using.
2. yes. pt.2 - depends on what service they're using.
3. to a degree, yes (and the chief cryptographer is making his 2018 goal to make ripple more decentralized than bitcoin).
again, their network needs to operate in this way given the industry(ies) they're working with, regulations, etc... the founders do not own the majority of supply, and only control it to a degree.
Also, 6 out of the top 10 currencies have prices that are below $10 which confirms the theory that a lot of people are caught up in a frenzy to simply buy whatever currencies look "cheap" (as if the price means anything too).
Here's hoping this trend makes my Dogecoins go to the moon! They cost less than a penny right now.
Of course two days later the price has gone up to 1.55¢. Do people not understand that this is a joke cryptocurrency that has been worth a few hundredths of a cent for most of its history?
Of course two days later the price has gone up to 1.55¢. Do people not understand that this is a joke cryptocurrency that has been worth a few hundredths of a cent for most of its history?
My understanding is that the same reasoning is one of the reasons corporations used to do stock splits. People were more likely to consider buying shares in corp A a good deal if the shares where $20 (with 5 million shares outstanding) than $100 (with 1 million shares outstanding).
I suspect lifeanon is right that many of the new people who have been drawn in by all the stories about how fast the price of bitcoin has increase are looking at the "unit price" and thinking ones with lower unit prices are better deals than ones with higher prices.
My understanding is that the same reasoning is one of the reasons corporations used to do stock splits. People were more likely to consider buying shares in corp A a good deal if the shares where $20 (with 5 million shares outstanding) than $100 (with 1 million shares outstanding).
It would be interesting (from a behavioral economics standpoint anyway) to see how current buyers of a currency like litecoin could get away with announcing a 1:100 "currency split" where they moved the decimal point over two positions and 1 unit of litecoin was now worth ~$3 instead of ~$300, but everyone who already had the currency now had 100x as much litecoin.
In practice this would be hard to do, and the people who actually understand cryptocurrencies would certainly point and laugh, but my guess is that it might actually get more of the sort of people who are still putting money into the market to buy in.
I suspect lifeanon is right that many of the new people who have been drawn in by all the stories about how fast the price of bitcoin has increase are looking at the "unit price" and thinking ones with lower unit prices are better deals than ones with higher prices.
My understanding is that the same reasoning is one of the reasons corporations used to do stock splits. People were more likely to consider buying shares in corp A a good deal if the shares where $20 (with 5 million shares outstanding) than $100 (with 1 million shares outstanding).
It would be interesting (from a behavioral economics standpoint anyway) to see how current buyers of a currency like litecoin could get away with announcing a 1:100 "currency split" where they moved the decimal point over two positions and 1 unit of litecoin was now worth ~$3 instead of ~$300, but everyone who already had the currency now had 100x as much litecoin.
In practice this would be hard to do, and the people who actually understand cryptocurrencies would certainly point and laugh, but my guess is that it might actually get more of the sort of people who are still putting money into the market to buy in.
There has already been talks with Bitcoin about utilizing different denominations to help make it easier for people to transact with a currency who's whole price is in the tens of thousands. Moving to a unit of "bits" will also help drive the idea that bitcoin isn't "expensive" from a price perspective because price isn't really relevant with an infinitely divisible currency. A "currency split" isn't really a systemic or programmatic change but merely a behavioral change to get people to start displaying the units of account differently. Here is the link to BIP176 that was proposed for Bitcoin:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki)
My understanding is that the same reasoning is one of the reasons corporations used to do stock splits. People were more likely to consider buying shares in corp A a good deal if the shares where $20 (with 5 million shares outstanding) than $100 (with 1 million shares outstanding).
It's not. Stocks split because if you're actually directly buying stocks (as opposed to buying in to a mutual fund worth billions of dollars) you have to buy them in whole-share increments. So if you "only" have $500 to invest this month you couldn't buy a stock that cost $1000. So there's an entirely rational reason for keeping the price of an individual share of stock at a reasonable price.
Unlike the crypto market, which has nothing at all rational about it at the moment.
I suspect lifeanon is right that many of the new people who have been drawn in by all the stories about how fast the price of bitcoin has increase are looking at the "unit price" and thinking ones with lower unit prices are better deals than ones with higher prices.
My understanding is that the same reasoning is one of the reasons corporations used to do stock splits. People were more likely to consider buying shares in corp A a good deal if the shares where $20 (with 5 million shares outstanding) than $100 (with 1 million shares outstanding).
It would be interesting (from a behavioral economics standpoint anyway) to see how current buyers of a currency like litecoin could get away with announcing a 1:100 "currency split" where they moved the decimal point over two positions and 1 unit of litecoin was now worth ~$3 instead of ~$300, but everyone who already had the currency now had 100x as much litecoin.
In practice this would be hard to do, and the people who actually understand cryptocurrencies would certainly point and laugh, but my guess is that it might actually get more of the sort of people who are still putting money into the market to buy in.
There has already been talks with Bitcoin about utilizing different denominations to help make it easier for people to transact with a currency who's whole price is in the tens of thousands. Moving to a unit of "bits" will also help drive the idea that bitcoin isn't "expensive" from a price perspective because price isn't really relevant with an infinitely divisible currency. A "currency split" isn't really a systemic or programmatic change but merely a behavioral change to get people to start displaying the units of account differently. Here is the link to BIP176 that was proposed for Bitcoin:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki)
"Hey we should get everyone on the internet to change their behavior for 'reasons' we ourselves admit are completely irrational." Yup, totally sounds like something that would be floated by the bitcoin community right about now.
1) Most banks are currently using the xCurrent platform which does not utilized XRP at all. Only one company has publicly claimed they were using XRP (Cuallix).
2) The answer is no. It does not need XRP to function. It can be utilized, but the only benefit for banks using it would arise if there were enough liquidity in the XRP market to make it worth while, which there isn't. Otherwise it just makes sense for financial institutions to take on the counter-party risk and use trusted gateways to send value across the network.
3) Ripple is not a decentralized network. Ripple uses a unique node list (UNL) that currently only contains 5 core validators all run by Ripple. To get on this node list Ripple must make sure that you're a trusted entity in order to maintain consensus (since there is no other consensus mechanism on the network). Therefore anyone who's sane should just be utilizing Ripple's own core validators (s1.ripple.com, s2.ripple.com, s3.ripple.com, etc). Anyone can set up and run their own validator, but doing so does not provide any consensus control or decentralization to the network unless someone actively choses to use them. Since they're not on the UNL, no one using XRP should use them since at any time they could suddenly find themselves following a non-consensus fork of XRP which could jeopardize your transactions. So no, the network is not decentralized.
I understand the Ripple needs to operate this way and that is perfectly fine. It is perfectly fine to position a company with an offering to financial institutions that has benefits over current platforms like SWIFT. In fact, that's exactly what banks are looking for. But to market Ripple as an open decentralized blockchain crypto-currency is extremely misleading to the general public when it is far from being that.
https://www.coindesk.com/100-billion-controversy-xrps-surge-raises-hard-questions-ripple/ (https://www.coindesk.com/100-billion-controversy-xrps-surge-raises-hard-questions-ripple/)
There has already been talks with Bitcoin about utilizing different denominations to help make it easier for people to transact with a currency who's whole price is in the tens of thousands. Moving to a unit of "bits" will also help drive the idea that bitcoin isn't "expensive" from a price perspective because price isn't really relevant with an infinitely divisible currency. A "currency split" isn't really a systemic or programmatic change but merely a behavioral change to get people to start displaying the units of account differently. Here is the link to BIP176 that was proposed for Bitcoin:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki)
lifeanon269 is correct. Ripple is a permissioned network that uses trusted validators.
The currency isn't the problem, the exchange is. I can sell the XRP for USD no problem, but because the exchange is overwhelmed I cannot currently move that USD in USD form to my bank account.Hence the need to use other coins to transfer "the value". I am verifed to do this action but it won't go through. They have had 2 different "fix it" tickets to see what is wrong but haven't fixed it. I have not had this issue on Coinbase, but Coinbase does not currently list XRP.Binance is quicker apparently.
Kraken takes many days and is a PITA to set up but is US based, Binance is in Hong Kong. Fees at Kraken are smallish.
If you just want to sell your XRP open an account at Kraken, sell your XRP into BTC, then BTC to LTC ( quicker and less fees to send to other exchange then send to Coinbase ( open Coinbase account first) trade your Litecoin for USD direct deposit into your bank account.
Why not trade directly xrp to USD in Kraken instead of this convoluted and fee heavy method you ask? Even though I am tier 3 verified the bank deposit or withdrawl has NEVER worked, but Coinbase has worked every time, hence the run around.....yeah the exchanges need some serious oversight IMO, it 's the wild west out there, makes pink sheets look stable.
You could just open an account at Coinbase and wait and believe the rumor that XRP will be listed there soon. In which case you should wait for that spike. Heads up that opening any of these accounts takes numerous days and several hoops to jump through.
For a "currency" that claims to aspire to act as a bridge between every other currency, this seems unnecessarily convoluted. Is there really no way to convert XRP directly to USD with an organization that will actually pay out USD (you know, the most important part of a currency conversion)?
The currency isn't the problem, the exchange is. I can sell the XRP for USD no problem, but because the exchange is overwhelmed I cannot currently move that USD in USD form to my bank account.Hence the need to use other coins to transfer "the value". I am verifed to do this action but it won't go through. They have had 2 different "fix it" tickets to see what is wrong but haven't fixed it. I have not had this issue on Coinbase, but Coinbase does not currently list XRP.
Edited to add: the exchanges are the place that will see regulation first, hopefully. Easily overwhelmed, unreliable. Crypto is gambling for sure, but the exchanges make it seem like gambling in a dark alley on top of cardboard boxes instead of a nice casino. I suspect that during the dumps , the big holders get their rewards and everyone else watches their money disappear because the exchange just says "sorry, services down".
No intent to derail - thanks to everyone for the fascinating discussion! I have zero interest in "investing" in purchasing currency, crypto or not, but I'm excited to see if cryptos can break the credit card vampire squid stranglehold on payments that we have to live with.
-W
EXAMPLE:
Today on 10/04/2017: 1 Bitcoin is $4,800, 1 Monero is $91, 1 Ether is $292, 1 Lisk is $5.45, 1 LINK is $.39 and 1 ARDR is $.16.
Today on 12/06/2017: 1 Bitcoin is $13,400, 1 Monero is $282, 1 Ether is $430, 1 Lisk is $9.10 1 LINK is $.31 and 1 ARDR is $.55.
EXAMPLE:
Today on 10/04/2017: 1 Bitcoin is $4,800, 1 Monero is $91, 1 Ether is $292, 1 Lisk is $5.45, 1 LINK is $.39 and 1 ARDR is $.16.
Today on 12/06/2017: 1 Bitcoin is $13,400, 1 Monero is $282, 1 Ether is $430, 1 Lisk is $9.10 1 LINK is $.31 and 1 ARDR is $.55.
Today on 1/8/2018: 1 Bitcoin is $14,900, 1 Monero is $400, 1 Ether is $1,150, 1 Lisk is $31, 1 LINK is $1.30 and 1 ARDR is $1.61
Once in a lifetime opportunity.
Is this not worrying to some crypto boosters? Based on those numbers, you're looking at an annualised increase of somewhere between 8,000 and 1,000,000 per cent. Given the number of people arguing that we're looking at a bubble, is there an increase that would cause you to consider whether they were right?
Just started to get into this alt-coin game a couple days ago because of all the fomo. It's definitely slightly addicting. Anyone have a new fave they're excited about? Looking for big things from QASH.
Just started to get into this alt-coin game a couple days ago because of all the fomo. It's definitely slightly addicting. Anyone have a new fave they're excited about? Looking for big things from QASH.
Just curious what everyone thinks about China's move to shut down miners. How do you think it will affect the BTC and other markets?
I don't know what to make of it. Just looking for opinions.
https://www.ft.com/content/adfe7858-f4f9-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00
Just curious what everyone thinks about China's move to shut down miners. How do you think it will affect the BTC and other markets?
I don't know what to make of it. Just looking for opinions.
https://www.ft.com/content/adfe7858-f4f9-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00
Just started to get into this alt-coin game a couple days ago because of all the fomo. It's definitely slightly addicting. Anyone have a new fave they're excited about? Looking for big things from QASH.
Would recommend to diversify crypto portfolio just like you would a regular stock market based one. I would recommend to make Ethereum the bulk of it as it has incredible support and future growth prospects as a Smart contract platform. Other than that look at ones which are working on exciting tech and have a great team that can deliver. Examples, Raiblocks, Substratum, Power Ledger, Stratis , to name a few.
I read an opinion from CoinFi that said for people who don't want to get too involved but want to try it out for the long term they should invest in the top 20 coins and see how it goes in 3 years time. He reckons one of them should at least make good gains to offset the others.
I can't believe how profitable GPU mining has been lately. Also, the supply of GPUs are at an all time low and prices are averaging the highest I have seen since I started mining last spring. Interesting time.
ZCL to BTCP is an interesting opportunity to make some money if it happens.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ZClassic/comments/7mg5je/zcl_btcp_faq/
Think of it this way: YOU are undermining your country's currency by "investing" in any crypto. If by some wild dream Bitcrap becomes the currency of the future, your dollars are worthless. SS is paid in dollars, you are paid in dollars, your real investments are paid in dollars.
I bet if you bought a brick of cocaine you could make 10x your investment too...
I bet if you bought a brick of cocaine you could make 10x your investment too...
I'm not a crypto fan, but to be fair it seems like the risks of a gangland execution are lower with crypto.
I'm not a crypto fan, but to be fair it seems like the risks of a gangland execution are lower with crypto.
Maybe, but I still see a relevant correlation. There's probably a good reason why cocaine and bitcoin are both so popular with criminals, right? Do you think it's purely coincidence?
Jesus, what do you think the ER rates are for drug dealers?
What if ETH price goes up to $1,000,000,000 and the dollar becomes green toilet paper? These guys will become super rich compared to the average person.
Anyone else into substratum (SUB)?
Decentralizing the web, full public beta release soon.
One of the few crypto projects that will make a difference.
I have't been on this site a super long time, but this is getting crazy. Why don't people just buy lotto tickets? All the conversation is about what is going up, unrelated to what it is. What happened to investing for retirement? Stocks, bonds, etfs? It seems this site is becoming more of a get rich quick, jump on the band wagon BS.
I have't been on this site a super long time, but this is getting crazy. Why don't people just buy lotto tickets? All the conversation is about what is going up, unrelated to what it is. What happened to investing for retirement? Stocks, bonds, etfs? It seems this site is becoming more of a get rich quick, jump on the band wagon BS.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy" someone chimes in to say "you should buy". Literally minutes later. That's gold, right there.You read what you wanted to read. I certainly did not say " you should buy".
I have been trying to find unique cryptocurrencies that are not just different versions of Bitcoin.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy"
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy"
Uh, that's not what he said.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy"
Uh, that's not what he said.
He seemed to say that he was really happy with his bitcoin investment, had made a whole bunch of money, and was continuing to invest in it. I don't think it was reading too much between the lines to say that sounds like an endorsement.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy"
Uh, that's not what he said.
He seemed to say that he was really happy with his bitcoin investment, had made a whole bunch of money, and was continuing to invest in it. I don't think it was reading too much between the lines to say that sounds like an endorsement.
I can't tell if you're being serious. That's not what maizeman said.
But regardless, why are you even in this thread? It's about "Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion." You obviously don't own any cryptocurrencies and you spend your time talking about anything but said topic. I believe that's called trolling.
You have to admit, that's kind of funny. Immediately after maizeman very reasonably says "well we're not actually saying you should buy"
Uh, that's not what he said.
He seemed to say that he was really happy with his bitcoin investment, had made a whole bunch of money, and was continuing to invest in it. I don't think it was reading too much between the lines to say that sounds like an endorsement.
I can't tell if you're being serious. That's not what maizeman said.
But regardless, why are you even in this thread? It's about "Blockchain / Crypto-Currency Portfolios and Discussion." You obviously don't own any cryptocurrencies and you spend your time talking about anything but said topic. I believe that's called trolling.
Did I unfairly characterize what maizeman said, or what powskier said? Either way, it's just a joke. You can safely relax.
As for part two of your post, are you asking me to not share my opinion on a public internet forum?
I'm asking if you can stay on topic. Pretty sure that's not a radical concept.
GUYS! Just found out about a new crypto called K-CoinTheBomb and its really cool. Prob worth around $1 each but I am getting some insider info that this thing is going to blow up big.
Best part about it is that you can't spend it anywhere. But it will really look nice in your crypto portfolio.
PM for email on where to send your Paypal payments to.
I have been telling people about STEEM on this forum for a while now. I have been blogging there since August of 2016 and now have STEEM worth around $85,000 with no outside investment. The only crypto I hold is STEEM as I believe that the uses for it will continue to strengthen it in comparison to the hundreds of coins that don't do much.
Steem now has a YouTube-like site called D.Tube which pays content creators STEEM coins. That includes a live-streaming off shoot that is similar to Twitch.tv.
There is also D.Music for musicians to get paid for their songs.
There is SteemShot, which is like Instagram.
Steem has a Twitter-like App called Zappl.
Steem has created Smart Media Tokens (SMT) which allow other websites to use the steem blockchain. The first use of this is coming out soon using the VICE Token, and all Steem holders will get a 1-1 dividend in their accounts. VICE is a pornography site backed by large outfits like Penthouse that will pay video creators in VICE tokens. Similar to Steem, 75% of the upvoted reward will go to the video creator while 25% will go to those who have curated it by upvoting. Yes, this site will pay viewers to watch porn. And this is just the first use of the SMT's.
STEEM is the #1 transacted cryptocurrency per day. The Steem blockchain has ZERO transaction fees, can perform 10,000 per second, and only takes 3 seconds to confirm.
Steemit.com is rapidly rising in the Alexa ranking, up around 1300 worldwide and it is less than 2 years old.
There are currently about 263 million STEEM coins in existence, and it is inflating at a rate of 9% this year, dropping by 1% per year until reaching an inflation rate of 1% where it will stay. That means there will only be about 600 million STEEM coins in 20 years. Additionally, to be receive more upvote and curation rewards, users need to "power up" their STEEM. This process locks it in as illiquid. To make it transferable again, a user needs to power down - a process which takes 13 weeks with 1/13th liquefied per week.
This also creates protection against account loss as any hacker obtaining your password still has to wait 7 days before they can have any of your powered up STEEM. In a change from any other cryptcurrency, Steemit has a sort of customer service which can verify you and give you back control of your account if you lose control of your password key.
Since STEEM has so many uses, you can "delegate" it to other users in a rental transaction. Currently, I can receive a 40% APR for giving the use of my STEEM to high bidders. The STEEM never leaves your wallet, it is just temporarily controlled by the other party.
All-in-all, this is by far the most useful cryptocurrency coin I know of. This is why it is my only holding in the cryptocurrency market. The future of crypto does not belong to Bitcoin, it belongs to coins which have use and pay you for becoming a stakeholder.
You may continue trading cryptos on hype and rumors instead of actual use and utility.
The big correction is finally here. :)
The big correction is finally here. :)
It will bounce back. This is just a buying opportunity.
The big correction is finally here. :)
Other tech that is on the loop that they chart include VR, AR, machine learning, smart robots, connected homes/smart homes, autonomous vehicles, drones and more.
You can see the one for 2017 at https://blogs.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/files/2017/08/Emerging-Technology-Hype-Cycle-for-2017_Infographic_R6A.jpg
Other tech that is on the loop that they chart include VR, AR, machine learning, smart robots, connected homes/smart homes, autonomous vehicles, drones and more.
You can see the one for 2017 at https://blogs.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/files/2017/08/Emerging-Technology-Hype-Cycle-for-2017_Infographic_R6A.jpg
Machine learning underpins most applications of ‘big data’. Smart robots are already making products we use and replacing factory workers. Google Home and other smart home products are being bought and used and generating profits. Autonomous vehicle technology is already integrated into many vehicles and constant incremental improvements are being made towards the end goal of totally autonomous vehicles. Drones are everywhere, for both consumer fun or business applications. I strap on a VR headset almost every day, and everyone who has ever used an Instagram filter has applied AR technology.
Honestly, what has blockchain brought us except quantum leaps in scam technologies and a ever-expanding roster of overhyped silly digicoins? Really think about this; where is it actually being applied for competitive advantage that would make it an undeniable, essential, desirable tool for either consumers or business applications? It’s had 10 years. Where is this happening?
There is just no comparison, it doesn’t belong on this chart alongside actual emerging technologies. If it belongs anywhere, it’s in the depths of Computer Science textbooks alongside other data structures and algorithms, detailing its very specific use cases.
Honestly, what has blockchain brought us except quantum leaps in scam technologies and a ever-expanding roster of overhyped silly digicoins? Really think about this; where is it actually being applied for competitive advantage that would make it an undeniable, essential, desirable tool for either consumers or business applications? It’s had 10 years. Where is this happening?
The best demonstration of what blockchain can achieve so far is CryptoKitties.
One of the reasons for a code of law is facilitating coordination and reducing interactive friction. This is a form of social governance.
What's significant in crypto is we're starting to see algorithmic governance in digital space; decentralized consensus through protocol, reducing corruptive elements.
The ability for small companies to raise capital outside of traditional channels is surely more significant than CryptoKitties.
One of the reasons for a code of law is facilitating coordination and reducing interactive friction. This is a form of social governance.
What's significant in crypto is we're starting to see algorithmic governance in digital space; decentralized consensus through protocol, reducing corruptive elements. How this will evolve will become readily apparent in time.
The big correction is finally here. :)
I posted this in another crypto thread when Tether came up. This article talks about last bitcoin price bubble 5 years ago. If Tether really is propping up the market you could replace "person" with "company" and we have the same thing going on.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/15/researchers-finds-that-one-person-likely-drove-bitcoin-from-150-to-1000/
additional reading material about Tether for those so inclined. I'm well aware you can't take everything as gospel on the internet so draw your own conclusions. It was this sort of information that caused me to sell almost every holding I had.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7ih0hd/guess_who_controls_over_half_a_billion_tethers/
The only rational response to such massive and obvious systemic fraud.
There should be no ‘getting this thread back on track’ until it’s explained or exposed. To continue discussing crypto prices and portfolio holdings takes a cognitive dissonance which absolutely staggers me. Investing on a prayer.
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
Crypto price slides have been arrested by an influx of four hundred million dollars in unverified funds flooding into Bitfinex from a company owned by the same people (something they denied until it was confirmed in the Paradise Papers) which has never provided any evidence that it actually holds the hundreds upon hundreds of millions it claims backs Tether. And this is what reduced corruption looks like?
I'm uncertain about tether, being that it is centrally issued, especially by a non-authoritative entity. I had warning posts about it a couple of months ago.QuoteIf it turns out tethers is being fraudulently printed, there is a high chance it will severely impact the cryptoworld. You should do what you think is best based on what you believe.QuoteThere is huge risk in the space right now. Especially for bitcoin, due to potentially fraudulent tether. Proceed with caution.
As for 'reduced corruption', I refer to the protocol's governance. In a decentralized protocol, if one stranger sends a digital unit of accounting over to another stranger, the chance of any corruption with that transaction is infinitesimally low. The protocol reduces or mitigates corruption regarding its transactive (algorithmic) governance. For example, there will only be one hundred units. An entity owns one unit and sends it to another entity. Adhering to protocol rule and consensus, we can expect there will never be more or less than one hundred units. Ownership of a unit, within the protocol, cannot be tampered with by another. In a non-decentralized system, the intermediary is always a huge risk for corruption and displays less transparency.
The big correction is finally here. :)
The big correction is finally here. :)
the low for bitcoin for the entire year, has been in january for the last 4 years.
It's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.
More uses for the Ethereum network.
Canada trialing use of Ethereum blockchain to enhance transparency in govt funding (https://globalnews.ca/news/3977745/ethereum-blockchain-canada-nrc/)
It has not, however, been a near 50% drop in any of those years, and it's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.
There's no reason why micropayments would be done via cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars or euro.
Even assuming payments of below a single cent, it would be easier to collate the totals and bill to the nearest cent monthly than to go through the rigmarole of converting money into crypto and for the recipient to do the reverse.
There's no reason why micropayments would be done via cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars or euro.
that may or may not be true in the US or Europe, but cryptocurrencies are in theory more accessible to more people in more countries.Even assuming payments of below a single cent, it would be easier to collate the totals and bill to the nearest cent monthly than to go through the rigmarole of converting money into crypto and for the recipient to do the reverse.
if you're collating payments into a larger payment then it's not a micropayment. the payer could cancel their account or withdraw their money or dispute a payment in the meantime, where with cryptocurrencies each micropayment would be final. i think that's the benefit of micropayments to the payee.
Why would anyone pay a fee when you can avoid it altogether?
There's no reason why micropayments would be done via cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars or euro.
that may or may not be true in the US or Europe, but cryptocurrencies are in theory more accessible to more people in more countries.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Do I have to list every bloody currency on earth every time I compare Bitcoin to existing currencies? Do I have to amend my statement to "There's no reason why micropayments would be done by cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars, euro, sterling, kronur, kroner, koruna, forint, pesos, francs, rands, yuan, yen, dong..."
If you were starting an online company today, would you want to go for micropayments or a subscription model? Just about everyone in the market - from Netflix to the Wall Street Journal, from Dollar Shave Club to Spotify, from the Lancet to whatever particular flavour of online nudity you find most interesting - is using a subscription model, which is a pretty clear indicator.
so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems. i'm just saying there's potential there.
"so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems."
...
Seriously: what is the point of engaging, if this is what comes back as a response? I wrote a clear and short explanation of why I believe companies have gone with a subscription model, added in an explanation of why I think it actually benefits consumers as well, and brought in supporting evidence that the subscription model is the best one available for businesses even when the subscription is completely free. In return, I get...strawman arguments and selective and misleading quotations, and no effort to discuss what I actually said. It's incredibly frustrating.
At the risk of sounding dismissive: did you read the damn post at all?
...
Seriously: what is the point of engaging, if this is what comes back as a response?
...
I get...strawman arguments and selective and misleading quotations, and no effort to discuss what I actually said. It's incredibly frustrating.
the frustrating dismissive response here was me mentioning how cryptocurrencies could potentially be used for micropayments, and your response is essentially "nobody should use micropayments".
i should have just ignored your post. sorry for responding.
"so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems."
...
Seriously: what is the point of engaging, if this is what comes back as a response? I wrote a clear and short explanation of why I believe companies have gone with a subscription model, added in an explanation of why I think it actually benefits consumers as well, and brought in supporting evidence that the subscription model is the best one available for businesses even when the subscription is completely free. In return, I get...strawman arguments and selective and misleading quotations, and no effort to discuss what I actually said. It's incredibly frustrating.
you wrote that companies today use subscription models, and gave a few reasons. but you didn't compare subscriptions to micropayments. what you should have said is "companies like subscription models, not micropayments, because paying subscribers often don't even use the service. this boosts profit margins for companies." you said almost everything but that.
from a customer's point of view, subscription models suck because if you don't use the product, you still pay. that's why consumers would want microservices.
It's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.
I think it's pretty clear that the price of bitcoin has been systematically manipulated by bad actors. This probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
It's a completely unregulated market in what are essentially penny stocks, and we've all seen how that story ends. The whole model is to promote positive media coverage to scare up new investor money with fomo on the next big thing, but there is no underlying value behind the asset. Every part of that sentence is exactly like penny stocks. How quickly we forget.
It's especially egregious to me that THIS community, of all places, has penny stock promoters. The whole thrust of this forum's financial advice is that you can't pick the next big thing, but you can reliably get rich by regularly investing in boring dependable assets that represent aggregate performance. You minimize risk by sharing it.
The entire cryptocurrency space looks like a cynical cash grab by brazen criminals. The exchanges are corrupt. The product is imaginary and the revenue stream is non-existent. Just like with booming penny stocks, all they have is a clever idea and an overhyped media presence, which they use to fleece the late comers. It's an elaborate scam.
Bitcoin is antithetical to everything this website represents. This is probably the wrong place to shill for it. And yet here we are, listening to poster after poster pushing their fomo agenda with promises of instant gratification. Get real, peeps.
1. Please re-read the opening post of this thread.
2. Cease posting in here.
1. Please re-read the opening post of this thread.
2. Cease posting in here.
Oh I'm so sorry. Did I not quietly acquiesce to your ridiculous demands?
Here's a tip. If you start a thread asking people to talk about how great slavery is, you're probably going to find a few posts you don't agree with there, too.
This is a forum about financial advice. Starting a thread to give people bad financial advice is unlikely to go unchallenged. I think I will not sit quietly, despite your good manners. Which really are lovely, btw, thanks for that.
Crypto shills are shaming us no coiners because they are running out of greater fools and getting desperate. They need a bunch of greater fools to hold the bag full of shitcoins when this bubble finally bursts.
Consider addressing the issues rather than turn around every argument that pokes holes in your fantasy crypto utopia.
all that being said... cryptocurrencies are not going to magically go "poof" and disappear one wednesday morning. i don't know if this counts as a "fantasy crypto utopia" but they are here to stay, and things arguably couldn't get much worse for cryptos. judging by the vitriol from the anti-crypto crowd here i doubt we can agree on that much.
Capital One 360 now blocking purchases of bitcoin from my account onto coinbase. This is the exact reason why we need crypto in our lives. Who are they to tell me how I can or can't spend my hard earned money. A few years ago I was also hassled by a bank, who made me feel like a terrorist due to a large cash deposit. I closed my account with them at the time. No reason for this bull-shit.You are not spending your money. You are getting a loan (credit card) to buy something. That credit can be pulled at any time. Buying investments on margin is highly risky and the credit card companies are worried, and rightly so that they will not get paid back.
My bad. I thought you were referring to the recent announcements of credit cards blocking the purchase of bitcoin.Capital One 360 now blocking purchases of bitcoin from my account onto coinbase. This is the exact reason why we need crypto in our lives. Who are they to tell me how I can or can't spend my hard earned money. A few years ago I was also hassled by a bank, who made me feel like a terrorist due to a large cash deposit. I closed my account with them at the time. No reason for this bull-shit.You are not spending your money. You are getting a loan (credit card) to buy something. That credit can be pulled at any time. Buying investments on margin is highly risky and the credit card companies are worried, and rightly so that they will not get paid back.
Feel free to buy this crap using your own money.
Good for them to shut this down.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Huh? I'm not using a credit card. This was to be pulled from my checking account. And come on, you really think credit card companies are worried about me losing my money????? They do charge us 30% or higher, if we don't pay our balance after all!!!!
It's fine to be skeptical and have criticisms. The thing that I wonder about is how much research was done before offering these criticisms. Many of the things being questioned, such as databases or engineering scalability issues or security or viability, and other issues have been deeply analyzed. If the google searches are still unconvincing, then maybe we can discuss which aspects.I don't want to "invest" in currency and hold onto it in the hopes it'll gain value, I want a nice easy to use cheap secure *tool* for making transactions.
You don't have to "invest" or buy in. Just wait and see if something emerges that you'll find useful or not. Right now, alot of different protocols are being experimented and speculated on. There are alot of scams too but also legitimate development. Possibly in the near future, you may even be using a blockchain backend without realizing it.
It's fine to be skeptical and have criticisms. The thing that I wonder about is how much research was done before offering these criticisms. Many of the things being questioned, such as databases or engineering scalability issues or security or viability, and other issues have been deeply analyzed. If the google searches are still unconvincing, then maybe we can discuss which aspects.I don't want to "invest" in currency and hold onto it in the hopes it'll gain value, I want a nice easy to use cheap secure *tool* for making transactions.
You don't have to "invest" or buy in. Just wait and see if something emerges that you'll find useful or not. Right now, alot of different protocols are being experimented and speculated on. There are alot of scams too but also legitimate development. Possibly in the near future, you may even be using a blockchain backend without realizing it.
And there's the reason for the criticisms.
Not clear what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that my comment about how some of the criticisms indicate a lack of research is the reason for criticisms? Or do you mean "there's a reason for criticisms?" If you mean the latter, no disagreement on my part. There are plenty of valid criticisms.QuoteThis thread has been going on for 6 months and was started not to discuss or debate the value of the underlying technology, but rather showcase "OMG, look at all the money I'm making!" Either intentionally or through a Freudian slip, you acknowledge speculation is going on. That's not a positive thing in discussing investments for most folks.
The people that believe in crypto, are curious what others are paying attention to and why. To me, it's more about about the discussion surrounding crypto and less about "look at how much I'm making." It's always been about speculation for me; I never indicated otherwise or attempted to hide it. If I want to take a small position speculating on something I believe has promise, I don't see that as a bad thing. Someone is always taking the risk somewhere, whether individually or collectively. I don't argue or deny traditional investments and I would not encourage people to actually take from this and invest into crypto.QuoteThat deep analysis you mentioned has been found wanting.
The scalability issue has been a known problem and is something widely researched. The questions about how blockchain would affect and alleviate issues with databases and other tech have been examined. The issues about bitcoin have been acknowledged and researched and various crypto have sprung up filling in the gaps. Also, from the crypthusiast perspective, they discuss crypto in general and not really bitcoin, but bitcoin gets thrown in there alot.QuoteBillions of dollars are disappearing from this niche market through hacks and ponzi schemes and the oversight of this niche is not yet equipped to handle it.
I agree, this is true. There are various sophisticated scams ongoing, and various issues with oversight and governance. Hence, the speculation and risk.QuoteAny attempts at forming regulation of these markets by national bodies is met with tin-foil derision.
I have a neutral stance on this and am observing how it plays out. There are already regulation taking shape. Kyc laws, fintech legislation, ico, etc.QuoteThe same people who complained that 2008 happened because of greed and not enough regulation are now boasting how unregulated crypto is the wave of the future.
Not my position.QuoteFacebook is no longer allowing crypto advertising because of the rampant speculation and murky waters of this market. They don't want to be associated with it right now and I can't blame them.
I don't have too much of an opinion on this other than it seems to me they want to protect users against fraud and scams.
If you are going to quote a post of mine and change words in it, you should fuvcking make it clear that you changed words in it,simply bolding those words isn't enough.Things in stock market that are sketchy/corrupt/not cool :
- unregulated exchanges
-blatant price manipulation by exchanges
-concentration of majority of any coin with a very small group of people
-concentration of mining groups
- insider trading prohibitions of the stock market do not apply in crypto
- bots manipulating prices
-coordination of buying/selling by whales
Funny how most of this can be changed to talk about most finanical markets... Humans are mostly corrupt and out for themselves. That is natural and normal. We as a society can deny that all we want, but it is just the way it is. I personally would prefer algorithms to take over and evolve over time to remove as much "human" as possible to provide fairness and transparency to our markets and reward system. We are getting closer and this is a pretty amazing start of a revolution.
In my post I wrote all of those things about crypto exchanges, and effigy 98 replaced those words with "stock market". This is bullshit.Things in stock market that are sketchy/corrupt/not cool :
- unregulated exchanges
-blatant price manipulation by exchanges
-concentration of majority of any coin with a very small group of people
-concentration of mining groups
- insider trading prohibitions of the stock market do not apply in crypto
- bots manipulating prices
-coordination of buying/selling by whales
Funny how most of this can be changed to talk about most finanical markets... Humans are mostly corrupt and out for themselves. That is natural and normal. We as a society can deny that all we want, but it is just the way it is. I personally would prefer algorithms to take over and evolve over time to remove as much "human" as possible to provide fairness and transparency to our markets and reward system. We are getting closer and this is a pretty amazing start of a revolution.
This is wrong.
The stock market has had a century of regulation and progress. The corruption/manipulation in the stock market is barely detectable compared to crypto.
You'll never remove the human aspect. Algorithms don't evolve and take over on their own - there are humans behind every line of code.
Consider addressing the issues rather than turn around every argument that pokes holes in your fantasy crypto utopia.
Things in crypto space that are sketchy/corrupt/not cool :Here is my post as it was, before effigy98 quoted it making a significant change without actually making clear the change he had made, this is a very deceptive way to make a point. I am sure Putin or Trump would love to hire you effigy98.
- unregulated exchanges
-blatant price manipulation by exchanges
-concentration of majority of any coin with a very small group of people
-concentration of mining groups
- insider trading prohibitions of the stock market do not apply in crypto
- bots manipulating prices
-coordination of buying/selling by whales
Plenty of these items are well covered in articles by Bloomberg, NYT, WAPO, etc , I am not going to provide links someone with more time on their hands can if they wish. Blockchain can indeed prevent corruption, improve transparency, etc, etc but the entire crypto space is full of people taking advantage of others in ways that are clearly illegal ( although likely done) in other markets. Have fun , make some money if you wish ( I am) but don't drink so much Kool aid that you end up drowning. The post government/banking libertarian utopia that many crypto enthusiasts expect is highly unlikely. Some applications of blockchain technology will likely become valuable and of great use, but to be clear the entire market itself is just about a transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Same as the rest of finances. Make sure to take gains and only gamble what you can afford to lose, or don't play.
^^^
Powskier,
If only the forum was logged on some kind of, say, distributed blockchain ledger, then this type of malicious manipulation couldn't happen
;-)
At what point does everyone figure themselves for a bag holder and sell? Institutional money is fleeing crypto right now.
At what point does everyone figure themselves for a bag holder and sell? Institutional money is fleeing crypto right now.
It's funny that crypto crashes 50% and all of a sudden the people who didn't like crypto are patting themselves on their backs. In reality, crypto just lost one months worth of gains and if someone got involved in November 2017 they would still be up a few years of S&P 500 gains. You're right crypto opponents, this is the end of crypto, it won't recover, and everyone who bought crypto lost everything. :p
It was fully expected that this would happen sooner or later. Its not the first time its happened and it won't be the last. Do what you want but be respectful of others decision to invest a small portion of their investments into a speculative asset.
Basically, despite this bloodbath, unless you were all in on FCT, you would still be very much in the green!
Basically, despite this bloodbath, unless you were all in on FCT, you would still be very much in the green!
Awesome!
So which ones of those coins do you recommend buying today?
With that said, I'm not familiar with the tech, teams, development and use-case for many of those cryptos. On a speculative level, I think they will all probably outperform the stock market by a significant amount within the next three years. The ones that I am familiar with [ETH, BTC, LSK, IOTA], I expect they will stand a much greater chance of doing this.
I'm kind of sad about it, really. I think digital currencies are a neat idea and I was hoping they found a good use case. Unfortunately, like so many cases where there are billions to be made, it looks like criminals took over and rigged the system.
I'm kind of sad about it, really. I think digital currencies are a neat idea and I was hoping they found a good use case. Unfortunately, like so many cases where there are billions to be made, it looks like criminals took over and rigged the system.
For now and into the foreseeable future, the best use case for crypto (speculation does not count as a use case, per my own definition) is for fraudulent activity that is difficult for authorities to follow or control. There are other use cases to be sure, but I'd wager that after speculative activity, more bitcoin has been exchanged for the purposes of money laundering, purchases of illegal goods, and tax sheltering than for all other reasons combined. So criminals may have gotten more directly involved when the market share of crypto moved into the tens and hundreds of billions of USD, but they've been massive players in this space since shortly after the Bitcoin protocol was released into the wild.
To be fair, cash has always been pretty good for those types of transactions too, but cash still has to be moved physically, and car tires, mattresses, bodies, and mail have long since been risky media to move it in. The blockchain, not so much, at least perhaps until very recently.
It doesn't say anything about the blockchain or cryptocurrencies as a whole other than stress the necessity of doing your own due diligence.
Regarding to comment on whether I want crypto to continue outperforming the stock market... Of course I do. Blockchain technology is still in its infancy and it adds value to the underlying cryptocurrencies. As the blockchain technology further develops, I'll use Bitcoin as an example, i.e. resolves its scalability issues with the Lightning Network, it would be completely feasible to use Bitcoin for daily purchases and not worry about transaction speeds and costs.
It doesn't say anything about the blockchain or cryptocurrencies as a whole other than stress the necessity of doing your own due diligence.
You don't think outright fraud on the biggest exchange says anything about cryptocurrencies?
How do you feel about unregulated and totally opaque fractional reserve banking? Because that's how tether (a privately owned corporation) is underwriting the entire global crypto market. They're using the exact same form of fiat currency control that crypto was designed to avoid! Only no one is even checking them! It's lunacy, as far as I can tell.
I suspect the wholele thing will come crashing down eventually. As soon as people lose faith in it, there will be a run on tether and it will suddenly be painfully obvious that there are no dollars behind it. And George Bailey won't be able to claim that your money is invested in your neighbor's house, because it's not like there are any tangible assets behind crypto lending. The current price appears to be smoke and mirrors, held up by nothing except the hodl meme.
Regarding to comment on whether I want crypto to continue outperforming the stock market... Of course I do. Blockchain technology is still in its infancy and it adds value to the underlying cryptocurrencies. As the blockchain technology further develops, I'll use Bitcoin as an example, i.e. resolves its scalability issues with the Lightning Network, it would be completely feasible to use Bitcoin for daily purchases and not worry about transaction speeds and costs.
As a currency gets more and more valuable, by definition that means the currency is deflating right? Deflation is not a good thing. At some point, people forgot that the second part of "cryptocurrency" is "currency." Unstable currencies are useless as money. Let's look at a common type of transaction: paying wages. In a deflationary environment--which you say you hope occurs--wages get more and more expensive as the currency gets more and more valuable. What businesses do then is cut payroll. That means people spend less, which causes more deflation. And there are all sorts of other problems with deflation too. As the currency deflates, things get cheaper. So it makes sense to defer purchases as long as possible. That means demand drops, and you can see where that leads. Not Good. This is not hypothetical. An example of what happens in times of deflation was the Great Depression. And you are saying every economist's nightmare scenario is your preferred outcome? I don't think you realize how insane that sounds.
Then you go onto say there is nothing wrong with a bit of speculation. Fair enough. That's fine...for stocks. But not for currency. All businesses operate on credit in some form. Even say, a plumber does the work, and gets paid after the job is done. If the currency value can over night....how soon does he need to get paid? And how long is his bid good for? And virtually all businesses use at least some debt. GM, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, all have debt on the books. How can you take out a loan, if you can't estimate the future costs of the loan? If your currency is bouncing around in value, you can't accurately calculate future costs or schedule future payments, and scheduling future payments is how the world financial system operates. And if you think about it, how it always has operated. The thing you don't see a problem with actually makes crypto 100% useless as currency.
I was an early investor in cell phones back in the '80s, and I believe #blockchain has the potential to be just as transformational as cell phones. As our government begins to look at #crypto, I don't think you can separate #cryptocurrencies from the technology they're based on.
I'm kind of sad about it, really. I think digital currencies are a neat idea and I was hoping they found a good use case. Unfortunately, like so many cases where there are billions to be made, it looks like criminals took over and rigged the system.
For now and into the foreseeable future, the best use case for crypto (speculation does not count as a use case, per my own definition) is for fraudulent activity that is difficult for authorities to follow or control. There are other use cases to be sure, but I'd wager that after speculative activity, more bitcoin has been exchanged for the purposes of money laundering, purchases of illegal goods, and tax sheltering than for all other reasons combined. So criminals may have gotten more directly involved when the market share of crypto moved into the tens and hundreds of billions of USD, but they've been massive players in this space since shortly after the Bitcoin protocol was released into the wild.
To be fair, cash has always been pretty good for those types of transactions too, but cash still has to be moved physically, and car tires, mattresses, bodies, and mail have long since been risky media to move it in. The blockchain, not so much, at least perhaps until very recently.
This is not accurate. The blockchain technology is the single greatest use of crypto. It's transparent and immutable barring a hard-fork, but if a hard-fork occurs its up to the community to determine which chain to follow. The blockchain has many uses other than just being the best form of currency governance (no one can print more Bitcoins to pay off their debt, no one can freeze your account, merchants can get paid within seconds or even instantly as opposed to waiting days with VISA/Mastercard, cheaper transaction fees, you control and are responsible for your own assets). Project's utilize their blockchains to verify the authenticity of files [DeepOnion], verify supermarket products are genuine [Wabi], allow immutable record keeping [Factom], and the ever improving smart contract development of various coins that allow cheap and seamless transactions. New uses of the blockchain technology arises everyday and even the staunchest adversaries of crypto appreciate the blockchain capabilities.
Bitcoin is the last medium I would use for any illicit purposes. Bitcoin is not private as its built upon a public ledger and there are government entities out there that successfully link Bitcoin accounts to owners. This is why cash, not Bitcoin, is king of the black market. There are however privacy coins, again not Bitcoin, that utilize unique technologies to allow untraceable payments. These coins make up a much smaller portion of the broader marketcap.
Regarding to comment on whether I want crypto to continue outperforming the stock market... Of course I do. Blockchain technology is still in its infancy and it adds value to the underlying cryptocurrencies. As the blockchain technology further develops, I'll use Bitcoin as an example, i.e. resolves its scalability issues with the Lightning Network, it would be completely feasible to use Bitcoin for daily purchases and not worry about transaction speeds and costs. More people may be drawn to crypto and we may see mass adoption of cryptocurrency as a currency. Lightning transactions are already being conducted on Bitcoin's mainet so the future is bright. No one denies that much of Bitcoin's price is driven by speculation. This creates bubbles which is why I and just about everyone else fully expected this bubble pop (which is why we aren't freaking out) but just didn't know when it would be. This speculation driven investment is not unique to crypto, it happens in stocks all the time. With P/e ratios so high, most prominently in tech (hmmmm), its only rational to acknowledge tech stocks are largely driven by speculation. As long as the speculation is rational and one doesn't go all-in on it then I don't see a problem with it.
Regarding Tether, people in crypto don't like Tether for precisely that reason. I believe the people holding it are ill-informed. One of the things about crypto is that you are responsible for your own actions and keys. Tether reeks and a lot of people may get burned. The warning bells have been going off since it came out. It doesn't say anything about the blockchain or cryptocurrencies as a whole other than stress the necessity of doing your own due diligence.
In fact, I can foresee lending being enhanced by the blockchain because contracts could be signed within the immutable blockchain. Transfers of funds could be quick and easy and the signed block within the blockchain is pretty good evidence of a loan. Heck, the actual contract itself can be hashed and that hash value imprinted directly onto DeepOnion's blockchain right now. There are lots of cool things that the blockchain is already being used for and even more projects are sprouting up to improve on it.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked.
Well it's pretty damn easy to get a loan today.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked. The world market is much worse.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/10/30/99967/millions-of-americans-are-outside-the-financial-system/
I'm kind of sad about it, really. I think digital currencies are a neat idea and I was hoping they found a good use case. Unfortunately, like so many cases where there are billions to be made, it looks like criminals took over and rigged the system.
For now and into the foreseeable future, the best use case for crypto (speculation does not count as a use case, per my own definition) is for fraudulent activity that is difficult for authorities to follow or control. There are other use cases to be sure, but I'd wager that after speculative activity, more bitcoin has been exchanged for the purposes of money laundering, purchases of illegal goods, and tax sheltering than for all other reasons combined. So criminals may have gotten more directly involved when the market share of crypto moved into the tens and hundreds of billions of USD, but they've been massive players in this space since shortly after the Bitcoin protocol was released into the wild.
To be fair, cash has always been pretty good for those types of transactions too, but cash still has to be moved physically, and car tires, mattresses, bodies, and mail have long since been risky media to move it in. The blockchain, not so much, at least perhaps until very recently.
This is not accurate. The blockchain technology is the single greatest use of crypto. It's transparent and immutable barring a hard-fork, but if a hard-fork occurs its up to the community to determine which chain to follow. The blockchain has many uses other than just being the best form of currency governance (no one can print more Bitcoins to pay off their debt, no one can freeze your account, merchants can get paid within seconds or even instantly as opposed to waiting days with VISA/Mastercard, cheaper transaction fees, you control and are responsible for your own assets). Project's utilize their blockchains to verify the authenticity of files [DeepOnion], verify supermarket products are genuine [Wabi], allow immutable record keeping [Factom], and the ever improving smart contract development of various coins that allow cheap and seamless transactions. New uses of the blockchain technology arises everyday and even the staunchest adversaries of crypto appreciate the blockchain capabilities.
Bitcoin is the last medium I would use for any illicit purposes. Bitcoin is not private as its built upon a public ledger and there are government entities out there that successfully link Bitcoin accounts to owners. This is why cash, not Bitcoin, is king of the black market. There are however privacy coins, again not Bitcoin, that utilize unique technologies to allow untraceable payments. These coins make up a much smaller portion of the broader marketcap.
Regarding to comment on whether I want crypto to continue outperforming the stock market... Of course I do. Blockchain technology is still in its infancy and it adds value to the underlying cryptocurrencies. As the blockchain technology further develops, I'll use Bitcoin as an example, i.e. resolves its scalability issues with the Lightning Network, it would be completely feasible to use Bitcoin for daily purchases and not worry about transaction speeds and costs. More people may be drawn to crypto and we may see mass adoption of cryptocurrency as a currency. Lightning transactions are already being conducted on Bitcoin's mainet so the future is bright. No one denies that much of Bitcoin's price is driven by speculation. This creates bubbles which is why I and just about everyone else fully expected this bubble pop (which is why we aren't freaking out) but just didn't know when it would be. This speculation driven investment is not unique to crypto, it happens in stocks all the time. With P/e ratios so high, most prominently in tech (hmmmm), its only rational to acknowledge tech stocks are largely driven by speculation. As long as the speculation is rational and one doesn't go all-in on it then I don't see a problem with it.
Regarding Tether, people in crypto don't like Tether for precisely that reason. I believe the people holding it are ill-informed. One of the things about crypto is that you are responsible for your own actions and keys. Tether reeks and a lot of people may get burned. The warning bells have been going off since it came out. It doesn't say anything about the blockchain or cryptocurrencies as a whole other than stress the necessity of doing your own due diligence.
Yes there are now blockchain specialists that can trace accounts to people with enough ancillary information to aid their sleuthing, but for several years authorities were not keeping up and thus bitcoin was a means of conducting a shit ton of illegal activity. It's still the strongest use case today and has expanded into alt coins despite the crack downs in certain countries.
A lot of what you wrote was also purely your opinion, which is fair because I was largely starting my own. I only point that out because you really didn't present any facts I didn't already know. A lot of crypto enthusiasts seem to think they know more than everyone else, and ipso facto, blockchain is the best thing ever invented. I've been following bitcoin, other crypto, and blockchain use cases to some degree for over five years now. I own and have used crypto mainly so I could get sense of its usefulness relative to other mediums of exchange and for a bit of fun speculation. I'm still bearish on all existing crypto and think that blockchain tech, while certainly a cool innovation in accounting, has been overhyped by crypto enthusiasts who want to conflate that with the speculative value of their crypto holdings. I guess we'll see over time whether it really does become the most life-changing innovation since harnessing electricity.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked.
How does crypto help the unbanked? They just fire up their laptops and log in to coinbase?
The problem with the unbanked is not their data security or transfer verifiability, it's their lack of access to technology. I don't see how blockchain helps them.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked.
How does crypto help the unbanked? They just fire up their laptops and log in to coinbase?
The problem with the unbanked is not their data security or transfer verifiability, it's their lack of access to technology. I don't see how blockchain helps them.
Check out OmiseGO. Omise is an established company in South East Asia that offers lending services. Their whole crypto project is supposed to have something to do with banking the unbanked. I haven't researched it but I'm sure your answer is in their white paper. This is me speculating here, but perhaps the unbanked have access to smart phones?
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked.
How does crypto help the unbanked? They just fire up their laptops and log in to coinbase?
The problem with the unbanked is not their data security or transfer verifiability, it's their lack of access to technology. I don't see how blockchain helps them.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked.
How does crypto help the unbanked? They just fire up their laptops and log in to coinbase?
The problem with the unbanked is not their data security or transfer verifiability, it's their lack of access to technology. I don't see how blockchain helps them.
I'm assuming the unbanked have cell phones. Pay as you go, not a good deal?, mission impossible burner phones sure. But nonetheless they are already paying for the device. If you install a mobile wallet, you pay a small fee to get your BTC transferred to your wallet and then it can sit their for no cost other that what it costs you to maintain the device.
whats your bank equivalent? I keep a monster balance and have direct deposit to get my checking account for free. The savings account has a transaction limit too. If you are irregularly making a few k a month you will never avoid bank fees.
Yes, I am assuming that BTC/crypto of choice is actually a store of value. Its also assuming something like the Lightening network for BTC comes to be in the real world and is everything its promised to be. So, the technology when its fully baked could be very helpful to the unbanked.
Well it's pretty damn easy to get a loan today.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked. The world market is much worse.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/10/30/99967/millions-of-americans-are-outside-the-financial-system/
Well it's pretty damn easy to get a loan today.
Unless you are one of the 30 million people in america who are underbanked. The world market is much worse.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/10/30/99967/millions-of-americans-are-outside-the-financial-system/
Those people can't get a loan because they have no assets, collateral, or steady income sufficient to justify giving them one. Having a bank account does suck for them, but it has nothing to do with their creditworthiness. Why would I give one of those folks a loan in Bitcoins (or whatever) when I won't give them a loan in dollars?
-W
This is pretty insane. There are a lot of people (mostly millenials) investing in small transactions for stocks using RobinHood. Now they will do the same with crypto. This also puts massive pressure on existing exchanges to do better and lower fees. As millenials grow in their careers (which I see all over the tech space) they make huge leaps in earning power that will be pooring in for the next 10 years. All of this is great for both crypto and stocks.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/over-1-mln-people-sign-up-for-early-access-to-robinhoods-zero-fees-trading-service
Look at the recent robinhood user growth!
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/robincorn/
@trollwithamustache @sol,
Do you know any unbanked people? My local credit union definitely has fee free options for people with irregular income. Everyone I know that is unbanked is unbanked because they have some sort of unpaid debt that would get collected from their accounts. Cryptocurrency can solve this problem, but not in any great way (stable value, etc).
@trollwithamustache @sol,
Do you know any unbanked people?
I just don't see how blockchain helps any of these people. Their problems are not solved by distributed encryption.
So you're building your 'stash, paid down your high interest debt, and living frugally. So why invest in crypto?
Cryptocurrencies' main role in a modern portfolio is diversification
It can be unpleasant to contemplate highly unlikely yet highly impactful future outcomes such as hyperinflation.
@trollwithamustache @sol,
Do you know any unbanked people? My local credit union definitely has fee free options for people with irregular income. Everyone I know that is unbanked is unbanked because they have some sort of unpaid debt that would get collected from their accounts. Cryptocurrency can solve this problem, but not in any great way (stable value, etc).
Don't be discouraged, Surf. You're unlikely to get a warm welcome here if you show up sounding like a paid Bitcoin promoter, but if you are a real person who understands the MMM message then you'll find the form generally welcoming and supportive.
So you're building your 'stash, paid down your high interest debt, and living frugally. So why invest in crypto?
Cryptocurrencies' main role in a modern portfolio is diversification
Facepunch.
If you assume that crypto currencies are actually currencies (which is a stretch, but let's assume that for now), then crypto should replace or supplement the portion of your portfolio that is currently held in non-dollar currencies. That portion of your portfolio should equal exactly zero to begin with. Unless you are currency speculator, but that's speculating, not investing.
Your whole analysis breaks down breaks because you are assuming there is such a thing as adoption of Bitcoin. There isn't. Almost no one uses it for anything. The only people who need Bitcoin are child pornographers and drug dealers. For everybody else, the USD works perfectly. And even if you are a child pornographer or drug dealer, you still don't need Bitcoin. You could use Litecoin, or Dogecoin, or Etherium, or Fidleius, or any of a zillion cryptos out there.
No one, repeat no one, invests in Bitcoin. People speculate in Bitcoin. If you want to speculate, more power to ya. But you are a damn fool if you think speculation is the same as diversification.
I was excited to see a crypto discussion thread here on MMM forum, it's disappointing it's devolved so much. I have been researching cryptocurrencies and will do my best to provide some useful information. Disclaimer: I hold BTC and a selection of alts, in an amount that I'm comfortable losing.
Wow. First post is a bit of lip-service to MMM principles followed by a long articulate defense of cryptos on what I'm sure many of us were hoping would become a dead thread. Bravo... Slow clap...
Your devolution is another's evolution. I'm frankly glad that the resident crypto shills had mostly given up... or at least given it a rest for the time being. The MMM investing forum was turning into a crypto battleground, that I think was distracting forum members from the true goal of investing which is to become financially secure and/or independent.
Since you have been "powering through the blog," then I'm sure you are by now aware that MMM himself has called bullshit on bitcoin ( http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-stupid/ ). So you should not be surprised to find folks around here to be against cryptos. If you want to talk cryptos, you can save yourself the trouble and just move along. Or stay here but talk about literally anything else related to investing. Expect to get horribly flamed if you continue to try to advance the pro-crypto agenda. The anti-crypto members have a few things going for them: (1) foremost they are right, cryptos are basically B.S. and therefore it will be impossible to prove otherwise, (2) many are much more intelligent and educated than you and have done more research than you and will systematically dissect any B.S. pro-crypto argument, and (3) many have likely been investing longer than you have been alive and have the experience needed to repel this sort of baloney.
Thank you for disclosing that you own cryptos and have a pecuniary interest*. I think that is the most important part of your first post. It's helpful for everyone to know that you are here talkin' your book and will profit if bitcoin goes back up. There is basically no way for you to be objective. We know that you will be completely unconvinced by any argument which would would suggest, imply, or prove that they shouldn't go up in price.
*Disclaimer: I do not own an interest, long or short, in any bitcoins or other shit-coins. I try to talk people out of them because they are used to finance criminal activity, terrorism, and rogue states. And I think that they divert capital from legitimate financial markets where it would have been used to finance true economic growth.
My personal interpretation of Mustachianism is to work hard and live frugally such that we will be financially sound across as many possible future scenarios as possible.
You've missed the sustainability and environmental aspects of MMM. These are fundamental values of MMM. Cryptos are so incredibly wasteful when it comes to the energy.
Supporting crypto is like driving a gigantic gas guzzling $100k SUV to work 100 miles each way and say it's ok because you can easily afford it. Also, you leave it running all day while you work.
Facepunch.
I own maybe 20k worth of LITECOIN.
I don't expect it to go "To the moon" but it's hardly devoid of value or uses.
My personal interpretation of Mustachianism is to work hard and live frugally such that we will be financially sound across as many possible future scenarios as possible.
You've missed the sustainability and environmental aspects of MMM. These are fundamental values of MMM. Cryptos are so incredibly wasteful when it comes to the energy.
Supporting crypto is like driving a gigantic gas guzzling $100k SUV to work 100 miles each way and say it's ok because you can easily afford it. Also, you leave it running all day while you work.
Hey bender,
Environmental sustainability is the most important issue facing everyone alive today.
Sustainable energy is often the cheapest energy, and thus mining companies are gravitating towards it faster than traditional companies.
It's difficult to use the eco argument as a pro-finance, anti-crypto stand as owning a US stock index means you directly profit off of the countless oil/gas/coal fossil fuel companies that are destroying our planet and lobbying our government for the rights to do so at greater rates.
Personally I do not run any mining rigs, and I am extremely conscious of my own carbon footprint. If everyone in america behaved in a mustachian way we could be well on our way to reversing co2 emmisions imo.
In a new post today, Microsoft announced their embrace of public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, for use in decentralized identity systems. Initially, the longtime tech giant will support blockchain-based decentralized IDs (DIDs) through the Microsoft Authenticator app.
I own maybe 20k worth of LITECOIN.
I don't expect it to go "To the moon" but it's hardly devoid of value or uses.
I'm curious - why do you have $20k worth of it, if you don't expect it to appreciate in value? I have maybe $500 in actual cash at any given time, plus maybe $10k in a checking account, just because I'm too lazy to keep careful track of the balance and want to make sure I don't bounce any checks. And that's arguably way too much cash, really. I should have more of it invested in something.
So why $20k worth of crypto? Do you expect to pay $20k in AZ taxes in April or something? Do you have massive amounts of litecoin going in/out at any given time and need that balance to make sure you don't get caught short? Something else?
-W
LAS,
It's also worth a bit of perspective that everyone here, and in every finance forum, is "talkin their own book" as you call it, in that they all benefit if new investors join the stock market investing pool. We do not write off their expertise because of financial self-interest.
There are many possible future scenarios. I'd like to be set in all of them.
Several scenarios, with wildly different probabilities:
1) Status quo maintained, cryptos eventually wither to nothingness. (likely)
2) Status quo maintained, cryptos eventually boom. (likely)
3) Stock markets falter (very unlikely)
4) USD falters (exceedingly unlikely)
If you allocated 1% of your portfolio to every scheme or technology that could theoretically boom in value you’ll very quickly have a portfolio that is 100% rubbish. Even if your number 2 outcome came about (and I also thoroughly disagree with your ridiculous assessment there of ‘likely’) the chance of ‘cryptos eventually boom’ meaning that the Bitcoin you’re holding today specifically represents that future value is exceedingly unlikely.
Also love your unsubtle accusation that MMM’s bitcoin post was clickbait. Your eyes obviously glazed over when reading the actual content of the article.
I own maybe 20k worth of LITECOIN.
I don't expect it to go "To the moon" but it's hardly devoid of value or uses.
I'm curious - why do you have $20k worth of it, if you don't expect it to appreciate in value? I have maybe $500 in actual cash at any given time, plus maybe $10k in a checking account, just because I'm too lazy to keep careful track of the balance and want to make sure I don't bounce any checks. And that's arguably way too much cash, really. I should have more of it invested in something.
So why $20k worth of crypto? Do you expect to pay $20k in AZ taxes in April or something? Do you have massive amounts of litecoin going in/out at any given time and need that balance to make sure you don't get caught short? Something else?
-W
I would venture to guess he didn't start with $20k worth of litecoin but that it grew to that amount. I did the same thing last summer. Bought 100 litecoin around $60-70 per coin and then sold out around $210. It was a venture into something new and pure speculation on my part. I don't know what to believe will happen in the future. I made money on crypto and got out. I didn't get out at the top because litecoin went up to $360 or so and then back to $140 and then up to $305 and then back to $104 and now at $160. I sold during that rollercoaster somewhere.
So we're clear on this point: the consumption of oil/gas/coal that drive the economies of most of the world and have tangible daily benefits is comparable to a speculative barely-used currency with little immediate economic benefit that has been consuming so much energy it would rank in the upper third of nations if it were a nation itself? Crypto mining has had sketchy profitability lately, and even if Bitcoin went mainstream as a currency like you suggest where does the mining/energy consumption end? The models suggest mining could take decades with energy consumption increasing exponentially.
Next time, you might want to read a bit further, given that the first page of posts is ~8 months old. All the logical discussions you want to have have already happened. If you want to speculate on "currency", have at it. Lots of people like to pick stocks, play the options game, play nickel slots, etc. They're all bad ideas in general, but you can get lucky, too.
Now, if you have some Microsoft stock, blockchain might actually be making you richer soon...
-W
Next time, you might want to read a bit further, given that the first page of posts is ~8 months old. All the logical discussions you want to have have already happened. If you want to speculate on "currency", have at it. Lots of people like to pick stocks, play the options game, play nickel slots, etc. They're all bad ideas in general, but you can get lucky, too.
Now, if you have some Microsoft stock, blockchain might actually be making you richer soon...
-W
The first attempts to discuss the merits of different cryptos devolved quickly into back and forth ad hominem attacks and useless debates on semantics. There was very little utility for anyone interested in actually learning how to get involved in the space.
My aim was to bring quality information as there's a learning curve and I felt I could offer value back to a site that had given me much value. The first couple pages had many one line responses to the effect of "interested" or "following" and that high quality discussion never materialized.
Ripple, for example, has a huge market cap relative to other alts yet has pretty dismal fundamentals and is worth avoiding.
My retirement account includes funds that contain microsoft stock, as with most of you, so that's good news for all of us.
-many of the companies in the index funds we all enjoy are making staggering amounts of money turning fossil fuels into plastics that pollute our planet at an ever increasing rate. If environmental stewardship is important to you there's far more low hanging fruit for improvements to our world in existing wasteful industries than there is in crypto, which is deriving larger and larger shares of the electricity from sustainable sources and produces no physical waste products for consumption.
And that's it, I'm out.
Great - let's all get out of crypto and out of this thread. Mods please lock it down... 🔒
Man you sure are proud of yourself for your ability to stomp out logical discussions.
Man you sure are proud of yourself for your ability to stomp out logical discussions.
Dude, you jumped into a HUGe thread that's 8 months old and regurgitated stuff that has already been said (and broadly rejected). What did you expect to happen?
Also, if you're gonna flounce, flounce, man!
-W
The anti-crypto contingent stomped me into the ground, one guy literally said he was punching me in the face, replied with straw man attacks about child pornographers, without parsing ANY of the high quality information I provided. So YEAH, i'm a little frustrated that i spent hours trying to help and got this in return.
Again there's this continuous undercurrent taht I'm some sort of outsider with assumptions about ulterior motives and whether or not I have hte right to contribute here that is xenophobic and disturbing.
Stop the madness. 🔒
I get it, you and LAS and tele and sol are all fully anti-crypto and unwilling to absorb any new information at this point.
The anti-crypto contingent stomped me into the ground, one guy literally said he was punching me in the face, replied with straw man attacks about child pornographers, without parsing ANY of the high quality information I provided. So YEAH, i'm a little frustrated that i spent hours trying to help and got this in return.
I won't debate whether the USD works perfectly or whether people are actually using BTC.
It is your right to put your money where you please. Other members of the community may decide to look into crypto and I was trying to give high quality info to reduce the number of people who got burned making completely avoidable errors and help any who were interested in making more educated choices. I got nowhere near that point because I got shouted down instantly.
All right, I've got an honest question for you surf (but if you choose not to reply and bow out of the thread I understand).
You've stated that you believe Bitcoin should be people's primary crypto investment because:
A) it is the coin-of-reference in the crypto world. Eg. people buy Bitcoin with USD, and then trade Bitcoin for other alts.
B) even if Bitcoin is not the long-term cryptocurrency the transition would be gradual, and that people should re-evaluate as more information comes to light.
It seems to me that A is entirely for historical reasons and is becoming less relevant all the time, and that B is not necessarily true at all.
Bitcoin is the coin-of-reference because it was first and was always the "biggest" (in mindshare at least) even after others entered the market. So the banked exchanges allowed you to purchase Bitcoin, and the unbanked exchanges gave you the opportunity to trade all the others. However that's becoming less true as time goes on. Coinbase for example now allows you to directly purchase Bitcoin, Etherium, and Litecoin. I can't imagine that that list will ever shrink; it doesn't take much effort to continue allowing already-written code to run. And more options will be added.
It seems to me that Bitcoin has no use other than as a coin-of-reference at the moment. Very few actual purchases are transacted through Bitcoin, and the merchant support for alts will grow. There are already other coins that are faster and cheaper by design than Bitcoin could ever be. Merchants will never price things directly in Bitcoin because of its volatility.
It seems to me that Bitcoin is already useless and has no future, and the only thing preventing its plummet is the mob mentality agreeing that it's valuable. And one day that will probably change, and everyone will abandon Bitcoin and jump to the New Thing (and then probably eventually the one after that, and the one after that, etc). Maybe it will be Litecoin, or Bitcoin Cash, or Dogecoin (probably not, but I'm rooting for that little guy), or Ripple, or something as-yet undeveloped. But it should eventually happen.
And when it does, there's no reason to think that it would be (B) slow or gradual and allow people the opportunity to rebalance their "investments". Crypto crashes happen incredibly quickly. Selling everything in the middle of a panic crash is usually something everyone tells you is incredibly foolish. Except it's not in this case. A crash in Bitcoin while another stronger coin surges probably would be the trigger that changes the mob mentality. If that happens, and people collectively decide that Litecoin (or whatever) is the new Bitcoin, then not selling in the middle of the crash (assuming you can find anyone to buy at any price) would be the wrong choice and would leave you owning a lot of nothing, forever.
So I guess my question is, why am I wrong?
So I applaud the enthusiasm, but the planning was lacking and the execution fell flat. Helpful posters with thoughtful content are always welcome, but you have to know your audience. You'd get much the same reaction if you started out with a 5k word essay on which corvette is best for your mid life crisis, or the best city to buy a mcmansion, or the benefits of loan sharking. Cryptocurrencies are just antithetical to the MMM philosophy.
Surf, you write well and are welcome to join the community. Would you still be interested if you were never allowed to talk about crypto again, or is that your only interest? Because paid shills are usually single topic posters, which is what you appear to be now.
So you're building your 'stash, paid down your high interest debt, and living frugally. So why invest in crypto?
Cryptocurrencies' main role in a modern portfolio is diversification
Facepunch.
If you assume that crypto currencies are actually currencies (which is a stretch, but let's assume that for now), then crypto should replace or supplement the portion of your portfolio that is currently held in non-dollar currencies. That portion of your portfolio should equal exactly zero to begin with. Unless you are currency speculator, but that's speculating, not investing.
Your whole analysis breaks down breaks because you are assuming there is such a thing as adoption of Bitcoin. There isn't. Almost no one uses it for anything. The only people who need Bitcoin are child pornographers and drug dealers. For everybody else, the USD works perfectly. And even if you are a child pornographer or drug dealer, you still don't need Bitcoin. You could use Litecoin, or Dogecoin, or Etherium, or Fidleius, or any of a zillion cryptos out there.
No one, repeat no one, invests in Bitcoin. People speculate in Bitcoin. If you want to speculate, more power to ya. But you are a damn fool if you think speculation is the same as diversification.
Again there's this continuous undercurrent taht I'm some sort of outsider with assumptions about ulterior motives and whether or not I have hte right to contribute here that is xenophobic and disturbing.
Haha! Xenophobic?!? Really? People disagreeing with you is actually allowed here, you know. You're not required to have a huge post count to be taken seriously, but when you post something that almost nobody agrees with, as your first post, and then you *whine* about things like xenophobia (after repeatedly claiming you aren't going to participate in the discussion anymore, then coming right back to whine more) and misinterpret a commonly used term from the forum... how do you think you end up looking?
-W
I just said that if you have concerns about hyperinflation, it makes no sense to invest in something that is currently experiencing hyperinflation. That's just common sense, right? But if that point is wrong, it would have a perfect time for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Showing your work, in other words. Instead you just ran away.
FWIW there's no such thing as "paid shills" because there is no bitcoin corporation.
crypto traders value their investments using bitcoin as their frame of reference. Entire crypto portfolios are valued by how much each alt is worth when it is converted to bitcoin, and when things get rough, or btc gets bullish that is what they do. The "shitcoin" speculation of obscure alts within the crypto community is entirely based around creating an increased amount of bitcoin for the speculator/ TA trader.
You can't qualify this for all crypto traders. These statements are not wholly true. Many people do not acquire other coins to increase their bitcoin stack.
Quote
There are other coins such as Eth that seek to offer a different type of value which can and do exist in parallel with btc. They compete for investor money in the short term but occupy different tech territory in a longer timeline. BTC currently cannot execute smart contracts the way eth can(though this is purportedly in the works), and eth is centralized and mutable and much more suitable as a platform for decentralized app development and an overall platform for incorporating blockchain tech esp into the corporate realm, rather than a global financial instrument.
Eth is not centralized. Eth is as immutable as bitcoin. Your statements about eth are untrue.
QuoteThe value of a blockchain can be best understood through metcalfe's law - the value of a communications network is the square of the participants. This explains neatly (if imperfectly) why twitter is worth billions but the group chat with me and my aunt and grandma is worth nothing, other than to the 3 of us.
Network effects are meaningless metric for bitcoin relative to other blockchains. In blockchains, network effect can be replicated and is not exclusive to bitcoin. Network effects, in the current phase of crypto, are also very fleeting.
QuoteMarket cap is misleading from this perspective. For example, bcash appears overvalued, it has a market cap 1/7th of btc.
Number of transactions per day is one gauge of the overall participation rate on a blockchain.
Bcash network averages roughly 20k transactions per day. Bitcoin averages roughly 200k transactions per day. Given a roughly equal number of users making transactions (which may be off by a moderate margin in either direction) Metcalfe's law indicates that this is not a 10 fold difference, rather an exponential difference in network utility. The price gap is only a factor of 7, while from a value standpoint bitcoin may provide 100x utility(give or take reasonable calculation errors) over bcash!
These are assumptions and are not conclusive.
QuoteThe microsoft blockchain analysis cited earlier in the thread assessed that alternate blockchains to btc sacrificed either decentralization or immutability or both in order to obtain advantages in speed and efficiency. A SQL database on a server somewhere would vastly outperform bitcoin from a performance standpoint, but would have neither decentralization nor immutability and thus there would be no reason to trust it to authorize financial transactions.
Microsoft's conclusion was that second layer protocols to the bitcoin blockchain are the best solution for scaling without sacrificing the underlying fundamentals of btc and by and large the crypto community agrees.
It's not clear yet how or which ones microsoft will coordinate layer 2 protocols on. "Some public blockchains (Bitcoin [BTC], Ethereum, Litecoin, to name a select few) provide a solid foundation for rooting DIDs, recording DPKI operations, and anchoring attestations....To overcome these technical barriers, we are collaborating on decentralized Layer 2 protocols that run atop these public blockchains to achieve global scale, while preserving the attributes of a world class DID system."
https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2018/02/12/decentralized-digital-identities-and-blockchain-the-future-as-we-see-it/
FWIW there's no such thing as "paid shills" because there is no bitcoin corporation.
That's a terribly unconvincing argument, in this specific instance.
Because all of the easy money in cryptos is built around speculation, and speculation is fostered by internet forums. We already know that small bands of active crypto posters on reddit have deliberately and repeatedly manipulated public sentiment about specific altcoins immediately after converting their holdings. It's classic pump and dump. Buy into ripple, have three respected (but relatively anonymous and apparently unaffiliated) internet posters spend a week talking about how awesome ripple is, and then sell out of ripple at 50% gains. Rinse and repeat for Monero, and Litecoin, and whatever else you think you can convince people to buy. This sort of coordinated market manipulation has been hugely profitable for a core group of early adopters, because so much of the crypto market is based on internet rumors anyway. How do you think ~40 internet-famous 20-somethings each turned $10k into $50m in two years? It sure wasn't riding BTC up and down. They got in and out of the crazy cycles they helped to control.
So you don't need a bitcoin corporation to be a paid shill, because you can be an independent shill. Crypto markets are so fragile, so volatile, that it only takes a handful of thoughtful and well educated writers to "generate" a billion dollars in market cap in a few weeks time. There is no underlying revenue stream on which to base valuations, so it's purely 100% speculation and rumor. Those can be manufactured by people like you. All discussion of the technology itself is just smoke.
Any time you (anyone, not you specifically) promote a coin that you hold, you are playing this game on a small scale. If you're doing it with big money, or in coordination with other internet personas, then you're playing it on a grand scale. This stuff is blatantly illegal when wall street does it, but crypto is still the wild wild west.
That's not a good thing, the west was ugly.
Agreed, trying to protect from hyperinflation by investing in something hyperinflationary would make no sense whatsoever.
Using a tiny sample such as the prior 8 weeks of purchasing power loss without accounting for coin supply/cap, long term trends, or analysis of how a diminishing-supply, universally accessible currency would behave in the event of a government-backed currency's failure appeared to be willful ignorance and signaled an end to logical debate. I guess I misinterpreted?
Agreed, trying to protect from hyperinflation by investing in something hyperinflationary would make no sense whatsoever.
Using a tiny sample such as the prior 8 weeks of purchasing power loss without accounting for coin supply/cap, long term trends, or analysis of how a diminishing-supply, universally accessible currency would behave in the event of a government-backed currency's failure appeared to be willful ignorance and signaled an end to logical debate. I guess I misinterpreted?
Okay, let's see your data then. I would love, love, love, to be wrong. I love stats and numbers, and especially economics, so seeing coin supply/cap, long term trends, and analysis of how a diminishing-supply, universally accessible currency would behave in the event of a government-backed currency's failure is right up my alley. So please post your analysis. I'm ready for the deep dive. I'm serious as a heart attack. Spreadsheets are my thang. I really, really, want to see your analysis. I'm on board.
Oh, and "willful ignorance?" You gotta admit that things like how a "diminishing-supply, universally accessible currency would behave in the event of a government-backed currency's failure" isn't something that most people have experience with. I mean, I didn't learn about it in college. And I have no personal experience with it either.
Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Looked for it, couldn't find it. Vitamix is awesome, I'm a smoothie junky.
FWIW there's no such thing as "paid shills" because there is no bitcoin corporation.
That's a terribly unconvincing argument, in this specific instance.
Because all of the easy money in cryptos is built around speculation, and speculation is fostered by internet forums. We already know that small bands of active crypto posters on reddit have deliberately and repeatedly manipulated public sentiment about specific altcoins immediately after converting their holdings. It's classic pump and dump. Buy into ripple, have three respected (but relatively anonymous and apparently unaffiliated) internet posters spend a week talking about how awesome ripple is, and then sell out of ripple at 50% gains. Rinse and repeat for Monero, and Litecoin, and whatever else you think you can convince people to buy. This sort of coordinated market manipulation has been hugely profitable for a core group of early adopters, because so much of the crypto market is based on internet rumors anyway. How do you think ~40 internet-famous 20-somethings each turned $10k into $50m in two years? It sure wasn't riding BTC up and down. They got in and out of the crazy cycles they helped to control.
So you don't need a bitcoin corporation to be a paid shill, because you can be an independent shill. Crypto markets are so fragile, so volatile, that it only takes a handful of thoughtful and well educated writers to "generate" a billion dollars in market cap in a few weeks time. There is no underlying revenue stream on which to base valuations, so it's purely 100% speculation and rumor. Those can be manufactured by people like you. All discussion of the technology itself is just smoke.
Any time you (anyone, not you specifically) promote a coin that you hold, you are playing this game on a small scale. If you're doing it with big money, or in coordination with other internet personas, then you're playing it on a grand scale. This stuff is blatantly illegal when wall street does it, but crypto is still the wild wild west.
That's not a good thing, the west was ugly.
Hmmm. That is very thought provoking and makes me want to not talk crypto anymore. Thank you.
All right, I've got an honest question for you surfAs I proofread this post and review yours to make sure I responded to the important ideas you raised, it occurs to me that I may be Charlie Brown with the football here, and your entire post may have actually been an elaborate dismissal. Fingers crossed!
FYI, Surf, you've mentioned the forum search function a couple times. It's borderline-worthless; the best way to search the forum is to just use Google and site:forum.mrmoneymustache.com to filter the results.Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Looked for it, couldn't find it. Vitamix is awesome, I'm a smoothie junky.
FYI, Surf, you've mentioned the forum search function a couple times. It's borderline-worthless; the best way to search the forum is to just use Google and site:forum.mrmoneymustache.com to filter the results.Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Looked for it, couldn't find it. Vitamix is awesome, I'm a smoothie junky.
Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Looked for it, couldn't find it. Vitamix is awesome, I'm a smoothie junky.
It's somewhere in the Shame and Comedy section. I'm certain we've taken that particular kitchen device out behind the tool shed.
Stop the madness. 🔒
Oh, I don't know. I think we benefit by swatting the flies. Ridiculous posts need to be heard, and ridiculed.
Now I'm off to start a new thread about vitamix blenders. Blenders have changed my life!
Looked for it, couldn't find it. Vitamix is awesome, I'm a smoothie junky.
It's somewhere in the Shame and Comedy section. I'm certain we've taken that particular kitchen device out behind the tool shed.
I did not realize that was tongue-in-cheek. I got my vitamix 9 years ago on a refurb sale and have used it daily since then. It's more than paid for itself as I was burning out blenders about once a year before getting mine. Just used it to make a lunch smoothie and it's still kicking!
Just wanted to comment that sol's post is not in any way speculative or conspiracy-theory oriented. We have definitely seen several new brand new users pop up, post one time about their scam ico / pump-and-dump "shitcoin" (linking to their blog that's similarly singularly focused in their signature), and then promptly disappear forever after the mods removed it. I have flagged one or two for the mods to look at myself.
Cryptocurrencies are absolutely in the wild west, and it will be very hard for them to climb out of that untrusted state. It seems every single week (if not day) you hear about yet another ICO scam, a new exchange exit scam / "getting hacked", a new coin-mining malware / unethical websites using your browser to mine without telling you / people using university / government / corporate computers to mine for them (illegally / unethically). Add on top of that the regular old giant speculative bubbles where regular Joes get tricked into "investing" at the top due to the FOMO, possible (probable?) regular old fraud that's underwriting maybe a third of the crytpo market from Tether, the correct fact that cryptos are in fact used to a large degree for purposes that would otherwise be illegal / unethical, and the difficulty of convincing people that an asset that has no fundamentals or revenue stream or traditional value proposition is an "investment".
I don't know if the proper solution is just to stop talking about it whatsoever, I actually probably agree that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and will have some sort of very-long-term value proposition. But at some point just throwing the "do your own research" and "don't invest more than you're willing to lose" and "well you should have known not to store your money on an exchange" buzzwords around is not sufficient, and will make people suspicious of your ulterior motives. Cryptos are burning through public trust very quickly right now. There has never been a more clear argument *for* financial regulations that I've ever seen.
All right, I've got an honest question for you surfAs I proofread this post and review yours to make sure I responded to the important ideas you raised, it occurs to me that I may be Charlie Brown with the football here, and your entire post may have actually been an elaborate dismissal. Fingers crossed!
It wasn't, it was an honest question, although I'm obviously fairly sceptical of the current state of cryptos.
If I may summarize your response, you believe that Bitcoin will be the long-term winner because the momentum of the large current user / merchant / developer base will allow it to react and evolve faster than anything else could grow. You may be right but I actually hope you're not. Bitcoin seems to be one of the worst cryptos in regard to energy requirements for mining, and I don't agree that mining will become less valuable if Bitcoin continues to be king. That adds up to a terrible waste of energy just because people are unwilling to move to a better solution.
I meant to mention it earlier but I found your comparison to Linux interesting. I think it's probably a fair comparison, but not in the favourable way you meant it. I think an individual cryptocurrency is probably comparable to an individual Linux distribution, not to the whole Linux ecosystem. Linux distributions come and go and gain and lose popularity all the time. And yes, there are some big players who stay relevant for a long time. But there are no guarantees, and since everything in the Linux world is open source and freely available there is nothing to prevent some upstart from creating their own distribution that does something better and convincing a huge portion of the userbase to switch. It's a safe bet that Linux as an operating system will stay relevant forever. Any individual distribution not so much.
People who burn out blenders confuse me. I've got a 1970s Osterizer (it has some fancy faux wood panelling on the side so I figure it's from the 70s?) that I've been using since before university. I blend shit all the time. Everything from green kale or red beet smoothies, to breaking up ice for mixed drinks, to pureeing stuff to thicken drinks. That thing has had constant use for years, and provided you occasionally oil the spinny parts (I use some olive oil) it seems like it will never die.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/J7QAAOSw3YJZTAz3/s-l300.jpg)
Tether may or may not be fraud, I cannot verify so I do not use it. There's what, 2bln tether? The crytpo market cap is ~450bln right now. I have not done research to determine the overall price shift that would occur if tether were to be fraudulent. The exchanges make so much money that there is a non-zero chance that it's actually backed by USDs.
Surf, as a new member, it's been suggested you post elsewhere for a while, outside the crypto space. Yet, you've now on post #30, all in the same crypto thread.
I think you're at risk of getting banned at this point. Please take a break from this controversial thread. MMM forums don't need this.
Surf, as a new member, it's been suggested you post elsewhere for a while, outside the crypto space. Yet, you've now on post #30, all in the same crypto thread.
I think you're at risk of getting banned at this point. Please take a break from this controversial thread. MMM forums don't need this.
Devils advocate here... A lot of his posts and responses have been well thought out and he's not simply telling people to buy XYZ coin. He's posting in a cryptocurrency thread which is where cryptocurrency conversation is supposed to happen. If he was spamming cooking, real estate, case study threads, etc with crypto talk then it would make sense to mention banning. If other MMM members don't want to see a "controversial" thread topic like cryptocurrencies then simply don't click the thread or have the Mods remove the thread all together.
The point is that if all you have to offer in 3 days as a new member is 30 posts in support of crypto, you probably came to the wrong forum altogether.
Surf, as a new member, it's been suggested you post elsewhere for a while, outside the crypto space. Yet, you've now on post #30, all in the same crypto thread.
I think you're at risk of getting banned at this point. Please take a break from this controversial thread. MMM forums don't need this.
So you don't need a bitcoin corporation to be a paid shill, because you can be an independent shill. Crypto markets are so fragile, so volatile, that it only takes a handful of thoughtful and well educated writers to "generate" a billion dollars in market cap in a few weeks time. There is no underlying revenue stream on which to base valuations, so it's purely 100% speculation and rumor. Those can be manufactured by people like you. All discussion of the technology itself is just smoke.Yes, certain communications by those in control of companies or markets to pump-and-dump stock are illegal and the SEC can take legal action because of it. It is in no way illegal for the average Joe to talk about why he chooses to hold (or not) stock XYZ. Nothing like the SEC is watching over those in control of crypto-currencies or their exchanges making this the wild wild west; and it looks like there has been plenty to be concerned about in this realm. Based on what I have read by @Surf here I don't think that he is a part of that. You could reasonably argue that all most of on this forum are guilty of promoting securities that we hold (usually in the form of low-cost index funds). I appreciate the arguments based on the differences between the types of securities (companies doing business to create profits vs. tokens that do nothing other than represent their volatile value on an immutable decentralized public ledger).
Any time you (anyone, not you specifically) promote a coin that you hold, you are playing this game on a small scale. If you're doing it with big money, or in coordination with other internet personas, then you're playing it on a grand scale. This stuff is blatantly illegal when wall street does it, but crypto is still the wild wild west.
That's not a good thing, the west was ugly.
@sol can be quite interesting to read when he's talking about stuff that he likes, but like you, I tend to dislike his style when responding to things he disagrees with.
Surf, as a new member, it's been suggested you post elsewhere for a while, outside the crypto space. Yet, you've now on post #30, all in the same crypto thread.
I think you're at risk of getting banned at this point. Please take a break from this controversial thread. MMM forums don't need this.
Devils advocate here... A lot of his posts and responses have been well thought out and he's not simply telling people to buy XYZ coin. He's posting in a cryptocurrency thread which is where cryptocurrency conversation is supposed to happen. If he was spamming cooking, real estate, case study threads, etc with crypto talk then it would make sense to mention banning. If other MMM members don't want to see a "controversial" thread topic like cryptocurrencies then simply don't click the thread or have the Mods remove the thread all together.
The point is that if all you have to offer in 3 days as a new member is 30 posts in support of crypto, you probably came to the wrong forum altogether.
Hey, fellow Mustachians!
So my official position on crypto is that I fully support blockchain technology and crypto, in my current view, is the best way to bring blockchain tech to the point where these other technologies become economically and socially viable. I also see that our official currencies are also mostly based on trust and speculation (this is obviously ignoring other economic factors such as production and earnings) and so see crypto as a new globalised currency that, using smart contracts, can help both businesses and individuals who transfer large sums across borders.
That said, I mine Ethereum and invest it into a tokenised Index fund inspired by the S&P 500. It's called Crypto20, and as the name suggests, it holds 20 of the top performing coins on the market. I feel that this significantly reduces my risk and allows me to focus on the long-term gains.
I invested $1800 in November at $0.8 per coin and the current value is roughly $2 after 4 months. That puts my potential earnings at $1440. I only put in as much as I was willing to lose. Now I mine and use what I make from mining to invest in Crypto20. Within the next few months, I plan to withdraw the cost of my miner $2500 and the initial $1800 to break even, leaving the mined Crypto20 fund for the next 10 years. I may not withdraw the initial cash injection, instead, leaving it to mature, or not, as I was willing to lose it in the 1st place.
That said, I mine Ethereum and invest it into a tokenised Index fund inspired by the S&P 500. It's called Crypto20, and as the name suggests, it holds 20 of the top performing coins on the market. I feel that this significantly reduces my risk and allows me to focus on the long-term gains.
Has there been discussion about investing in blockchain tech without buying a coin? I don't believe in the future of the coins in the near term.
That said, I mine Ethereum and invest it into a tokenised Index fund inspired by the S&P 500. It's called Crypto20, and as the name suggests, it holds 20 of the top performing coins on the market. I feel that this significantly reduces my risk and allows me to focus on the long-term gains.
Guess Jamie "bitcoin is a fraud" Dimon has changed his mind.
"We examine the potential role of CCs in terms of offering diversification in a global portfolio, given both their high returns over the past several years and their low correlation with the major asset classes, offsetting some of the cost of high volatility. If past returns, volatilities and correlations persist, CCs could potentially have a role in diversifying one’s global bond and equity portfolio."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-11/jpmorgan-publishes-bitcoin-bible
I am still bullish on using asset allocation strategies like the Larry portfolio, Golden Butterfly, and Bernsteins teachings but including CC in them as a diversifier and hedge. The returns on the modified Golden butterfly portfolio are beating S&P 500 (90/10), pure GB, Larry, and all the other asset mixes I track even with the crazy volatility. I tilt towards diversification and portfolios with the highest returns and the lowest potential drawdowns however. Drawdowns do not concern most people on this forum and if that is the case just stay 100% in VSTAX and keep hating on CCs (and gold).
Our MMM community seems to include both crypto-skeptics and crypto-boosters.
But let's say that I'm a crypto-skeptic. Does that still mean the optimal allocation to crypto is zero? I can see how the variability of price means I can rebalance to having 1% of a portfolio in crypto and feel like I'm well-positioned for a low-probability, high-value future in which the boosters are vindicated.
If you allocated 1% of your portfolio to every scheme or technology that could theoretically boom in value you’ll very quickly have a portfolio that is 100% rubbish. Even if your number 2 outcome came about (and I also thoroughly disagree with your ridiculous assessment there of ‘likely’) the chance of ‘cryptos eventually boom’ meaning that the Bitcoin (or any other currently existing coin) you’re holding today specifically represents that future value is exceedingly unlikely.
Has there been discussion about investing in blockchain tech without buying a coin? I don't believe in the future of the coins in the near term.
But let's say that I'm a crypto-skeptic. Does that still mean the optimal allocation to crypto is zero?
But let's say that I'm a crypto-skeptic. Does that still mean the optimal allocation to crypto is zero?
The economic importance of blockchain, as a clever software idea, is definitely not clear yet but no one believes it is worth a half trillion dollars (the current market cap).
its interesting that in this whole block chain portfolio discussion we always focus on crypto coins and none of the software companies or other applications.
I can see some uses. Blockchain is a distributed ledger. So you could use to do things like track the provenance of pieces of art, or maybe firearms, diamonds, cars, bottles of alcohol, real estate, or anything you wanted to keep track of.
So it might be useful, but it is an incremental step in bookkeeping. It isn't like discovering fire or antibotics.
There is a large percentage of people who are amazing, thoughtful, and actually trying to help others get to FI.
it seems like now if you post ANYTHING positive on this thread, you get massivly attacked.
Sounds like the same old arguments for the internet in the 90s. Ya right, chat room is really going to revolutionize society. Napster is for theives, nobody wants a lower quality MP3 if they can get a CD. Shopping online? Why would I do that
Eventually, you will understand when it is the backbone of society.
I am surprised that this board out of all boards is so closed minded about a potentially disruptive technology that can help many people in the world
Let's go attack stock options stragegies because that is "complicated", or maybe gold in our asset allocation, or some other useless investments because they are not S&P 500 or bonds.
Napster was for pirates though.
Napster was for pirates though.
Corrected. Pirating != theft, no matter how often the RIAA or similar tries to drown us in that particular bit of propaganda. One is making an illegal copy, one removes the original from the rightful owner and therefore does more damage and is a worse crime.
But yes I agree, Napster was 100% for pirates. Even today although torrenting does have some legitimate use-cases, it's still mostly for pirates and will never replace direct download.
Even today although torrenting does have some legitimate use-cases, it's still mostly for pirates and will never replace direct download.Torrent downloads should replace free direct downloads in most cases. The best way to publicly distribute large files over the internet is through torrent downloads where the publisher continuously seeds the torrent. If few people are downloading the file, they'll mostly direct download from the publisher; if many people are downloading the file, the peer-to-peer network will relieve strain on the publisher's server and increase throughput for everyone. This is why many Linux distributions use torrents. For large files, the only reason not to torrent is to control who has access to the download.
Torrent downloads should replace free direct downloads in most cases. The best way to publicly distribute large files over the internet is through torrent downloads where the publisher continuously seeds the torrent. If few people are downloading the file, they'll mostly direct download from the publisher; if many people are downloading the file, the peer-to-peer network will relieve strain on the publisher's server and increase throughput for everyone. This is why many Linux distributions use torrents. For large files, the only reason not to torrent is to control who has access to the download.
Even today although torrenting does have some legitimate use-cases, it's still mostly for pirates and will never replace direct download.Torrent downloads should replace free direct downloads in most cases. The best way to publicly distribute large files over the internet is through torrent downloads where the publisher continuously seeds the torrent. If few people are downloading the file, they'll mostly direct download from the publisher; if many people are downloading the file, the peer-to-peer network will relieve strain on the publisher's server and increase throughput for everyone. This is why many Linux distributions use torrents. For large files, the only reason not to torrent is to control who has access to the download.
I guess I find the psychology of investment interesting. In this instance the mixture of limited experience, limited information, hubris and over confidence, FOMO and mass hysteria has been quite the spectacle.
I will say that one good thing to come out of all this is the chance to watch one of these mass delusion bubbles happen in real time instead of a history book. You can even kinda feel the psychology tugging at your own brain. "These people are all so dumb, I could just throw a couple grand in and double it.." I don't quite know what the difference is between me and all the people who dip the toe in and then take a dive - a sickly cocktail of a little bit greedier, maybe a little bit more dissatisfaction with current state of life (looking for 'cheap winnings' to escape situation), a little bit less financially cautious. Maybe the wrong google searches taking them to r/bitcoin instead of r/buttcoin, maybe they actually believe all the ludicrous hype, maybe they've had bad experiences with banks and are looking for alternatives in all the wrong places.
Penny stocks are a stupid investment. The community here, including MMM, have determined crypto is much the same.
Insightful post mrhorsey. It makes me wonder more about the youthfulness/financial experience of crypto supporters.
Having lived through the tech bubble of 2000 and the 2008 financial crisis, I can tell you these events have shaped my views on investing. I think that those who experienced one or both of these events, especially with significant financial exposure to the market are more likely to shun crypto.
For example if you remember the Pets.com TV ads, with the sock puppet stating "pets.com... because pets can't drive!" - you're probably not a crypto supporter. We've seen the hype and 'irrational exuberance' and have seen how a vast majority of these end.
Great analysis of the could-have-beens, should'vebeens, has beens of the techboom Telecaster.
One point I'd like to add is that crypto fans seem to miss is that disruptive technologies are all around us. Cars, Airlines, The Internet. And they've all had their booms, they've all attracted capital from investors trying to capitalise on their booms, but in the beginning of each boom it's near impossible figuring out which companies will a) survive, b) prosper and c) dominate once an industry matures.
If you had bet that cars would take over the world, you'd be right. But as one example, which horse and carriage maker converting to automobiles would you have put your money on? There are many many many car manufacturers that never made it.
Even today although torrenting does have some legitimate use-cases, it's still mostly for pirates and will never replace direct download.Torrent downloads should replace free direct downloads in most cases. The best way to publicly distribute large files over the internet is through torrent downloads where the publisher continuously seeds the torrent. If few people are downloading the file, they'll mostly direct download from the publisher; if many people are downloading the file, the peer-to-peer network will relieve strain on the publisher's server and increase throughput for everyone. This is why many Linux distributions use torrents. For large files, the only reason not to torrent is to control who has access to the download.
I think you're wrong. Like Sol said, the benefits of a peer-to-peer network are already incorporated and surpassed in Content Distribution Networks that employ geographically distributed datacenter caches. And that is and always will be a better distribution model than true peer-to-peer networking or torrenting. The low latency and high bandwidth of CDN networks (not to mention other features, like cache invalidation if you want to pull something back) will never be matched by torrents that rely on the last-mile connection to Joe Shmoe.
And it will always be cheaper for the companies involved to do it this way too. The bandwidth that ISPs offer consumers is what you'll get on average given their statistical usage models, but it is vastly vastly overcommitted. If everyone started uploading something at once you would not see anything close to your advertised upload speed. It is much cheaper to do things like they are now - with datacenters that have enormous bandwidth that are in close physical proximity to the customers they are serving - that it would be to upgrade everyone in the world's last-mile connection (and all the upstream switches and wires that would have to be upgraded a billion-fold to match).
Linux distributions use torrents because they are free community projects that don't have budget to pay a CDN for their services and so have to settle for the next-best thing, not because they are visionaries that see something that YouTube or Netflix doesn't.
And like GuitarStv said, we shall see, but I can't see how it'll be any different for Blockchain technology. As with torrents there will be a few legitimate long-term use-cases, but there will be better technical solutions for most things.
This market is messed up by the "systemic risk" argument. Since the big banks won't let you margin up buying BTC, there isn't much systemic risk. But its worse, most retail brokers won't even let you short the BTC futures. So the dumb money is going long because its the only thing they can do.
The smart money is buying BTC and selling over priced futures contracts. They will close the near contract and open the next. This will keep a buying pressure on actual bitcoin for the next few months at least. sure you have capital holding costs and some MESSY transaction costs, but there is over a 1300 spread between a coin now on coinbase and a January 17th coin on the CBOE.
I don't see a correction for a few months at a minimum.
Crypto proponents literally make themselves rich by convincing other people to bid up the price of coins they already own. It's classic conflict of interest.
Crypto skeptics generally have nothing to gain by convincing people to avoid investing in crypto. I don't own any, so I don't make or lose any money based on your decisions.
I guess this simplified analysis could be clouded by shorters. Is it even possible to short sell cryptos yet?
Great analysis there and I can relate.
I'll be the first to admit that the idea of putting some money into crypto currency had previously crossed my mind. My interest was initially piqued by the hype about the disruptive nature of the technology. But even when I became more skeptical I still thought it could be a 'greater fool' type speculation, although the ethics of doing that turns me off. But a younger version of myself probably would have thought more seriously about diving in. I've certainly made a few stock picks earlier on in my life that turned into a centrifuge of value destruction.
But I don't think crypto fans are dumb, although they perhaps aren't skilled at extracting their own desires from a disinterested and objectively analysis of this phenomena. My guess is that they are drawing rational conclusions based on the information they have. Their psychological investment seems to suppress critical evaluation. There's also a strong confirmation bias mixed with relative inexperience that then starts filtering out all the information that seems to conflict with the outcome they are hoping for. I can definitely relate to this when I think back to my earlier stock picking mistakes.
The people who I have personally come across who are into crypto do seem to have something in common. They appear to be trying to make quick gains to compensate for living beyond their means for the previous decade, or two decades, or in one instance three and half decades. It's like they never ever thought to think long term about their finances either due to disinterest, lack of financial literacy, lack of confidence, a sense of hopelessness or a combination of any of the above and more. One day they realise they need to do something about their situation and 7% average returns per annum via the stockmarket just doesn't cut it, or they don't have enough savings for it to be of interest, and btw, the Stockmarket is risky/overvalued/going to fall any minute, didn't you hear? And so bizarrely they find themselves researching bitcoin.
So if you haven't turned your mind to investing, and if it's frankly too late to let compounding returns of diversified investments work for you, then the gains that are breathlessly reported in the media certainly creates conditions where the allure becomes irresistible.
That's not to say all crypto fans are in this situation, and probably doesn't account for the early or earlier adopters. I'm probably more familiar with late comers to the hype.
Great analysis of the could-have-beens, should'vebeens, has beens of the techboom Telecaster.
One point I'd like to add is that crypto fans seem to miss is that disruptive technologies are all around us. Cars, Airlines, The Internet. And they've all had their booms, they've all attracted capital from investors trying to capitalise on their booms, but in the beginning of each boom it's near impossible figuring out which companies will a) survive, b) prosper and c) dominate once an industry matures.
If you had bet that cars would take over the world, you'd be right. But as one example, which horse and carriage maker converting to automobiles would you have put your money on? There are many many many car manufacturers that never made it.
Indeed. Here is an exerprt from Warren Buffett's famous 1999 Forbes article. For context, this is when Internet stocks were flying high and could do no wrong. Emphasis mine.
The other truly transforming business invention of the first quarter of the century, besides the car, was the airplane--another industry whose plainly brilliant future would have caused investors to salivate. So I went back to check out aircraft manufacturers and found that in the 1919-39 period, there were about 300 companies, only a handful still breathing today. Among the planes made then--we must have been the Silicon Valley of that age--were both the Nebraska and the Omaha, two aircraft that even the most loyal Nebraskan no longer relies upon.
Move on to failures of airlines. Here's a list of 129 airlines that in the past 20 years filed for bankruptcy. Continental was smart enough to make that list twice. As of 1992, in fact--though the picture would have improved since then--the money that had been made since the dawn of aviation by all of this country's airline companies was zero. Absolutely zero.
Sizing all this up, I like to think that if I'd been at Kitty Hawk in 1903 when Orville Wright took off, I would have been farsighted enough, and public-spirited enough--I owed this to future capitalists--to shoot him down. I mean, Karl Marx couldn't have done as much damage to capitalists as Orville did.
I won't dwell on other glamorous businesses that dramatically changed our lives but concurrently failed to deliver rewards to U.S. investors: the manufacture of radios and televisions, for example. But I will draw a lesson from these businesses: The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/11/22/269071/index.htm
This market is messed up by the "systemic risk" argument. Since the big banks won't let you margin up buying BTC, there isn't much systemic risk. But its worse, most retail brokers won't even let you short the BTC futures. So the dumb money is going long because its the only thing they can do.
The smart money is buying BTC and selling over priced futures contracts. They will close the near contract and open the next. This will keep a buying pressure on actual bitcoin for the next few months at least. sure you have capital holding costs and some MESSY transaction costs, but there is over a 1300 spread between a coin now on coinbase and a January 17th coin on the CBOE.
I don't see a correction for a few months at a minimum.
LOL. Woops.
Price on 12/11/17 : ~$17000
Price today : ~$10,000
loss of 41%.
Your post sounded all intelligent and stuff though. Nice job.
Crypto proponents literally make themselves rich by convincing other people to bid up the price of coins they already own. It's classic conflict of interest.
Crypto skeptics generally have nothing to gain by convincing people to avoid investing in crypto. I don't own any, so I don't make or lose any money based on your decisions.
I guess this simplified analysis could be clouded by shorters. Is it even possible to short sell cryptos yet?
This is a false dichotomy as everyone in here who stomps on crypto and beats the drum of index funds benefits when everyone else sticks to the plan of index funds. The wall of pain thrown up against any discussion has a territorial protecting-our-turf feel to it. If you're reading these posts from the mindset of "crypto is worthless and there's nothing you can say to convince me" then we are all wasting our time.
I've learned from both sides and am honestly quite intimidated by the entire prospect of managing my long-term finances. I read all the JCollins stock articles. they seem great and very bullish but he has holes in his gameplan for possible future timelines. And an unscientific flair for extolling stock virtues that, if you replaced the word "stock" with ICO could be mistaken for a crypto launch post.
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
Also the more I learn about traditional markets, the more the "Stay away it's all market manipulation!" argument against crypto gets weaker.
But yeah, don't buy shitcoins and participate in random ICOs bc they have a flashy website, please. And don't buy crypto to try and get rich. It's simply a relatively uncorrelated, new asset class that diversifies a portfolio and may provide a hedge against traditional markets/currencies.
I'll get flamed for saying that but it's basically the opinion of the JPMorgan Global Research Division, and their CEO calls bitcoin a fraud. B/c y'know, CEOs of banks are terrified that CCs will undermine their massive profits. In Bank of America's annual report to the SEC https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm) they cited cryptocurrencies as a direct competitor and threat to their profit margins.
From a philosophical standpoint the reason why you buy bitcoin for example, over microsoft stock that is using open source bitcoin code, is for the reason my economics 101 prof taught me long before crypto existed: that the marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past. The physical operation of it wastes money and the armies of employees and executives that run each bank siphon tremendous amounts of money out of the financial ecosystem to make trusted transactions possible. But we use it, he said, because of habit, because change is ponderous, because it is entrenched, and mainly because we have no other option.
Once you realize that cumbersome and expensive system is suddenly optional it opens up a whole new perspective. And once you participate in it and realize how game changing it could be you want to share it with everyone.
CEOs of banks are terrified that CCs will undermine their massive profits. In Bank of America's annual report to the SEC https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm) they cited cryptocurrencies as a direct competitor and threat to their profit margins.
To be fair, these posts are more than 2 months apart. Of course, the recent low for bitcoin was before 2/11/2018 - ~$7000 on 2/5/18 and the price has remained below $17,000 since 1/6/2018. If the prediction had been "I see a correction within a few months maximum" it might have been spot on (assuming the correction is over rather than simply resting - hard to tell with current data).This market is messed up by the "systemic risk" argument. Since the big banks won't let you margin up buying BTC, there isn't much systemic risk. But its worse, most retail brokers won't even let you short the BTC futures. So the dumb money is going long because its the only thing they can do.LOL. Woops.
The smart money is buying BTC and selling over priced futures contracts. They will close the near contract and open the next. This will keep a buying pressure on actual bitcoin for the next few months at least. sure you have capital holding costs and some MESSY transaction costs, but there is over a 1300 spread between a coin now on coinbase and a January 17th coin on the CBOE.
I don't see a correction for a few months at a minimum.
Price on 12/11/17 : ~$17000
Price today : ~$10,000
loss of 41%.
Your post sounded all intelligent and stuff though. Nice job.
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
From a philosophical standpoint the reason why you buy bitcoin for example, over microsoft stock that is using open source bitcoin code, is for the reason my economics 101 prof taught me long before crypto existed: that the marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past. The physical operation of it wastes money and the armies of employees and executives that run each bank siphon tremendous amounts of money out of the financial ecosystem to make trusted transactions possible. But we use it, he said, because of habit, because change is ponderous, because it is entrenched, and mainly because we have no other option.
Once you realize that cumbersome and expensive system is suddenly optional it opens up a whole new perspective. And once you participate in it and realize how game changing it could be you want to share it with everyone.
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
You think that investing in a diversified stock mutual fund is insufficiently diverse because it doesn't include new asset classes like crypto?
By that same logic, you can be healthier if you diversify your fitness plan by eschewing diet and exercise and including a small allocation to heroin use. For the sake of moderation. You wouldn't want to put all of your eggs in the "diet and exercise" basket when there are so many alternatives out there for diversification. Why risk missing out on the potential upside of heroin?
Blockchain is an interesting idea, but as far as I can tell crypto coins are all 100% scam products designed from the outset to defraud investors. They are deliberately constructed to avoid regulations and consumer protections, to bypass sanctions, and to facilitate illegal activity. Their only value to anyone is as a way to cash in on internet hype by convincing people to give you money in exchange for a digital object that creates no revenue stream. It's modern day snake oil, all breathless promises and no substance.
I really really wanted to love bitcoin. I tried so hard to justify it's existence, to find a profitable use case that would justify a nonzero price, but so far I'm coming up empty. If someone out there in mustache land has an economic justification for a price above zero, I'm still eagerly seeking it out. Please share.
At this point I'd rather invest in beanie babies. At least there are collectors out there that value pristine examples of early edition ones, and they are distinguishable physical objects that took real work to create. They also lack a revenue stream or a justification for existing beyond fanboy demand, but at least they literally exist in the universe instead of just as tradeable ideas.
Crypto proponents literally make themselves rich by convincing other people to bid up the price of coins they already own. It's classic conflict of interest.
Crypto skeptics generally have nothing to gain by convincing people to avoid investing in crypto. I don't own any, so I don't make or lose any money based on your decisions.
I guess this simplified analysis could be clouded by shorters. Is it even possible to short sell cryptos yet?
This is a false dichotomy as everyone in here who stomps on crypto and beats the drum of index funds benefits when everyone else sticks to the plan of index funds. The wall of pain thrown up against any discussion has a territorial protecting-our-turf feel to it. If you're reading these posts from the mindset of "crypto is worthless and there's nothing you can say to convince me" then we are all wasting our time.
I've learned from both sides and am honestly quite intimidated by the entire prospect of managing my long-term finances. I read all the JCollins stock articles. they seem great and very bullish but he has holes in his gameplan for possible future timelines. And an unscientific flair for extolling stock virtues that, if you replaced the word "stock" with ICO could be mistaken for a crypto launch post.
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
Also the more I learn about traditional markets, the more the "Stay away it's all market manipulation!" argument against crypto gets weaker.
But yeah, don't buy shitcoins and participate in random ICOs bc they have a flashy website, please. And don't buy crypto to try and get rich. It's simply a relatively uncorrelated, new asset class that diversifies a portfolio and may provide a hedge against traditional markets/currencies.
I'll get flamed for saying that but it's basically the opinion of the JPMorgan Global Research Division, and their CEO calls bitcoin a fraud. B/c y'know, CEOs of banks are terrified that CCs will undermine their massive profits. In Bank of America's annual report to the SEC https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085818000009/bac-1231201710xk.htm) they cited cryptocurrencies as a direct competitor and threat to their profit margins.
From a philosophical standpoint the reason why you buy bitcoin for example, over microsoft stock that is using open source bitcoin code, is for the reason my economics 101 prof taught me long before crypto existed: that the marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past. The physical operation of it wastes money and the armies of employees and executives that run each bank siphon tremendous amounts of money out of the financial ecosystem to make trusted transactions possible. But we use it, he said, because of habit, because change is ponderous, because it is entrenched, and mainly because we have no other option.
Once you realize that cumbersome and expensive system is suddenly optional it opens up a whole new perspective. And once you participate in it and realize how game changing it could be you want to share it with everyone.
yeah. I just don't buy it. CC is essentially the same concept as any other currency, ie gold. when Jesus walked the earth, 1oz of gold could buy a nice robe. Today, 1oz of gold can buy a nice suit. in other words, gold has bounced around more than the stock market, however in the end after thousands of years it's worth essentially the same amount.
How can bitcoin be a reliable currency when it fluctuates an insane amount in a day? How can Apple possibly price it's iphones in Bitcoin, for example, if the value of bitcoin goes up and down so much? They can't. A currency needs to be STABLE, not more volatile than the stock market on crack.
The comment about marble banks being a thing of the past - yeah I agree. It's called Ally bank. Discover Bank. Simple Bank. etc. etc. online banking is replacing brick and mortar. Credit Cards replaced cash. Paypal replaced wire transfers. But one fundamental difference - they all use DOLLARS as their currency. We can exchange DOLLARS back and forth electronically w/ ease and instantaneously for nearly nothing these days, and it's safe! AND backed by FDIC insurance... Technology will improve, maybe block chain has a role in that, but buying ANY currency whether it be gold, bitcoin, or sheep skin, is SPECULATING. not investing. big big BIG difference.
Investing is owning something that PAYS you a share of it's profits. Ie a business. Or owning a loan instrument that PAYS you interest (bond, CD, etc). Or maybe owning a piece of real estate that PAYS you rent. At the end of the day, if you aren't being PAID you aren't investing. It's that simple. Buying something and then hoping a bigger fool will come along and buy it from you for a higher price is gambling, not investing.
i don't wish to address every point you make but these two points struck me:The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
Having all your money invested in a 100% US Vanguard index fund certainly isn't putting your funds into every single basket. But it sure is a lot of baskets.
I'm writing this as an Australian who has around 50% allocated to international indexes. I wish I could have the US domestic market as my home market as it's significantly more diverse than Australia (which like Canada is dominated by resources and financial companies).
No market is perfect, but the stockmarket is a workable compromise that offers diversification, some degree of transparency, reasonable regulatory oversight, a ready market of buyers and sellers and liquidity. It's a functional proxy for the US economy, but structured in such a way that you can get in and out without too many transactions costs. Which is made easier via an index fund.
If 100% stocks isn't your thing then you could go to one of the blended life strategy funds that mixes in international exposure, as well as fixed interest, property or whatever mix they are offering.
You probably know about these options and they may not be for you and that's fine.
I thought I'd point it out however as the idea of wanting to maximise your return by slicing and dicing every single egg to put it into every single basket is potentially a case of over thinking, over optimising and spending energy to maximise returns, but engaging in an exercise that really offers marginal benefits.
Don't forget that the more time you spend trying to become an expert in crypto currency, index investing, stock picking etc etc, is less time you spend going surfing, hiking, learning new recipes, riding a bike which are investments with undeniably tangible returns on mental and physical health. Frankly, squeezing a few more extra per cent out of a asset allocation is a waste of your precious time on this planet compared to enriching your experiential world!
(Woops, that escalated quickly).
From a philosophical standpoint the reason why you buy bitcoin for example, over microsoft stock that is using open source bitcoin code, is for the reason my economics 101 prof taught me long before crypto existed: that the marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past. The physical operation of it wastes money and the armies of employees and executives that run each bank siphon tremendous amounts of money out of the financial ecosystem to make trusted transactions possible. But we use it, he said, because of habit, because change is ponderous, because it is entrenched, and mainly because we have no other option.
Once you realize that cumbersome and expensive system is suddenly optional it opens up a whole new perspective. And once you participate in it and realize how game changing it could be you want to share it with everyone.
I love the reference to "marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past".
The recent GFC experience of staid trading banks mutating into excessively risk taking investment banks has undermined my faith in the role banks have in lubricating the economy. All the douchebags banker types acting without moral hazard, snorting cocaine, stealing from clients, defrauding their own companies and driving expensive sports cars makes their claim as having a critical role in the efficient allocation of capital in a sophisticated economy seem really dubious. Australia has by comparison with the US a very strictly regulated banking regime dominated by 4 banks which run as a stable, but uncompetitive cartel. It's the price we seem to think we need to pay for stability.
So i'm sympathetic to the idea of certain technologies having a disruptive effect on the status quo.
However, as much as you'd like it to be, it doesn't necessarily follow that crypto currency innovation is the silver bullet to central bank control over an economy, on a societal and economic level. There's a whole range of intertwined and vested interests, from bankers to individuals, that have a lot to lose from the current system, and little to gain from whatever is being proposed.
And similarly, it doesn't following that buying crypto currency is a good investment on an individual level. The volatility is too high, the risk of your investment going to zero is too real, there are no earnings, it has no yield. It has no market fundamentals.
The only thing going for it is price appreciation. Which has obviously made it extremely successful as a speculative play for some.
As always, eager to learn more.
I hate to burst your "scientific" bubble here, but the stock market (and the larger economy that it is a rough proxy for) is not at all a zero sum game. Why on earth would you think that?
-W
As always, eager to learn more.
If you are sincere and not sarcastically shitting on crypto enthusiasts, I recommend getting a little bit of skin in the game; $50 or so and think of it as a consumable. I'm assuming you have no crypto and have not used it, and maybe that's limiting you from understanding it better. If, after this, you remain skeptical, then you'll have more references to debate from.
If you're interested, I'm willing to guide you through the process as well as offer more in-depth perspectives on why I believe in crypto. The steps can be time-intensive, and will also address pc security.
One clarification is that I'm not seeking to optimize fractional increases in growth, rather seeking to optimize the variety of financial futures in which I am still financially robust. Basically, trying to avoid a long term strategy that despite foreseeable problems could result in me being broke/struggling.
FWIW in order to liquidate our stock positions, a "bigger fool" must be present to buy them. I understand what you are saying about investing, this is an unconventional asset class. Purchasing btc is a bet that the future userbase will be larger than it is today, or as a hedge that potential future timelines where the userbase is larger are also timelines where traditional assets are struggling.
I have seen variations of this falsehood being repeated over and over by the pro-crypto bunch. People who invest in the stock market do not require greater fools for their investment to be successful. A share of stock entitles the owner to a share of future earnings of a company, or in the case of an index fund, all of the companies represented on the index. The share of future earnings is realized by the payment of dividends and as an accumulation of retained earnings which will accrue to book value and as investments in future profitability of the company. The stock price is a market-based discounting mechanism of the net-present value of those two things, nothing more. Usually the price is an accurate representation of the NPV, but it can swing in one direction or another from time to time. In the same way that a person who buys a whole company can be a perfectly successful investor without ever selling it -- because all of the profits are his own and he can sell an asset of the company, e.g. a forklift, and pay himself the proceeds -- a person who buys a share of a publicly traded company on the stock market can also be a perfectly successful investor without ever needing to sell.
The continued argument from the pro-crypto bunch that in order for an investment in the stock to be successful an ever expanding pool of "greater fools" to come in and buy at a higher price is needed is a naive and unsophisticated understanding of stocks and a stock market and it exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of investment.
FWIW in order to liquidate our stock positions, a "bigger fool" must be present to buy them. I understand what you are saying about investing, this is an unconventional asset class. Purchasing btc is a bet that the future userbase will be larger than it is today, or as a hedge that potential future timelines where the userbase is larger are also timelines where traditional assets are struggling.
I have seen variations of this falsehood being repeated over and over by the pro-crypto bunch. People who invest in the stock market do not require greater fools for their investment to be successful. A share of stock entitles the owner to a share of future earnings of a company, or in the case of an index fund, all of the companies represented on the index. The share of future earnings is realized by the payment of dividends and as an accumulation of retained earnings which will accrue to book value and as investments in future profitability of the company. The stock price is a market-based discounting mechanism of the net-present value of those two things, nothing more. Usually the price is an accurate representation of the NPV, but it can swing in one direction or another from time to time. In the same way that a person who buys a whole company can be a perfectly successful investor without ever selling it -- because all of the profits are his own and he can sell an asset of the company, e.g. a forklift, and pay himself the proceeds -- a person who buys a share of a publicly traded company on the stock market can also be a perfectly successful investor without ever needing to sell.
The continued argument from the pro-crypto bunch that in order for an investment in the stock to be successful an ever expanding pool of "greater fools" to come in and buy at a higher price is needed is a naive and unsophisticated understanding of stocks and a stock market and it exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of investment.
This.
The lack of understanding of how the stock market works is astounding. Investing in companies, sharing in their profits, is INVESTING. Buying something that just sits there and doesn't pay you anything, whether it be a rock, a piece of gold, or a bitcoin, is SPECULATING. You are SPECULATING that a bigger fool will pay more than what you paid for it. If you own a share of a company you are BEING PAID via dividends/buybacks. When Apple sells an iphone, a percentage of that sale goes to YOU the shareholder. Stocks and bitcoin are apples and oranges. One is investing, sharing the profits, increasing your wealth over time, the other is gambling.
I won't quote all the text but I'm replying to privatefarmer's post immediately above...
Is a potential source of confusion the fact that while one can invest by buying stocks (that earn an income, and holding them long turn), you can also in some cases also buy stocks for purely speculative reasons?
It's actually not quite so black and white, i.e. stocks = good, crypto = bad. In an effort to dispel some of the myths of the Stockmarket propounded by crypto fans, I feel sometimes the shortcomings of the Stockmarket are ignored. Short term speculative trading in stocks can be equally bad news.
So while not recommended, the greater fool approach to buying and selling stocks can apply. The market can be gamed. Whether via taking a punt on the latest biotech without earnings, or engaging in illegal 'pump and dumps'. Then you can leverage up and add in options to increase the pain.
Most people new to the Stockmarket seem to initially educate themselves via mainstream business news - which ignores the boredom of ongoing compounding returns in favour of booms, busts, day traders and line charts that inevitably crash. So they inevitably equate stock trading with gambling, unless they choose to educate themselves further.
Bitcoin hype in the mainstream media seems to attract some people to thinking about investments, but sends them down the path of speculation.
It advances asymmetric cryptography and allows for a new form of digital communication.
We already had this discussion. Crypto is double-edge, just like the internet, science, weapons, medicine, any other technology.
I can see a legitimate governmental use for perfect unhackable cryptography. I don't see many legitimate private uses yet, but I sure do see a whole bunch of illegitimate and dangerous and illegal ones.
If cryptography fundamentally undermines the basic social contract on which civilization is built, do we really want everyone to have unlimited access to it? Do we really have a choice anymore?
FWIW in order to liquidate our stock positions, a "bigger fool" must be present to buy them. I understand what you are saying about investing, this is an unconventional asset class. Purchasing btc is a bet that the future userbase will be larger than it is today, or as a hedge that potential future timelines where the userbase is larger are also timelines where traditional assets are struggling.
I have seen variations of this falsehood being repeated over and over by the pro-crypto bunch. People who invest in the stock market do not require greater fools for their investment to be successful. A share of stock entitles the owner to a share of future earnings of a company, or in the case of an index fund, all of the companies represented on the index. The share of future earnings is realized by the payment of dividends and as an accumulation of retained earnings which will accrue to book value and as investments in future profitability of the company. The stock price is a market-based discounting mechanism of the net-present value of those two things, nothing more. Usually the price is an accurate representation of the NPV, but it can swing in one direction or another from time to time. In the same way that a person who buys a whole company can be a perfectly successful investor without ever selling it -- because all of the profits are his own and he can sell an asset of the company, e.g. a forklift, and pay himself the proceeds -- a person who buys a share of a publicly traded company on the stock market can also be a perfectly successful investor without ever needing to sell.
The continued argument from the pro-crypto bunch that in order for an investment in the stock to be successful an ever expanding pool of "greater fools" to come in and buy at a higher price is needed is a naive and unsophisticated understanding of stocks and a stock market and it exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of investment.
Money that is invested in a firm by its owner(s) or holder(s) of common stock (ordinary shares) but which is not returned in the normal course of the business. Investors recover it only when they sell their shareholdings to other investors, or when the assets of the firm are liquidated and proceeds distributed among them after satisfying the firm's obligations. Also called equity contribution.
I hate to burst your "scientific" bubble here, but the stock market (and the larger economy that it is a rough proxy for) is not at all a zero sum game. Why on earth would you think that?
-W
But back to your point on trust. All money is a figment of our imagination. We just all believe it to exist...and there it is. But people don't really believe in Bitcoin. How do we know? Because the price compared to something we do believe in, the USD, changes radically over time. And that's the fundamental problem. People don't really believe in it.
Whew I put up a LOT of information there and the two direct replies were either a complete misreading (first one) or harping on an ancillary point that again actually misreads what I wrote.
I can see a legitimate governmental use for perfect unhackable cryptography. I don't see many legitimate private uses yet, but I sure do see a whole bunch of illegitimate and dangerous and illegal ones.
If cryptography fundamentally undermines the basic social contract on which civilization is built, do we really want everyone to have unlimited access to it? Do we really have a choice anymore?
This seems a bit melodramatic. why can't your thoughts be private?
With the internet providing a stored record of everything, my kids thoughts aren't private anymore. All the stupid shit I thought and said growing up, as a teenage, in college is behind me and there isn't any Facebook timeline of. Now, if I am interested in an obscure topic and research it a bit, all of my banner adds change to match . if cryptography gives the privacy to explore an idea before you decide if you like it or not that's something I support.
Whew I put up a LOT of information there and the two direct replies were either a complete misreading (first one) or harping on an ancillary point that again actually misreads what I wrote.
You did say that "the market always goes up" is "unscientific". Without getting into a philosophy of science debate, you are saying that you question whether the economy of the world/US will continue to grow (as, in the case of the world, it has since prehistory, albeit with some fits and starts), essentially. If you actually believe that, then yes, you will need either a metric ton of money, or some alternative investment/consistent winning in the now-zero-sum game in order to be FI.
Might just as well invest in fertile land and ammunition at that point, not "currency" that requires a ton of energy and computers/internet access just to use/spend, but everyone's different.
-W
I said in order to liquidate your investment you must have someone to sell the shares(or have the firm liquidate all its assets, whatever's left after satisfying their debts).
No. This is not what you said. You said that a "bigger fool" must be present. This is simply wrong in the context of stocks. Bigger fools are not required.
The basic approach of the scientific method is to posit a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. There is no structural mechanism for proving something conclusively true. This isn't philosophy, it's the bedrock of scientific reason that brought us out of medieval thinking.
I said in order to liquidate your investment you must have someone to sell the shares(or have the firm liquidate all its assets, whatever's left after satisfying their debts).
No. This is not what you said. You said that a "bigger fool" must be present. This is simply wrong in the context of stocks. Bigger fools are not required.
Maybe we have a misunderstanding here. My exact sentence was that in order to liquidate your shares there must be someone to sell them to. The concept of "bigger fool" is an emotional label that you used, and i re-used for illustrative purposes. Are you saying that the people buying shares are not fools? Because that's an issue of labeling.
If you are saying they are not necessary, then how are you going to liquidate your assets without them? I understand dividends and other mechanisms, but if you have 1M in an index fund and the market stops growing, and there is no one to buy your shares, where does that leave you?
Just food for thought that you may not think you need "fools" but every time a 20something shows up and says "wow does this really work" her adoption of our collective investment strategy directly benefits us all.
I said in order to liquidate your investment you must have someone to sell the shares(or have the firm liquidate all its assets, whatever's left after satisfying their debts).
No. This is not what you said. You said that a "bigger fool" must be present. This is simply wrong in the context of stocks. Bigger fools are not required.
Maybe we have a misunderstanding here. My exact sentence was that in order to liquidate your shares there must be someone to sell them to. The concept of "bigger fool" is an emotional label that you used, and i re-used for illustrative purposes. Are you saying that the people buying shares are not fools? Because that's an issue of labeling.
If you are saying they are not necessary, then how are you going to liquidate your assets without them? I understand dividends and other mechanisms, but if you have 1M in an index fund and the market stops growing, and there is no one to buy your shares, where does that leave you?
Just food for thought that you may not think you need "fools" but every time a 20something shows up and says "wow does this really work" her adoption of our collective investment strategy directly benefits us all.
Valueless assets (cryptocurrencies, paintings, beanie babies, rare coins, etc.) have no rational basis for their price.
Crypto has value. Dapps and other services require crypto; the form of digital social contract people are engaging in require crypto. People are using it as medium-of-exchanges.
Valueless assets (cryptocurrencies, paintings, beanie babies, rare coins, etc.) have no rational basis for their price.
Crypto has value. Dapps and other services require crypto; the form of digital social contract people are engaging in require crypto. People are using it as medium-of-exchanges.
Pokemon cards have value. Engaging in a card based game of Pokemon requires them. People even trade Pokemon cards, using them as a medium of exchange.
The problem with your argument is that each instance of 'value' brought forth is vanishingly small, and only of value to the tiny niche group of people who have bought into the hype. This is also true of comic books, beanie babies, tulips, rare coins, etc.
The difference from these collectibles is that some crypto generate fees for its hodlers. 'Delegates' in some crypto systems, which I'm not a fan of, earn transaction fees through validating the network. They are require to set up a crypto node or participate in a pool. Proof-of-stake systems will allow any hodler with a minimum, such as 1 unit, to validate the network, earning transaction fees.
'Vanishingly small' and 'tiny niche group', where are you getting these numbers from? Coinbase alone has over 13 million users, verified with photo id and linked bank accounts. In one year, the number of transactions for one of the top crypto went from 50,000 to 750,000 daily with a high over 1.2 mil. Crypto usage has also seen rise for social network tips and charitable donations.
That crypto is being using as speculation does not mean that crypto is solely used for that. People are using crypto for various purposes, including entertainment and other purchases and services.
Just because landlords, supermarkets or energy utilities don't accept cryptocurrency doesn't mean it's not a currency. If someone accepts crypto in exchange for goods and services, anticipating that they can then use that crypto to purchase goods and services, then it's a currency.
It's like tobacco or ramen in prison. It's used as a store of value in a closed economic system.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/22/ramen-prison-currency-study
I don't think it serves the arguments of crypto skeptics to deny the utility of crypto currency, wherever one may find it.
However, based on my understanding, that utility seems extremely limited.
As a currency they suffer some pretty significant draw backs. They are nowhere near as universal as the USD, the Euro, Yen, AUD etc etc, and they are incredibly niche in their acceptance. Their volatility and high transaction fees make them very unattractive as a source of value exchange.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743220/valve-steam-bitcoin-game-store-payment-method-crypto-volatility
That may change in the future. But it may not.
One of the ironies I struggle to look beyond is that although the rationale behind the rapid price appreciation of crypto currencies is they represent the disruptive currencies of the future, yet at the moment, the rampant speculation resulting in extreme volatility of these crypto currencies actually renders them incredibly unattractive for actual use as a currency.
there are so many better options that do a better job as a currency (i.e. that are stable in value, universally accepted) why would you use it?
there are so many better options that do a better job as a currency (i.e. that are stable in value, universally accepted) why would you use it?
1. To move illegal drug money you can't transfer with a bank.
2. To finance terrorist organizations without the FBI finding out.
3. To support a rogue state, like North Korea, that is suffering under economic sanctions by the international community that prohibit direct contributions.
4. As an unregulated penny stock you can pump and dump to get rich by misleading uninformed retail investors.
5. For entertainment value, because you think the first four primary uses aren't at all concerning.
I'm always curious how much Pot is smoked by the people who hammer bitcoin first and foremost for being used for illegal drug purchases.
there are so many better options that do a better job as a currency (i.e. that are stable in value, universally accepted) why would you use it?
1. To move illegal drug money you can't transfer with a bank.
2. To finance terrorist organizations without the FBI finding out.
3. To support a rogue state, like North Korea, that is suffering under economic sanctions by the international community that prohibit direct contributions.
4. As an unregulated penny stock you can pump and dump to get rich by misleading uninformed retail investors.
5. For entertainment value, because you think the first four primary uses aren't at all concerning.
We interrupt these arguments to bring you some news:
Brazilian State Bank to Tokenize Brazilian Real on Ethereum’s Public Blockchain (https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/06/brazilian-state-bank-tokenize-brazilian-real-ethereums-public-blockchain)
Coinbase is launching a weighted index fund for cryptocurrencies. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/bitcoin-exchange-coinbase-launches-the-dow-jones-of-cryptocurrencies.html)
We interrupt these arguments to bring you some news:
Brazilian State Bank to Tokenize Brazilian Real on Ethereum’s Public Blockchain (https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/06/brazilian-state-bank-tokenize-brazilian-real-ethereums-public-blockchain)
Coinbase is launching a weighted index fund for cryptocurrencies. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/bitcoin-exchange-coinbase-launches-the-dow-jones-of-cryptocurrencies.html)
In other news, Google is banning all cryptocurrency advertising from June onwards.
Guess I'll stop seeing ads for that dorky turtle neck wearing "Crypto Genius" on these forums.
Guess I'll stop seeing ads for that dorky turtle neck wearing "Crypto Genius" on these forums.
Way up there on my list of people who I'd really like to punch. Up there with him is that guy with the glasses in LA showing off his [rented] Beverly Hills house and [rented] Lambo.
That second guy was a little late to the crypto circus, as illustrated by a video that appeared in late 2017 where you could tell he was trying to posit himself as the "crypto genius" while not quite knowing what he was talking about.
I also tend to feel like you can really see people manipulating the market in real time. The rapid rises and falls of exactly 3-5% have always come across to me as pumping and dumping manipulations of the market.
I haven't bought crypto, but have found it interesting to watch.What's that they say about trying to catch a falling knife? If I had just sat on my $7500 limit order it would have fired off this morning. So you are probably right. :cries:
The trends I have watched makes this the least likely time so far that I would purchase. Of course, humans are great at finding patterns where there are none, so this whole thing will probably reverse trend just to spite me.
Attached is an image from today with a trend line I noticed since the peak. So far, Bitcoin seems to be tracking a pretty consistent downward trend since peaking out last winter.
I also tend to feel like you can really see people manipulating the market in real time. The rapid rises and falls of exactly 3-5% have always come across to me as pumping and dumping manipulations of the market.
I haven't bought crypto, but have found it interesting to watch.What's that they say about trying to catch a falling knife? If I had just sat on my $7500 limit order it would have fired off this morning. So you are probably right. :cries:
The trends I have watched makes this the least likely time so far that I would purchase. Of course, humans are great at finding patterns where there are none, so this whole thing will probably reverse trend just to spite me.
Attached is an image from today with a trend line I noticed since the peak. So far, Bitcoin seems to be tracking a pretty consistent downward trend since peaking out last winter.
I also tend to feel like you can really see people manipulating the market in real time. The rapid rises and falls of exactly 3-5% have always come across to me as pumping and dumping manipulations of the market.
It's okay, only $500. That's all I could convince the wife to go with. If prices really tank I might try to get back in with another $500 later on. Could be buying right to zero, but I personally believe they will go back up, a lot. Of course that is just my opinion, man.
Now that the prices have come down, it seems there's less people shilling all over this thread. However, there is still a ton of hilarious scams going on.
https://cryptovest.com/news/another-scam-ico-savedroid-founder-exits-with-50m-to-chill-on-a-beach/
Now that the prices have come down, it seems there's less people shilling all over this thread. However, there is still a ton of hilarious scams going on.
https://cryptovest.com/news/another-scam-ico-savedroid-founder-exits-with-50m-to-chill-on-a-beach/
ICOs are in desperate need of regulation.
That said, see followup link at top of article here:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/over-50-million-savedroid-ico-135731412.html
tl;dr apparently German sense of humor didn't come through correctly as this was an awful publicity stunt, not an exit scam, so far as we know at this point.
FWIW I do not own and have no intentions of owning SaveDroid.
Shunning the entirety of the crypto space by pointing out the most egregiously flawed / illicit projects is like pointing out the third party chinese counterfeiters plaguing amazon that are ripping off legitimate small businesses with impunity and saying therefore amazon must have no value.
To make high quality decisions get educated about the impact of the technology and its most promising projects, rather than looking for the most rotten apple in order to disregard the whole bunch.
The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with.
Now that the prices have come down, it seems there's less people shilling all over this thread. However, there is still a ton of hilarious scams going on.
https://cryptovest.com/news/another-scam-ico-savedroid-founder-exits-with-50m-to-chill-on-a-beach/
ICOs are in desperate need of regulation.
That said, see followup link at top of article here:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/over-50-million-savedroid-ico-135731412.html
tl;dr apparently German sense of humor didn't come through correctly as this was an awful publicity stunt, not an exit scam, so far as we know at this point.
FWIW I do not own and have no intentions of owning SaveDroid.
Shunning the entirety of the crypto space by pointing out the most egregiously flawed / illicit projects is like pointing out the third party chinese counterfeiters plaguing amazon that are ripping off legitimate small businesses with impunity and saying therefore amazon must have no value.
To make high quality decisions get educated about the impact of the technology and its most promising projects, rather than looking for the most rotten apple in order to disregard the whole bunch.
The biggest exchange on the planet is accused of artificially pumping fake dollars into the market to shore up Bitcoin prices while the exchange's owners try to find a real-world bank willing to deal with them. The biggest exchange on the planet before that collapsed as a result of a colossal robbery. The biggest cryptocurrency has been publicly described as a bubble by the world's leading authority on bubbles, the founder of the most dominant software company on earth, the head of one of the planet's largest banks, and the most consistently successful investor in history. The entire market bounces violently up and down, completely unmoored from reality, while convincing analyses demonstrate that price moves in the past have been the result of deliberate market manipulation. This is nothing like dismissing Amazon on the basis of some dodgy merchants; it's far deeper and more pervasive, to the extent that we have absolutely no idea whether the prices currently being quoted bear any relevance to what they might be in five years.
I have still not seen a single case of a cryptocurrency price being supported with specific reference to a well-presented breakdown of the market being targeted, a SWOT analysis of the crypto's position relative to incumbents in the field, a sober estimate of the percentage of the market that can realistically be captured over the following three to five years, and an explanation of the dollar value of capturing that share of the market. This is absolute bread-and-butter stuff for any publicly traded company, and indeed for any company seeking investment from an outside source, but it's more or less utterly absent from the crypto sphere, because nobody investing in crypto is looking for it. The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with. I still have not seen a single case of a cryptocurrency with a stable price correlated closely with its actual prospects for success.
The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with.
This weekend I had some lenthly conversations with one of my friends who is an active crypto miner and "investor", and he made a pretty convincing case that cryptos are now played much like penny stocks. He says no one views them as a serious investment. They don't even attempt to deny the blatantly illegal pump and dump schemes that characterize the marketplace.
All he see is a wildly fluctuating unregulated asset class rife with speculators, some of which are organized crime and some of which are clueless housewives, and he thinks there is money to be made (or potentially lost) playing the waves. He doesn't have any illusions that cryptocurrency is going to supplant the USD. He just thinks that, like penny stocks, this is a high-risk game in which you can 10x or 100x your investment in a matter of weeks, with a little bit of luck and slightly more knowledge than the average crypto investor (who has virtually nil).
From his perspective, this whole thing makes a lot more sense to me. There is no future in it. Of course it's a bubble. It's 50% fraud and 50% pyramid scheme, and every serious investor should stay far far away. But! It's also a legitimate "get rich quick" scheme just like penny stocks are, if you can get in and out early on each artificially manipulated price wave, precisely because so many people are getting fleeced after buying into the hype. HODL is for suckers. Learn to watch the markets and time your exits, and there is real money to be made in the short term if you're morally flexible enough to embrace it.
Why is is that every time cryptocurrency advocates reach for a real-world use case, they end up talking about Venezuela?
Oh, I remember: it's because it took the near-total collapse of civil society and the rule of law, combined with an economic meltdown that's virtually impossible for any country in the world without oil, to make bitcoin seem like an attractive option as a currency. And even then, trading volumes within Venezuela are running at about USD 5m a week, or about 0.1% of economic activity in Venezuela.
But sure, keep telling yourself that cryptocurrency skeptical aren't educating themselves sufficiently on the big picture to make high quality decisions.
The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with.
This weekend I had some lenthly conversations with one of my friends who is an active crypto miner and "investor", and he made a pretty convincing case that cryptos are now played much like penny stocks. He says no one views them as a serious investment. They don't even attempt to deny the blatantly illegal pump and dump schemes that characterize the marketplace.
All he see is a wildly fluctuating unregulated asset class rife with speculators, some of which are organized crime and some of which are clueless housewives, and he thinks there is money to be made (or potentially lost) playing the waves. He doesn't have any illusions that cryptocurrency is going to supplant the USD. He just thinks that, like penny stocks, this is a high-risk game in which you can 10x or 100x your investment in a matter of weeks, with a little bit of luck and slightly more knowledge than the average crypto investor (who has virtually nil).
From his perspective, this whole thing makes a lot more sense to me. There is no future in it. Of course it's a bubble. It's 50% fraud and 50% pyramid scheme, and every serious investor should stay far far away. But! It's also a legitimate "get rich quick" scheme just like penny stocks are, if you can get in and out early on each artificially manipulated price wave, precisely because so many people are getting fleeced after buying into the hype. HODL is for suckers. Learn to watch the markets and time your exits, and there is real money to be made in the short term if you're morally flexible enough to embrace it.
It's difficult to determine whether the moral high-horsing, rampant condescension, egoic characterization of the "others" as disproportionately criminals, or splash of sexism is the most offensive. Hmm. Definitely the sexism.
"Statements such as 'crypto is guaranteed to fail' have no semantic content as they are mathematically indefensible."
There is no way you are serious here. This is math-based absolutism applied to a field that doesn't deal in absolutes. Replace the word "crypto" in your statement with the phrase "PayUsToMailHumanShitToYou.com", and read it back to yourself. Nobody on the forum uses phrases like you've described as descriptors of mathematical certainty, and it's bullshit sophistry to act as though they do and then pretend you're smarter than everyone else for spotting a mathematical error in a non-mathematical sentence.
If you're hedging against a crypto future by buying a small amount of crypto, how do you evaluate which crypto is the most likely winner? It's like stock picking, except none of the companies will reveal anything about their finances. How do you evaluate the likely future value of the crypto once you've picked what you think is the winner? Successfully choosing Ethereum as the currency of the future, but buying it at 300 dollars only to find out in the future that it's only worth fifty, is worse than doing absolutely nothing.
If you think crypto taking over is a possibility worth hedging against, the smart option isn't to pick a couple of random coins and hope you're the world's greatest stock picker. The smart option in that case is to load your investment portfolio with companies heavy on stock and light on cash. Companies with significant debt denominated in dollars and significant current assets will gain in such a scenario, with no risk of losing out by picking the wrong crypto - so someone who was serious about covering the possibility would be increasing their holdings with that kind of company, rather than bidding up a cryptocurrency that requires a catastrophic collapse of civil society to see its share of transactions rise to one-tenth of one percent of economic activity.
It's difficult to determine whether the moral high-horsing, rampant condescension, egoic characterization of the "others" as disproportionately criminals, or splash of sexism is the most offensive. Hmm. Definitely the sexism.
Lol! Did I strike a nerve somehow? Aggressive personal attacks against an individual are not the normal way we operate here, but I'll give you a pass because you're still finding your footing. My condescension is benevolent.
So let's get back on track, and try to address the contents of the argument at hand with logical and reasoned responses. I'll go first! There is no intended sexism in my previous post, not at you nor at anyone in general. Was it my use of "housewives" to describe people swept up in the crypto craze that you found objectionable?
And I thought people like you would be happy that I presented a justification for buying crypto: money changes hands! Just like penny stocks, large sums are gained and lost in crypto relatively quickly, for reasons unrelated to fundamentals, and if you're good and/or lucky you can be on the receiving end of that transfer.
As to the "criminal" charge, I'm not the one characterizing the crypto base that way. The FBI did that. The exchanges themselves do that. You've done that! So why all the pent-up anger? You seem to have a lot of frustration on this issue, and it's harshing your mellow, man. Maybe take a little vacation and try to relax a little? That always works wonders for me.
Now that we've addressed your personal attacks on me, I will patiently await your attacks on the arguments that precipitated your personal attacks. Those are more welcome.
"Statements such as 'crypto is guaranteed to fail' have no semantic content as they are mathematically indefensible."
There is no way you are serious here. This is math-based absolutism applied to a field that doesn't deal in absolutes. Replace the word "crypto" in your statement with the phrase "PayUsToMailHumanShitToYou.com", and read it back to yourself. Nobody on the forum uses phrases like you've described as descriptors of mathematical certainty, and it's bullshit sophistry to act as though they do and then pretend you're smarter than everyone else for spotting a mathematical error in a non-mathematical sentence.
I agree math-based absolutism does not work in fields that are too complex for such black-and-white decision making.
The gist of many of the previous replies is, in essence, that crypto is destined to fail. Your hypothetical company about feces seems to have a very low success rate, but humans are unpredictable and perhaps it would find a niche market among fertilizer enthusiasts / fetishists / pranksters.
These replies often come from the frame of mind that it's inconceivable for this new technology to have any long term impact or success, because of short term problems.
Use bitcoin for a short while and it becomes clear for example that Western Union is facing a future similar to Kodak in the 90s, unless they can adapt. The ability to remit value across great distances no longer requires an intermediary to take a large cut.
The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with.
This weekend I had some lenthly conversations with one of my friends who is an active crypto miner and "investor", and he made a pretty convincing case that cryptos are now played much like penny stocks. He says no one views them as a serious investment. They don't even attempt to deny the blatantly illegal pump and dump schemes that characterize the marketplace.
All he see is a wildly fluctuating unregulated asset class rife with speculators, some of which are organized crime and some of which are clueless housewives, and he thinks there is money to be made (or potentially lost) playing the waves. He doesn't have any illusions that cryptocurrency is going to supplant the USD. He just thinks that, like penny stocks, this is a high-risk game in which you can 10x or 100x your investment in a matter of weeks, with a little bit of luck and slightly more knowledge than the average crypto investor (who has virtually nil).
From his perspective, this whole thing makes a lot more sense to me. There is no future in it. Of course it's a bubble. It's 50% fraud and 50% pyramid scheme, and every serious investor should stay far far away. But! It's also a legitimate "get rich quick" scheme just like penny stocks are, if you can get in and out early on each artificially manipulated price wave, precisely because so many people are getting fleeced after buying into the hype. HODL is for suckers. Learn to watch the markets and time your exits, and there is real money to be made in the short term if you're morally flexible enough to embrace it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/nasdaq-is-open-to-becoming-cryptocurrency-exchange-ceo-says.html
Just like you old farts had an entire generation buying equities with you in retirement accounts, it's easy to see where the millennial generation will be putting their (albeit less) money towards.
Look macro, play it accordingly.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/nasdaq-is-open-to-becoming-cryptocurrency-exchange-ceo-says.html
Just like you old farts had an entire generation buying equities with you in retirement accounts, it's easy to see where the millennial generation will be putting their (albeit less) money towards.
Look macro, play it accordingly.
Dismissive attitude to people who disagree, comment that doesn't actually relate to the link provided, wild claim offered with no supporting evidence. We have a trifecta.
3) Ask 10 millennial's what they think about Stock Market and then ask them about Bitcoin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/nasdaq-is-open-to-becoming-cryptocurrency-exchange-ceo-says.html
2) I am glad you ignored the link, fits your agenda.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/nasdaq-is-open-to-becoming-cryptocurrency-exchange-ceo-says.html
Just like you old farts had an entire generation buying equities with you in retirement accounts, it's easy to see where the millennial generation will be putting their (albeit less) money towards.
Look macro, play it accordingly.
Dismissive attitude to people who disagree, comment that doesn't actually relate to the link provided, wild claim offered with no supporting evidence. We have a trifecta.
1) He has consistently not followed the rules of the thread.
2) I am glad you ignored the link, fits your agenda.
3) Ask 10 millennial's what they think about Stock Market and then ask them about Bitcoin.
0/4 millennials on board the cryptocurrency train. Surely we can find just six more? :P
Shitposting is the order of the day here. I say we let them have their fun. You can argue all you want, but like any ponzi scheme the "true believers" are only here to stir up interest and generate buzz among susceptible new buyers.
Ya'll seem to be taking this way too seriously. Do we really expect someone recommending a newfangled get rich quick scheme to come here with reasoned arguments? To respond to critique with thoughtful consideration?
Shitposting is the order of the day here. I say we let them have their fun. You can argue all you want, but like any ponzi scheme the "true believers" are only here to stir up interest and generate buzz among susceptible new buyers. Your informed opinions are mere distractions to that effort, because they're not really talking to you.
0/4 millennials on board the cryptocurrency train. Surely we can find just six more? :P
Make that 0/5.
0/4 millennials on board the cryptocurrency train. Surely we can find just six more? :P
Make that 0/5.
I'm a millennial. Currently 1% of my portfolio* is crypto the other 99% is in the stock market.
*I personally don't consider crypto to be investment or part of my portfolio, but I did some GPU mining and haven't sold off all of the proceeds yet.
So I guess we are up to .01/6
The entire marketplace is infected with a get-rich-quick mentality, mixed with a fairly unpleasant libertarian dislike of government, and the kind of thing that would be regarded as an absolute minimum standard in terms of business reporting is simply not bothered with.
This weekend I had some lenthly conversations with one of my friends who is an active crypto miner and "investor", and he made a pretty convincing case that cryptos are now played much like penny stocks. He says no one views them as a serious investment. They don't even attempt to deny the blatantly illegal pump and dump schemes that characterize the marketplace.
All he see is a wildly fluctuating unregulated asset class rife with speculators, some of which are organized crime and some of which are clueless housewives, and he thinks there is money to be made (or potentially lost) playing the waves. He doesn't have any illusions that cryptocurrency is going to supplant the USD. He just thinks that, like penny stocks, this is a high-risk game in which you can 10x or 100x your investment in a matter of weeks, with a little bit of luck and slightly more knowledge than the average crypto investor (who has virtually nil).
From his perspective, this whole thing makes a lot more sense to me. There is no future in it. Of course it's a bubble. It's 50% fraud and 50% pyramid scheme, and every serious investor should stay far far away. But! It's also a legitimate "get rich quick" scheme just like penny stocks are, if you can get in and out early on each artificially manipulated price wave, precisely because so many people are getting fleeced after buying into the hype. HODL is for suckers. Learn to watch the markets and time your exits, and there is real money to be made in the short term if you're morally flexible enough to embrace it.
I leave for a few months and as expected, you still still over here all salty :P
Hope everyone bought the dip! I plan to add to the equities bucket once we are down another 10-20%.
Cheers!
These replies often come from the frame of mind that it's inconceivable for this new technology to have any long term impact or success, because of short term problems.
These replies often come from the frame of mind that it's inconceivable for this new technology to have any long term impact or success, because of short term problems.
Getting someone to change their frozen mind, might be harder than getting a space alien to visit Earth.
Even if crypto had destroyed entire industries, the critics would still say it's a fraud.
Bitcoin is just shy of being a decade old. By the time Google hit a decade, they had taken a wrecking ball to the advertising industry, the print news industry and the concept of non-academic reference texts. They'd virtually wiped out the field of email account providers and were about to take a hatchet to Nokia and Garmin simultaneously by releasing the first Android phones. And they'd gone public in 2004 to boot.
. What if a 3rd world country decided to use 'Wakanda' blockchain currency backstopped with it's natural resources?
The BitCoin Achilles heel is that just about any reasonably funded private entity can start a currency on an equivalent playing level. There is no moat, no barrier to entry, no intrinsic value. Even Oscar-Mayer has jumped in (https://www.coindesk.com/bring-home-bacoin-oscar-mayer-debuts-crypto-campaign/). What if Apple just decided one day that it wanted to be a real player and back-stopped it's 'I-currency' with both technical ability as well as real cash reserves. What if a 3rd world country decided to use 'Wakanda' blockchain currency backstopped with it's natural resources?
Just about anything could render BitCoin effectively worthless if a new Crypto overshadows or splinters the market.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/nasdaq-is-open-to-becoming-cryptocurrency-exchange-ceo-says.html
Just like you old farts had an entire generation buying equities with you in retirement accounts, it's easy to see where the millennial generation will be putting their (albeit less) money towards.
Look macro, play it accordingly.
Charlie Munger had even stronger opinions about the matter, but it would be practically be trolling to quote his comments here.
In the case of Bitmain’s A3, a small batch of miners were sold to the public with a very fast shipping time, less than 10 days. Shortly afterwards, YouTube videos started circulating of people who had bought the miners and were legitimately making $800 per day off of their miner. This created a lot of mania around the A3, setting Bitmain up for a very successful batch 2.
While we don’t know exactly how many A3 units got sold, we suspect that the profit margins they made on their batch 2 sales are greater than the potential block reward from mining using the A3 units. That is to say, Bitmain sold over a hundred million dollars in mining rigs knowing that the block reward was not large enough for their customers to make back that money, even assuming free electricity. And this isn’t the first time, they pulled something similar with the Dash miners. We call it flooding, and it’s another example of the dangerous asymmetry that exists between manufacturers and customers.
In an interview with Warren Buffet earlier this week, he mentioned that if someone says they don't think Apple stock will do well, Buffet doesn't get angry about it. He just has a different view. But if you tell someone who owns Bitcoin you don't think it's a good investment, they tend to take it very personally.Lol, some take it personally, most don't. It's the vocal people you usually hear/see (especially on the internet).
Charlie Munger had even stronger opinions about the matter, but it would be practically be trolling to quote his comments here.
Lol, some take it personally, most don't. It's the vocal people you usually hear/see (especially on the internet).
Buffet/Munger have been wrong plenty of times. Especially on (new) technology.
Lol, some take it personally, most don't. It's the vocal people you usually hear/see (especially on the internet).
Buffet/Munger have been wrong plenty of times. Especially on (new) technology.
How about Bill Gates?
Lol, some take it personally, most don't. It's the vocal people you usually hear/see (especially on the internet).
Buffet/Munger have been wrong plenty of times. Especially on (new) technology.
How about Bill Gates?
I'm not defending Crypto, but as far as I remember, Gates was wrong about the Internet and its potential.
"We will never make a 32-bit operating system," Bill Gates said at the launch of MSX in 1983.
Gates declared in January 2004 at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that spam would be dead in 24 months. Two years later, security firm Barracuda said that in 2007, 95-percent of e-mail messages were spam.
"This antitrust thing will blow over," Bill Gates was quoted as telling a group of Intel executives at a meeting on 11 July, 1995
Lol, some take it personally, most don't. It's the vocal people you usually hear/see (especially on the internet).
Buffet/Munger have been wrong plenty of times. Especially on (new) technology.
How about Bill Gates?
I'm not defending Crypto, but as far as I remember, Gates was wrong about the Internet and its potential.
If the article is correct, and it's impossible to make blockchain GDPR-compliant without turning it into a simple lookup table, then the number of potential blockchain applications in the EU has just gone to absolute zero, along with the number of potential blockchain applications that involve the EU in any way whatsoever.
Way to big a thread to read it all.
Has there been any discussion on the amount of electrical power draw currently being utilized to support bitcoin mining? I read somewhere, very recently, by the end of the year bitcoin mining will have a consumption of 0.5% of the worlds current electrical demand.
Anyone see a problem here?
Way to big a thread to read it all.
Has there been any discussion on the amount of electrical power draw currently being utilized to support bitcoin mining? I read somewhere, very recently, by the end of the year bitcoin mining will have a consumption of 0.5% of the worlds current electrical demand.
Anyone see a problem here?
Can you guys seel me your GPUs. I want to build a deep learning rig.
If the article is correct, and it's impossible to make blockchain GDPR-compliant without turning it into a simple lookup table, then the number of potential blockchain applications in the EU has just gone to absolute zero, along with the number of potential blockchain applications that involve the EU in any way whatsoever.
That would be delicious, if a technology designed by privacy advocates was laid low by privacy concerns.
If the article is correct, and it's impossible to make blockchain GDPR-compliant without turning it into a simple lookup table, then the number of potential blockchain applications in the EU has just gone to absolute zero, along with the number of potential blockchain applications that involve the EU in any way whatsoever.
That would be delicious, if a technology designed by privacy advocates was laid low by privacy concerns.
I know this is a late post, but I just wanted to add...
The article that was linked to was mainly relevant only to permissioned blockchains. You can be sure that anyone who is actually serious about privacy is not going to use a permissioned blockchain. An open blockchain that is privacy focused is not going to store any PII data on it anyway and therefore the entire article and GDPR is not applicable in that case.
While the article does make some good points in regards to permissioned blockchains, I think if anything, it misses the real point about how permissioned blockchains often don't provide any more benefit above and beyond what relational databases already provide organizations. There is so much blockchain hype out there looking to find ways to implement blockchain tech without actually looking at the problem that needs solving and what tech is best suited for solving it. Relational databases are also append databases like blockchains in the way that their logging takes place, they're just missing the cryptography components that blockchains utilize. You can still distribute relational databases in much the same way as you could a blockchain. If a blockchain is centrally controlled, managed, and permissioned to the point where being a trustless system is not a feature, then cryptography won't provide much of a benefit above what a typical relational database already provides.
In this regard, blockchains are very inefficient databases to run when compared to relational databases. In a permissioned blockchain where you don't care about being trustless, you can centrally enforce consensus on the network. In that case, proof of work is then not necessary to prevent double-spending. If that's the case, then there isn't much of a benefit of running a blockchain. Why create an immutable and decentralized ledger that is in the hands of a centralized entity that can decide whether or not immutability is actually true or not at any point in time?
This is why tokenized blockchain applications are all mostly hype at this point. It makes much more sense to develop those centrally managed 2nd layer blockchain applications onto an existing trustless decentralized base-layer blockchain like Bitcoin. This way you're backed by true immutability of the most secure blockchain on the planet, but any type of data you want to put into your application to make it work can be applied off-chain in ways that will work with regulations instead of against them. But don't tell this to any ICO developers/investors...
As far as I understand, a record of transactions does not need to have any identifying details for individuals to risk falling foul of GDPR. If the identity of the owner of a given wallet is made public, then the blockchain carrying information regarding that wallet immediately becomes a GDPR violation.
The type of exchange that we need to show some sort of future use case is, of course, exchanging crypto for real-world stuff. "Exchanges" where crypto gets traded for crypto is just showing that it's got the same use case (so far) as baseball cards.Wait, are you saying people need to actually use Bitcoin to buy things instead of speculating on the value just increasing? Then how do expect us to all become rich off of this sure thing?
I get that lots of financial institutions want to make money on this by taking a percentage of what various suckers spend trading with each other. That makes perfect sense.
-W
As far as I understand, a record of transactions does not need to have any identifying details for individuals to risk falling foul of GDPR. If the identity of the owner of a given wallet is made public, then the blockchain carrying information regarding that wallet immediately becomes a GDPR violation.
But if it is a decentralized open blockchain, then even if the GDPR cries violation over any particular piece of data, then it would be extremely difficult for GDPR to enforce such a violation again open blockchains like that.
Also, the GDPR does give a decent amount of flexibility for data controllers and processors to pseudonymize data and that pseudonymized data is classified as an "appropriate safeguard" for meeting GDPR requirements of data held for historical purposes. Considering that most open blockchains maintain data that is pseudonymized for historical purposes, this would fall into this category. Finally, my statement was mostly in regards to privacy focused blockchains and many of them go beyond even just pseudonymization of data using techniques like zero-knowledge proofs that can further conceal ownership/identification of that data.
The issue isn't necessarily the adequacy of anonymisation. It's that one of the key pillars of GDPR is that data has to be deletable; as far as I understand it, that's not possible on most blockchains.
As for enforcement: there is a persistent idea that crypto somehow makes it easy to evade the reach of the law. If the Commission decides a technology is illegal, then it's trivially easy to enforce. At a certain point, crypto needs to be converted back into actual currency: the Commission can simply hammer down on that point of transfer and crypto effectively ceases to operate in the EU. If you doubt the reach or effectiveness of western governments in financial matters, try getting your hands on some Iranian currency.
I thought the point of bitcoins and other cryptos is they essentially operated outside of the bounds of the laws of any one nation or nations. That is their selling point! They can't be seized, the block chain has no mechanism to be served with or respond to a court order or other lawful order, and governments can't really regulate them except by trying to regulate local conditions for the miners (e.g. power consumption and cost, worker conditions, property taxes, etc). Suppose the EU does try to bring some sort of legal action against cryptos, who do they bring it against? The users? PPHHbbtttt, good luck. The miners? They are like amoebas and can close up and open shop in more friendly jurisdictions. The exchanges? Perhaps, but I think determined users will find a way to circumvent whatever the safeguards are put in place by the exchanges to prevent GDPR violations.
The type of exchange that we need to show some sort of future use case is, of course, exchanging crypto for real-world stuff. "Exchanges" where crypto gets traded for crypto is just showing that it's got the same use case (so far) as baseball cards.Wait, are you saying people need to actually use Bitcoin to buy things instead of speculating on the value just increasing? Then how do expect us to all become rich off of this sure thing?
I get that lots of financial institutions want to make money on this by taking a percentage of what various suckers spend trading with each other. That makes perfect sense.
-W
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I thought the point of bitcoins and other cryptos is they essentially operated outside of the bounds of the laws of any one nation or nations. That is their selling point! They can't be seized, the block chain has no mechanism to be served with or respond to a court order or other lawful order, and governments can't really regulate them except by trying to regulate local conditions for the miners (e.g. power consumption and cost, worker conditions, property taxes, etc). Suppose the EU does try to bring some sort of legal action against cryptos, who do they bring it against? The users? PPHHbbtttt, good luck. The miners? They are like amoebas and can close up and open shop in more friendly jurisdictions. The exchanges? Perhaps, but I think determined users will find a way to circumvent whatever the safeguards are put in place by the exchanges to prevent GDPR violations.
Declare that conversion of crypto to dollars and usage of crypto in general is classed as money laundering and banned for any entity doing business in the United States, and crypto would effectively cease to exist for Americans and most of the western world. It doesn't matter how secure and impregnable the crypto network is when all the government has to do is stand at the exits with a spiked bat. They can simply decide that being caught using it is an instant charge of terrorism or money laundering, and the undeleteable nature of the blockchain means that once they tie a single transaction to you, they have you by the balls for every transaction you've done.
How about buying a 4 Mil property in Florida with bitcoin - real enough for you?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/In-a-first-you-can-buy-a-4-million-gulf-front-Tampa-Bay-home-with-bitcoin-_168979277
Once a home inspection is completed, the purchaser would be required to convert the bitcoins to U.S. dollars and put the full contract amount in escrow.
No, not even close. How about this. You walk into a fast food restaurant and pay with bitcoin instead. And your employer paid your salary in bitcoin. And no one converts back to dollars in any of these transactions immediately because they don't want the volatility to cause their monthly paycheck to be bouncing up and down.The type of exchange that we need to show some sort of future use case is, of course, exchanging crypto for real-world stuff. "Exchanges" where crypto gets traded for crypto is just showing that it's got the same use case (so far) as baseball cards.Wait, are you saying people need to actually use Bitcoin to buy things instead of speculating on the value just increasing? Then how do expect us to all become rich off of this sure thing?
I get that lots of financial institutions want to make money on this by taking a percentage of what various suckers spend trading with each other. That makes perfect sense.
-W
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
How about buying a 4 Mil property in Florida with bitcoin - real enough for you?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/In-a-first-you-can-buy-a-4-million-gulf-front-Tampa-Bay-home-with-bitcoin-_168979277
or
How about releasing a movie via blockchain?
http://www.tampabay.com/features/movies/A-Plant-City-movie-to-make-history-by-becoming-first-released-on-a-blockchain_167565905
How about buying a 4 Mil property in Florida with bitcoin - real enough for you?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/In-a-first-you-can-buy-a-4-million-gulf-front-Tampa-Bay-home-with-bitcoin-_168979277QuoteOnce a home inspection is completed, the purchaser would be required to convert the bitcoins to U.S. dollars and put the full contract amount in escrow.
So it's still a cash transaction?
While it is a bit of the Wild West we should still be at a stage where one might find investment opportunities in the blockchain technology in a more round about way - not just the actual crypto currencies.
Bitcoin has had other years in which it went down 50%. I'm not sure how the remarkable losses suffered in the early part of 2018 are meant to convince people it's any more flawed than what they thought during 2017 when it gained a lifetime's returns.
While it is a bit of the Wild West we should still be at a stage where one might find investment opportunities in the blockchain technology in a more round about way - not just the actual crypto currencies.
I would go even further:
Bitcoin - and cryptocurrencies in general, are not long-term investments in the way that equity is. They are at best, shorter-term, relatively speculative investments that one might purchase if one believes them to be mispriced, with the expectation that their price moves towards a proper valuation in time. On the other hand, companies selling the hardware to drive blockchain networks and/or companies using blockchain technology to create useful services/products with blockchain are potentially great investments going forward. Witness the impact of mining demand on GPU prices as a recent example.
But anything resembling a currency (crypto or not) is a pretty awful choice as a long-term investment. It works a lot like gold - it works as a short-term inflation hedge and/or makes sense as a short-term buy if it's significantly mispriced, but it doesn't actually PRODUCE value in itself. Conversely, equity ownership produces real value as a company grows, *AND* acts as inflation hedge - because ultimately the value of a company is a function of the value of its assets and ability to produce future profits, both of which go up in the event of inflation.
It's possible(and for some cryptocurrencies, likely) that cryptos are currently underpriced and their value will go up with increasing demand/adoption. But on a rational level they are not assets that produce income/value merely by holding them, and at some point as the technology matures they will arrive at a relative equilibrium, and will behave more like a typical currency(or a commodity, a la gold) - i.e. something makes zero sense as a long-term investment.
Agree.
And I'll go even further.
Cryptos are no where near as good as gold store of value/speculation (if that is what someone is looking for instead of a real investment). Gold at least has the benefit of physically existing. Once extracted from the earth and purified into a shiny lump it can be secreted or deposited in a physical location and then it doesn't need any intervention to continue to exist. Cryptos are a data structure and series of computer rules which must be continuously implemented. Without a constant infusion of computers furiously playing patty-cake with each other, and burning through prodigious amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels, cryptos would cease to exist.
Many crypto enthusiasts do not consider bitcoin or any "pure" currency function as functional medium-of-exchanges, digital gold, or stores of value. With consideration to other multipurpose crypto, the currency coins as a medium-of-exchange are subject to price volatility; usd-back and other stablecoins or even "fuel" types provide superior utility in this aspect. As digital gold or stores-of-value, currency coins depend on network sentiment, which ultimately is a greater fool scheme, and therefore fail as digital gold or store-of-value. Bitcoin, right now, still has legacy infrastructure and first mover as trading pair going for it, but that can swiftly change.
Portfolio update:
Reduced omg to less than 5% and diversified from that into other crypto (membership, network validation, governance types, etc).
Portfolio update:
Reduced omg to less than 5% and diversified from that into other crypto (membership, network validation, governance types, etc).
...and bought the bike you see here...with hard cold U.S. Dollars.
Hopefully this attachment works.Why didn't you buy the bike with your crypto? Oh yeah that's right. No one really takes crypto to buy anything and no one actually uses to buy anything.
I sold everything in early January, closed my Coinbase account, and a few weeks later February walked into a bicycle shop with those proceeds and bought the bike you see here...with hard cold U.S. Dollars. I felt okay buying a new toy with the windfall, and I do subscribe to Dave Ramsey's advice re: buying toys with cash.
It felt good to get out of crypto and stop worrying about it. I can't help but shake my head at the declines and the disappearance of crypto news from mainstream news.
I want to thank Benjamin Graham's old The Intelligent Investor, and its lengthy discussion of investing versus speculating, for helping me recognize that crypto was in a crazy bubble in December and January. The emotions were classic bubble emotions. The gimmick changes but human emotions do not.
I honestly feel for all of the people out there who have lost huge amounts of money. Real money. Some people who got in early are still way up, but nothing like what they had six months ago. But there are many who blew their 2017 Christmas bonuses on...nothing. I know one guy who I suspect lost $20k on Ripple (he bought at the exact high...Jan 4 or so) but he will not admit it.
this is a great time to start DCA in, given current valuations.
Hope everyone is doing well and enjoying this bear season.
Pshaw, bikes are a fad. What's the realistic use case for wheels and gears? Ridiculous.
You're probably just one of those initial-spoke-offering shills trying to make a quick buck getting more suckers to buy into your worthless "low cost fun 150 year old transportation technology". I've reported you to the mods.
-W
Hope everyone is doing well and enjoying this bear season.
Yup. I'm back to getting to read about cool tech and interesting new approaches which may or may not work.
Much more fun than having the same argument over and over again about how power consumption per bitcoin transaction isn't a useful metric, since you cannot spend more power to send more transactions, and sending fewer doesn't reduce power consumption.
I hope you are well @Tonyahu
this is a great time to start DCA in, given current valuations.
I'd be interested to see your mathematical valuation analysis.
@Tonyahu, you're back! Cheers.
Last time I saw posts from you, it was around December and you were considering selling some crypto to shift partially into non-crypto assets. You almost had enough to FI if the 4% rule were to be applied, but were hesitant about the risks of stocks IIRC.
So what happened? Did you sell any crypto, or are you still pretty much all in?
Nothing reinforces my conviction that crypto is doomed to burn more effectively than posts from crypto boosters.
Literally the last post before Tonyahu's update is a Bloomberg article indicating that Tether is being manipulated on Kraken, and instead of addressing that in any way, we instead get a prediction that the crypto market will more than quadruple in size within eighteen months, offered with no supporting argument.
You're probably just one of those initial-spoke-offering shills trying to make a quick buck getting more suckers to buy into your worthless "low cost fun 150 year old transportation technology". I've reported you to the mods.
-W
Why didn't you buy the bike with your crypto? Oh yeah that's right. No one really takes crypto to buy anything and no one actually uses to buy anything.
Nice bike!
QuoteWhy didn't you buy the bike with your crypto? Oh yeah that's right. No one really takes crypto to buy anything and no one actually uses to buy anything.
Nice bike!
The guy at the bike shop told me I was the second guy to come in and buy a new bike with crypto earnings.
I'm a pretty cheap person but I was easily persuaded to buy the $1,400 bike instead of the first one I rode, which was about $800. No comparison.
And no comparison between the $1,400 bike and my last mountain bike, which was $450 with 26" wheels from 2002. The advances in mtb construction are just seismic and the sport itself has evolved to be almost unrecognizable. The "old" mtb trails in my area from the 1990s have been semi-abandoned in favor of the newer flow and downhill trails.
If there's anything I took away from the MMM articles, it was the advice to get "cheap hobbies". Luckily I was already doing that, since even with decent-quality bikes, bicycling is still a very cheap hobby as compared to fishing, skiing, boating, etc.
Road bikes have evolved almost as drastically - the top-of-the-line bikes that were used by Grand Tour winners at the turn of the millennium are now objectively inferior to $800 entry-level machines, while the current high-end models are so far beyond those older bikes that they might as well be in a different sport. It's one of the most promising signs in road cycling as a professional sport that the last decade or so of ever-advancing wind tunnel testing, weight shaving, kit shrinking and mathematically precise training and dietary plans is only now producing times marginally faster than 2001-2007.
All this is unfortunately off topic, though, so...rabble rabble Bitcoin rabble rabble Ponzi rabble rabble transformative rabble rabble?
I'd never be one to argue that a modern expensive bike isn't a very nice thing to ride . . . but 90% of the weight and aerodynamics is going to be related to the shape and position of the engine on that bike. I ride around on a 25+ lb steel frame touring bike, and it's pretty unusual for me to get dropped on a ride.
It's always going to be much cheaper to take 5 lbs off the engine than the bike, and the rider's body position and clothing worn matters an awful lot more than the aerodynamics of the frame he/she is on. :P
Just to stay on topic I want to say that using crypto to buy bikes is a great idea. Then I can tell my GF I have no idea where the new machine came from and she can't trace the payment back to me. ;)
I'd never be one to argue that a modern expensive bike isn't a very nice thing to ride . . . but 90% of the weight and aerodynamics is going to be related to the shape and position of the engine on that bike.
I have lost 5k on crypto. 5.5k is my current value. I plan to just hold onto this variety of holdings as I do have long-term belief in it.
Otherwise I have been busy selling tradelines, signing up for bank bonuses and credit card bonuses over the last two months have made 7k there so I consider this has covered the hole my crypto investment made short term.
I have lost 5k on crypto. 5.5k is my current value. I plan to just hold onto this variety of holdings as I do have long-term belief in it.
Otherwise I have been busy selling tradelines, signing up for bank bonuses and credit card bonuses over the last two months have made 7k there so I consider this has covered the hole my crypto investment made short term.
Great report, @Orin! !
Good luck on all of your adventures.
I have lost 5k on crypto. 5.5k is my current value. I plan to just hold onto this variety of holdings as I do have long-term belief in it.
Otherwise I have been busy selling tradelines, signing up for bank bonuses and credit card bonuses over the last two months have made 7k there so I consider this has covered the hole my crypto investment made short term.
Great report, @Orin! !
Good luck on all of your adventures.
Thank you !
If someone put enough energy into it, they could achieve financial independence just off bank bonuses, credit card sign ups and tradelines.
I mean - isn’t that what banks do?
The banking system is too rigged for them to profit in. It is also inefficient and too regulated which is why I believe in long term value of crypto.
Legitimately curious in how you could possibly average 7k in churning/tradelines in two months. I've done tradelines and commissions on them at least for what I saw was about $100-$200 per user, and at most I'd end up with 4 in a month. Banking bonuses typically pay quarterly or every 180 days. Would love to hear what else you are doing!
Is there any actual fundamental reason cited for the ridiculous run-up, or is it just the same old people manipulating prices again?
I wonder if Top is in for bitcoin.
I wonder if Top is in for bitcoin.
Local top was in a few months back around $17k or so (yes, it bubbled along to $20k and you couldn't get much through the network at that point, so it wasn't a useful value).
Or are you referring to the bouncing around $6k-$8k thing?
Any updates from crypto fiends or foes? Hanging in there? Buying the dip? Selling in panic? Smiling smugly? Patting yourself on the back for talking friends and family out of their crypto "investments" during the 2017 holidays?
Today on 1/8/2018: 1 Bitcoin is $14,900, 1 Monero is $400, 1 Ether is $1,150, 1 Lisk is $31, 1 LINK is $1.30 and 1 ARDR is $1.61
Once in a lifetime opportunity.
Today on 1/8/2018: 1 Bitcoin is $14,900, 1 Monero is $400, 1 Ether is $1,150, 1 Lisk is $31, 1 LINK is $1.30 and 1 ARDR is $1.61
Once in a lifetime opportunity.
Today on 11/25/2018: 1 Bitcoin is 3,700, 1 Monero is 55, 1 Ether is 109, 1 Lisk is 1.29, 1 LINK is 27 cents and 1 ARDR is five and a half cents.
I expect the market capitalization to be over 1 T by the end of 2019, current at 225B.
Today on 1/8/2018: 1 Bitcoin is $14,900, 1 Monero is $400, 1 Ether is $1,150, 1 Lisk is $31, 1 LINK is $1.30 and 1 ARDR is $1.61
Once in a lifetime opportunity.
Today on 11/25/2018: 1 Bitcoin is 3,700, 1 Monero is 55, 1 Ether is 109, 1 Lisk is 1.29, 1 LINK is 27 cents and 1 ARDR is five and a half cents.
Any updates from crypto fiends or foes? Hanging in there? Buying the dip? Selling in panic? Smiling smugly? Patting yourself on the back for talking friends and family out of their crypto "investments" during the 2017 holidays?
Crypto essentially undermines legitimate currencies. It's best use is to avoid tracking and taxes. My opinion is that it is mostly used by criminals; and speculated on by the get-rich-quick types. IMO for John Q. Public there are no reasons to replace the dollar.
https://boingboing-net.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/boingboing.net/2018/12/05/blockchain-cruise.html/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2F2018%2F12%2F05%2Fblockchain-cruise.html
A British journalist named Laurie Penny, who usually focuses on feminism, somehow got sent on a crypto cruise around the Mediterranean. The ensuing article is both quite funny and quite depressing.
Correlation does not equal causation, and for all I know the guy has been hip-deep in Ukrainian models somewhere offstage the whole time, but I suspect not. I suspect he has been doing what he normally does: having arguments on the internet.
...
I twice hear Pierce telling people who have clearly never licked an Amazonian frog just to see what would happen that “the first four letters of ‘EVOLVE’ are ‘EVOL.’ Reverse that and you get ‘LOVE.’”
Indeed, quite a funny read (and worth the time to read the whole thing). The author is a very talented writer so that it'd be worth reading regardless of the topic matter.QuoteCorrelation does not equal causation, and for all I know the guy has been hip-deep in Ukrainian models somewhere offstage the whole time, but I suspect not. I suspect he has been doing what he normally does: having arguments on the internet.
...
I twice hear Pierce telling people who have clearly never licked an Amazonian frog just to see what would happen that “the first four letters of ‘EVOLVE’ are ‘EVOL.’ Reverse that and you get ‘LOVE.’”
I must be one of the few who made money in crypto - and guess what it wasn't the crypto I made money on!
I got into mining, built a few rigs. I had stacks of 1080 ti boxes.
How did I make money? Sold GPUs when idiots were piling in late and paying $1200 for used $700 cards.
I must be one of the few who made money in crypto - and guess what it wasn't the crypto I made money on!
I got into mining, built a few rigs. I had stacks of 1080 ti boxes.
How did I make money? Sold GPUs when idiots were piling in late and paying $1200 for used $700 cards.
The people who struck it rich during the Gold Rush didn't go looking for gold. They sold shovels and sandwiches to all the people looking for gold.
Based on these figures, here is a summary and average of these predictions: $43,138. Wow! Amazing to consider that at the current value of just under $8,000, that’s a speculative return of 539%!
I'll just leave this link here:
Bitcoin Projection for 2018
https://www.cryptoculturemagazine.com/cryptocurrency/bitcoin-projection-for-2018/QuoteBased on these figures, here is a summary and average of these predictions: $43,138. Wow! Amazing to consider that at the current value of just under $8,000, that’s a speculative return of 539%!
Todays BTC price: $3,433
That's nothing. John Maafee predicts Bitcoin will be at $1,000,000 by the end of 2020.
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/935900326007328768
That my friends, is how you really pump up the speculative return.
That's nothing. John Maafee predicts Bitcoin will be at $1,000,000 by the end of 2020.
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/935900326007328768
That my friends, is how you really pump up the speculative return.
He offers to eat his dick if he’s wrong. Hard not to trust his opinion
Crypto bottom is in as it shows strength and inverse correlation to tanking markets.
Crypto bottom is in as it shows strength and inverse correlation to tanking markets.
He's baaaaaaack!!
-W
Crypto bottom is in as it shows strength and inverse correlation to tanking markets.
But how do you know if it's done tanking?!?
Your post made me think about these guys
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/this-family-bet-it-all-on-bitcoin.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/this-family-bet-it-all-on-bitcoin.html)
How many billions of dollars worth of crypto have gone "missing" from exchanges, one way or another? Is anyone keeping count?
Because to a casual observer, this looks like the riskiest, most insecure, most fraud-prone "asset class" ever invented.
How many billions of dollars worth of crypto have gone "missing" from exchanges, one way or another? Is anyone keeping count?
Because to a casual observer, this looks like the riskiest, most insecure, most fraud-prone "asset class" ever invented.
Keeping crypto at an exchange has a very different (and worse) set of risks associated with it compared to having crypto that you control yourself.
Just like the types and degree of risks are different if you have cash stashed under your mattress or deposited at a bank.
Or buy a bunch of shares of VTI vs start a small business.
Or own a gold ETF vs have gold coins buried in the backyard.
Does it make sense why these two things are not the same as each other? If not, and you are interested, I'm happy to discuss what the different risks are and why they exist.
Keeping crypto at an exchange has a very different (and worse) set of risks associated with it compared to having crypto that you control yourself.
How many billions of dollars worth of crypto have gone "missing" from exchanges, one way or another? Is anyone keeping count?
Because to a casual observer, this looks like the riskiest, most insecure, most fraud-prone "asset class" ever invented.
I don't know what the ratio of hacking losses are for exchanges vs privately-owned wallets, but it seems that in either case there is no recourse.
I do want to repeat here that my thesis isn't cryptocurrencies are more or less safe than cash, bank deposits, stocks, or gold (either ETFs or buried in the back yard).
My thesis is that looking at the safety record of exchanges and what kinds of problems they run into is not going to provide useful information about the type about the safety record or types of risks for people who actually use cryptocurrencies will encounter.
How many billions of dollars worth of crypto have gone "missing" from exchanges, one way or another? Is anyone keeping count?
Because to a casual observer, this looks like the riskiest, most insecure, most fraud-prone "asset class" ever invented.
Why do people use crypto-exchanges in the first place? The word "exchange" makes me think of a stock exchange, but it sounds like in this particular case this hot/cold storage was being used more like a traditional bank. If the latter, then why? Are the owners of those coins not confident in managing their own wallets that they put them in a third party's hands?
Exactly. They heard crypto was going up (or think they can make money trading the swings when it is going down), so they decided to buy some either happens in person or on exchanges, but then didn't bother to learn enough about the technology to actually set up a wallet of their own.
Cryptocurrencies are not stocks. If anything they are closer to some weird hybrid between a currency and a commodity. Anyone buying them to get rich, especially folks who don't take the time to understand the technology behind them enough to actually use them, is unlikely to have a good time.
In general, the exchanges should be used for trading between various asset classes (cash, various cryptocurrencies, etc), with the results pulled out, but people tend to get lazy and leave them there - and, empirically, an awful lot of people do that. I think it's stupid, personally, but... well, I'm not exposed to risk from third party exchanges running God knows what software stack at some poorly secured cloud provider.
If you trust anything of potential value to random strangers on the internet, bad stuff is going to happen fairly often.
I think that the very security that crypto was designed to offer is exactly what makes it so vulnerable. The fact that it's decentralized and irreversible is what makes it a lucrative target for thieves. Strong encryption offloads all of the responsibility for safety to the user, and users are notoriously bad at that. It's almost like cryptocurrenies were tailor-made to be the perfect target for theft.
Strong encryption offloads all of the responsibility for safety to the user, and users are notoriously bad at that.
those of us who put in the time to understand how to use it safely find it both appealing and secure
Currently I need a third party in many cases to pay someone.
And that's just cool from a tech perspective.
it is frustrating that we cannot seem to ever disagree without you trying to demonize people
I wish I could find a way to convince you people can look at the same data as you, come to a different conclusion from you
It makes it frustrating/depressing to have conversations with you.
I agree that some third party fees are high, like credit cards, but that's purely a matter of you choosing to pay for convenience.
There is no cost at all to using a regular bank, because the bank makes money by lending against your account balance.
Banks will happily transfer money for you electronically, for free, it's just slow and inconvenient.
If you prefer to use a little plastic chip that you carry in your wallet that is accepted literally everywhere and offers you fraud protection and chargeback privileges, then you pay a little more for the convenience. But you don't have to.
Crypto also charges fees to transfer back and forth to other forms of currency, so it's not like this problem is unique to credit cards, and crypto is terribly inconvenient if you want to use it at your local gas station.
What's next, smelting my own aluminum to make circuit boards in case someone hardware hacked the laptop I bought from Vietnam? At some point, you have to learn to trust the system we have built, warts and all.
the firmware is a far, far easier place to put bonus functions. You'd be better off investing in a secure SPI flasher to pull the firmware and compare it against the reference, or to just fully flash a new firmware onto the various non-volatile storage chips in the machine.
I knew, as soon as I wrote what I thought was nonsensical paranoia, that someone would actually take it seriously.
There is a community of tin foil hat wearing folks out there, and some of them think banks are evil and some of them think cryptocurrency is awesome, and there is some overlap between those groups. Some of them are also way into "permaculture" or "prepping" and will hoard emergency rations or ammunition, but I'm not sure how much overlap there is between the folks paranoid about the government melting (like the preppers) and the folks paranoid about fiat currency melting (like the crypto bros). I'm guessing, at least a little?
Hey man, it's a free country. If you're really worried about secret backdoors in your laptop, then by all means take whatever precautions you find necessary. You're also free to stockpile guns and gold. This just feels like a weird place to be having this conversation, in the middle of a forum that exists for the express purpose of helping people achieve financial freedom by actively participating in the system that seems so scary. The main pathway to FI promoted here is investing in the stock market, which means buying into capitalism and globalism and fiat currency and central banking. They're all tied up together, creating a world in which an average-earning 40 year old can retire and never work again. It seems pretty great, to me.
Hey, we're back to gold!
Which is what is wrong with crypto right now. Sigh.
I want cheap boring crypto. That nobody owns for more than a few seconds to do a transaction. That nobody in their right mind would hoard or "invest" in or even want to own. The ultimate valueless token that makes transactions faster and cheaper. That's not what has happened so far.
Transactions can be fast and cheap, and even free if the cost is passed on to developers vs users, however the native token that secures the network can't be valueless, and the token value itself must increase as more value is created through the network.
... Using public blockchain records, it determined the digital wallets thought to contain millions were emptied in April, eight months before Cotten's death, it said in a report last week.
"In April 2018, the remaining bitcoin in the Identified Bitcoin Cold Wallets was transferred out bringing the balances down to nil," the report said.
Portfolio update: My final and insignificant crypto speculation is almost 100% in loom network.Blockchain is a public database. I don't want my private information exported, and I think EU countries feel that even more strongly. Will health care records be lost if I forget my cryptographic key? Someone having a heart attack will remember their key, so their drug allergies can be considered? And if I don't have a cryptographic key, what's the point of a public database as far as I'm concerned, as a member of the public?
***I want cheap boring crypto. That nobody owns for more than a few seconds to do a transaction. That nobody in their right mind would hoard or "invest" in or even want to own. The ultimate valueless token that makes transactions faster and cheaper. That's not what has happened so far.As blockchain uses expand beyond online services such as gambling, ... The time will come when public blockchains are an integral part of civilization and myriad dapps created that many people will want to use.
... Using public blockchain records, it determined the digital wallets thought to contain millions were emptied in April, eight months before Cotten's death, it said in a report last week.
"In April 2018, the remaining bitcoin in the Identified Bitcoin Cold Wallets was transferred out bringing the balances down to nil," the report said.
So the biggest exchange in the entire country was an outright fraud? They straight up stole everyone's money?
It's a libertarian utopia!
Players' time and effort can be meaningfully captured and valued through blockchain.
Players' time and effort can be meaningfully captured and valued through blockchain.
Is this a current problem that needs to be fixed?
I for one, only play video games for money. I mean, that's why playing video games is called 'work' not 'recreation', right?
Current games are developed in a very centralized process, are vulnerable to hacking which impacts online social play, and there here is a lack of true scarcity in gaming assets.
...
Putting digital assets on a blockchain negates these issues; and if blockchain advances enough in terms of scalability and reduced costs, you can put entire game states or the entire game or other complex applications on these blockchains.
Yes, blockchain will change my life by making my Magic the Gathering deck more awesome...
Jesus.
-W
I thought Magic the Gathering: Online Exchange stopped handling crypto?
Sorry, this is just 1) not a meaningful problem within currently existing games, to the best of my knowledge, and 2) so minor that even talking about it undercuts the whole "blockchain will revolutionize your life" theme.
If the best we can come up with is that it'll make World of Warcraft gold somewhat more fair (which is actually dubious in the first place), that's pathetic.
-W
That's very subjective. When amazon introduced online book orders, critics at the time didn't really perceive it as solving any meaningful problem.
Here's some examples of "centralized" gaming issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPTC-gJT1eM&feature=youtu.be (store removes rare cards and reseals package)
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/buyer-beware-2004-04-26
https://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2472-i-made-obscene-money-forging-magic-gathering-cards.html
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59p7qd/this-man-has-survived-by-hacking-mmo-online-games
Technical analysis and cryptocurrencies, all in one post? I feel like I win crackpot investing bingo.
Fibonacci 618 resistance*snort
Technical analysis and cryptocurrencies, all in one post? I feel like I win crackpot investing bingo.
Technical analysis and cryptocurrencies, all in one post? I feel like I win crackpot investing bingo.
I like the triangle and shit. That's how you know the graph is totally serious.
Today [spam link removed] btc have 3946 as previous support become resistance (classic support and resistance ). This level also as Fibonacci 618 resistance.
If this level able to hold bullish , it will confirm bearish with a new lower target at 3807 (fibonacci 1.618)
This pattern still unconfirmed as bullish 3 drives, and it will complete as bullish 3 drives once we reach 3807 with target at 3982
*I already close my short at 3860, now i wait for new short around 3946 with target at 3807. (https://www.tradingview.com/i/spTlbON9/)
bitcoin is back? Is this a good time to get in?
bitcoin is back? Is this a good time to get in?
I mined 0.2 Ether out of curiosity. Let's see were the hype train number three goes. Remind to convert that into an extra ETF contribution once Ether hits 500€ /560$ again so I get the satisfaction of hitting a round number of 100€ for increasing my ETF contributions ahead of schedule.
bitcoin is back? Is this a good time to get in?
It's back... to the 8k range.... still down over 50% from it's all time high.... So really, no, it's not.
Yeah, by that logic Bre-X was a stunning investment too. As long as you managed to use your crystal ball to buy at exactly the right time and sell at exactly the right time. Easy peasy.
I thought we established long ago that Bitcoin (and all the clones) are terrible for use as a currency.
I thought we established long ago that Bitcoin (and all the clones) are terrible for use as a currency.
How long have they been around? I just got done reading David Graeber's Debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years) and I have been convinced that new financial instruments often have wildly fluctuating values. Just because cryptocurrency is a shit currency today doesn't mean that will hold true in 100 years.
I still prefer ETH and BTC to Venezuela Bolívars, which is to say that everything is relative.
I thought we established long ago that Bitcoin (and all the clones) are terrible for use as a currency.
How long have they been around? I just got done reading David Graeber's Debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years) and I have been convinced that new financial instruments often have wildly fluctuating values. Just because cryptocurrency is a shit currency today doesn't mean that will hold true in 100 years.
I still prefer ETH and BTC to Venezuela Bolívars, which is to say that everything is relative.
Of course, that still doesn't make them a good investment.
In fairness, comparing the best possible cryptocoins...
There have been some efforts to create stable coins pegged to a fiat currency, which would solve a lot of problems, except for the problem that you are pegged to a fiat currency. And of course, the peg can break.The peg can't break as long as the stablecoin is 100% backed.
There have been some efforts to create stable coins pegged to a fiat currency, which would solve a lot of problems, except for the problem that you are pegged to a fiat currency. And of course, the peg can break.The peg can't break as long as the stablecoin is 100% backed.
Fiat-backed stablecoins are not the only ones, there are stablecoins pegged to commodities too
There have been some efforts to create stable coins pegged to a fiat currency, which would solve a lot of problems, except for the problem that you are pegged to a fiat currency. And of course, the peg can break.The peg can't break as long as the stablecoin is 100% backed.
Fiat-backed stablecoins are not the only ones, there are stablecoins pegged to commodities too
It raises the question though, if the stablecoin is 100% backed, what do you need the stablecoin for? It raises another question, who makes sure the backing is really there and available? And is it even really backed? For example, Tether states “no guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money.”
It raises the question though, if the stablecoin is 100% backed, what do you need the stablecoin for? It raises another question, who makes sure the backing is really there and available? And is it even really backed?Third party audits, on a regular basis, through an internationally renown auditing company, e.g. Bureau Veritas.
For example, Tether states “no guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money.”The first two things to look at, in order to judge a x-backed stablecoin project, are a) independent auditing, and b) redemption option, the possibility of converting the coins for what they represent.
bitcoin is back? Is this a good time to get in?
No and no.
It's getting really tiring to see all the btc haters bash it when it's down, writing it off as a bubble that will burst to $0.
The market thinks otherwise.
The real FOMO hasn't started yet. I don't think we are anywhere near the 2017 level of awareness of the Bitcoin climb as of this writing. I'm still very bullish on the short term future of Bitcoin.
The real FOMO hasn't started yet. I don't think we are anywhere near the 2017 level of awareness of the Bitcoin climb as of this writing. I'm still very bullish on the short term future of Bitcoin.
Correct. Based on the 4 year boom/bust btc cycle this is equivalent of 2016. More people are aware of it this time around but still not able to grasp the notion of it being a store of value which competes with gold. To them it is a fake, energy sapping asset used for illegal activities and they will continue to convince themselves of it until the point it is 400k/coin.
Wait till pension funds / 401k plans start auto investing into this. I doubt anyone could say at that point that they don't invest in it.
I was wondering if this thread would pop back up again as BTC sails past $26k USD/BTC and keeps climbing...It's getting really tiring to see all the btc haters bash it when it's down, writing it off as a bubble that will burst to $0.
If it's high, it's a speculative bubble, pyramid scheme (I guess that's a term you call things that you don't understand that people are making money on?), tulip mania, etc. If it's low, well, laugh at all the losers who bought into it and put their life's savings in it back when it was $500 or $1000 or something... And if it's stable, well, it's boring, why bother, can't get rich quick on something stable. Of course, there's also the problem that it uses more energy than the world generates (based on extrapolating the current hash rate on GPU efficiency numbers), is only used for drugs and crime, and... honestly, I don't even read any articles on mainstream tech sites about Bitcoin, because it's utterly predictable and that's before you hit the comment threads.
I can't figure out how much is people being misinformed, how much is well informed dislike, and how much is just sour grapes.
I've done very limited speculation in Crypto.
Haven't completely worked out the accounting, but over 2018-summer of this year, I was probably about $400 in the hole.
Beginning with the 10/31 pay-cheque, I've been rebuilding a position, which is still small. Every pay-check, I put enough in to get to the next value using the price at the time. Lately, gains in price mean my purchases have been smaller, and--if it really runs ahead--I may pull some out this Thursday.
I think this is the best way to deal with the volatility while slowly increasing my stake.
Can you still buy USDT in the USA?