Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

h0neybadger wrote: »

I’m unsubscribing from the Crypto forum

Please don't. Many posters in here are intelligent and reasonable and see virtue / value in blockchain technologies per se, in investing in it or even speculating with it or creating with it or mining it. And want to talk about it!

There are always nay sayers whenever there is anything new. Let's all just chill and get along. Worst thing happening to anyone invested in crypto is that the other party will say "I told you so" after each downturn in value. Worst thing happening to the nay sayers is when someone invested a coupla dollars in crypto shows them their new lambo

I find it quite easy to ignore the jabbering imbeciles. I sometimes weaken, but mostly I just let them get on with their half baked, confused and self contradictory ramblings. My dog can put together more cohesive analysis. Hell, the dump I took this morning could.

The thread title is inviting people like myself in voicing are concernes about the currency. Maybe changing the title might put off negative posts.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The thread title is inviting people like myself in voicing are concernes about the currency. Maybe changing the title might put off negative posts.

A very quick read of the first post should give an indication of what the thread was about - basically "Hey everybody, how do ye feel about general market sentiment?"

Which got hijacked by a bunch who literally don't know what a Ponzi or a pyramid scheme is and can't see value in things they can't touch - probably while streaming movies and music they can't touch using a technology they also can't fathom with bandwidth they can't touch yet persistently pay money for - sometimes they even pay more for extra bandwidth or specifically choose certain providers based on the strength of the network!
Can you imagine that? Paying money to be on a strong network? Choosing a provider based on different attributes?
Crazy notion altogether, never going to work, something something ponzyramid

grindle wrote: »

A very quick read of the first post should give an indication of what the thread was about - basically "Hey everybody, how do ye feel about general market sentiment?"

Which got hijacked by a bunch who literally don't know what a Ponzi or a pyramid scheme is and can't see value in things they can't touch - probably while streaming movies and music they can't touch using a technology they also can't fathom with bandwidth they can't touch yet persistently pay money for - sometimes they even pay more for extra bandwidth or specifically choose certain providers based on the strength of the network!
Can you imagine that? Paying money to be on a strong network? Choosing a provider based on different attributes?
Crazy notion altogether, never going to work, something something ponzyramid

Yeah fair point but super telling that people shouting for folks to 'hooooold' and stay in the game are doing it for their own benefit not some form of altruistic advice giving ....

grindle wrote:

A very quick read of the first post should give an indication of what the thread was about - basically "Hey everybody, how do ye feel about general market sentiment?"

In fairness you can't brush off the negative nellys as crackpots. Almost every government in the world agrees with them including all the top economists. Many experts have broken it down & have called it akin to a ponzi scheme.

Title says is anyone else starting to become a bit worried. The title is encouraging people to come in and say of course you should be worried.

I'm just saying posters have asked why the anti bitcoin posters in this thread & not others. The answer is the title.

jasper100 wrote: »

But you are correct. Advising people to hold purely because they want their own investment value not to collapse.

what are you smoking?

(eg) advising someone to hold less that 24hrs ago (and they did) would have seen a ~25% recovery on their portfolio this morning.


but hey, I guess you knew that right? *roll eyes

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, the volatility of the currency at this time is precisely why various vendors have stopped accepting bitcoins as a mode of payment. How do you value a good or service in BTC on your website when the thing is going up or down 5% in a matter of minutes, unless you want to tie it to ‘current dollar value”, which seems a bit tricky to program? This does not seem unreasonable at this time. I’m sure they’ll go back to accepting, but not until things settle down.

I will raise a hand and say that right now I am not investing, I am speculating. Gambling, even, but even gamblers play odds based on some research.

That said, I really could do without these swings. I don’t want my portfolio up twenty percent, down ten, up ten, down five. I would be more satisfied with 0.5% every day... It would add up quickly enough.

Isn't that something like what the now defunct Bitconnect were promising??

listermint wrote: »

Yeah fair point but super telling that people shouting for folks to 'hooooold' and stay in the game are doing it for their own benefit not some form of altruistic advice giving ....

Setting a margin short & telling people to dump would be the least altruistic way.

For the hardcore BTC heads telling people to hold is just a way of helping people to not get burnt in a panic and also ensures the consistent growth of the network.

There's going to be a price-discovery crash (trillions away) which will maul people (not down to zero unless it gets usurped) but the main aim is to grant people the privilege of owning their money. Whatever value it is from day to day the idea is for it to be yours, something where you don't need permission of another to deposit or withdraw.

Privacy and self-ownership seem to be old-fashioned concepts these days but the initial philosophy behind BTC is a very worthy endeavour.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I believe the long-term value of bitcoin is somewhere close to zero, albeit not actually zero or at least not for some time.

Entirely possible.

Deleted User wrote: »

I base that on the fact that bitcoin does not appear fit for purposes as a currency, and given that is the case, I do not understand what it is for. I want someone to explain to me why and when bitcoin will function as a currency or as SOMETHING that has a meaningful utility.

It's still in beta, still in development. Maybe they'll be able to scale it properly, maybe they won't. Security is paramount to the Core devs right now, not usability. Not much point in it existing if there are exploits which could render it useless.
I agree that it currently can't be used in the manner it was wished, there were a lot of debates that used to be had about how to scale before it got hijacked by current Core devs.

Deleted User wrote: »

"It's about blockchain" etc. So what? Does bitcoin or any coin have a monopoly on blockchain? Is there blockchain scarcity somehow? Also, given what is happening with transaction times etc I wonder if it is fit for purpose anyway.

No, no monopoly except the one which exists in BTC maximalist's heads. The entire point of Bitcoin from inception was to improve on the foundation, fork, create alts, test game theories in the wild - nefarious actors have taken hold of it for better or worse. Maybe their vision gets borne out, maybe it collapses. I'm hoping for the latter.

Deleted User wrote: »

"Fiat money is 'broken'". To some degree, yes. But this is a negative argument rather than a positive one for bitcoin, I can't see the path to recognition for bitcoin as an alternative to fiat (again, bitcoin, NOT the technology)

God, I hate arguing for BTC, I really do.
BTC's path to recognition may only come if scaling is sorted and centralisation concerns "fixed".

Deleted User wrote: »

"Governments can print money and thus inflation is possible with fiat money". That's true, but hyper-inflation is empirically very rare and almost non-existent in functioning western economies. Certainly no major currency has deflated the way bitcoin has in the last month for decades.

BTC is a hedged bet predicting a debt timebomb.
Derivative debts would take a century minimum for the world to pay off if they're not outright forgotten & forgiven (not happening). BTC evangelists are keeping their money stored safely away from that.

Deleted User wrote: »

"But people have made money". This is true and will be true again. It's true of every speculative bubble, but it proves nothing.

There's no argument for or against that here. It is what it is. It works as an incentive for adoption.

An absolute pleasure discussing with you - you bring up the same kinds of points the inner community brings up every day.
Ignore the price discussion and all it's glorious memery - Bitcoin isn't/wasn't about the moon or lambos, it's about security and ownership, individual sovereignty. It's a work in progress which may or may not pan out.

Dades wrote: »

I understand the ideals behind this, but ultimately we - the small fry - have no bearing on the market. Hodl if you believe the market will rebound for sure, but not out of solidarity for the technology!

If I'm honest, I've always seen crypto as a type of ponzi scheme, but an open one you can get in and out of at will if you are willing to take your chances. It really is like a global game of chicken.

The tech is really interesting and no doubt will bring big change in the future, but the crypto market is a crazy money game that has arisen from it.

Hmm in hindsight I could have panicked at the early stages of the correction 2 weeks ago (or even 1 week ago) and sold - could have bought back in and increased all my positions - I didn't.

If I'd heeded some of the fear-inspired advice to sell in the last 2 days, I'd have been screwed similarly now.

I took the middle option and did nothing. (which is always a valid option in these times) Probably should have injected some more fiat to buy more into the promising stuff while it was at historic lows this time 24 hours ago though...

Fian wrote: »

...why on earth would they choose to adopt bitcoin when they could just establish their own currency instead and agree to exchange it for their existing fiat currency. I can't fathom any reason why that would not be preferable than adopting bitcoin.

Who's developing it? For how much money? Why would they waste their time for a predictably low government windfall? Is it secure?

Fian wrote: »

If "Trumpcoins" were launched and had a hardwritten limit on supply, that would be something I would consider investing it.

*cough*

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes some sense although I would be extremely sceptical that it's a sensible bet...

That's why people should place their bets sensibly. People are people and some people are of course making some atrocious choices - "ALL-IN! REMORTGAGE THE HOUSE! SELL THE KIDS!"

It's the reason for BTC's existence either way. It's not for making people rich, that's just a side-effect of adoption and works as an incentive for adoption.

Some people keep imagining that blockchain is a great technology but don't like it's application to money and I fully understand their resistance, but what other application could have spurred development as quickly in this sphere?
What asset or idea needs security and decentralisation the most?
Blockchain would have died a death and gone unnoticed if it didn't have an incentive for use beyond 10 die-hard cypherpunk libertarians trading it on some IRC chat or wherever they were chatting.

If you haven't, you should spare a couple of hours and watch this:


You'll find most maximalists or crypto-heads don't give a shít about the price, it's just a nice side-effect for them.

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Anyone want to explain the current faith people seem to be having?
Double digits everywhere
Can't be a dead cat bounce

Probably the whales buying back after shaking morons loose.

The CFTC/SEC hearing was surprisingly bullish.

Fian wrote: »

You would think in Ireland of all places people would be wary of bubbles. I haven't read the whole thread - I wonder at any stage did someone post that bitcoin would inevitably return and surpass the previous highs "Safe as houses".

Max Keiser says this regularly but he has been backing Bitcoin from the start

crytoadvice wrote: »

Do you mean the people behind Bcash

Eh, no. Both sides are unsavoury in their own ways but the BTC Core devs are employed by Blockstream and have acted maliciously since Gavin stupidly got behind the idea that Craig Wright is Satoshi.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I believe the long-term value of bitcoin is somewhere close to zero, albeit not actually zero or at least not for some time.

Perhaps bitcoin will fall by the wayside and be overtaken by another crypto - so yes, maybe it's future value is zero.

Deleted User wrote: »

I base that on the fact that bitcoin does not appear fit for purposes as a currency, and given that is the case, I do not understand what it is for. I want someone to explain to me why and when bitcoin will function as a currency or as SOMETHING that has a meaningful utility.

It's acknowledged by all that it's in development - a work in progress. It's not the finished article. It was functional as a transactional currency up until recently when it hit a scaling problem. There are projects being worked on to remedy this eg. Lightning Network. Additionally, we have not seen the full value of Segwit as it has not been fully adopted (not a panacea but it will help ease the problem somewhat if fully adopted...and by all accounts, coinbase are getting closer to adoption as per a recent tweet).
In terms of a store of value, that's clearly going to take longer if at all given the major volatility.

Deleted User wrote: »

As stated up thread, it is reasonably obvious why fiat money has value (and reasonably predictable value). Governments back it and effectively mandate its use in their territories. I won't go into the details beyond what I've already said, but this is well understood or it should be.

I don't know so much about 'backing it'. There's no gold standard any more - so the dollar or euro are just pieces of paper in the same way as bitcoin is just a line of code. However, to your point re. territorial mandate, I agree there's a distinction there and where there's heavy handed regulation (eg. current scenario in china), then governments have the option of making crypto largely inaccessible to the majority of people.

Deleted User wrote: »

[*]"It's about blockchain" etc. So what? Does bitcoin or any coin have a monopoly on blockchain? Is there blockchain scarcity somehow? Also, given what is happening with transaction times etc I wonder if it is fit for purpose anyway..

There is no monopoly - anyone can start a crypto in the morning. However, it's all about perceived value and sentiment - the same as the euro in your pocket. As regards transaction times, see above - there's a recent scaling issue to be overcome.

Deleted User wrote: »

[*]"Fiat money is 'broken'". To some degree, yes. But this is a negative argument rather than a positive one for bitcoin, I can't see the path to recognition for bitcoin as an alternative to fiat (again, bitcoin, NOT the technology)

If you go back to when bitcoin emerged and what was going on in banking at that time, it gives you an idea of where the project was coming from. Do you want the $ in your pocket to be debased on an ongoing basis? With regard to the path to recognition, I agree that this is tricky....and we're currently seeing that being played out right now as regulation frameworks start to emerge. Some take a progressive approach (eg. Japan...and as per yesterdays news, perhaps the U.S. also) and others a hardline approach (eg. China).

Deleted User wrote: »

[*]"Governments can print money and thus inflation is possible with fiat money". That's true, but hyper-inflation is empirically very rare and almost non-existent in functioning western economies. Certainly no major currency has deflated the way bitcoin has in the last month for decades.

Who pays the price for quantitative easing? Ordinary people do - whilst the whales benefit disproportionately from it. As regards bitcoins volatility, that's acknowledged but you must remember comparatively it's only been around for a short while when you consider established FIAT currencies. Furthermore, it's still work in progress.

Deleted User wrote: »

[*]"But people have made money". This is true and will be true again. It's true of every speculative bubble, but it proves nothing.

The speculation is more of a recent thing - it's a side show. Although I've benefited from it, it's not the reason I first got involved in crypto.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Almost every government in the world agrees with them including all the top economists.

Why don't they just ban it summararily - across the board then - worldwide? Wouldn't that stop the whole thing completely?...or would it? This technology has the power to disrupt and with that, it may not be seen favourably by many associated with existing practice.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Many experts have broken it down & have called it akin to a ponzi scheme.

The recent speculative aspect of it - is a more recent phenomenum. It is not central to the bitcoin project. As regards it being a 'ponzi' scheme, has someone marketed it - to operate that way? Isn't a ponzi scheme pimped ...because that hasn't happened here. People choose to speculate - pure and simple.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Title says is anyone else starting to become a bit worried. The title is encouraging people to come in and say of course you should be worried. I'm just saying posters have asked why the anti bitcoin posters in this thread & not others. The answer is the title.

We can ask the OP. However, my interpretation of it was that he was trying to gauge market sentiment at that moment in time (as btc was tanking at that time) - from those following the market.

jasper100 wrote: »

But when people come on here touting that its some form of breakout currency for people in the third world they need to be reigned in a bit.

There are more potential strings to it's bow than you give it credit for. Cryptocurrency effectively empowers people to have a bank in their pocket. There are 1 billion unbanked in the world. They can install a bitcoin wallet in 2 minutes. Furthermore, anywhere there has been political and economic upheaval has seen a upswing in crypto interest eg. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc. As ridiculously volatile as it is, it still makes more sense than a 1 billion Zimbabwean dollar note.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Enjoy Barbados and the lambos......

Your posts are of the 'after hours' variety (just like your posts there on 'sex parties'). I'm all for hearing the contrarian view (as Orinoco has expressed) but not the cheap, nasty, bitter invective expressed by some posters (like you).

Fian wrote: »

Let's say blockchain currency is the future. To have an inherent value as a currency it will need to be accepted by Governments in satisfaction of taxes, that is fundamentally what underpins the value of existing fiat currencies. Maybe governments will move that that paradigm, I think probably not because the anonymity aspect is a disadvantage rather than an advantage from governments point of view( because tax evasion and money laundering).

That's all being thrashed out right now - as they all start to look towards regulation. Once those frameworks are put in place, we will all have clarity as regards where crypto's stand. Japan are ahead of the game having done this already and recognised btc as a currency.

Fian wrote: »

Even if they did though - why on earth would they choose to adopt bitcoin when they could just establish their own currency instead and agree to exchange it for their existing fiat currency. I can't fathom any reason why that would not be preferable than adopting bitcoin. If "Trumpcoins" were launched and had a hardwritten limit on supply, that would be something I would consider investing it.

A centralised digital currency? Be careful what you ask for. If it's centralised, it only has to be hacked ONCE. Furthermore, do you want your government to know exactly every single thing you've purchased and when you've purchased it?