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

Like, tbh makeorbrake, your tone is kind of sh1tty..really, at this stage you can't blame people saying crypto looks dubious..anyone watching from a bit of a distance would struggle to not see it as a bubble..what is kind of funny now, is at the time, loads of us were saying "lads, it has bubble written all over it", and were ignored amid talk of lambos and going to the moon..

unkel

makeorbrake wrote: »

irish people were within a hares breath of taking a haircut on their savings in Ireland back in 07/08

We did take a haircut on our savings: our pension funds were raided

smacl wrote: »

We live in Europe, lest it escaped your attention.

Aside from the fact that we are discussing in the context of crypto - and crypto isn't an irish phenomenon. Other than that, it seems that the fact that on two occassions over the last few years, the fact that we narrowly missed out on having a large chuck of our savings wiped out means everythings fine and it will never happen. It only has to happen once.

And, I dunno are banks any worse than mythical faceless internet entities..

unkel wrote: »

We did take a haircut on our savings: our pension funds were raided

You're quite right - thanks for correcting.

JJJJNR

Let's trust the bank bros they know best and will always operate in our best interests.

#brokebankbros

Deleted User wrote: »

And, I dunno are banks any worse than mythical faceless internet entities..

Given time for them to develop, I would wager yes. This year has seen the arrival of stablecoins. These should take all the volatility out of crypto. I'm not comfortable in doing it just yet until I understand more about what security there is in using them. However, I'd be far happier storing my own funds than leaving them in the hands of a bank or a government. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with that but I'd imagine you can figure out the upside to having your own funds under your own control.

Deleted User wrote: »

Like, tbh makeorbrake, your tone is kind of sh1tty..

That's your opinion. My posts have been a reaction to the views of some of your fellow naysayers (including that individual that just thanked your post. If you think his tone is better than mine, we really don't have anything to discuss on that. :-)

Deleted User wrote: »

at this stage you can't blame people saying crypto looks dubious.

If you're saying crypto in terms of investment is high risk, then agreed. Perhaps your interpretation is different - again, thats your interpretation so that's fine. Some here have suggested that I want to change peoples minds. I'm not bothered about that. People can make up their own minds so long as they have all the info to form a view.

Deleted User wrote: »

would a struggle to not see it as a bubble..what is kind of funny now, is at the time, loads of us were saying "lads, it has bubble written all over it"

Ok, so it's a cyclical market and it was a totally unnatural surge (as in way too fast). I dont know if i expressed that here but exactly a year ago i felt the same. However, there are some here who believe that its game over. It hasnt even gotten started as an industry just yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

and were ignored amid talk of lambos and going to the moon..

I don't have much time for latent lambo and moon talk either. However, like i previously stated, you shouldnt assume the same of everyone who has taken an interest in crypto and it shouldnt colour the attitude anyone takes to this discussion.

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

There is no singular view being expressed here. However, I don't agree with your point. A less financially literate person could just as easily lose their shirt in futures, forex, day trading, etc. A grown adult is a grown adult - and with that comes responsibility.
And to cap that point off, I am not of the opinion that anyone is giving financial advice here. Perhaps someone did (did they??). I certainly have not. I think if you were to run a search on the thread, you'd find many hits on 'do your own research (DYOR)' AND 'don't invest what you can't afford to lose' AND 'high risk investment'.

Look, you'll have to take that up with Rapul. I'm not familiar with that interaction in a thread of 2600 plus posts.
However, I will say I have no issue whatsoever with someone expressing the view that a coin or all coins are going to zero. They may well be right. In theory it should make for a better discussion so long as people remain objective.

Of course I can't abide people calling crypto a pyramid scheme as it's not a pyramid scheme. It's a very risky investment class. Are we going to go back down this road again? A pyramid scheme has to be contrived centrally. Who dreamed up the scheme?
You allege that 'I made off like a bandit' - so presumably you think I did? There's no logic in that. Far from logic, your view is just plain wrong. Accept it and move on.

The way you've weaved that into the sentence, you're implying that I stole from others ..more or less. Where is that coming from? I don't want to see anyone lose money (unlike a couple here who hold the same viewpoint as you). Decentralised cryptocurrencies don't have a head office. There is no marketing team pimping something up to them. Other than that, people make their own decisions.

This happens all the time - markets (every conceivable type of market) goes up and down and some end up on the right end of that and some don't. Yet, I don't see any of the detractors here complain about day traders (that make off like bandits...on the occasions when they do), forex traders (the proportion of whom that 'make off like bandits'), etc.
What was your view re. the conventional market crash in 2008? There was a transfer of wealth there, right? I'd be interested in hearing that view because we are overdue another correction - some say its close but then there is ongoing speculation as regards the timing although hardly anyone suggests it will never happen.
This 2018 bear market generally will see a transfer of wealth from retail investors to the institutions. You may believe that this is where crypto ends but crypto has been here many times before. Remember that when you see crypto climb back up in 6, 12 or 18 months (and no, that's not to be interpreted as investment advice!).

Perhaps its a generational thing - but my understanding has always been that I am responsible for my own actions. Now if there's fraud involved and I suffered a loss on that basis, I would seek recourse. If I sought professional advice and it was wayward to the point of being negligent, I would seek recourse.

And once again, you're absolutely wrong. My interest here is to discuss and learn. Whilst I've always maintained that the contrarian view is healthy, I'm sorry but there are a few here who should be posting in after hours. Apparently there's a crypto thread there - I have not visited as that's not my bag. Apparently, many of those that I'm alluding to have posted there (from what they've stated here) and recently we had one guy come back and correct himself in his assertion on the basis that he had forgotten this thread was not in after hours (suggesting that what he had posted would have been alright had it been the after hours thread).

I have not 'promoted' jack. In fact, if it wasn't for people taking this conversation down a non-objective cul-de-sac - there might be more to be learnt for us all. I can give you multiple examples but lets take one more recent. Scroll back a couple of pages to an exchange I had with grindle - where we both were critical of various crypto projects. How in the name of God am I 'promoting'.

Yes, you can lose your shirt on futures / FX etc - my point is, deliberately limiting what can be discussed on the thread is not a good thing. Other posters have a certain style that may grate but the fact is they have an informed opinion (in my view) and it should be heard.

My understanding is that you sold your crypto interests which allowed you to give up your job. Maybe I have mis-interpreted. I've no interest in re-opening the pyramid scheme argument.

Regarding the conventional market crash in 2008 - retail investors usually panic and do the opposite of what they should do, hence Buffets slogan, the time to invest is when there is blood on the street. There likely was a transfer of wealth such that the rich got richer. Buffet suggests never listening to analysts as they usually talk up their own position. By the same token having the likes of Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley get involved in crypto is not a sign of confidence in the crypto asset class but a sign that there's easy money to be made. They would sell land plots on Mars if they could.

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, you can lose your shirt on futures / FX etc - my point is, deliberately limiting what can be discussed on the thread is not a good thing. Other posters have a certain style that may grate but the fact is they have an informed opinion (in my view) and it should be heard.

I'm sorry but where that 'style' as you put it is disrespectful, then that's where that ends. I've always encouraged the contrarian view but not with guys calling people 'idiots', digging through their posts in other sections of boards or from 12 months ago in a venomous way, wishing ill on people who have invested and pretending to be cute with this podge n rodge style pisstake. One of them does know a lot more but with than attitude and approach that goes with it, i'm not interested in hearing it.

kaymin wrote: »

My understanding is that you sold your crypto interests which allowed you to give up your job. Maybe I have mis-interpreted. I've no interest in re-opening the pyramid scheme argument.

Sure - I cashed out. That's not a crime, right? I've also gone partially back in and I will be investing in 5 micro cap coins also soon enough. Any mention of pyramid scheme has to be snuffed out as it's inaccurate and disingenuous.

kaymin wrote: »

Regarding the conventional market crash in 2008 - retail investors usually panic and do the opposite of what they should do, hence Buffets slogan, the time to invest is when there is blood on the street. There likely was a transfer of wealth such that the rich got richer. Buffet suggests never listening to analysts as they usually talk up their own position.

Yes, and all those that invested in crypto in Dec last year were retail investors. so exactly the same scenario in that instance.

kaymin wrote: »

By the same token having the likes of Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley get involved in crypto is not a sign of confidence in the crypto asset class but a sign that there's easy money to be made. They would sell land plots on Mars if they could.

It's a sign that its not a flash in the pan. Remember, it takes resources to stake a claim in the market. They're having to invest - and week on week, there's a long list of these guys getting in the game. They wouldn't do that if it was going to be over this December. Have a look at Bakkt's product offering - with physically settled bitcoin futures - together with a link up with Microsoft, Starbucks and Boston Consulting Group. Starbucks have 23M mobile payments customers - more than google pay and apple pay. It may not mean direct payments with crypto but it still exposes 23m people to crypto like never before.

sexmag

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, you can lose your shirt on futures / FX etc - my point is, deliberately limiting what can be discussed on the thread is not a good thing. Other posters have a certain style that may grate but the fact is they have an informed opinion (in my view) and it should be heard.

My understanding is that you sold your crypto interests which allowed you to give up your job. Maybe I have mis-interpreted. I've no interest in re-opening the pyramid scheme argument.

Regarding the conventional market crash in 2008 - retail investors usually panic and do the opposite of what they should do, hence Buffets slogan, the time to invest is when there is blood on the street. There likely was a transfer of wealth such that the rich got richer. Buffet suggests never listening to analysts as they usually talk up their own position. By the same token having the likes of Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley get involved in crypto is not a sign of confidence in the crypto asset class but a sign that there's easy money to be made. They would sell land plots on Mars if they could.

I'll tell ye what,I've gone by a slogan during the last 12 months that has helped me immensely

"Whatever the media are saying is going on,do the opposite"

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm sorry but where that 'style' as you put it is disrespectful, then that's where that ends. I've always encouraged the contrarian view but not with guys calling people 'idiots', digging through their posts in other sections of boards or from 12 months ago in a venomous way, wishing ill on people who have invested and pretending to be cute with this podge n rodge style pisstake. One of them does know a lot more but with than attitude and approach that goes with it, i'm not interested in hearing it.

Sure - I cashed out. That's not a crime, right? I've also gone partially back in and I will be investing in 5 micro cap coins also soon enough. Any mention of pyramid scheme has to be snuffed out as it's inaccurate and disingenuous.

Yes, and all those that invested in crypto in Dec last year were retail investors. so exactly the same scenario in that instance.

It's a sign that its not a flash in the pan. Remember, it takes resources to stake a claim in the market. They're having to invest - and week on week, there's a long list of these guys getting in the game. They wouldn't do that if it was going to be over this December. Have a look at Bakkt's product offering - with physically settled bitcoin futures - together with a link up with Microsoft, Starbucks and Boston Consulting Group. Starbucks have 23M mobile payments customers - more than google pay and apple pay. It may not mean direct payments with crypto but it still exposes 23m people to crypto like never before.

Institutional investors are not on board the crypto train - I don't know where you're getting the idea there's a long list jumping on. The total market cap is only 100b - peanuts.
Their involvement extends as far as making a fast buck. The fact that they aren't on board is one of the reasons for this Bakkt exchange. At this stage it's still very much assuming that if you build it they will come.

'Sprecher’s plan for bringing crypto to the masses runs contrary to what Bitcoin supporters typically champion. The purists favor Bitcoin’s “distributed” architecture, and adamantly oppose putting a big exchange at the center of the both the Bitcoin investment and payments systems. “A regulated exchange with a custodian in the middle contradicts the basic idea of Bitcoin,” says Abhishek Punia, a crypto-currency analyst with venture capital firm Draper Associates. “Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized, without intermediaries taking fees. A regulated exchange may be popular for a short period of time, but it’s not the future. The future will be the original idea of a peer-to-peer network.”

Sprecher and Loeffler disagree, arguing that a strong central infrastructure is precisely what’s needed, and that ICE and its partners are the ones to supply it. The challenge is getting the banks, asset managers, and endowments to embrace Bitcoin. “Being from the exchange world, we looked at the problem differently,” says Loeffler.'

kaymin wrote: »

Institutional investors are not on board the crypto train - I don't know where you're getting the idea there's a long list jumping on. The total market cap is only 100b - peanuts.

There's a misunderstanding there. I'm not for one minute suggesting that there is any significant institutional money in crypto right now. And yes, I agree that the market cap is a drop in the ocean. That's why the market is far more susceptible to manipulation than other markets right now.

My point was that week on week - for weeks, there have been announcements of investments which will facilitate institutional investment. Variations along the line of Bakkt. Different custody solutions, trading solutions, etc - all with institutional investors in mind. It implicates, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, TradeStation, TD Ameritrade, Nasdaq, ICE and many others.

kaymin wrote: »

Their involvement extends as far as making a fast buck. The fact that they aren't on board is one of the reasons for this Bakkt exchange. At this stage it's still very much assuming that if you build it they will come.

Yup, but now that you can see the point I'm making, they're all gearing for institutional investment. They've had to invest - so it's not such a 'quick buck'. This market is sticking around.

That doesn't mean to say that we can expect a stampede when Bakkt opens its doors on Jan. 24th. Again, this is all the world of speculation. My take on it is that it will be a slow burner. Institutional investors can only invest when all the key components are in place. Cusody, insurance products related to it, mechanisms for purchasing and disposing of digital assets, etc. They wont move a muscle until they are sure things are fully compliant. Regulatory regime is still work in progress - everywhere.

They could also ruin crypto. It's all up in the air but it didn't just 'die' with this crypto-winter.

LoLth

Mod note:
Its good to see healthy debate and discussion taking place and I am sure every supporter of cryptocurrency and blockchain can agree that the contrarian viewpoint is worthwhile reading, if only to act as an anchor and help prevent investors from getting carried away in an echo chamber of "everything is wonderful, just keep going"

However, there have been a few reported posts recently which I did not action as I wanted to see the thread level out itself rather than start forcing viewpoints and I have been in two minds about that decision.

I'm not going to single any posters out but I'm going to ask that all posters read the forum charter and I want to point out that it was established years ago in the Television forum, that dropping in on a forum to tell the followers of that forums topic (in that case a particular tv show) that it was all crap and only idiots watched it etc etc was the exact definition of being a dick and attempting to troll. I know this because I was the mod of the forum at the time. Now look at the forum charter again.

There is pretty much one rule on this forum : if you cannot discuss in a civil manner, and I mean discuss, not soapbox or attack, then you have absolutely no business posting here and I have no qualms about removing your ability to do so.

This forum is for people that have in interest in cryptocurrencies, blockchain and their application to financial investments. that can be positive or negative but if you really feel the need to start pulling out memes / hiding insults in imaginary hashtags / attacking personalities or just generally being a dick there are other forums you can post in where I will let the local mods determine if it is within the scope of allowable behaviour. Here, it is not.

Tinder Surprise

I think I will cancel that Pizza

Bob24

Bitcoin up 10% in the past hour and most cryptos following suite ...

I have been following the space for some time and still can’t get used to the crazy volatility ...

smacl

Bob24 wrote: »

Bitcoin up 10% in the past hour and most cryptos following suite ...

I have been following the space for some time and still can’t get used to the crazy volatility ...

Seems to be Bitcoin cash doing the big moving, 65% over the week.

I'll take a 10% movement in a €3.5K coin over a 65% move in one worth €140 :cool:
Fortunately I have both

smacl

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll take a 10% movement in a €3.5K coin over a 65% move in one worth €140 :cool:

Why?

Pintman Paddy Losty

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll take a 10% movement in a €3.5K coin over a 65% move in one worth €140 :cool:
Fortunately I have both

Don't think you understand basic economics there pal.

sexmag

5 hours, it took 5 hours haha

smacl wrote: »

Why?

Let's say you have 1 Bitcoin worth €3500 and one BCH worth €280. The Bitcoin price goes up 10% giving you a return of €350. The BCH goes up 65% giving you a return of €182.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Don't think you understand basic economics there pal.

Think I do.

Classic comedy..

AlmightyCushion

cnocbui wrote: »

Let's say you have 1 Bitcoin worth €3500 and one BCH worth €280. The Bitcoin price goes up 10% giving you a return of €350. The BCH goes up 65% giving you a return of €182.

Think I do.

If you had €100 worth of Bitcoin and €100 worth of BCH what would the returns be?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If you had €100 worth of Bitcoin and €100 worth of BCH what would the returns be?

Shhhsshhh..leave him alone..

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If you had €100 worth of Bitcoin and €100 worth of BCH what would the returns be?

But I don't, so the question is irrelevant; I have a portfolio with a certain quantity of bitcoin and the same quantity of BCH. The absolute Euro value of the recent price moves means that I have seen a roughly 90% higher absolute Euro return on my investments in Bitcoin than for BCH.

I know how percentages work - drop 10% of an aircraft carrier on Shane Ross's head and you solve a problem - drop 65% of a croissant on his head and you just make him a bit more flaky.

Deleted User wrote: »

Shhhsshhh..leave him alone..

Since you are publicly insinuating you have a superior grasp of financial math than I, be my guest and show where my calculations and conclusions are incorrect.

AlmightyCushion

cnocbui wrote: »

But I don't, so the question is irrelevant; I have a portfolio with a certain quantity of bitcoin and the same quantity of BCH. The absolute Euro value of the recent price moves means that I have seen a roughly 90% higher absolute Euro return on my investments in Bitcoin than for BCH.

I know how percentages work - drop 10% of an aircraft carrier on Shane Ross's head and you solve a problem - drop 65% of a croissant on his head and you just make him a bit more flaky.

Fair enough. In your original post you didn't mention your holdings just that you'd rather a 10% increase of a coin worth 3500, than a 65% increase in a coin worth 140. As a statement on its own, that doesn't really make sense but yeah once you explain your holdings it makes a lot of sense.

Bob24

cnocbui wrote: »

But I don't, so the question is irrelevant; I have a portfolio with a certain quantity of bitcoin and the same quantity of BCH. The absolute Euro value of the recent price moves means that I have seen a roughly 90% higher absolute Euro return on my investments in Bitcoin than for BCH.

As others have said your initial wording didn’t make sense though: “I'll take a 10% movement in a €3.5K coin over a 65% move in one worth €140”.

There was no reference to how much you are holding and your phrasing seems to say that in general if bitcoin is rising 10% it is better that bitcoin cash rising 65% because a bitcoin is worth a lot more that a bitcoin cash (maybe not what you meant, but this is how people understand it). Now it is clear that all you meant to say was that since the euro value you are holding in BTC is much higher than the euro value you are holding in BCH you prefer to see BTC rising a little that BCH raising a lot, which is where the misunderstanding was. Fair enough but this is strictly a comment on your portfolio.