Bitcoin Sinks Below $6,000 as Almost Everything Crypto Tumbles (bloomberg.com) 203
Several readers have shared a report: Bitcoin touched below $6,000 and dozens of smaller digital tokens including Ether retreated as this month's sell-off in cryptocurrencies showed few signs of letting up. The largest digital currency fell as much as 6.2 percent to $5,887, the lowest level since June, before paring some of the drop, according to Bloomberg composite pricing. Ether sank as much as 13 percent, while all but one of the 100 biggest cryptocurrencies tracked by Coinmarketcap.com recorded declines over the past 24 hours. The total market capitalization of virtual currencies dropped to $193 billion. Thatâ(TM)s down from a peak of about $835 billion in January.
Rebound due? (Score:2)
OK speculators... now the time to buy? A rebound due? Or are we seeing the death throes of Crypto coin as an investment option and a return to just being used in the underground.
Re:Rebound due? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops - there goes the money they were hoping to pyramid by shorting Tesla.
Re:Rebound due? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's over, and has been for a long time.
All the "rebounds" since last January are mostly just the Chinese bitcoin miners manipulating the market to get money from the idiots.
All we need is for the idiots to stop believing and it's going to be a total trainwreck.
(Remember: Only about 6 Bitcoin transactions per second are possible in the entire world - nobody will be able to sell :-) )
Re: Rebound due? (Score:3)
I think it's actually 12, but the really important thing is that Lightning Network (built on top of BTC) can actually perform hundreds of thousands of off-chain transactions for each of those limited on-chain transactions.
The important thing to watch is where the fees get during the next bubble. Lightning and Segwit should both have a significant impact by then.
Re: Rebound due? (Score:5, Interesting)
The important thing is the entire point of bitcoin was it was supposed to be free of middle men. Lighting is a middle man. Basically bitcoin does not work as designed. There is nothing stopping some big banks from essentially taking over lighting and making settlement feeds just about equivalent to CC rates now. Basically anyone betting on BitCoin being a primary currency or exchange mechanism of the future is a nuts.
Which is not say some blockchain based solution won't emerge just that it won't be bitcoin.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's based on a public, signed ledger then it HAS to be be Bitcoin. The only way to keep the ledger secure is by requiring vast amounts of work to add an entry to it.
It it isn't based on a public, signed ledger then it's not free, it has to be controlled by a trusted party. Who's that going to be? Banks? A government? We already have that, it's called "money".
Re: (Score:3)
If it's based on a public, signed ledger then it HAS to be be Bitcoin.
Based on what? What exactly stops a technically similar but better architected solution - say with larger more usable at scale block sizes from being widely adopted? Widely adopted by say they entrenched financials most of whom missed the boat on the early Btc speculation but already have all the merchant relationships etc in place to take a new offering packaged in a consumer friendly way to market easily.
What is stop the Federal reserve from issuing its own cryptocurrency, and using dollar monetary poli
Re: (Score:2)
If it's based on a public, signed ledger then it HAS to be be Bitcoin.
Based on what? What exactly stops a technically similar but better architected solution - say with larger more usable at scale block sizes from being widely adopted?
It seems you don't understand blockchain: The only way a publicly owned ledger can be tamper-proof is by requiring an unfeasible amount of work for a malicious party to alter it.
That's what Bitcoin miners do - sign the pages of the ledger in return for rewards (bitcoins). To falsify the ledger you need as much computing power as all the bitcoin miners in the world put together.
What is stop the Federal reserve from issuing its own cryptocurrency
Why would they? They already have a working currency with matching electronic and anonymous (ie cash) payment methods.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, the moment someone says this I tune out.
It may very well be that the speaker understands blockchains better than I do, but it's guaranteed that there are many more things they don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
We were only discussing blockchains, but ... feel free to stay ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
If you mean "why can't the size of the pages in the ledger be increased?" then the TLDR answer is that Bitcoin is stuck in a rut.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blo... [bitcoin.it]
If you mean "Why can't we create yet another cryptocoin with a bigger page size?" then:
a) It's unlikely to happen in practice. The world's reaction to Yet Another Cryptocoin isn't going to be "Yes, please!".
b) No page size will be big enough for a cryptocoin to be used as a general-purpose payment system at a worldwide level that needs tens of mill
Re: (Score:2)
Blockchains aren't particularly difficult to understand. The BS "explanations" made up by people who don't really understand them are.
1 MB block size limit (Score:2)
That's what Bitcoin miners do - sign the pages of the ledger in return for rewards (bitcoins).
So why can't the pages be made larger to fit more transactions in one page? That's what the second half of SegWit2x was supposed to do, but it was canceled.
Re: (Score:2)
The proof of stake blockchains would like to disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
No, absolutely nothing like a real bank.
A real bank owns the ledger. When you own a ledger there's no requirement of making it very difficult to add new transactions to it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing stopping some big banks from essentially taking over lighting and making settlement feeds just about equivalent to CC rates now
Big banks are free to participant in the lightning network just as much as everyone else is. That is, free as in speech - not as in beer.
Big banks (or you and I) are also free to set whatever settlement fees they want. That is also still free as in speech.
But let me tell you why that won't be bad for consumers...
Big bank charges $1000 to settle a fee? I can undercut them at $900. Someone else undercuts me. Someone undercuts them etc. It's a race to $0 fees and is good for consumers.
Unlike the tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably those running nodes that take 1 satoshi aren't doing so at a loss - so I think banks would really struggle to undercut the super-cheap nodes. Maybe a bank can run at a loss for longer than everyone else - but after the banks have killed compet
BTC isn't going anywhere. (Score:2)
Banks can get involved, sure. But so can you. It's decentralized and there's no problem with all these things co-existing. It's also far from static, and being actively developed.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." ...and right now, if you want to play, you need some Satoshis.
Middlemen (Score:3)
The important thing is the entire point of bitcoin was it was supposed to be free of middle men.
Being free of a middle man isn't always a good thing for the parties involved. While they should be removed whenever practical, sometimes they actually serve valuable purposes. For example some companies I deal with literally cannot make a profit unless you do a substantial amount of business with them. If you don't meet their minimum volumes they force you to use distributors (middle me) who are better organized to deal with smaller product volumes. In some sense virtually all businesses are middle men
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and to put a little finer point on it..
What will the banks do.. Will they
A) Pay enormous sums of money to a the current crop of nerds and Chinese nations that hold bitcoins to acquire the liquidity they need to effect settlements? All so they can have access to a vanishingly small part of the population that has ever transacted a bitcoin and work with almost nonexistent pool of legitimate commercial vendors that already deal in bit coin?
-or-
B) Call their CEO buddies form an industry group crea
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's actually 12
No, it's actually around 5 or 6 at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Rebound due? (Score:5, Funny)
The average BTC transaction fee is still under $1 USD, so the panic selling hasn't started yet. The fun part will be when BTC starts to plummet while the transaction fee skyrockets. The really fun part will happen if the transaction fee climbs to the point where people realize their remaining BTC balance will cost them more money to liquidate than if they simply deleted their wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
>(Remember: Only about 6 Bitcoin transactions per second are possible in the entire world - nobody will be able to sell :-) )
This is the biggest problem with Bitcoin, and I haven't seen many people point it out. VISA does like millions of transactions a second.
The whole point of buying Bitcoin as a speculative commodity is dependent on that commodity (Bitcoin) having some intrinsic value that people will buy/consume it for. For Bitcoin, that value only derives from it's utility as a currency, which, to be blunt, it's basically useless at.
So all these Bitcoin speculators are just buying from each other and blindly hoping no one no
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. All Bitcoin really does at the moment of move people's money around.
It can't create any money: If one person made a million bucks with Bitcoin then that means a thousand other people lost a thousand bucks each.
It's very basic math and it's not infinite, it's limited by:
a) Belief/gullibility
b) The amount of money people can physically scrape together to "invest".
You can argue that Apple shares are basically the same at this point and I won't disagree. Apple has real products and a real-world presence th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before the Xmas rush, right?
PS: What "years" of bitcoins...?
Re:Rebound due? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Currencies need to have some form of stability. When population expands, you need more currency. When productivity increases, you need more currency (imagine your dollar income falling as prices fall, but your bank loan doesn't get any smaller, and your house becomes worth less, so now you're underwater and your mortgage payment is a larger percentage of your income).
This is why we have things like fiat currencies, which always represent the amount of goods and services produced and sold (income). Cur
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have things like fiat currencies, which always represent the amount of goods and services produced and sold (income).
It is possible to structure a currency based on goods and/or services through a distributed secure ledger, many are already based on oil.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a commodity-based currency or such.
The United States had $18 trillion of gross national income in 2016. Do you know how that happens? A bunch of people do work (not necessarily useful work: traders may put in the effort of decision-making to move your money to their pockets, which is work, but produces nothing except the outcome of your money going into their pockets) and they derive income (are paid) for that work.
That's all the corporate profits, all the wages, all the capital gains. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
Currency doesn't become scarce (like bitcoin or gold) or suddenly flood (like gold); it's managed to stabilize inflation as market changes create demands on currency supply.
Unlike gold, BTC is easily divisible into smaller pieces still useful as currency. You'll get an economic crisis when there's not enough physical currency to mediate trade -- a scarce currency stops being a currency -- but BTC doesn't have that problem. It also can't suddenly flood the market, which is nice, though not as nice as advocates seem to think (the BTC supply is not capped, if E=BTC-denominated svings accounts are ever a thing).
BTC is all over the place precisely because people don't use it as a
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike gold, BTC is easily divisible into smaller pieces still useful as currency.
That is the problem.
Oh, we divided the currency, so your $10,000/year is now $8,000/year.
By the by, if the bank had kept that $25,000 you borrowed instead of loaning it to you, it would be worth more today. Oh, the interest rate is low, sure; but here's the thing: we're not going to discount you and end with less money. It's still $275/month.
What? You're not happy your mortgage moved from 33% of your monthly income to 41%? It's harder to make payments every year? Your wage keeps going down but your
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we divided the currency, so your $10,000/year is now $8,000/year.
I don't follow. Are you talking about inflation, and purchasing power? Hypothetical reduction in salary due to deflation? Deflation sucks for debtors, to be sure. However, if we had savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, we'd also have inflation as the money supply increased.
Re: (Score:2)
Deflation, due to having not physically enough money to go around to compensate all the labor.
Bitcoin was designed to produce fewer bitcoins over time due to exponentially-increasing work required to mine each coin, like a gold mine. It eventually falls behind the inflation curve, which is why bitcoins are mostly traded in fractions now instead of in whole parts.
If your mortgage was in BTC, you'd owe 10 BTC but this year there are 1BTC per person, next year there are 0.95BTC per person, the year after 0
Re: (Score:2)
Deflation, due to having not physically enough money to go around to compensate all the labor.
OK, but don't confuse that with the problems with specie-based currency where lack of physical coins causes a crisis (separate from value of those coins). You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
If your mortgage was in BTC, you'd owe 10 BTC but this year there are 1BTC per person, next year there are 0.95BTC per person, the year after 0.9BTC, and so forth.
Sure, except for one key thing: if there actually were savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, there would be inflation as the money supply grew directly with the value of said mortgages. It's a self-solving problem. Doesn't matter how many BTC there are in the bloc
Re: (Score:2)
You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
Yes, and you create loose monetary policy and take other action to drive up wages and create inflation as a response.
Sure, except for one key thing: if there actually were savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, there would be inflation as the money supply grew directly with the value of said mortgages. It's a self-solving problem. Doesn't matter how many BTC there are in the blockchain, any more than it matters how many $20 bills there are.
I'm thinking about all money being BTC. I'm thinking your savings account is BTC and your mortgage is BTC. That IS the problem I described.
Let's try this again. I'm going to show you that you're wrong about the "self-solving problem" and that it matters how many BTC there are, so don't come back and say "oh that only happens if your mortgage is dollars and savings account is BTC" again.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
Yes, and you create loose monetary policy and take other action to drive up wages and create inflation as a response.
Japan tried that for 10 years without success. Theory falsified, hard. You can't push on a rope. It's now well understood that monetary policy can curtail an economy, but can't stimulate one (beyond the cessation of any restriction).
There are, for example, twenty million bitcoins in the world.
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply. But of course those home builders spend that money building houses, so now the banks have more to loan, which they do. The money suppl
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply.
That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof. When someo
Re: (Score:2)
That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
Yes. That was indeed my point. Except it's definitely not "fiat currency", by definition. The same thing would happen, and did happen, with gold-based currency.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof.
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
When someone comes to get their Bitcoin, there has to be a Bitcoin physically available for them: you can only loan out what's on hand.
That's a nice thought, but it's not how savings accounts work. In the US, the bank can loan out 100% of what you deposit (yes, we're technically a zero-reserve banking system). Checking accounts have a reserve req
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
Yes. You do realize if you put $200 in savings, the bank can loan out $2,000, right? They don't have to find $2,000 on-hand.
With BTC, the bank can't loan out 2,000 BTC if they have 200. Every fractional BTC spent essentially traces back to a specific serial number. You can't loan more into existence.
That's just not how banks work, sorry. There will be 0 idle in savings. They will loan all of it out (well, 99%).
So you're saying if $1,000 is spent and $1,000 is kept in savings, and then the bank loans out that $1,000 from savings which then gets spent, $3,000 are spent?
Let me help you examine that question: Th
Re: (Score:2)
. You do realize if you put $200 in savings, the bank can loan out $2,000, right? They don't have to find $2,000 on-hand.
Banks can't print money these days. The bank must first have $2000 in deposits before it can loan out $2000. (As an aside, the bank can write an insurance policy for $2000 without the full amount on hand, but we don't need to consider that form of increasing the money supply to see that it increases.)
I'm saying that's $1,000 spent plus $1,000 spent, out of a total $2,000 in existence. You're saying that doesn't work that way, because that $1,000 isn't idle in savings--so you suggest $3,000 has been spent.
Consider this example. Banks A and B have chunks of gold in their vaults, thanks to savings accounts. I want to buy a car, so I borrow 10 chunks of gold from Bank A, and give it to the car dealer, who deposi
Re: (Score:2)
Banks can't print money these days. The bank must first have $2000 in deposits before it can loan out $2000. (As an aside, the bank can write an insurance policy for $2000 without the full amount on hand, but we don't need to consider that form of increasing the money supply to see that it increases.)
In the US, the monetary basis is something like 11:1, which means a bank with $1,000 can loan out $11,000. It's a bit more complex than that [federalreserve.gov], with 33:1 in the low-reserve-ratio range and 10:1 in the larger range. Small banks with minimal bail-out costs can loan a lot more than they have on hand.
Historically, the US has done very little of that.
Actually, that is exactly what the US does. We alter treasury bond rates to create a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount owed, and then print up the difference. If the labor applied expands b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how you keep missing my point. It works like this.
Monday:
Dan deposits 10 BTC in Bank A, lets call them B00 through B09. Eve deposits 10 BTC in Bank B, lets call them B10 through B19.
Monday EOD:
Bank A has B00-B09
Bank B has B10-B19
Tuesday:
I borrow 10 BTC from Bank A (B00-B09) and buy a car. The dealer deposits the day's receipts in Bank B. Bank B now has B00-B09. Meanwhile, You borrow 10 BTC from Bank B (B10-B19) and remodel your house, The contractor deposits the money with Bank A
Tuesday EO
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how you keep missing my point. It works like this
Okay, let's show how this works in the current fractional reserve system, at 10:1 reserve ratio.
Tuesday:
I borrow 10 BTC from Bank A (B00-B09) and buy a car. The dealer deposits the day's receipts in Bank B. Bank B now has B00-B09. Meanwhile, You borrow 10 BTC from Bank B (B10-B19) and remodel your house, The contractor deposits the money with Bank A
Tuesday EOD:
Bank A has B10-B19
Bank B has B00-B09
In today's fractional reserve, it looks like this:
You deposit 10 BTC in Bank A.
Alice borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Bob borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Jim borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Joe borrows 10BTC from bank A for a car. Robyn borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Chuck borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Cindy borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Lauren borrows 10BTC from Bank
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rebound due? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, what has held back all of them has been the inherent "early adopters get rich" architecture. The concentration of wealth in the BTC community makes the concentration of USD by the upper 1% look like a socialist paradise by comparison, and every major cryptocurrency since then has copied it ... because of course, everyone wants to be the "new" 1%.
Think about it: someone invents a new currency for which he just happens to own 20% or 30% of the total worldwide supply, and wants everyone to adopt it as "money". How deluded does he have to be to think that the people holding the actual wealth in this world will just hand over their power and assets to a guy holding some digital tokens that he personally created?
The BTC community is dominated by this mindset of adopters hoping to become the "new" wealthy class. It drives the speculative frenzy and the irrational behavior. And ultimately, that mindset is exactly what will bring the BTC experiment to an end, even if one could solve the problems of transaction throughput and ease of use.
The use of the term "crypto" worries me (Score:2)
Or are we seeing the death throes of Crypto coin
It could be. But we could also be seeing a scare tactic to discredit cryptography by causing non-technical users to confuse cryptography with cryptocurrency. It would fit in well with an effort to require communication operators to break end-to-end functionality under the guise of providing assistance to law enforcement, as Australia is doing lately [slashdot.org]
Re: Rebound due? (Score:2)
Use dollar cost averaging. Whatever you are comfortable buying on a weekly or monthly basis; the important thing is to buy on a regular schedule.
It's unlikely to rebound anytime soon, if you go by historical bubbles. Now is the time for long term investment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, now is the time to stay the fuck away. Dollar cost averaging doesn't help you on a declining asset. Its a mathematical trick to smooth out bumps on an asset you believe will have a long term gain. Unless you plan on holding for years, and are sure the crypto will be around, and are sure it will be these coins, then buying is idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't sell off your BTC if no sucker is around to buy it.
Re: Rebound due? (Score:2)
BTC is up over 50% for the year. Please explain how it's a declining asset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it became a way for speculators to scam cash out of those who believed it was
Speculators scam cash out of other speculators, almost entirely. It's con-men scamming con-men all the way down, like any speculative bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, given that nothing happened to kill cryptocurrencies - I'd say the price will rebound. I could only speculate what the timeframe for that might be though - it could be days, months, weeks or years. It may also go down more before it goes up.
My
Re: (Score:2)
If reporters are telling you it's dead, wait a bit and buy it. If reporters are telling you it's the future of the world, wait a bit and sell it.
Tech reporters are manipulating the price of bitcoin by writing articles about it and laughing all the way to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
OK speculators... now the time to buy? A rebound due?
Yes, a rebound is defiantly DUE... The issue is will it arrive...
Re: (Score:2)
Buy some every week or two and average in.
Altcoins are all garbage and lots of folks have predicted BTC dominance emerging.
Lightning network, distributed exchanges, all sorts of things are coming.
Bitcoin + LN solves a problem that the beloved Cmdr Taco used to rant about - micropayments. It lets you send $0.0001 to someone, with no middlemen. That's incredible, and it's going to change a lot of things.
Everyone should have a little BTC. I have no intention of converting any of it back to $.
Buy it with money
Nobody knows (Score:2)
OK speculators... now the time to buy?
Anyone who pretends they know the answer to this is a liar and/or a fraud. Go ahead and gamble your money if it amuses you but no one knows what the value of bitcoin or any other crypto currency will be tomorrow, next week, or next year. It's an almost pure game of Who's the Greater Fool? [wikipedia.org].
Or are we seeing the death throes of Crypto coin as an investment option and a return to just being used in the underground.
It doesn't matter. It's never been an investment - just gambling and arguably a pyramid scheme. It provides no cost advantage over existing currencies outside of a few rare corner cases but it is a wet dream for crimin
Re: (Score:2)
We can only hope... last I heard, bitcoin mining was burning as much power as Austrailia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there. ^
Re: (Score:2)
All currencies fluctuate and Bitcoin isn't going anywhere. When you grow up and stop relying on mommy and daddy, you might learn how economies work.
^^^ Projection
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is still valued higher than its worth as a currency. That could change, but most of its current value is tied to the gamblers' bubble on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin isn't a currency.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it is. It's just a really shitty one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no more a currency than baseball cards.
Sure, people may sometimes trade them for other goods or services, but mostly their value is overhyped by collectors.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure, people may sometimes trade them for other goods or services."
Yes. A currency. Possibly a shitty one.
There's a Pacific island where they used large rocks for currency. They had to be brought from other islands. The rocks were so big that nobody actually wanted to move them much, so they just kept records about who owned which rock. One day a boat carrying a new rock from far away sank just off the island. Even though nobody could see the rock, everyone knew it was there. Still counts, decided th
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin isn't a currency.
Neither is the stock market, real estate, or gold. They are investments.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they were.
Real estate and gold are more than just investments. People buy houses to live in and gold is a metal with some very good physical properties.
Re: (Score:2)
Currencies fluctuate this much only in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and 20's Germany. If Bitcoin was a national currency, we would soon see the rise to power of a CryptoHitler.
there is only so much you can do with fake money (Score:3, Interesting)
All but one recorded declines? (Score:2)
Care to name which one, you bunch of morons?
Or is it a joke about how Dogecoin kept its 1:1 trading ratio of One-Dogecoin-for-One-Dogecoin?
Re: (Score:2)
tether has stayed the say.
WHAT??!!! You never heard of it!!!? neither had I, I used coinmarketcap.com chart
of course if you look at the whole year graph of that, it's tanked like a lead balloon....haha!
Re: (Score:2)
Buy then buy again (Score:2, Funny)
Dollar cost averaging is looking pretty attractive now. If it follows historical patterns, it should be entering a long, (relatively) stable lull before the next bubble, which should hit $25k minimum, and could get as high as $90k.
Re: (Score:2)
LOLZ!
let me put the perfect little touch on the end of your statement:
"...if you want to be a bag holder"
Re: (Score:3)
Dollar cost averaging is looking pretty attractive now. If it follows historical patterns, it should be entering a long, (relatively) stable lull before the next bubble, which should hit $25k minimum, and could get as high as $90k.
Yeah, definitely. How much are you trying to dump?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, definitely. How much are you trying to dump?
I think we had this same discussion when BTC slumped from $1000 to $230, okay the fad is over everybody go home. Then it rebounded and went up, up and away to $20k. I'm not saying the GP is right, but we've already had crazier rallies than that. The person who'd go short in BTC is even crazier than the person who'd invest in BTC...
Re: (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
About time these get rich quick skeevy pyramid scams tumble.
Massively Overvalued (Score:2)
Bitcoin will reach an appropriate value when it falls to zero.
Re: (Score:3)
About half of Bitcoin is owned by a handful of Chinese miners in a little cartel of their own.
Maybe they had an argument over how much longer they should spend their own money to keep the price propped up.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between "currency" and "security".
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe some electricity
And.. (don't forget)... The profits of video card makers..
Re: (Score:3)
Alex Jones should be deplatformed for the slander he committed against the Sandy Hook parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Jones should be deplatformed for the slander he committed against the Sandy Hook parents.
Alex Jones should be made responsible for his vile words, but censoring him is not a way to do it. All deplatforming will do is lend his claims of persecution some credibility. It won't, however, stop his falsehoods from spreading.
Re: (Score:2)
Deplatforming doesn't give him credibility with anyone but dumbshits who already agree with him.
Deplatforming takes away a platform he can use to continue to slander people for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Jones is sued regularly. That's appropriate - and he doesn't always lose. (Don't tell his fans, but he sometimes uses the defense pioneered by the Weekly World News: "our content is so absurd no reasonable person could believe it").
De-platforming him is not appropriate. The right answer to speech you disagree with is more speech. The Stalin-esque unpersoning of him --
de-platforming him from everwhere all on the same day -- was even less appropriate. He was just the test; never doubt it. He won't
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that someone arguing for censorship is posting as AC. Do you or don't you want to face consequences for speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a fine opinion to hold, just don't at the same time make pro-censorship arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked Twitter, Youtube, etc. are private entities who can decide to host or not host anyone they want because hey, we're a capitalist society.
If you're saying the government should nationalize Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook so it actually become a free speech issue, well...
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that 4 or 5 people got together one day and unpersoned Alex Jones, just because they didn't like him.
That's collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
but when Alex Jones gets deplatformed, we can't talk about the implications for free speech in our society?
Okay, let's talk about it. Deplatforming means that Alex Jones has been denied the use of some very tall soapboxes built by others. But Alex Jones doesn't believe in the "you didn't build that" argument [knowledgefight.com].
I've had several experiences with accounts where I never have a post go -1 and some how I have negative karma.
All you need is for them to go to 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you're defending the right of a huge corporation to refuse service to anyone it dislikes? I think not. Seems to me you're saying "protected classes should include only people politically aligned with me".
Be honest here. There was a recent story about a black woman being chased out of a restaurant by a bunch of white guys in hoods. Your reaction to that will depend on what her politics were, and theirs. Don't deny it - I know your posting history.
Re: (Score:2)
After all these years, Linux still can't get past 2% market share.
In the desktop alone. Everywhere else, Linux is king.