Bitcoin skyrockets above $7,000 for first time ever

[LaoPo]

Bitcoins and some simple facts: (not that I understand everything about these crypto coins; I don't!)

 

* The Bitcoin is in fact a software program, written in 2009 by someone/group (?) named Satoshi Nakamoto, a mysterious unknown name, man or group.

* There is a Maximum of 21 million Bitcoins; so, the more demand the more the price goes up....but: backed by what and whom?

* But since companies like Amazon, real estate agents and investment companies but also dentists and others accept Bitcoins, the price goes up as well.

* Next to that there are several countries where ATM's are installed, accepting (quite a lot of) cash in exchange for Bitcoins so there's (criminal) money laundering going on also, driving up the Bitcoin valuation as well, but again: based on what?

* Many hundreds of other crypto coins are storming the financial markets but what/who/where are they?

* You can already start investing in (part of) Bitcoins (and other Crypto's) for a mere $100/EU100

* In 2014 hackers, hacked platform Mt.Gox and some 850.000 Bitcoins were stolen/hacked and the company went bankrupt. And that....that could happen again and send the Bitcoin in a spiralling downfall.

 

My own opinion?

 

If you don't understand (and I don't) and are merely gambling that the crypto's will just rise and rise, just invest a small amount. An amount you're willing to lose.

 

After all, stocks and bonds also go up and down but stocks/bonds are always based upon a certain value of the company or government issued bonds, whether that value is correct or not.

But, companies can also go bankrupt but most of them do not.

 

 

 

 

[twig]

22 hours ago, taipeir said:

Its amaxing that it has , even now, been a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do ...Act as a stable easily transacted digital currency.
 

As a measure of "complete failure", let's go back to the issue Bitcoin's original designer was trying to address, rather than your biased and distorted assertion of "what it was originally promoted to do".

From the original design paper:

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The first 2 sentences of the introduction, where the designer of Bitcoin outlines the basic issue Bitcoin is made to address:

"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.
While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model."

 

So, the main purpose of Bitcoin and its main value proposition was to remove financial intermediaries, rather than what you presented as Bitcoin's "originally promoted" purpose.

Bitcoin has succeeded in giving its user the capability to make peer-to-peer payments over the Internet, without financial institutions.

 

Almost 2 years ago, one of the most senior and well-known developers of Bitcoin also declared it a failure. Mike Hearn stated:

"But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins."

https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

 

At the time, Bitcoin was trading around 430$...

 

So, either you and Mike know something no one else in the financial markets realizes, or declaring Bitcoin to be a failure in its intended purpose is at least premature.

 

Incidentally, the total number of times Bitcoin has been declared failed and dead in the media is here:
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/

At the time of writing: "Bitcoin has died 183 times" over the years.

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by twig
grammar

[taipeir]

Its not a failure in making people rich.

 

It certainly IS a failure Asian as an easily transacted digital currency worldwide.

 

No doubt there will be other digital currencies that will be used for that purpose en masse.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[twig]

1 minute ago, taipeir said:

It certainly IS a failure Asian easily transacted digital currency worldwide.
 

Have you ever sent a Bitcoin transaction?

What did you find difficult about doing that?

[taipeir]

No I haven't because I don't need to so far
I also heard many transactions or transfers have delays.

But the main problem is it can't handle a large volume of transactions simultaneously and fees are way too high.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[twig]

1 hour ago, taipeir said:

No I haven't because I don't need to so far
I also heard many transactions or transfers have delays.

But the main problem is it can't handle a large volume of transactions simultaneously and fees are way too high.
 

That's fine; don't use Bitcoin.
No one will force you to use it, the way your government forces you to use your local currency. That's another feature of of cryptocurrency.

 

For its users, it works well, even though it doesn't make all of them rich.

 

Is what you "heard" about something so unusual really enough though for you to declare it a failure?

 

Do you remember how in the early days of the Internet, it was very time consuming and expensive to send a large file over the Internet, IF you could do it at all, because bandwidth was expensive?
To send it from our planet to developing countries was impossible, because no one had access to the Internet there.

 

Did you declare the Internet "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do" then?

 

Do you know that when you pay for something with your credit or debit card, you get the item right away, but the merchant doesn't get your money for several days or longer, depending on the payment system?

 

Does that mean credit and debit card payment systems are "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?

 

Have you ever sent an international wire payment? It takes several days to process, and cost what 25-35 USD, depending on the endpoints?
After decades of that system working, why is it still so expensive and take so long, and involves so many questions, when all they are doing is moving numbers in an electronic database?

Are you sure that's not "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?

 

A similar transaction through Bitcoin will cost about 5 USD today, and be complete within an hour for any practical amount of value you wish to send through it - say thousands to millions USD.

Try to get your bank to do that.

 

If you try to use Bitcoin, you'll see that the transaction relays to you almost immediately, no matter where you are in the world.
After the first confirmation (about 10 minutes nominally), it becomes practically irreversible, and the bitcoin is yours.

 

Yes, it's expensive to send small payments right now and have them confirm within an hour, but that doesn't matter for eCommerce.
By the time you are ready to send the mechandise, the payment will confirm.

The high transaction fee is being addressed through developing improvements I mentioned previously.

 

And Bitcoin doesn't need to "handle a large volume of transactions simultaneously" yet, because as you admitted, Bitcoin payments is something you and most others "don't need to so far".

 

Bitcoin has been working only 9 years this January, and being built by many people who contribute their time  to develop it for free.

So, maybe you should try it when you need it, and wait a few years before you assert it to be "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by twig
addition

[taipeir]

That's fine; don't use Bitcoin.
No one will force you to use it, the way your government forces you to use your local currency. That's another feature of of cryptocurrency.
 
For its users, it works well, even though it doesn't make all of them rich.
 
Is what you "heard" about something so unusual really enough though for you to declare it a failure?
 
Do you remember how in the early days of the Internet, it was very time consuming and expensive to send a large file over the Internet, IF you could do it at all, because bandwidth was expensive?
To send it from our planet to developing countries was impossible, because no one had access to the Internet there.
 
Did you declare the Internet "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do" then?
 
Do you know that when you pay for something with your credit or debit card, you get the item right away, but the merchant doesn't get your money for several days or longer, depending on the payment system?
 
Does that mean credit and debit card payment systems are "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?
 
Have you ever sent an international wire payment? It takes several days to process, and cost what 25-35 USD, depending on the endpoints?
After decades of that system working, why is it still so expensive and take so long, and involves so many questions, when all they are doing is moving numbers in an electronic database?
Are you sure that's not "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?
 
A similar transaction through Bitcoin will cost about 5 USD today, and be complete within an hour for any practical amount of value you wish to send through it - say thousands to millions USD.
Try to get your bank to do that.
 
If you try to use Bitcoin, you'll see that the transaction relays to you almost immediately, no matter where you are in the world.
After the first confirmation (about 10 minutes nominally), it becomes practically irreversible, and the bitcoin is yours.
 
Yes, it's expensive to send small payments right now and have them confirm within an hour, but that doesn't matter for eCommerce.
By the time you are ready to send the mechandise, the payment will confirm.
The high transaction fee is being addressed through developing improvements I mentioned previously.
 
And Bitcoin doesn't need to "handle a large volume of transactions simultaneously" yet, because as you admitted, Bitcoin payments is something you and most others "don't need to so far".
 
Bitcoin has been working only 9 years this January, and being built by many people who contribute their time  to develop it for free.
So, maybe you should try it when you need it, and wait a few years before you assert it to be "a complete failure at what it was originally promoted to do"?
 
 
 

As noted bitcoin was poorly designed for mass use as a transactional currency.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[AJBangkok]

17 hours ago, twig said:

Furthermore, that Bitcoin can be used as a replacement for government fiat money is not only my assertion.

I simply quoted from the ruling of a US federal court, in a 2013 landmark case involving Bitcoin: US Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Trendon Shavers and Bitcoin Savings and Trust.

https://ia800904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.23.0.pdf

 

On page 3:

"It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money. It can be used to purchase goods or services, and as Shavers stated, used to pay for individual

living expenses. The only limitation of Bitcoin is that it is limited to those places that accept it as currency. However, it can also be exchanged for conventional currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, Euro, Yen, and Yuan. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money."

 

This is one example of the main difference in our modes of conjecture; I've provided a number of links to support my logic and conjecture from my stream of experience in fin-tech.

You have yet to provide a single external source to support your assertions.

 

I'll let our peers here decide which one of us has actually been "meandering" through a "mish-mash" of our "stream of consciousness".

 

Just because something can be used as money does not mean it can replace money which is what you are claiming. Not the judge, he ruled it could be used as a medium of exchange not replace money.  Almost anything can be used as a medium of exchange if you have a willing buyer and a willing seller. Gold, diamonds, precious metals are all used as mediums of exchange to procure good and services in some micro segments of global commerce but they can’t replace money. 

 

You are the one who is claiming bitcoin can replace money. So you are telling us the 6 billion people on the planet can tear up ther dollars, yen, euros etc and start using bitcoin and everything will be hunky dory. As as far as me providing external sources, you haven’t even attempted to address monetary stability in terms of the stability of the value of money in terms of its domestic purchasing power.  That’s not an abstract point, it’s a basic economic fundamental of any currency or medium of exchange. Google it, and you’ll find enough reading material for 3 lifetimes. 

 

Without stability in in the value of money economies will fail. So when we all listen to you and you replace money with bitcoin for the entire world what’s your plan to counteract the volitity of the Bitcoin price to ensure monetary stability and purchasing power. Will you change the minimum wage, bus fares and pensions everyday to offset the price fluctuations of the price of bitcoin? Will you allow caps on interest rates.

 

You don’t want burger flippers on a fixed minimum wage earring more than doctors because of of the volatility of the bitcoin price. ( that’s an extreme situation but then bitcoin is up 4000 or 6000% in a year) 

 

Our peers can decide for themselves, we don’t need to let them. I think they’re smart enough to understand when a judge says something can be used as money he’s not saying it’s possible that it can completely replace money as you are. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by AJBangkok

[twig]

29 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

 

Just because something can be used as money does not mean it can replace money which is what you are claiming. Not the judge, he ruled it could be used as a medium of exchange not replace money.

....

You are the one who is claiming bitcoin can replace money.

...

 

Without stability in in the value of money economies will fail. So when we all listen to you and you replace money with bitcoin for the entire world what’s your plan to counteract the volitity of the Bitcoin price to ensure monetary stability and purchasing power.

...

 

It's a distortion to say the judge ruled that Bitcoin is simply "a medium of exchange"; he said point blank in that ruling:

"Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money,"

 

I'm claiming that Bitcoin can  not only replace FIAT money, but that Bitcoin IS money, just the judge also said.

 

As I said in my post you ignored before the one you quoted, the way you would achieve "monetary stability in terms of the stability of the value of money in terms of its domestic purchasing power" is by accepting Bitcoin as the unit of account, or by backing fiat to Bitcoin the way it was with gold, or by pegging fiat to Bitcoin.

 

I already answered that in this post:
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1009556-bitcoin-skyrockets-above-7000-for-first-time-ever/?do=findComment&comment=12425977

[AJBangkok]

Ok so some judge said bitcoin is money. Whoppe do. I doubt his intention in that ruling was to create a standardized currency for the entire world and take away the ability of governments to create currency. I think you are extrapolating way way far out there but I’ll play ball. 

 

So now could you please explain why on one hand you claim bitcoin can replace Fiat currency but in order to achieve monetary stability it should be backed by Fiat currency. 

 

Can you see the circularity of that arguement. If all Fiat currency is replaced by Bitcoin then there is no Fiat currency to back it with. You can’t have it both ways.

 

As far as backing bitcoin with gold. If bitcoin was to replace all Fiat currency value ( not notes) in existence then there is not enough gold in the world to back the resulting value of bitcoin. All the gold ever mined in the history of the world can fit into an Olympic size swimming pool. I think the monetary value of everything on earth is estimated to be worth 5 quadtrillion dollars so i think that would mean gold would have to go to around 7,000,0000 per ounce.

 

Now the big reality check on your plan to create monetary stability, just who is going to rule bitcoin is the Unit of account for the world and for what possible reason would any government do that ? Serious. And a bigger reality check is that who can and who would “back” bitcoin with gold or Fiat currency or anything else for that matter, and for what possible reason would they do that.double serious. 

 

Do you expect to see all the governments on earth agree to stop printing money to finance their economies,  to accept that the have no control over domestic monetary policy, and no control over “the coin of the realm “ and in return for giving all that up they will give you all the gold in the world to back the value of bitcoin so it can function the same as Fiat currency ( which they already have ).  Personally I don’t see it happening but good luck trying to convince people it can

[twig]

17 hours ago, taipeir said:

As noted bitcoin was poorly designed for mass use as a transactional currency.
 

Your argument is stellar in its brevity and lack of any supporting evidence, especially since you are even less qualified to assert anything about Bitcoin's design than I am.

I've tested Bitcoin as currency in a variety of ways, and researched it a bunch professionally as a paid fin-tech consultant, and still  don't consider myself qualified to comment on the fundamentals of Bitcoin's design.

 

Do you know about the second layer protocols being implemented on Bitcoin now, which are designed to expand its transactional capacity by levels of magnitude and lower fees by same levels of magnitude?

I mean protocols, such as "payment channels", namely the Bitcoin Lightning Network being rolled out since the Bitcoin Segregated Witness upgrade happened back in August?

Or even the Simplified Payment Verification concept, which has been working on Bitcoin several years now?

 

What's your verdict on those developments in Bitcoin's design?

 

 

[fiddlehead]

Guys, help me out here.   Where can I buy into this (seemingly) great gamble? 

 

[LaoPo]

31 minutes ago, fiddlehead said:

Guys, help me out here.   Where can I buy into this (seemingly) great gamble? 

 

Search for:  Bitcoin Platforms

[twig]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:09 AM, AJBangkok said:

Ok so some judge said bitcoin is money. Whoppe do. I doubt his intention in that ruling was to create a standardized currency for the entire world and take away the ability of governments to create currency. I think you are extrapolating way way far out there but I’ll play ball. 

 

So now could you please explain why on one hand you claim bitcoin can replace Fiat currency but in order to achieve monetary stability it should be backed by Fiat currency. 

 

Can you see the circularity of that arguement. If all Fiat currency is replaced by Bitcoin then there is no Fiat currency to back it with. You can’t have it both ways.

 

As far as backing bitcoin with gold. If bitcoin was to replace all Fiat currency value ( not notes) in existence then there is not enough gold in the world to back the resulting value of bitcoin. All the gold ever mined in the history of the world can fit into an Olympic size swimming pool. I think the monetary value of everything on earth is estimated to be worth 5 quadtrillion dollars so i think that would mean gold would have to go to around 7,000,0000 per ounce.

 

I'm sorry; you are rebutting exactly the reverse of what I said, which was "by accepting Bitcoin as the unit of account, or by backing fiat to Bitcoin the way it was with gold, or by pegging fiat to Bitcoin."

 

So, the idea is that fiat would be backed by Bitcoin as it was by gold, rather than Bitcoin backed by fiat as you suggest.

You are the one extrapolating when you suggest that either I or the judge proposed  "to create a standardized currency for the entire world and take away the ability of governments to create currency".

 

No one can take away that ability from the dominant armed gangs that governments are.

As Paul Krugman famously said in an interview regarding Bitcoin, “Fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns.”

 

And nowadays, that's all that keeps the herd's confidence in government issued virtual digital fiat money.

If and when the herd loses confidence in that virtual fiat due to inevitable oversupply, and there is an alternative such as Bitcoin, the government gang might have to back its virtual fiat money with something to regain that confidence.

Gold would be an option to back fiat again, but Bitcoin would be a better option from the public perspective, because it's more transparent.

 

Let's assume that you don't want to use gold again for the simple reason "that would mean gold would have to go to around 7,000,0000 per ounce".
Bitcoin has 2.1 quadrillion subunits (2.1x10^15), and can be subdivided further with some technical modifications when necessary.

 

So, Bitcoin subunits - commonly called "satoshis" - could be used as a unit of account for "value of everything on earth " AND more, IF that ever becomes necessary.

 

[twig]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:09 AM, AJBangkok said:

Now the big reality check on your plan to create monetary stability, just who is going to rule bitcoin is the Unit of account for the world and for what possible reason would any government do that ? Serious. And a bigger reality check is that who can and who would “back” bitcoin with gold or Fiat currency or anything else for that matter, and for what possible reason would they do that.double serious. 

 

Do you expect to see all the governments on earth agree to stop printing money to finance their economies,  to accept that the have no control over domestic monetary policy, and no control over “the coin of the realm “ and in return for giving all that up they will give you all the gold in the world to back the value of bitcoin so it can function the same as Fiat currency ( which they already have ).  Personally I don’t see it happening but good luck trying to convince people it can

 

There is no need to back Bitcoin with anything, except its utility, just as there is no need to back gold with anything except its utility.

Replacing fiat money is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Fiat replaced gold and silver as money and currency gradually.

 

It's inconvenient, but folks that want to use gold and silver as money, unit of account or currency, can still do that today, because as they fondly say, "An ounce of gold, is always worth 1 ounce of gold".
(One bitcoin, as a unit of account, would also always be worth exactly 1 bitcoin.)

 

Why did government gangs ever back their "worthless fiat" with gold, when all they ever needed to maintain its value is men with weapons, coercive taxation and its legal tender "laws"?

Did all the governments on earth agree to place gold backing restrictions on their ability to control “the coin of the realm “?

 

Not all of them, but the ones with successful "hard currencies" did.

I think some will eventually do that also for the same reasons, but use Bitcoin instead of gold.

 

Right now, I know some cryptocurrency traders doing a lot of their business with traders in Venezuela, because their currency is backed by nothing but "men with guns" also, and that backing isn't working at all well.

US Dollars and other more stable fiat is hard to get due to obstacles and confiscations by those government gangs with guns in Venezuela.
So, the local traders are turning to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to evade that:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/big-in-venezuela/534177/

 

The new small city states trying to incorporate now most likely will use some cryptocurrency.
Liberland reportedly plans to use Bitcoin, IF it is established.
https://youtu.be/_ThOKbapt20

 

Liberland is a joke for now, but so was Singapore.
Singapore was such a joke, that it was formed when Malaysia expelled it out of its territory...

Bitcoin as a reserve currency, might start with small existing nations.

 

Here is the 2015 working paper from the Central Bank of Barbados:
http://www.centralbank.org.bb/Portals/0/Files/Working_Papers/2015/Should Cryptocurrencies be included in the Portfolio of International Reserves held by the Central Bank of Barbados.pdf

Notice how they start the paper with the answer to the question for what possible reason any government would mess with cryptocurrencies:
"In  most  countries,the  central  bank  is  required  to  hold  reserve  assets  as  a  means  of  providing credibility  for the  value  of  the  fiat  currency."
It's to use cryptocurrency as a credible backing for its virtual fiat currency.

And Bitcoin would be more useful to government gangs for that than gold, regardless of whether it's widely used as a transactional currency or not.

 

In Japan, Bitcoin is already legal tender:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-bitcoin/japans-fsa-gives-official-endorsement-to-11-cryptocurrency-exchanges-idUSKCN1C40T9

 

Given the above, the famous 2014 Canadian senate hearing with one of the leading Bitcoin advocates also seems to indicate that Canada is more likely to eventually adopt Bitcoin as a reserve currency or even unit of account, rather than ignore or ban it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUNGFZDO8mM

Having Bitcoin backed fiat won't "stop [government gangs] printing money to finance their economies", but it would force more responsible deficit spending and fractional reserves, which is the reason they abandoned gold backing.

 

Charles De Gaulle concisely, directly and publicly explained to the world 6 year before the US abandoned the USD gold backing why the US did it:
https://youtu.be/j58gikUjyIo

 

My argument is that when government gangs are forced to reinstate a hard asset backing for their virtual digital fiat currency to maintain public confidence in it, they will be forced to use Bitcoin at least in a basket of other hard assets, such as gold.

 

My assertion is that it would be more efficient to back fiat with Bitcoin, because among other reasons, it's much easier to determine how much Bitcoin each government gang is holding, compared to checking gold reserves.

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by twig
addition

[twig]

On 11/8/2017 at 12:15 PM, fiddlehead said:

Guys, help me out here.   Where can I buy into this (seemingly) great gamble? 

 

This guy maintains a great list of Bitcoin resources, including how to buy:

https://lopp.net/bitcoin.html

 

He is a prominent Bitcoin infrastructure developer. I've met him in meetups a couple of times while in the US. He is a reasonable and trustworthy guy, useful to follow on Twitter also.

[taipeir]

Look at the price movements of bitcoin cash over the last month or so.

Last 24 hours!

Absolute madness.
Still I sense bitcoin cash could have lots more speculayors driving it higher over time!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[twig]

20 hours ago, taipeir said:

Look at the price movements of bitcoin cash over the last month or so.

Last 24 hours!

Absolute madness.
Still I sense bitcoin cash could have lots more speculayors driving it higher over time!

Bitcoin Cash, (also know as BCash, BCRash, BTrash, BCH/BiCH) is not Bitcoin.

 

It's the most successful attack so far on Bitcoin, and created a lot of problems on the Bitcoin network, including  volatility.

 

Here is a good detailed presentation about Bitcoin's long-term volatility, which has decreased significantly over the years, as its fiat price increased:

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-volatility-explained/

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by twig
supporting data

[taipeir]

Bitcoin Cash, (also know as BCash, BCRash, BTrash, BCH/BiCH) is not Bitcoin.
 
It's the most successful attack so far on Bitcoin, and created a lot of problems on the Bitcoin network, including  volatility.
 
Here is a good detailed presentation about Bitcoin's long-term volatility, which has decreased significantly over the years, as its fiat price increased:
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-volatility-explained/
 
 

I know it's not bitcoin no need to bitsplain lol.

One of the biggest problems with bitcoin is that it is incredibly bad for the environment as it needs energy to create new coins and it uses more and more as this gets harder.

The anti bitcoin would only be created when CO2 was removed from the ambient environment.

That would be an awesome thing creating a huge incentive to do good for the world.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[taipeir]

Bitcoin Cash, (also know as BCash, BCRash, BTrash, BCH/BiCH) is not Bitcoin.

 

It's the most successful attack so far on Bitcoin, and created a lot of problems on the Bitcoin network, including  volatility.

 

Here is a good detailed presentation about Bitcoin's long-term volatility, which has decreased significantly over the years, as its fiat price increased:

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-volatility-explained/

 

 

It's still not useful for anybody who was trying to figure out how to pay a mortgage or do currency hedging.

 

Would be an absolute nightmare to have contracts based on it.

 

It's price has moved from 2k to 7k in the last year alone.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[janclaes47]

On 09/11/2017 at 12:15 AM, fiddlehead said:

Guys, help me out here.   Where can I buy into this (seemingly) great gamble? 

 

 

Let's hope nobody helped you out on that day, because you would have lost 20% already 6 days later.

[twig]

On 11/14/2017 at 9:11 PM, taipeir said:

I know it's not bitcoin no need to bitsplain lol.

One of the biggest problems with bitcoin is that it is incredibly bad for the environment as it needs energy to create new coins and it uses more and more as this gets harder.

The anti bitcoin would only be created when CO2 was removed from the ambient environment.

That would be an awesome thing creating a huge incentive to do good for the world.
 

Well, if you knew Bcash wasn't Bitcoin, it was deceptive to bring it into this discussion.

 

Here is one of the detailed discussions of  Bitcoin mining environmental impact vs. that of the current and previous financial systems.

These data are dated, but if we get into current details, Bitcoin still doesn't look that bad compared to the status quo financial system.

 

And the energy Bitcoin requires is not there to simply "create new coins"; the "Proof of Work" concept involved is there to secure the Bitcoin network against certain types of attack, and make its blockchain ledger immutable.

 

 

[twig]

On 11/14/2017 at 9:13 PM, taipeir said:

It's still not useful for anybody who was trying to figure out how to pay a mortgage or do currency hedging.

 

Would be an absolute nightmare to have contracts based on it.

 

It's price has moved from 2k to 7k in the last year alone.

 

And this use is not needed at this stage of Bitcoin's development, due to Gresham's Law, among other reasons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

 

"Contracts based on it" are about to begin at one of largest global exchanges:

http://www.cmegroup.com/education/cme-bitcoin-futures-frequently-asked-questions.html

Edited December 3, 2017 by twig
additional data

[bleble]

If it's to late to invest in bitcoins, what is the next currency to invest ?

 

 

[speedtripler]

This post didn't  age well.... Maybe we should change the title.... 

[speedtripler]

On 15/12/2017 at 7:00 PM, bleble said:

If it's to late to invest in bitcoins, what is the next currency to invest ?

 

 

20k will seem like a bargain at 40k and you will still be in earlier than most people