nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

q85dw7osi4lebg

As per title, have we reached the bottom ?

Don't think we'll see the likes of $3200 ever again.

$5150 at time of posting.

Back in the mainstream media once more.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, starting with not enough bitcoins or the money to buy them with.

I mean if they weren't using pesos, but were using BTC instead, as a currency

stockshares

According to CZ Binance on Twitter, China are to launch a Cryptocurrency named DCEP.

Dovey Wan has an article about it on Coindesk
https://www.coindesk.com/digital-renminbi-a-fiat-coin-to-make-m0-great-again?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=coindesk&utm_term&utm_content&utm_campaign=Organic%20&amp&__twitter_impression=true

Truckermal

Any opinions on Chainlink?

Dohnjoe

4chan loves it and has been promoting it heavily since xmas

Kickstart1.3

stockshares wrote: »

According to CZ Binance on Twitter, China are to launch a Cryptocurrency named DCEP.

Dovey Wan has an article about it on Coindesk
https://www.coindesk.com/digital-renminbi-a-fiat-coin-to-make-m0-great-again?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=coindesk&utm_term&utm_content&utm_campaign=Organic%20&amp&__twitter_impression=true

What does this mean for Bitcoin or hodlers of other Alts? It may be a great crypto and be the first to get mass adoption and use but what about all the others?

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed but if they did away with cash in Argentina and somehow switched to BTC they would have different problems, far, far larger problems

As a store of value? No, they wouldn't.

stockshares

Kickstart1.3 wrote: »

What does this mean for Bitcoin or hodlers of other Alts? It may be a great crypto and be the first to get mass adoption and use but what about all the others?

I've no idea how this will play out. It might do what Libra threatened to do. The next few weeks will be interesting

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

As a store of value? No, they wouldn't.

As a currency, yes. South American economies are around what, 60% physical cash for a start. And then there is the long list issues with fixed supply cryptos that I've been through before.

As a store of value, BTC is actually still too speculative and volatile. Despite how volatile ARS has been, USD vs ARS has been more stable in value than BTC vs ARS for the last year
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin/ars
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=ARS&to=USD&view=1Y

Also as a store of value there's no proper externally-rated infrastructure in place for companies/industry/government to store/insure BTC (yet). They aren't going to be writing passwords on pieces of paper that's for sure.

TLDR; as bad as ARS is, BTC is actually worse.

makeorbrake

Kickstart1.3 wrote: »

What does this mean for Bitcoin or hodlers of other Alts? It may be a great crypto and be the first to get mass adoption and use but what about all the others?

This will be centralised - so centralised 'crypto' is completely different by comparison with decentralised crypto. As people become accustomed to using digital currency, they should be more amenable to using decentralised crypto and see the merits that go with that.
However, there's a long road to go with this - there will be plenty of push back and lots of twists and turns.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

TLDR; as bad as ARS is, BTC is actually worse.

Wholly inaccurate statement. ARS(e) is completely unsound central bank money. As per Gresham's Law, Bitcoin is sound money.

stockshares

Truckermal wrote: »

Any opinions on Chainlink?

Theyve just announced a new partnership with TokenView

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Wholly inaccurate statement.

BTC is great as a speculative store of wealth, terrible as a store of wealth. It's one of the most volatile assets in the world. Great if someone loves to gamble, horrendous for stable dependable value.

ARS is considered a dog**** currency, but it's still more stable than BTC (which is horrendous as a currency, which is why the public/business don't use it as such)

Those are the facts.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Gold and stocks are also a speculative store of value.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

BTC is great as a speculative store of wealth, terrible as a store of wealth. It's one of the most volatile assets in the world. Great if someone loves to gamble, horrendous for stable dependable value.

ARS is considered a dog**** currency, but it's still more stable than BTC

Money is a cornerstone of civilisation. You don't just unpack a completely new paradigm in this respect and expect it to simply tick all boxes immediately upon hitting the ground. That would be unreasonable - and that is what you fail to acknowledge.

There's an evolution implicated here and it's 'collectible -> 'store of value' -> 'medium of exchange' -> 'unit of account'.

All of that is going to take time. It will have to broaden considerably out of its current market cap of a paltry $168 billion.

Is there volatility? Absolutely. However, Bitcoin has proven to be an appreciating asset over each and every one of its ten years thus far (plotting out the yearly lows - year on year). That blows your claim of it being a poor store of wealth out of the water.
To InstaSte's point re. gold being a store of value - he's absolutely right. It's subject to speculation also - but nobody seems to become animated re. the speculative aspect of gold as they do with Bitcoin. Gold has had some humdinger spells of volatility in the past. Yet if someone suggested gold as an option for your average Argentine, there wouldn't be particular groups throwing their hands in the air as there is with Bitcoin.

We know that FIAT based currencies lose considerable value through inflation. We know that they can wipe out the wealth of those who hold them via centralised currencies that have been mismanaged by their central banks and governments.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

BTC is horrendous as a currency, which is why the public/business don't use it as such

And what you fail to acknowledge is the evolution of Bitcoin as a store of value, as a medium of exchange and as a unit of account.
There are many reasons why Bitcoin isn't being used - and work is ongoing on all of those reasons. If you are not going to delve a little deeper and appreciate that, then you will be left with this black/white 'those are the facts' mindset and associated outlook.

amacca

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is there volatility? Absolutely. However, Bitcoin has proven to be an appreciating asset over each and every one of its ten years thus far (plotting out the yearly lows - year on year). That blows your claim of it being a poor store of wealth out of the water.
To InstaSte's point re. gold being a store of value - he's absolutely right. It's subject to speculation also - but nobody seems to become animated re. the speculative aspect of gold as they do with Bitcoin. Gold has had some humdinger spells of volatility in the past. Yet if someone suggested gold as an option for your average Argentine, there wouldn't be particular groups throwing their hands in the air as there is with Bitcoin.

leaving aside the fact that when some buy gold they don't actually buy gold but just a promise that they own some or its stored somewhere for them

if you actually buy gold and store it, I would think it has some massive advantages

Gold is an actual physical substance....it doesn't tarnish/corrode/breakdown therefore it doesn't degrade easily making useful for jewellery etc, its a good conductor of electricity, there is a definite very limited supply of it meaning it has kudos to own, it also has bragging rights value on high end audio electrical components etc

imo Bitcoin whichever way you cut it is a series of ones and zeroes stored in computer memory somewhere.....this to me doesn't mean it doesn't have value and couldn't appreciate wildly but it could also devalue rapidly....now I'm aware gold could too but over the long term if you could hold I reckon gold would be a much better option as things stand and will always be guaranteed to have some value/almost guaranteed to recover because of its physical properties, uses and limited supply etc....id argue short of human space travel developing and finding a solid gold planet to mine or a vast new deposit somewhere gold is by far and away the safer medium to long term bet.....it may not appreciate madly but it has less chance of depreciating wildly to the point where it ends up at zero with no chance of recovery....I'm not sure you can say the same for any crypto currency......you can't lose confidence in the value of a physical substance (which stubbornly refuses to blink out of existence) especially one that has a use in the same was as you can the value of a piece of information/code which could have an unknown sell by/best before date

I just think right now gold represents the better long term bet as a store of value...I know which id be picking if I could have a million euros worth of either storage headache aside.....I mean try bartering for food/survival with bitcoin if things really did go to ****

however i would take 10/20k of my million and very much enjoy a speculative punt on certain crypto assets in the hope of fat stacks

cnocbui

Oh, please, the 'if civilisation ends, gold will be invaluable to have' argument is based on events generations ago. Society did get a bit chaotic in economic terms in both Zimbabwe and Venezuela and bitcoin proved to be very useful. In Zimbabwe it's value was far higher than anywhere else in the world. You only need a phone to store and transact with it and it's easy to carry. In Venezuela people were fleeing the country and due to currency controls, people were using bitcoin. It made traveling as refugees fleeing to other countries, far safer than carrying gold. Locally, the ever devaluing local currency due to huper inflation saw many people using bitcoin as a reliable store of value and it was traded for goods and services.

A few years ago, African migrants working in Europe were sending money back to their families and relatives using bitcoin, as many of the recipients didn't have bank accounts but did have phones.

Bob24

I think this is a key point with the Chinese digital currency which is overlooked in favour of consumer adoption, replacing swift for cross-border transfers: https://bitcoinist.com/china-digital-currency-will-replace-swift-huang-qifan/

Don’t know if China will think it is appropriate to do as it would effectively be a declaration of war on the dollar, but if they created a crypto-gold yuan easily usable for cross border transfers and on top of that backed by gold, it could fairly quickly become a key instrument for cross border transfers: many large private and public entities (including states) would love a cross-border transfer instrument which doesn’t depend on the US in any way and is guaranteed by a nation state to be redeemable for physical gold.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Money is a cornerstone of civilisation.

Indeed, but money and currency are different things

And what you fail to acknowledge is the evolution of Bitcoin as a store of value, as a medium of exchange and as a unit of account.

I am acknowledging it's current state. Unless it changes it's characteristics and properties dramatically, then that will be it's future state, it's basic maths and economics.

If someone wants to label Dash, BTC, NANO, digital shares, gold certificates, warrants, etc as a currency, they can, it doesn't make them currencies.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but money and currency are different things

.

Say what?

"A currency in the most specific sense is money in any form when in use or circulation as a medium of exchange"

Currency literally means circulation - money is circulated value.

It's one and all.

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

Society did get a bit chaotic in economic terms in both Zimbabwe and Venezuela and bitcoin proved to be very useful.

According crypto blog after crypto blog. According to Venezeulans themselves, a tiny amount of people, with the relevant access, would attempt to buy or sell BTC

Apart from very isolated cases there was no widespread use whatsoever, people weren't buying groceries, they weren't paying rent. Dash terminals weren't (and aren't) being used with Dash (not to mention Dash plummeting over 90% in value)

There was niche use by people with know-how and access to functioning internet/electricity to take advantage of BTC

Dohnjoe

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Say what?

"A currency in the most specific sense is money in any form when in use or circulation as a medium of exchange"

Currency literally means circulation - money is circulated value.

It's one and all.

It's not. For example, cigarettes can be used as a type of money in prison, but they are unsuitable as a currency

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not. For example, cigarettes can be used as a type of money in prison, but they are unsuitable as a currency

You're just making up stuff now.

Dohnjoe

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

You're just making up stuff now.

https://www.educba.com/money-vs-currency/

cnocbui

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According crypto blog after crypto blog. According to Venezeulans themselves, a tiny amount of people, with the relevant access, would attempt to buy or sell BTC

Apart from very isolated cases there was no widespread use whatsoever, people weren't buying groceries, they weren't paying rent. Dash terminals weren't (and aren't) being used with Dash (not to mention Dash plummeting over 90% in value)

There was niche use by people with know-how and access to functioning internet/electricity to take advantage of BTC

So just like gold bullion then.

makeorbrake

amacca wrote: »

imo Bitcoin whichever way you cut it is a series of ones and zeroes stored in computer memory somewhere.....this to me doesn't mean it doesn't have value and couldn't appreciate wildly but it could also devalue rapidly....now I'm aware gold could too but over the long term if you could hold I reckon gold would be a much better option as things stand and will always be guaranteed to have some value/almost guaranteed to recover because of its physical properties,

There's a couple of things to unpack there. It seems that you are having trouble appreciating the value of something that is code as opposed to something (gold) that is physical. millions of people struggle with that same value proposition. However gold being physical doesn't make it better than Bitcoin.
People go on about the physical properties of gold but for the most part, gold is used as a store of value and less so for other uses.

amacca wrote: »

limited supply etc....id argue short of human space travel developing and finding a solid gold planet to mine or a vast new deposit somewhere gold is by far and away the safer medium to long term bet.

Asteroid mining or gold mining under deep seas may be unlikely but they're not impossible in the future. However, you seem to be confused with regard to the limited supply of bitcoin. It's one of its key characteristics as it has been designed in.

amacca wrote: »

it may not appreciate madly but it has less chance of depreciating wildly to the point where it ends up at zero with no chance of recovery....I'm not sure you can say the same for any crypto currency......you can't lose confidence in the value of a physical substance (which stubbornly refuses to blink out of existence) especially one that has a use in the same was as you can the value of a piece of information/code which could have an unknown sell by/best before date

You are struggling with the value proposition of something physical versus computer code. It is incorrect to say that you can't lose confidence in something that is physical. At the end of the day, we as humans assign value - regardless of whether its something physical or computer code.
That gold has a long established track record as a store of value - absolutely. Other than that, you are right to think that there is far more potential upside with Bitcoin as this (what's happening right now) is a once in a lifetime event. The coming of age of digital currency. The speculation will dissipate once it establishes itself.

amacca wrote: »

I just think right now gold represents the better long term bet as a store of value...I know which id be picking if I could have a million euros worth of either storage headache aside.....I mean try bartering for food/survival with bitcoin if things really did go to ****

If you're talking about food bartering, then you have far greater problems and it won't make a damn bit of difference whether its gold or Bitcoin.

amacca wrote: »

however i would take 10/20k of my million and very much enjoy a speculative punt on certain crypto assets in the hope of fat stacks

Yes, there is very much a speculative angle to crypto right now. However, I never found myself interested in this space for the speculative interest some years ago - I was interested in what it can do for society - and it still can and will.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but money and currency are different things

Bitcoin is sound money whereas FIAT is unsound money. Bitcoin is in the early stages of developing as a store of value. As it evolves, it can and will be used as a medium of exchange and can be used right now as a medium of exchange.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am acknowledging it's current state. Unless it changes it's characteristics and properties dramatically, then that will be it's future state, it's basic maths and economics.

This is your fundamental mistake. It's about the ecosystem that surrounds it as much as it is Bitcoin itself. Fail to take that into consideration and you fail to see the overall proposition and the evolution that lies before it.
We could go all the way back to 1995 and on the basis of your rationale, we would write off the internet.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If someone wants to label Dash, BTC, NANO, digital shares, gold certificates, warrants, etc as a currency, they can, it doesn't make them currencies.

They're currencies if they're being used as a medium of exchange - and to those who do use them as a medium of exchange.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According crypto blog after crypto blog. According to Venezeulans themselves, a tiny amount of people, with the relevant access, would attempt to buy or sell BTC

And that doesn't mean that this won't change. There's a whole host of things that have to change if Bitcoin and/or crypto are to enjoy broader utilisation. That such a thing has not happened does not mean that it won't.

As an example, one of the major criticisms thrown at Bitcoin for use as a medium of exchange has been the fact that hardly anywhere accepts it. In one fell swoop, a startup in the crypto space is single-handedly changing that. Moon Technologies are rolling out an offering that has opened up amazon to all holders of Bitcoin. They will continue to roll out over the next year to other platforms and independent ecommerce stores (without the necessity to enable one by one - as it's done at a payment processor level).

Further innovation is needed in the space - it's happening but it takes time.

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

So just like gold bullion then.

BTC, yeah

The plus side is it's digital. The negative side is not everyone has the requisite access - although phone tech is certainly helping that. In an economy spiraling out of control a decentralised stable digital currency with easy access and wide acceptance would be a godsend, but that's just proving so elusive so now, with so many barriers (and all the usual storm-clouds on the horizon)

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

BTC, yeah

The plus side is it's digital. The negative side is not everyone has the requisite access - although phone tech is certainly helping that. In an economy spiraling out of control a decentralised stable digital currency with easy access and wide acceptance would be a godsend, but that's just proving so elusive so now, with so many barriers (and all the usual storm-clouds on the horizon)

You can't expect something like this to upack itself on day 1 and work seamlessly for something as fundamental as this (store of value / medium of exchange and unit of account). To the naysayers, they suggest that Bitcoin has achieved nothing in ten years. To those that see where things are headed, it's achievements over that duration have been outstanding.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

They're currencies if they're being used as a medium of exchange - and to those who do use them as a medium of exchange.

They aren't national tender, so their acceptance as currency anywhere is highly limited.

In practice usage as a currency is very low, almost nonexistent. What little use there is in these types of countries is typically speculation and hedging.

Will that automatically change in the future? who knows. It could even go backwards. Which is much more development is needed, among other factors.

Kickstart1.3

The main issue I have now with Bitcoin is the price! I didn't have an issue speculating when it was $150 as you could buy a couple every week if you wanted. Its another story to have to fork out $10k for one knowing that the likes of me got them so much cheaper. But then again I remember how depressed I was having missed out when they were a few cent.
The only threat I see to Bitcoin for now is Government intervention at the exchanges

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't national tender, so their acceptance as currency anywhere is highly limited.

Well, that's not a major issue right now. However, that's the core of the debate thats going to be ongoing over the next while. Why should governments have a monopoly on money.
As it stands what you mention is not an issue. 353 million items are available for purchase using Bitcoin on amazon.com alone (via a browser extension). More widespread coverage is in the pipeline.
The issue will be if states ban bitcoin outright - would kill it speculatively but would not kill bitcoin itself. It would just mean a much slower progression rate - and the fact that they would have NO control whatsoever in a totally adversarial scenario.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In practice usage as a currency is very low, almost nonexistent.

Nonexistent? - no. Very low - yes. However, there are all manner of reasons as to why that's the case. There are some of the brightest minds around working on resolving said problems (UX, education, etc. etc.) - but that will take time.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What little use there is in these types of countries is typically speculation and hedging.

You mean use in countries where FIAT is failing citizens? Sure - it tends to be the wealthy and tech savvy that have access to Bitcoin in those circumstances. There's a very interesting article on Coindesk as regards exactly that issue (as to why its use has not been more pronounced in Lebanon right now).
This is all going to take time.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Will that automatically change in the future? who knows. It could even go backwards. Which is much more development is needed, among other factors.

What I find amongst many naysayers is the assumption that Bitcoin hasn't reached mass appeal today - and so on that basis it's done for. That's certainly not my view. I'm seeing the smartest of people move from other industries into the crypto space. That's happening for a reason.

Kickstart1.3 wrote: »

The main issue I have now with Bitcoin is the price! I didn't have an issue speculating when it was $150 as you could buy a couple every week if you wanted. Its another story to have to fork out $10k for one knowing that the likes of me got them so much cheaper. But then again I remember how depressed I was having missed out when they were a few cent.

That's a misconception and a common one. People sometimes struggle with the notion of buying a fraction of a Bitcoin - Bitcoin has 8 places of decimal. So you can buy whatever you want to spend.

Kickstart1.3 wrote: »

The only threat I see to Bitcoin for now is Government intervention at the exchanges

From the speculative point of view - for sure. If they go for a full court press, anyone holding will suffer in the short to medium term. But governments wont kill bitcoin - they can only retard its rate of progress and later, they will have no means of controlling any aspect of it.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

Why should governments have a monopoly on money.

Because it's the least worst system we've come up with for national tender. Leaving it up to private corporation, or the secondary value of a precious metal doesn't cut it anymore

No issue with secondary decentralised money/currency - as long as it's practical and robust

353 million items are available for purchase using Bitcoin on amazon.com alone (via a browser extension).

Yeah it's cool, but no one uses it. Also it just converts it to fiat at the other end. BTC is an investment asset, one that has been climbing for years, makes no logical sense to spend it. Even less sense to spend it then replace it.