Bitcoin Plummets Under $6,000 To a New Low For the Year

Bitcoin's moment of relative stability ended abruptly Wednesday. The world's largest cryptocurrency hit its lowest level of the year, falling as much as 9 percent to a low of $5,640.36, according to CoinDesk. From a report: Bitcoin had been trading comfortably around the $6,400 range for the majority of the fall, a stark contrast from its volatile trading year. Other cryptocurrencies fared even worse on Wednesday. Ether fell as much as 13 percent while XRP, the third largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, dropped 15 percent, according to CoinMarketCap.com. The rout is likely being spurred by uncertainty around bitcoin cash, according to founder and CEO of BKCM, Brian Kelly.

Funny bitcoin names

[Anonymous Coward]

Buttcoins
Dunning krugerrand
Autism kroners
Currency of the future

Re:Funny bitcoin names

[Applehu Akbar]

Dunning krugerrand

This one's my favorite.

The hard limit on Bitcoin money supply will be the temperature at which ASICs melt.

Re: They thought they were being clever

[Type44Q]

Ironically, chopping the first syllable off of "retard" qualifies as well.

Re: They thought they were being clever

[Type44Q]

That's all you've got??

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

Why? It has 5 years (at best) before quantum computing destroys it. The post-quantum algorithms require ENORMOUS signature sizes that can't be mitigated with a lightning-network style hack, and would have to be adopted years in advance such that everyone holding any BTC could transition their account over. The math adds up to about 4-8TB/yr every single wallet holder has to maintain just to verify the blockchain (or convert the whole thing into a centralized system where you just trust what is effectivel

Re:

[mark-t]

I think it will be a lot more than 5 years before the absolutely massive amount of cooling to near absolute zero required for quantum computing to work will be within practical reach of the average consumer.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

It doesn't have to be practical for everyone, it only takes one person to use a quantum computer in the span of a day to drain every single unconverted bitcoin account.

Re:

[mark-t]

I think you are still overestimating how far QC will be along in 5 years...

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

It's followed Moore's law for nearly the last decade with no signs of letting up. Only takes 1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm and destroy all pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms and we're already in the few-hundred of qubit range. 2 more doublings (approximately 3 years following trends over the last 8 years) and it's here. 5 years is being extraordinarily conservative in my estimate.

Re:

[110010001000]

You are nuts. We aren't even close to a few-hundred qubit range. I dub thee "QC Nut" and you are in the same basket is the "AI" and Space Nutters.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

D-Wave is already making them commercially at that scale, with wide enough use that papers are being written from tests on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.459... [arxiv.org]

Re:

[110010001000]

D-wave is a complete scam. They are just regular digital computers. No wonder you think that.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

D-wave is a complete scam. They are just regular digital computers. No wonder you think that.

Lol, no they aren't.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

It's a paper about experiments done on a commercial machine, just freaking look up D-wave.

Re:

[OneHundredAndTen]

1,100 bits, assuming that error correction is not necessary. Which, as it happens, it is. Badly so. When this is taken into account, two orders of magnitude more qubits will be necessary. Quantum computing powerful enough to apply Shor to nontrivial cases is way further into the future than 5 years. In fact, it remains to be seen whether the error correction requirements for such instances are feasible with our current technology, or any technology in the foreseeable future.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

This is just wrong.

Re:

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't need to be within reach of everyone. The first practical quantum computers will belong to to universities, governments, and large corporations - but eventually someone is going to start renting processor time on one to anyone who can pay. Probably Amazon.

Bitcoin is software, it can change as necessary

[perpenso]

The bitcoin network is based on software. The software can be updated to change algorithms and keys and underlying strategies (PoW v PoS), etc as necessary.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

You're missing the point entirely. The update required has to happen right the fuck now for everyone to get converted over before the first quantum computers capable of cracking it are available. It has to be initiated from every single wallet holder individually and it equates to every single wallet holder needing to accumulate 4-8 TB worth of signatures for every single year of operation. By the time the first quantum computers happen that's a 16-32TB blockchain every single user of bitcoin must have t

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

There are no cryptocurrencies immune to this.

Re:

[perpenso]

Using bitcoin does not require that you run a full node with all blockchain data.

For those wanting a full node, when quantum computers are here, 32TB of data a year will likely be not a big deal.

Quantum computers in a few years, yep, those flying cars in our driveways too.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

The point is cryptocurrencies have a singular selling point: they are distributed. The practical considerations of quantum computers ensure that even if switched to post quantum algorithms, they become centralized. Projecting quantum computers that can run Shor's algorithm by 2023 is not even a remote stretch, they could be here as soon as 2020 given current trends projected from the last several years of development. The only real constraint is that they need to hit about 1,100 qubits in a system, and c

Re:

[sjames]

Post quantum doesn't mean you need a quantum computer to run it.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

No, it means you need an absurd amount of storage when you use those algorithms in a blockchain because post-quantum signature algorithms produce enormous signatures. About 31KB per transaction, and you can't just apply some lightning-network style hack to get around that because it is based on individual wallet holders, so both for wallet holders and every single transaction they make you need to stick another 31KB on the blockchain to keep it secure. Look at the number of transactions and it becomes obv

Re:

[perpenso]

The point is cryptocurrencies have a singular selling point: they are distributed.

Not every user needs to be a full node. You merely need *enough* nodes with *enough* diversity.

The practical considerations of quantum computers ensure that even if switched to post quantum algorithms, they become centralized.

Centralization, now were are getting into the politics of crypto not the technical details. With *enough* diversity we can still have security but perhaps not political purity.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

Not every user needs to be a full node. You merely need *enough* nodes with *enough* diversity.

To be distributed, yeah they do. What you're describing is no different from the modern banking system, only slower.

Centralization, now were are getting into the politics of crypto not the technical details. With *enough* diversity we can still have security but perhaps not political purity.

That's the whole point, cryptocurrencies only have the one selling point: distributed architecture. You can achieve everything else they offer (and in fact, it already exists) with the modern banking system.

Re:

[perpenso]

No, "distributed" is not the only selling point. No, banking can not achieve everything crypto can. For example I can transfer money globally, including exchange from one fiat to another, with lower fees and possibly faster access to the transferred funds.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

No, "distributed" is not the only selling point. No, banking can not achieve everything crypto can. For example I can transfer money globally, including exchange from one fiat to another, with lower fees and possibly faster access to the transferred funds.

They achieved that with the ACH systems in the 70's. Distributed architecture is the ONLY advantage cryptocurrencies have. As soon as it becomes centralized you'll see higher fees just like with existing ACH systems. The cheap transaction cost is a result of the distributed nature (lots of people competing to drive down the rate efficiently,) not some magical feature of cryptocurrencies.

Re:

[perpenso]

No, ACH has significant longer delays / confirmation times for ordinary people, 72-hour, 24-hour.

Again, you confuse completely decentralized and decentralized *enough*. Not everyone needs the full data set, only *enough* people.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

ACH is instantaneous, there are delays in the implementation level because banks had automated processes that only upload things daily in the past. That justification has allowed them to pass off the idea that it's not instant because the multi-day delay allows them to stack transactions from highest to lowest and charge extra overdraft fees in a manner that they can get away with. There's issues with banking systems due to corruption, not technology. The issues due to corruption will be the same if not

Re:

[perpenso]

The reason for the ACH delays is irrelevant, the fact remains that they exist.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

It's not irrelevant when they are a byproduct of corruption, you're arguing from the standpoint of technological superiority which doesn't exist, and everyone who has run the centralized components you are in favor of are even more corrupt than those running the system you're arguing against.

Re:

[Pseudonym]

It has 5 years (at best) before quantum computing destroys it.

You are severely overestimating both the rate of advancement in quantum computing. I give it around 15 years.

Realistically, Bitcoin will probably be functionally extinct for other reasons before then. Presumably replaced by something that doesn't use so much damn power.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

You are severely overestimating both the rate of advancement in quantum computing. I give it around 15 years.

Nope, just taking growth in qubits-per-machine over the last 5 years. They're roughly following Moore's law at this point, are already in the hundreds of qubits range, and it only takes ~1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm.

Re: Finally, I might be able to buy again...

[Type44Q]

Five years from now, people will have likely been forced to learn the difference between fiat currency [backed by governments with militaries] and fiat currency backed by not a fucking thing except expensive utility bills.

Re: Finally, I might be able to buy again...

[Nidi62]

I just want graphics cards to be reasonably priced again

Re:

[thegarbz]

Now's your time. There's a lot of graphics cards on the second hand market. Heck the other day I found a listing from someone selling 20 used 1080s, though admittedly he wasn't entertaining unit sales.

Re:

[DarthVain]

I second that motion. I refuse to even look or consider a new build on principle. Bitcoin and the like need to hurry up and finally die, we all know it is coming, so just die already!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the worlds most obvious pump and dump scheme, geez.

Bitcoin has no value, none, zip, nada. There is no physical backing material (eg actual gold, which has industrial uses, not just jewelry) so there is never anything that can be cashed out. Whoever holds all the bit coins in the end is the one who was stupid enough to buy them in the first place.

Bitcoin has some measure of usefulness if, and only if, it's used as an intermediary with no conversion fees. However that hasn't been the case since BTC was w

Fadcoin

[Zorro]

Next bubble will be Pokemon Futures.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

I'd actually buy some of those.

Re: Fadcoin

[Type44Q]

Yeah, you probably would.

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

If I can fork over $2 for your mom then squirtle is a no-brainer.

Re:

[Oswald McWeany]

Next bubble will be Pokemon Futures.

Gotta Mine Them All!

surprise

[guygo]

people begin to not believe in hugely hyped vaporware currency. what a surprise... not.

Re:

[Oswald McWeany]

people begin to not believe in hugely hyped vaporware currency. what a surprise... not.

Even at $6000- that's a huge mark up in value for someone who, say, got in 2 years ago. Few people would have done so well in the stock market. For those people who bought in at close to $20k- yeah... sucks to be them.

And stay down

[xack]

I like my planet cool and not roasted for monopoly money.

Almost fixed

[Moof123]

Just a few more dozen forks and it will be there, right?

Re:

[sheramil]

Jabbed into the right eye sockets, yes.

Sold my house and bought at $19K

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told that this time it was different and the average joe would win :(

Not a surprise - 75% drops after past exp run ups

[perpenso]

This is not surprising. After several previous exponential runs in the past we have had 75% drops and plateauing for years after the drop. Dropping from $20K'ish to $5K'ish is consistent with this pattern.

Of course there is one very different thing this time. In the past three occurrences we had ownership by techie speculators. Now we have a ton of wall street and ordinary person speculators. Be interesting to see how they react, if they have the long term faith most techie speculators had.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

This is not surprising. After several previous exponential runs in the past we have had 75% drops and plateauing for years after the drop. Dropping from $20K'ish to $5K'ish is consistent with this pattern.

No True Downturn.

Re:

[perpenso]

This is not surprising. After several previous exponential runs in the past we have had 75% drops and plateauing for years after the drop. Dropping from $20K'ish to $5K'ish is consistent with this pattern.

No True Downturn.

I'm leaning towards the wall street and average person speculators not changing the downside very much, but limiting the upside a whole lot. In other words plateauing at $4-5K for a year a two, possibly. Having another 65x run up in a matter of months, very unlikely ever again.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

I'm leaning towards the wall street and average person speculators not changing the downside very much, but limiting the upside a whole lot. In other words plateauing at $4-5K for a year a two, possibly.

People said the same thing when it was at $10k.

Re:

[perpenso]

I'm leaning towards the wall street and average person speculators not changing the downside very much, but limiting the upside a whole lot. In other words plateauing at $4-5K for a year a two, possibly. Having another 65x run up in a matter of months, very unlikely ever again

People said the same thing when it was at $10k.

Not me. I was aware of the previous 75% drops and have expected a return to the current levels. The point I'm try to make is that the downside may be similar to past downsides but I doubt the upsides will ever be comparable. The demographics of the holders have changed too much, there will likely be much more, and saner level of, cashing out any gains. $5K, $4K, $3K bottoms - 75%, 80% and 85% drops, I don't think any of those levels will have much different level of cashing out.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

People said the same thing when it was at $10k.

The sucker train has ended. Unless space aliens start buying Bitcoin, this ride is over.

Re:

[Bryan Ischo]

Bitcoin is intrinsincally unfit for its intended purpose. The cost of validating transactions within the network, while based on really cool ideas, just doesn't scale. It is fundamentally limited to a handful of transactions per second, which is absolutely insufficient for the global monetary system it purports to be.

I thought bitcoin was super cool when I read the whitepaper in 2012, aside from a few fatal flaws, it is a thing of beauty. But I recognized its inherent flaws and so I could not get excited

I'm in!

[martinX]

I'm in! All I have to do is sell my tulip futures an I'll be ready to buy some cheap, cheap bitcoin!

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

I am holding put options on tulips.

Good

[DaMattster]

May it continue to sink and (hopefully) sink fast!

Re:

[StormReaver]

May it continue to sink and (hopefully) sink fast!

As long as Bitcoin is valued above zero, it is experiencing a bubble inconsistent with the fundamentals of reality.

Not Bitcoin Cash

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Most likely BCH has nothing to do with this crash - it has anemic trading and exchange volumes vs. Bitcoin/Ethereum/Ripple and this altcoin alone couldn't have caused the crash. The truth is very few know what really happened but they remain silent. This might be tangentially [bitcoin.com] related but only tangentially. Another possibility is that someone(s) has dumped a lot of crypto-currency on to the market and there's only enough money to keep the exchange rate.

No uncertainty about BCH

[mysidia]

The rout is likely being spurred by uncertainty around bitcoin cash

There's really no uncertainty; just some folks deluding themselves..... Bitcoin cash is a failed hard fork that was dead on arrival,
and such a small portion of the crypto market there's no way this is a likely explanation.

Prices are volatile.... less buying interest more selling interest in BTC, simple as that.

Re:

[SuricouRaven]

Bitcoin was the first successful cryptocurrency, if not the first cryptocurrency entirely - and like many things in tech, the first one has staying power even though the technology is inferior to products that try and fail to displace it. Bitcoin is running into scaling and resource use issues.

Re:

[ctilsie242]

Chaum's DigiCash was the first "widespread" cryptocurrency. It is primitive by today's standards, but hell... there wasn't even AES out then, and the best out was maybe MD4 for hashes and at best, triple DES for encryption. Keys might be 384 to 512 bit RSA if that.

The currency is well designed, especially with the anonymity built in.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bitcoin was the first successful cryptocurrency

Bitcoin has degenerated to the point where it is no longer being used for the purpose for which it was designed.

Doesn't sound like success to me.

Re:

[mysidia]

Bitcoin is running into scaling and resource use issues.

The Bitcoin blockchain has SegWit and the Lightning Network technology addressing the scaling issues.

BCH ultimately doesn't fix the scaling issues; BCH has security issues since SegWit was not introduced transaction
malleability was never fixed and the Covert ASICBoost bug in the PoW algorithm was never fixed, and BCH requires
greater resource consumption on the chain than BTC transactions using second layer scaling with Lightning wallets.

As far as T

I love the idea, but ...

[MpVpRb]

A currency, free of government control, supported by solid crypto, sounds ideal
But, a real currency needs to be used frequently and commonly in legitimate, business
Unfortunately, the main uses of bitcoin seem to be speculation, fraud and the purchase of black market stuff

The crypto junkies I know sold recently

[lamer01]

They were staunch supporters. What that tells me is that the ones that jumped in to speculate and get huge gains are tired of waiting and just getting out. I expect that the real support is around $500. That's the level it was at before the speculators jumped in. $500 is where it is useful for the underground economy.

You Suffer by Napalm Death

[SonicSpike]

Bitcoin sure is volatile today!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

What good is bitcoin?

[OneHundredAndTen]

So far, it has proved to be good for money laundering and for speculation. What else?