Wow. Bitcoin is almost $1,500

[destrekor]

Oh, I'm not much for arguing. Everyone can research on their own and draw their own conclusions. BTC ETFs are coming to the NYSE so that will be another small step toward mainstream which probably came too fast IMO... E-mails took 20 years to go from massive command line commands to easy to use GUI swipes on phones.

There's still a long, long way to go. Decentralized BTC value (and infrastructure) has to continue to increase substantially from where it is now and work through many more financial attacks like the Bcash one this past week to be robust enough for continued adoption.

This is all really still uncharted territory. It is often wrong to directly compare crypto tokens with any version of asset, be it company stock, assets, and their purely speculative derivatives, like options contracts and margin trading. And it's not even correct to directly compare it to fiat currency, because blockchains (and similar) are programmed to reach an eventual zero-production state, where no more new tokens are minted. It is the exact opposite of inflation, where over time increased demand will permanently drive the comparative value (against other assets) of the now harder to get tokens. There is a programmed inflation of a very low rate for some time after inception to help make the ramp up in supply/demand proceed slowly. But this is in contrast to the fiat currency style, where inflation/deflation is continually adjusted to try and keep a currency pegged at the same market value, among other market manipulation; this would be quantitative easing, negative interest rates, etc. Monetary policy all designed to try and keep the dollar valued at $1 at home and abroad and encourage appropriate spending instead of hoarding.

Most blockchain tokens are based on the idea of barring any of that from happening. There is no central authority dictating how much coin is available for lending, how many coins are in circulation, and what inter-bank lending should look like. There will probably be lending and other activities, with varied rates I'm sure, but there won't be a central authority dictating standards across these institutions. At least, that's the idea.

 

[Charmonium]

Oh, I'm not much for arguing. Everyone can research on their own and draw their own conclusions. BTC ETFs are coming to the NYSE so that will be another small step toward mainstream which probably came too fast IMO... E-mails took 20 years to go from massive command line commands to easy to use GUI swipes on phones.

There's still a long, long way to go. Decentralized BTC value (and infrastructure) has to continue to increase substantially from where it is now and work through many more financial attacks like the Bcash one this past week to be robust enough for continued adoption.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that you will have a small group of cryptos that will acquire some amount of fundamental economic value.

There are some that are ideal platforms for cross-border money transfers and there is a huge, unmet demand for systems like that. Once you have a few recognized standard cryptocurrencies that are used for this purpose, there will be legitimate, organic demand for those coins simply because they are necessary for these systems to work.

At some point further down the road you may also have demand for things like smart contracts. But the problem with those is that to actually be enforceable, they have to interface with the legal system of a given country. That will take much, much longer to happen - if ever.

 

[IronWing]

This is all really still uncharted territory. It is often wrong to directly compare crypto tokens with any version of asset, be it company stock, assets, and their purely speculative derivatives, like options contracts and margin trading. And it's not even correct to directly compare it to fiat currency, because blockchains (and similar) are programmed to reach an eventual zero-production state, where no more new tokens are minted. It is the exact opposite of inflation, where over time increased demand will permanently drive the comparative value (against other assets) of the now harder to get tokens. There is a programmed inflation of a very low rate for some time after inception to help make the ramp up in supply/demand proceed slowly. But this is in contrast to the fiat currency style, where inflation/deflation is continually adjusted to try and keep a currency pegged at the same market value, among other market manipulation; this would be quantitative easing, negative interest rates, etc. Monetary policy all designed to try and keep the dollar valued at $1 at home and abroad and encourage appropriate spending instead of hoarding.

Most blockchain tokens are based on the idea of barring any of that from happening. There is no central authority dictating how much coin is available for lending, how many coins are in circulation, and what inter-bank lending should look like. There will probably be lending and other activities, with varied rates I'm sure, but there won't be a central authority dictating standards across these institutions. At least, that's the idea.

Scarcity is driven by demand as much as by supply so while the supply of Bitcoin is limited, there is no guarantee of future scarcity if people decide they have no use for it. Once all the coin is mined, the transaction costs of processing transfers will take a larger role in the desirability of Bitcoin as a currency and be a factor in its desirability relative to other currencies. National monetary systems and banks are pretty efficient (fees charged are another matter) so Bitcoin will either have to achieve similar efficiency or accept a lower service fee to be competitive.

 

[Yakk]

This is all really still uncharted territory. It is often wrong to directly compare crypto tokens with any version of asset, be it company stock, assets, and their purely speculative derivatives, like options contracts and margin trading. And it's not even correct to directly compare it to fiat currency, because blockchains (and similar) are programmed to reach an eventual zero-production state, where no more new tokens are minted. It is the exact opposite of inflation, where over time increased demand will permanently drive the comparative value (against other assets) of the now harder to get tokens. There is a programmed inflation of a very low rate for some time after inception to help make the ramp up in supply/demand proceed slowly. But this is in contrast to the fiat currency style, where inflation/deflation is continually adjusted to try and keep a currency pegged at the same market value, among other market manipulation; this would be quantitative easing, negative interest rates, etc. Monetary policy all designed to try and keep the dollar valued at $1 at home and abroad and encourage appropriate spending instead of hoarding.

Most blockchain tokens are based on the idea of barring any of that from happening. There is no central authority dictating how much coin is available for lending, how many coins are in circulation, and what inter-bank lending should look like. There will probably be lending and other activities, with varied rates I'm sure, but there won't be a central authority dictating standards across these institutions. At least, that's the idea.

The idea of comparing fiat to blockchain tokens is just one example of using blockchain technology. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other ideas being worked on. Universities are also actively recruiting blockchain developers to develop a complete education programs, so I see that new field of work potentially exploding in a couple years.

Back to fiat comparisons, Bitcoin being fully decentralized, under so specific agenda from a government, cartel or conglomerate is good IMO. Even if every country develops its own CC, their value will be compared to BTC which does not belong to anybody. Having it arbitrarily declared illegal inside one country actually works against this country as it will just be traded outside of it with the potential result of losing even more control by the banning country as that country's government will not have BTC reserves to deal with other countries which will have ever expanding fiat or inflationary CC wealth by comparison. For reasons you mentioned governments WANT inflationary currency to keep control of the population, BTC is deflationary by design which creates it's ever increasing value. As always of note; BTC's value stays the same, it is what it is being compared to which will be losing value comparatively.

Also for fun I'm beta testing the Lightening Network right now and I have to say it's pretty damn nifty. A very elegant solution to everyday transactions which people are clamoring for and saying is BTC's downfall. Simple and effective, the second Lightening Layer acts as a BTC cache, and interfaces with fiat systems while being financed by BTC. This eliminates the price volatility at the retail level which BTC has by design of being deflationary and practically eliminates 90%+ of the comparatively slower blockchain access. Will it catch on after being deployed probably later this year? Who knows, but the technology continues to advance on its own.

 

[Charmonium]

There's nothing salutary about a deflationary currency. There are many important reasons why the US and other countries left the gold standard in the dust and it has nothing to do with any conspiracy to screw average citizens.

Capitalist economies go through business cycles. You have periods of economic expansion and contraction. A lot of this results from the way money is used. During an expansion, there is more economic activity so the demand for money increases. As that happens, money becomes more scarce and interest rates start to climb. As money becomes more expensive, the number of projects that businesses can invest in decrease since fewer projects will be able to produce the returns needed to justify the cost of borrowing. That results in a decrease in economic activity and eventually in a reduced demand for money to support that activity.

Having a fiat currency allows you to adjust the amount of money available and therefore its cost to levels that match demand. It also allows you stimulate economic activity during recessions by artificially increasing the availability of money as well as damping activity during expansions to prevent inflation that results from excess money creation due to fractional reserve banking.

You can't do any of those things with a deflationary currency. Rather, you become a prisoner of the business cycle. In fact a deflationary currency would only serve to amplify the boom and bust cycles.

But getting back to btc, sure, if you fork btc maybe a dozen more times you might get a system that is suitable for some uses. But the fact remains that there are other crypto systems that already resolve the issues that plague btc. Bitcoin is the Pets.com of the crypto bubble. Just like you had solid companies such as Cisco and Amazon during the dotcom bubble, there are innovative and desirable cryptos out in the market but btc isn't one of them. It just happens to be the best known.

 

[Yakk]

Interesting research paper on Bitcoin by the Central Bank of Finland:

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bof/bitstream/handle/123456789/14912/BoF_DP_1727.pdf

 

[pete6032]

Can someone explain what's going on with transaction fees? I thought it was "free" in essence to send bitcoin because the transaction is recorded into the block chain? John sends 1 bitcoin to Suzy. Suzy and John broadcast this transaction to the block chain and millions of anonymous computers verify it? Where are the transaction fees?

 

[quikah]

Can someone explain what's going on with transaction fees? I thought it was "free" in essence to send bitcoin because the transaction is recorded into the block chain? John sends 1 bitcoin to Suzy. Suzy and John broadcast this transaction to the block chain and millions of anonymous computers verify it? Where are the transaction fees?

Google too hard?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

Long past the days where you could send without a fee attached.

 

[FelixDeCat]

g

 

[DigDog]

you are all smart and well educated people so i assume you all already know about this, so i'm linking in just in case someone from social media happens to stumble on this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

 

[Ns1]

But Bitcoin is different because crypto and blockchain and technology and stuff.

 

[brianmanahan]

But Bitcoin is different because crypto and blockchain and technology and stuff.

you wouldn't download a tulip

 

[DigDog]

But Bitcoin is different because crypto and blockchain and technology and stuff.

ok, following your insight, i have put side by side a tulip and a bitcoin. i weighted them, smelled them, tried to fold them, measured their boiling point, even the Mythbusters people joined in the research, and i must now admit that in fact a bitcoin is not a tulip.

people's perception of the two, however, remains identical. the craze isn't about the item, it's about the speculation. And like all speculations, once the game is done, the item reverts back to its base value - whatever it costs to make.

 

[IronWing]

the item reverts back to its base value - whatever it costs to make.

Nope, the price reverts back to what people are willing to pay. In the case of Bitcoin that could turn out to be zero, well below the cost of mining.

 

[DigDog]

i knew i was going to get in trouble for that phrase. but the alternative was launching into a two-page tirade about perceived value.

 

[Zeze]

My VET is really taking off today - 52%~ gain in this afternoon. VET alone is carrying my portfolio.

My lambo dreams are still very very very very far away.

Sold some ETH for ICX.

VeChain & BitOcean - ATM Partnership in Japan and China. (medium.com)

ICON (ICX) opens a vending machine at Sogang University, Korea.

 

[Zeze]

The lambo(s) dream of getting 50-100x+++ return - has that ship sailed TODAY?

I'm not talking about any coins in specific, but cryptocurrency in general. It looks like things are really starting to take off and true 'early adopter' stage is phasing out. I'm starting to realize that:

• The world is embracing all kinds of different coins in different sectors. Similar to tons of automakers we have today, we may have tons of alt coins flourishing in the market with no uber dominant single coin.
  
  
• While there may be many years to come, I feel like early 2010's of BTC exploding by 100 fold is long gone for any coins from TODAY
  
  
• With different coins are constantly coming out - I also have a feeling that the future winner may not even exist yet. It may be a coin/project that still hasn't been thought of. While every teens knew of AOL in mid 90's, Google didn't even exist until being an infant company in 1998.
  

Am I way off here? What are your thoughts.

 

[Yakk]

The lambo(s) dream of getting 50-100x+++ return - has that ship sailed TODAY?

I'm not talking about any coins in specific, but cryptocurrency in general. It looks like things are really starting to take off and true 'early adopter' stage is phasing out. I'm starting to realize that:

• The world is embracing all kinds of different coins in different sectors. Similar to tons of automakers we have today, we may have tons of alt coins flourishing in the market with no uber dominant single coin.
  
  
• While there may be many years to come, I feel like early 2010's of BTC exploding by 100 fold is long gone for any coins from TODAY
  
  
• With different coins are constantly coming out - I also have a feeling that the future winner may not even exist yet. It may be a coin/project that still hasn't been thought of. While every teens knew of AOL in mid 90's, Google didn't even exist until being an infant company in 1998.

Am I way off here? What are your thoughts.

Well BTC reached 18x this year alone. But take $10,000 which was reached a few weeks ago... x100 puts it at $1,000,000 per coin. That would practically imply hyperinflationary collapse of fiat into bitcoin. May eventually happen longterm, but it'll take a while to pump that much fiat into it... and when it does happen you probably won't want the fiat value anymore anyways as it means fiat has become worthless by comparison. Venezuela is the perfect real-life example. Thier currency collapsed and the regular people had to turn to mining & use of Bitcoin for most things now.

If Bitcoin of a few weeks ago at $10,000 reaches x10 value in the next few years then at $100,000 this might be a more probable midterm level to attain (or 5x BTC's all time high value of $20,000 or $24,000 in Asian countries). This would probably be only possible with institutional investments, not ordinary people. That's why having Futures & ETFs was such a big step to open the door to massive institutional investors into Bitcoin.

Altcoins (and all BTC forks) remain centralized and I doubt any institutional investors, who are not themselves part of the controlling body, would invest in a coin which is not decentralized and carry an extreme risk without representation. Altcoins can serve multiple specific niches, just maybe not store of wealth.

 

[brianmanahan]

But take $10,000 which was reached a few weeks ago... x100 puts it at $1,000,000 per coin. That would practically imply hyperinflationary collapse of fiat into bitcoin.

or hyperdeflation of bitcoin into fiat

 

[Zeze]

Altcoins can serve multiple specific niches, just maybe not store of wealth.

The funny thing is that Bitcoin people get super defensive about BTC's challenges now (high fees, low tx capacity, etc) and say that Bitcoin is more meant to be storing of wealth. That's funny because just last year or so, Bitcoin community was doing a grass movement of calling up vendors and asking them to consider using Bitcoin for their transactions.

 

[destrekor]

Well BTC reached 18x this year alone. But take $10,000 which was reached a few weeks ago... x100 puts it at $1,000,000 per coin. That would practically imply hyperinflationary collapse of fiat into bitcoin. May eventually happen longterm, but it'll take a while to pump that much fiat into it... and when it does happen you probably won't want the fiat value anymore anyways as it means fiat has become worthless by comparison. Venezuela is the perfect real-life example. Thier currency collapsed and the regular people had to turn to mining & use of Bitcoin for most things now.

If Bitcoin of a few weeks ago at $10,000 reaches x10 value in the next few years then at $100,000 this might be a more probable midterm level to attain (or 5x BTC's all time high value of $20,000 or $24,000 in Asian countries). This would probably be only possible with institutional investments, not ordinary people. That's why having Futures & ETFs was such a big step to open the door to massive institutional investors into Bitcoin.

Altcoins (and all BTC forks) remain centralized and I doubt any institutional investors, who are not themselves part of the controlling body, would invest in a coin which is not decentralized and carry an extreme risk without representation. Altcoins can serve multiple specific niches, just maybe not store of wealth.

What? There are many decentralized altcoins. BTC is not unique, it was just first to market. Many altcoins have actually become far superior by every metric save for valuation. Bitcoin isn't and probably never will be truly ready for global prime time as a transaction processing network. It just isn't ready to scale and the controlling votes have repeatedly refused to bend, which has results in the forks. Bitcoin Cash is already superior at transaction processing. Bitcoin may well remain the top dog, equivalent in a way to gold as a store of value. But I expect a few will become larger purely for transactions, and a few others yet for more specific utility.

 

[destrekor]

The funny thing is that Bitcoin people get super defensive about BTC's challenges now (high fees, low tx capacity, etc) and say that Bitcoin is more meant to be storing of wealth. That's funny because just last year or so, Bitcoin community was doing a grass movement of calling up vendors and asking them to consider using Bitcoin for their transactions.

I think the bitcoin community doesn't know what it really wants in the end.

And more to the point, many didn't (still don't?) even understand the limitations of BTC as it was and as it remains. It seemed intuitive to get more people to use it, but now it's readily apparent that the BTC blockchain is not capable of handling that volume/demand, not without introducing changes. Perhaps after a few more forks, the old traditional BTC will still survive and the remaining community will have a super majority in agreement in regards to future plans for the project.

But honestly, I expect there's going to come a time where the Bitcoin brand follows one of the forks, meaning the Bitcoin core team will actually fork off the "classic" chain, but the classic chain will still live on (Bitcoin Classic, anyone?). That has happened with a few altcoins, and of course BTC has technically forked itself a few times, but there was always solid agreement and the "classic" chain withered and died soon after the fork.

 

[momeNt]

Here's a thought, if we took the energy consumption that is put into crypto mining, and instead put it into Folding. Would we have cured cancer?

 

[ponyo]

Let's be honest. No one cares about the ability to spend bitcoin. They only care about the ability to buy and sell bitcoin for speculation purposes. So it is store of value. The problem is, when and if the bubble pops and everyone is running for the exit at the same time, will they be able to get out? Or will it be like roach motel where you can enter but can't easily get out. If I owned bitcoin, that would be my biggest fear. When the panic starts, will you be able to get out alive? But until then, party on.

The South Korea news is affecting bitcoin price today but that country does have massive bitcoin speculation problem. It's going to end ugly there as massive number of housewives and regular Joes are involved in bitcoin trading and speculation. I would say it's equal to the US internet stock bubble of the late 90s or worse over there. So many ordinary people are leveraged and buying bitcoins in South Korea it's kind of scary. In the US, bitcoin is still no where near the mania phase. Not even close.

 

[destrekor]

Here's a thought, if we took the energy consumption that is put into crypto mining, and instead put it into Folding. Would we have cured cancer?

Perhaps, but it wouldn't have happened like that. The only reason the energy consumption is being pumped into cryptocurrencies is due to the payout. Folding and SETI (and I'm sure there were/are others) would only get so many to contribute because there's no payout.

Also, I don't think Folding was really attempting to cure cancer - it was more about all many diseases that do directly result from malformed protein structures. Sometimes the resulting protein is toxic, and perhaps that can sometimes lead to cancer but not necessarily as the 100% cause of said cancer. At least, that's how I understood it. Folding@home was generally focused on trying to cure the directly resulting diseases [presumed to be?] caused by malformed proteins, the majority of which are understood to be neurodegenerative disease.