What's the deal with bitcoin now?

[Sametboy2019]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:03 AM, lkn said:

That is absolutely ridiculous. Do you want thousands of copies of your medical records stored on the internet for anyone to read? That is blockchain!

 

And what problem does this solve? If it is that U.S. hospitals cannot exchange medical records between each other, then that is already solved in other countries, and blockchain is not really a solution, i.e. in its current form, it cannot do it, you would need to agree on a standard for medical records and then have all hospitals update their systems to conform to this standard and be able to read and write to a blockchain. If you do all this work, you might as well just create a proper system without a blockchain, so that medical records are not leaked into the public.

 

Like a gift card? All this stuff can easily be done without blockchain.

 

Edit: Also, local municipalities can’t just “print money”. Only central banks can “print money” but they take on liabilities when they do so. Most crypto proponents seems to not really understand our monetary system, which is why they think that new tokens can just be brought into the world with some value assigned to them, but unlike fiat currency, they are backed by nothing, so they should be worth nothing.

Blockchain has private and public chains.

Fiat is backed by what? It used to be Gold but Nixon removed it. Now the US dollar is under threat as it is the reserve currency backed by the petrodollar agreement that you can only buy oil with the dollar but that is now changing with the BRICS partnerships and Saudi Arabia is in talks with China about buying in Yuan.

Russia is saying it will only sell Gas in Rubles.

How do you get round this? A possibility is cbdc's of a dollar, pound,  ruble etc. Then you use a crypto currency as a bridge asset like XRP or XLM to use a the exchange mechanism.

 

[lkn]

20 hours ago, Sametboy2019 said:

Blockchain has private and public chains.

A private blockchain is an oxymoron. The idea with blockchain is that anyone can participate on equal terms to validate the correctness of the information on the chain, there is a reward system to incentivize people to “do the right thing”, and no central control.

 

Once you make it private, introduce authorities, permissions, notary services, etc. then it is no longer a blockchain in any meaningful way, just a regular database and/or distributed system, which is something we have used for decades, and using them, e.g. for medical records, is not “blockchain disrupting traditional systems”.

 

20 hours ago, Sametboy2019 said:

Fiat is backed by what?

I already replied to that in this comment. Short answer is treasury bills and mortgage-backed securities, if we are talking about USD.

[Sametboy2019]

14 hours ago, lkn said:

A private blockchain is an oxymoron. The idea with blockchain is that anyone can participate on equal terms to validate the correctness of the information on the chain, there is a reward system to incentivize people to “do the right thing”, and no central control.

 

Once you make it private, introduce authorities, permissions, notary services, etc. then it is no longer a blockchain in any meaningful way, just a regular database and/or distributed system, which is something we have used for decades, and using them, e.g. for medical records, is not “blockchain disrupting traditional systems”.

 

I already replied to that in this comment. Short answer is treasury bills and mortgage-backed securities, if we are talking about USD.

 

[lkn]

11 hours ago, Sametboy2019 said:

 

And how does that differ from a regular database system predating blockchain?

 

Remember, the claim was that the blockchain could improve storing of medical records, specially, it would no longer store them “in one particular hospital's database” but rather on the blockchain.

 

To which I replied that this is ridiculous, because we do not want medical records on a public blockchain, but then you say, it will be a private blockchain, so how is this different from how medical records are already stored?

 

Presumably the idea is just that hospitals share the database, but they already do that in many European countries, and have done so even before “blockchain” was invented.

[Sametboy2019]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:51 AM, lkn said:

And how does that differ from a regular database system predating blockchain?

 

Remember, the claim was that the blockchain could improve storing of medical records, specially, it would no longer store them “in one particular hospital's database” but rather on the blockchain.

 

To which I replied that this is ridiculous, because we do not want medical records on a public blockchain, but then you say, it will be a private blockchain, so how is this different from how medical records are already stored?

 

Presumably the idea is just that hospitals share the database, but they already do that in many European countries, and have done so even before “blockchain” was invented.

It isn't. Private blockchain doesn't need crypto to run but it's just a glorified database without it albeit a much more secure and scalable one.

 

 

 

[fdsa]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:51 AM, lkn said:

To which I replied that this is ridiculous, because we do not want medical records on a public blockchain, but then you say, it will be a private blockchain, so how is this different from how medical records are already stored?

With a blockchain you own your data and nobody could see it (if a blockchain is implemented properly), with a generic "medical records" database you do not own your data and everybody (doctors and hackers who dumped the said database) could see it.

Using a blockchain in hospital network would mean that nobody would be able to see your data until you personally "unlock" it with your private key (read "password"). E.g. when coming to see a doctor and entering a one-time code from your Ledger or mobile phone.

There are examples in a cryptocurrency world such as Zcash and Monero: nobody could see even the balance of your wallet until you provide a special code.

 

The difference between a public and private blockchains is just a selection of the storage method - if the blockchain database could be hosted on anyone's computer or only on the pre-approved computers (e.g. hospital servers). There are examples of such blockchains in the cryptocurrency world: Ethereum or Dash are public blockchains (everybody could host a validator node / masternode) and Binance or Hedera are private bullshít blockchains (everybody could host just a basic "mirror" nodes but only a small list of pre-approved entities could host a full validator / masternode)

Edited January 19, 2023 by fdsa

[lkn]

On 1/19/2023 at 3:13 PM, fdsa said:

With a blockchain you own your data and nobody could see it (if a blockchain is implemented properly), with a generic "medical records" database you do not own your data and everybody (doctors and hackers who dumped the said database) could see it.

It is easy to create a system where it is required that you first grant a third party access to your data, we already have plenty of such systems, and where you can also revoke this access. Problem is that the third party can copy all your data, before access is revoked, there is no solution to that problem, not even blockchain can solve this.

 

And a traditional blockchain design is not about granting read-access to a third party, there is nothing in the original tokenomics ideas that is helpful to what you describe. Privacy is a big problem with blockchains, but yes, there are attempts of providing more “anonymous” blockchain designs, but… we’re really back to, stating a problem that can easily be solved by a traditional system, and then trying to retrofit a blockchain to solve that problem, because it must have zero-trust, but a) why do we need zero-trust for a database shared between hospitals?, b) what are the downsides when basing it on a blockchain? Because normally a blockchain design has many disadvantageous, c) this is not revolutionary or disrupting anything, and of course d) what is actually zero-trust? because even with a blockchain, we pretty much always end up with some parties we do have to trust.

 

Apple is doing lots of stuff with end-to-end encryption, i.e. where nobody but the sender and receiver can read messages, not even Apple, they recently even enabled encryption of iCloud backsups, because they do not want to be in a situation where they can read your data, but all the devices you have granted access to, can read the data — none of this uses blockchain.

 

Another example is some European countries have introduced digital citizen IDs which can be used to sign documents, communicate using encryption, and also grant access to some of their data to third parties (e.g. medical records, banking information, retirement savings, etc.), and again, none of this uses blockchain.

[Heng]

$23660..... but zero is the other way?

[Ks45672]

A lot of people in this thread will not like seeing bitcoin at $1m in the next 4 year's 

[Neeranam]

On 11/10/2022 at 5:15 AM, scubascuba3 said:

Lowest I've seen for a while

Did you buy?

[Conno]

Neeranam - Hope he did, but probably didn't, just like the vast majority of no-coin haters on here. Oh boy if they only understood what's coming, never mind what it has already done. Bitcoin is the best performing asset IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY since its creation 14 years ago. Let that sink in for a moment.

 

I missed the beginning but my lightbulb moment happened in 2018 and my lowest entry was $4000. Been accumulating ever since, never sold a single Sat. 

 

Check out this chart.

 

$1 into Gold 14 years ago would be worth $1.94 today. I like Gold and hold too, but it is a relic from the none digital age.

$1 into BTC 14 years ago would be worth $38,506,100.00 

 

[Conno]

And before the attacks begin here is a cute meme 55555

 

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, Conno said:

Neeranam - Hope he did, but probably didn't, just like the vast majority of no-coin haters on here. Oh boy if they only understood what's coming, never mind what it has already done. Bitcoin is the best performing asset IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY since its creation 14 years ago. Let that sink in for a moment.

 

I missed the beginning but my lightbulb moment happened in 2018 and my lowest entry was $4000. Been accumulating ever since, never sold a single Sat. 

 

Check out this chart.

 

$1 into Gold 14 years ago would be worth $1.94 today. I like Gold and hold too, but it is a relic from the none digital age.

$1 into BTC 14 years ago would be worth $38,506,100.00 

 

 

   Then again, if you bought 1 $ worth of bitcoin 3 years ago, that same bitcoin would be worth 75 cents .

Edited February 14 by Nick Carter icp

[Conno]

Actually it would be worth even less than $0.75 in purchasing power as inflation is eroding that fiat trash day by day. 

 

So learn a lesson then, don't trade it, don't try and time tops and bottoms, ride the volatility, just Dollar cost average in and never sell. Easy. 

 

It's going to a million per coin, just a matter of when not if.  5 years? 10 years? Your guess is as good as mine but scarcity says that is where it is heading. 

Edited February 14 by Conno

[JeffersLos]

50 minutes ago, Conno said:

never sell.

Just throw the money in the rubbish bin then. 

[Conno]

It's an investment strategy to reach your financial targets / goals. Avoiding bad timing which is virtually impossible to predict and get right.  I don't mean literally never sell as in 'never sell'  as I agree then what would be the point.  But hey why am I explaining myself in detail? My money and my bin if that is what I wanted to do, which in reality it isn't, but hey whatever. 

 

Edited February 14 by Conno

[arithai12]

2 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Then again, if you bought 1 $ worth of bitcoin 3 years ago, that same bitcoin would be worth 75 cents .

Striclty speaking you are wrong, at least according to coincodex.com exactly 3 years ago it was 48k$, today it's 51. But I see your point, that if you bought at the peak of 66k$ in Nov 2021, you'd still be at a mild loss today. Isn't this true for any kind of risky investment? No one denies that cryptos have volatility, BTC in fact less than others. By the same token, I could say that if you had bought exactly 5y ago when it was just over 3k@, you would be smiling a lot today.

Anyway, one should not invest in a given asset more than they can afford to lose.

[Nick Carter icp]

31 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Striclty speaking you are wrong, at least according to coincodex.com exactly 3 years ago it was 48k$, today it's 51. But I see your point, that if you bought at the peak of 66k$ in Nov 2021, you'd still be at a mild loss today.

 

  I did mean three years ago , as in 2021 to  2024 , I didn't literally mean 3 years ago as in  36 months ago

[JeffersLos]

7 hours ago, Conno said:

I don't mean literally never sell as in 'never sell'  as I agree then what would be the point.

 

Believe it or not there are people that place bets with bookies that the end of the world will happen within a certain calendar year.

 

 

[Conno]

[noobexpat]

16 hours ago, Conno said:

It's an investment strategy to reach your financial targets / goals.

 

 

Already there though.

Full FIRE (if you are aware of the acronym) and happy to coast along at single digit growth forever.

 

Therefore no need for the crypto risk.

 

[arithai12]

On 2/15/2024 at 4:50 PM, noobexpat said:

 

Already there though.

Full FIRE (if you are aware of the acronym) and happy to coast along at single digit growth forever.

 

Therefore no need for the crypto risk.

 

I had to look FIRE up. Very funny (one of many possible adjectives) to see how some people have to invent acronyms for everything. So yes, without knowing it, I am also in FIRE mode. And yet, I do not mind investing a fraction (that I can afford to lose) in crypto. Very good for you  however that you are content with small growth, stress-free life is the key to happiness.

[Heng]

Where do ya'll think (guess) btc will top out this time around?

 

 

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, Heng said:

Where do ya'll think (guess) btc will top out this time around?

 

No idea, I've always been way off with any predictions, and that's going way back more than 10 years so I don't even bother.

 

I'm still amazed it ever got to $10k

 

I think the ETFs are a game changer though. I also notice that the Gold ETFs are seeing outflows while the Bitcoin ETFs are seeing large inflows.

 

Once day in the next 3 to 6 months I suspect the total AUM of all Gold ETFs will surpass that of the Bitcoin ETFs.

 

Of course the Gold ETFs are just a small part of the overall Gold market, wonder if the Bitcoin ETFs will scoop up a lot more of the Bitcoin market, it's considerably easier to buy it if you've already got a brokerage account that provides access. That said there's a lot of brokers who don't as they're still in the due dilligence stage, but it will come.

 

 

[Conno]

2 hours ago, Heng said:

Where do ya'll think (guess) btc will top out this time around?

 

 

It's all one big guess and nobody knows for sure. Given that, for me I think it is possible we could see $150k for 2024 and it may top out towards $300k sometime in 2025. Blackrock iBIT ETF alone now holds over 200,000 BTC and all the ETFs combined well over 300,000. That's more than 1% of circulating supply in just 6 weeks. I think what we have to understand here is the scarcity factor. This is a quantum shift in mindset compared to traditional assets and especially fiat garbage. I think this is what most of the no-coiners still haven't grasped and processed yet. They are oh so happy to slag off Bitcoin ad nauseum, while they sit on an inflationary time bomb of paper trash. Go figure. 

 

I think the bigger question is what do you see the price come 2030? I'd guess north of $1m per coin or zero if it's all a load of Monkeys [Monkey/Bitcoin comparison Meme on another thread which has now been moderated  ]. I can accept zero by the way, as I have never invested anything I can't afford to lose. But you have to be in it to win it.

 

Edited February 28 by Conno

[ukrules]

37 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

Once day in the next 3 to 6 months I suspect the total AUM of all Gold ETFs will surpass that of the Bitcoin ETFs.

 

I wrote that the wrong way around - Bitcoin will surpass Gold ETFs.....

[Conno]

1 minute ago, ukrules said:

 

I wrote that the wrong way around - Bitcoin will surpass Gold ETFs.....

I understood what you were getting at no worries :-)

[NativeBob]

Cool! its 59K now!

[steven100]

4 hours ago, Heng said:

Where do ya'll think (guess) btc will top out this time around?

 

 

 

maybe all the profit takers will jump in soon and it'll crash again   !    🫢

[Conno]

Possible but I don't think likely. The momentum is just too great at the moment so the FOMO is still very strong. No sign yet the ETFs are slowing their accumulation. Halving event still another 6 weeks away and still $10k from a new all time high. My guestimate is it will continue powering up to and go just over the ATH, then we will see another pause.

 

Next leg after that will be up to the $100k lvl. Big psychological main stream media news headline number that one. That's when we could see the mass of retail jumping in.  I think we are far too early in the cycle atm for any crash back down just yet. Wait for all the people who were afraid to buy at $16k start buying after it pops above $100k then the fireworks could start.

 

You know how these cycles always go :-

Nobody is comfortable buying when it's at $16k because they fear it may fall further. Exactly the time to be buying / adding.

Everybody is comfortable when it starts hitting new ATHs and the REAL FOMO kicks in. Exactly the time to pause your accumulation or take profits if that's your thing.

 

Good luck crew.

Edited February 28 by Conno