[HN Gopher] Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into ... ___________________________________________________________________ Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto Author : koolba Score : 69 points Date : 2021-02-16 12:40 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com) | bobm_kite9 wrote: | What about the 51% attack problem? Why doesn't this matter? Can | someone explain how this currency is a good bet when there is | this seemly huge gaping hole in the system. Honest question! | noneeeed wrote: | I only keep half an eye on bitcoin, so I'm a bit out of the loop. | | Was there some thing (or things) that happend in October/November | that started the most recent growth in price? It seems to have | bounced around $5-10k for over a year and then in early october | just started to take off and is now 4-5x that and not showing any | signs of stopping. I heard about the Tesla thing, but that was | very recent. What did I miss? | Geee wrote: | There was halving event last spring, when the Bitcoin supply | was cut in half, which happens every 4 years. Historically, | Bitcoin price has been following the stock-to-flow model | https://digitalik.net/btc/ | | In the fall, Paypal adopted Bitcoin in their payment network. | noneeeed wrote: | Thanks, I'd missed the PayPal news. | TeeWEE wrote: | Bitcoin itself has its value, but the current price surge is a | bubble, it can be easily explained why the growth is exponential: | | 1. BTC price increases | | 4. There is media attention about the price raise | | 5. More people buy BTC, because FOMO | | 6. Back to point 1, but now a bigger group | | This loop is a pump, increasing the price as long as the loop | isn't broken. | | The same pump can reverse, very quickly. Once the loop is pumping | there is no way out. | | 1. BTC price drops | | 2. There is news out that that the price drops | | 3. More people sell bitcoin | | 4. Back to point 2, but now a bigger group | | The fact that there is a limited supply will ensure the prices | keeps raising, because nobody can "make more bitcoin".. | | But this part of the BTC system causes it volatility, it's | inherently baked into the system. | | It's not the underlying performance of bitcoin, or the profit the | system is making. Its pure viral loops logic that cause pumps and | dumps. | | You can impact it, if you hold a lot of assets. Just PUMP or DUMP | a lot. It triggers a pump in the direction of your choosing. | | Next to that, ETH is a factor better in design and utility, and | still the price is lower. Why? Cause there is less news about it. | Not because BTC is a better product. | audunw wrote: | > The fact that there is a limited supply will ensure the | prices keeps raising, because nobody can "make more bitcoin".. | | This is a common claim, but nothing is ensured here. | | Almost everything else we put a value to has a more real | underlying value that's also growing. Gold has uses in | technology, with stocks most companies have real assets that | could be sold off, even with art I think most people would be | willing to buy an art-piece for the right price. The value of a | Monet for me might be a tiny fraction of its valuation, but | it's there. But nobody has any underlying interest in a | Bitcoin. Its value as a currency for paying for products and | services seems to be diminishing as well. | | You can't make more Bitcoin, but you can easily make more | cryptocurrencies, all with the same limited supply (which | according to some people means the value MUST increase). And | they're all equally interesting. The one exception with Bitcoin | is that it was first. You could say it has a tiny bit of | underlying historical value. | | To me, I think it implies that it's inevitable that Bitcoin | will have a crash that's very deep and very long lasting. It's | impossible to predict when though. In the very long term it'll | probably increase due to hits historical value. But by that | point I doubt it'll significantly outperform other investments. | | I also think there's a very high likelihood that many | governments will regulate cryptocurrency exchanges to death at | some point. A rally against Bitcoin specifically can easily be | justified as part of the fight against climate change, since it | wastes so much energy. | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | It's a bit worrisome that we are inching towards the scenario | where companies may be tempted at an economy wide scale to reduce | investment in production in order to hoard cryptocoins instead. | It caused the great depression when businesses switched to | hoarding gold tied currency instead of producing in the 1930s. | | Now I'm not sure that crypto coins without being jacked up by | central banks (like gold was during the great depression) are a | powerful enough force to cause the type of havoc that gold did. | | Then again, the potentially stronger network/memetic effects of | cryptocoins, along with the amplification factor from markets | being synchronized through instant all-encompassing global | communications nowadays might make them dangerous to the economy | even without central bank involvement. We saw how much people can | get hypnotized by these things during the Gamestop episode. I | don't think unsophisticated investors' hoarding is enough to | cause big problems but it is a bit unsettling that Tesla and | other companies are jumping on the cryptocoin train. If enough | businesses follow suit, you get into scary territory (It would | also be worrisome if companies widely moved to add billions in | gold to their balance sheet but I thought the lesson had been | learned in the 1930s with gold). | | In theory, if central banks stay stimulative enough through all | this, you can have growth in both crypto and businesses. As long | as these central banks don't blink at the sight of what may look | like crypto bubbles. | ur-whale wrote: | > It's a bit worrisome that we are inching towards the scenario | where companies may be tempted at an economy wide scale to | reduce investment in production | | Yes, fully agree. But then ask yourself: aside from COVID, who | created the economic conditions that lead corporations to | decide that stashing treasury as Bitcoin is better than | investing in the "productive" part of the economy. | | QE, interests rates at near zero, corporate bonds near | worthless, stock market at stratospheric 2000-like levels, real | estate easily taxed to death ... how do you protect your | treasury other than stashing it in hard assets (crypto, gold, | commodities)? | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | The important thing for the aggregate economy is that when | people want "hard assets", that these assets can tangibly | support future consumption, not just something everybody | hopes to trade later for consumption but real stuff such as | businesses, inventory, production capacity etc. When too many | people hoard pure financial promises or crypto tokens and all | believe that it's true wealth, bad things happens. People | indirectly owe each other all their savings. | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | >QE, interests rates at near zero, corporate bonds near | worthless, stock market at stratospheric 2000-like | levels... | | To be clear, the above is good, if interest rates on | government paper were above risk adjusted market returns | for new capital this would gridlock the economy. Stock | market being high incentivizes creating new capital. | | > how do you protect your treasury other than stashing it | in hard assets (crypto, gold, commodities)? | | The government should not create artificial assets that | "protects" wealth from being subject to the real economy | because people divesting from the economy destroys the | economy. | | Now there is a question whether the market will choose to | go into crypto and divest from the real economy anyways. | The reason this is a question is that people have been | known to pile into bubbles in the past, and this is the | tricky part, on some level they are not totally irrational | in doing so. To the individual, being early in a long | running bubble is advantageous. When you do it, and do it | first, you gain. Everybody doing it however, may cost you | and your friends, family's and everybody's careers. | | It's a prisoner's dilemma, a bad Nash equilibrium. It's | Moloch. | esotericn wrote: | Well, I don't know about where you are, but over in the UK the | Government isn't doing us any favours on this front. | | We've just been through a year of businesses being forced to | close whilst their landlords continue to collect rent, and | everyone seems to think this is cool. | | In that sort of environment, it's far more logical for me to | just buy hard assets and sit on them; it's been made very clear | that we're going to just force that to be the winning side of | the trade via legislation. | seibelj wrote: | Bitcoin still isn't worth $1 trillion, which is the value of one | large tech company. I think bitcoin is useful and important | enough to be worth several large tech companies. Therefore, not | selling! Onward to 100k. | rawtxapp wrote: | It has been climbing pretty nicely: assetdash.com. | orange_tee wrote: | > I think bitcoin is useful and important enough to be worth | several large tech companies. | | My thought experiment to verify this is simple: Tomorrow | bitcoin disappears. What happens? Tomorrow FAANG disappears, | what happens? I don't think it is controversial to say that | Bitcoin is NOT as impactful as you are stating. Of course lots | of money will be lost, but practically no industry is dependent | on Bitcoin so the rest of the world will not notice. So then I | am not sure how you can say Bitcoin is so valuable. | warrenmiller wrote: | When it hits around $54k it will be worth a trillion so give it | a few minutes :) | warrenmiller wrote: | ...also worth more than Tesla currently | eterm wrote: | > many crypto investors to believe the latest bull run is | different | | "This time it's different" isn't an argument I find compelling | for why something that is known to have bubbles and manipulation | isn't in a bubble. | seibelj wrote: | I agree, GME was bad enough but no way I'll touch TSLA. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | TSLA is high now, it might go higher but it's past peak hype | at this point so even if you jump in now, you might end up | with 2x your investment if it keeps going, but not 10 or | 100x. | sky_rw wrote: | TSLA has been at peak hype for 5+ years. | saalweachter wrote: | I am as skeptical of TSLA as the next fellow, but at least | the company can capitalize on its rising stock price to | convert it into physical infrastructure that provides a | certain floor to the company value. | 1996 wrote: | For 12 years, just bubbles? First it was over 1 cent, then over | $1, over $1000, now over $50k.... when will you consider the | possibility you may have been wrong? At $100k? At $1M? (which | most models indicate as a plausible target price in 10 years) | | Let me give you my favorite quote, pulled from another HNer | comment: "I enjoy reading comments about Bitcoin here because | even without any venture backing, it achieved a bigger | valuation than all of the Y Combinator companies COMBINED, yet | people still think it is unstable and has no future." | Ologn wrote: | > First it was over 1 cent, then over $1, over $1000, now | over $50k.... when will you consider the possibility you may | have been wrong? At $100k? At $1M? (which most models | indicate as a plausible target price in 10 years) | | This is the wrong metric. A million dollar market cap bubble | is not hard to sustain, even a billion dollar market cap is a | footnote to the rest of the economy. The entire worth of | Bitcoin is still less than half of the worth of the market | cap of one company such as Apple. At some point it becomes | large enough that its real value has to be considered, which | in my opinion is zero. | | Stocks like pets.com had long runs in 2000, subprime | mortgages had long runs in 2008 and people were saying then | what you are saying. | | Stocks and real estate are frothy now so Bitcoin and Dogecoin | have company. I would rather own a house than 10 bitcoins | though. | maxerickson wrote: | Plenty of venture dollars have been invested in bitcoin | related services, or even just used to buy bitcoin directly. | | It's not really the same relationship as investment in a | company, but it's not absent either. | seibelj wrote: | Traditional VC is a red flag for me to avoid a project | given they are dumb money. Crypto VC is a different story | though, they can be very helpful. And they are 100% nothing | alike so if you are reading this thing crypto VC is just | like traditional VC "except crypto!" you are very mistaken. | seibelj wrote: | My crypto friends have raised millions outside of VC and then | became very rich once their projects launched basically over | night. Liquid immediately and never paid a lawyer. | | Truly is a paradigm shift and I think a big problem on HN is | that VC can't see they are being disrupted and have no way of | avoiding it, plus they think they are untouchable geniuses, | so being wrong this hard isn't pleasant for them. | grapehut wrote: | Another good example, one of the the then top HN users by | karma: | | 2015: "Most advantages of Bitcoin which matter are captured | by, and improved upon by, a LAMP app which simply holds | account balances." | | 2019: "I acknowledge that when Bitcoin was $17 I said it had | no use case, should be worthless, and likely would be at some | point in the future. No evidence has come up which would make | me change my view. (Though _my_ is it taking a while.) " | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _For 12 years, just bubbles?_ | | Counterfactual: asset prices and incomes have been rising, | almost uninterruptedly, for 12 years. | | Exhibit A is Tether being able to publicly admit that they | don't have the cash they said they had and keep going. | DSingularity wrote: | Every time its something. Transaction malleability, segwit, | tether, tether again. Something drummed up forcing people | to fearfully sell their bitcoin. | onepointsixC wrote: | All the Y Combinator companies combined have created value. | | What has Bitcoin created? | | I struggle to come up with an answer which isn't | overwhelmingly just a way to fund illicit activities, for | which sure there's always been a market, but it's a far cry | of it's origins. Who actually uses bitcoin for transactions | today other than extortionists hackers and drug dealers? | Everyone who owns is just planning to HODL and hope that it | will become equivalent to an infinitely high fiat equivalent. | Had bitcoin succeeded we wouldn't be talking about insane | valuations. We would be using it every day no different from | a credit card. | r3dk1ng wrote: | I am neither a drug dealer nor an extortionist. I used | bitcoin to buy a router from Newegg a month ago. | onepointsixC wrote: | Then you're in the overwhelming minority of bitcoin | users. | akvadrako wrote: | You paid a $20 transaction fee for a router? | koolba wrote: | > What has Bitcoin created? | | The biggest impact on the world from bitcoin's creation was | not a democratization of finance, it was a widespread | mechanism to facilitate payment of blackmail. | marvin wrote: | Bitcoin has pioneered a new asset class that can be | transferred over the Internet and is not dependent on a | central authority. | | I don't own any cryptocurrency and can't put a dollar | valuation on such an achievement, but it's certainly not an | everyday thing. | pjc50 wrote: | The value of a valuation may go down as well as up. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/wework-valuation- | falls-47-bi... | | (I don't think WeWork was YC, but it does drive home that | achieving a valuation is primarily a reflection of your | ability to convince investors to give you money) | robjan wrote: | Which models? The only thing I can find to support your claim | is random people tweeting that they think it will be worth | 1M. I guess when enough people say something it becomes a | "fact" | ur-whale wrote: | >Which models | | Stock-to-flow is based on assumptions, but they're not | unreasonable. | | The predictive power hasn't been half-bad either. | intev wrote: | Plan B's (in)famous model: https://digitalik.net/btc/ | | Notice how the trend is eerily aligned? Just because you | couldn't find it doesn't mean you have to be snarky about | it. | GrumpyNl wrote: | What is payed for bitcoin has nothing to do with the value. | When its worth $100k or 1M its just a bigger bubble. | audunw wrote: | > when will you consider the possibility you may have been | wrong? At $100k? At $1M? | | Personally I think Bitcoin has at least two bubbles left | before it pops permanently. So $1M price could be achievable. | | The real question is what happens when it does reach a | ceiling. At some point there's not going to much more | potential interest for Bitcoin, and what then? Are people | gonna start moving their pension funds to Bitcoin? I think | the governments will crack hard down on that, because you | really want investments in building the economy, not in a | pure investment/gambling scheme. | | If most people start thinking there's no one else interested | in buying their Bitcoin down the line, it'll crash hard, and | the crash will likely be permanent. Because there's no real | value behind Bitcoin. The money you invested is already spent | by someone on something else. | | The reason why it's interesting that Bitcoin keeps having | bubbles is that there's not much reason to think that will | stop. Yeah, the value keeps growing over longer time periods, | but eventually a bubble will be so large that it'll seriously | disrupt the economy, and that's when you'll start to see | governments and peoples attitudes change. | | > I enjoy reading comments about Bitcoin here because even | without any venture backing, it achieved a bigger valuation | than all of the Y Combinator companies COMBINED, yet people | still think it is unstable and has no future. | | The problem is that the valuation is more imaginary than the | valuation of any company except for those that are just | Ponzi-schemes. | | Most money put into Bitcoin has been cashed out or used for | mining expenses. If everyone tried to cash out, the price | would very quickly race back down to zero. If the same | happened with a stocks in a corporation, at some price level | someone would just buy up a controlling stake of the shares | and liquidate all the assets for a profit. | ur-whale wrote: | > Because there's no real value behind Bitcoin | | You post was very interesting (what happens to Bitcoin when | it becomes so big it's capable of tilting G7 type | economies) up to the argument above, which is: | a) wrong because Bitcoin does have some actual utility | b) wrong because "value" is only something that carries any | kind of meaning in a supply and demand framework c) | parroting an argument that has been trumpeted on HN almost | as much as "oooh, bad for the environment" and has also | been thoroughly debunked. | harporoeder wrote: | This definitely seems like bubble territory, but on the other | hand will the next crash follow the "this time it's different" | line? Bitcoin has seen extreme price crashes many times and far | exceeded the price later on. I doubt the likely next crash is | somehow special. | tomcooks wrote: | If the phrase "diamond hands" became a meme is because those | who just held their bags and ignored bubbles ended up with | 40x gains in a couple of years | 1996 wrote: | I'm patiently waiting for the dismissals (it's just a fad like | tulips or beanie babies), the negative permabulls (it's evil | because people can use it to buy drugs / not pay taxes, it can't | do as many TPS as Visa, it's bad for the environment...) while | laughing all the way to the bank. | | Crypto is the HN equivalent of what the ipod was to Slashdot: | "lame" to the people who think they are the typical user, who | declare there is no product-market fit. Maybe after 12 years of | being constantly proven wrong, it's time for the old guard to | stop being luddites and concede it has been very wrong? | UncleMeat wrote: | > while laughing all the way to the bank | | Cool. You got rich. Good for you. | | Why does that in any way make criticisms of environmental | impact less legitimate? Loads of people have gotten rich off of | systems that have unpriced negative externalities. You aren't | the first. | | I hope that you use some of your newfound wealth to give to | effective charities and help the world. | seibelj wrote: | Both nocoiners and coiners are locked into their positions so | hard it's "I'll go down with the ship" at this point. At least | one side gets to be rich though! | kungito wrote: | There is also my generation where we have only recently | started earning money and thinking about these things, | desperately leveraging FOMO and all the other factors, trying | to enter the market a bit too late but still before the next | crash, wondering whether we are already too late. You could | say crypto is similar to GME, but with GME anyone | knowledgeable could see that it's a pump and dump because the | 300$ only made sense for a very short period of time because | of the shorts, while the crypto future is unclear but very | promising in many regards | 1996 wrote: | I know. I'm retired thanks to crypto. I'm glad I eventually | saw how HN was wrong and learned from my mistakes. It did | cost me bit of time-opportunity, but there's a point where | you have "enough" and it's not worth chasing more money | anymore. | seibelj wrote: | I considered retiring but it's too boring so I just keep | working in crypto. I'm a workaholic by nature. Not having a | boss is great though as it allows me true freedom and the | ability to work strange hours. | 1996 wrote: | Same thing here: I don't have to work anymore but I chose | to, with a bit of VC on the side. There are many | interesting projects, and having full freedom is | priceless! | | I try to favor project that only take crypto, not fiat, | and price their products in crypto. I see that as an | indicator of "understanding" the new wave. | Drakim wrote: | I kick myself over not putting more effort into getting | bitcoins when I was first reading up on it. While I don't | think I would retire, it would be nice to have the | financial security to work on more meaningful but | unprofitable projects rather than grinding my daily job. | mrpopo wrote: | > I'm retired thanks to crypto. I'm glad I eventually saw | how HN was wrong | | I don't understand this argument. Becoming rich doesn't | prove you right. A technology becoming popular doesn't make | it good. | DSingularity wrote: | Really? Historically the consensus position on HN was | that BTC and crypto is a short-term bubble for an asset | class with no fundamental value. Seems to me that people | becoming rich because the value of BTC has been going up | forever is good enough proof that OP is right in swimming | against the HN-current. | mrpopo wrote: | BTC going up doesn't mean it has fundamental value. It's | a speculative asset with more and more people getting on | board. | | Hedge fund managers are rich. TV personalities are rich. | Many PhD students are poor. | | This is not people making the right decisions. This is | concentration of money because of economy volatility. | ur-whale wrote: | Again, for the upteenth time: there is NO SUCH THING as | "fundamental value". | | There is just one thing: supply and demand. | | The fact that demand might be powered by something some | folks might consider "irrational" is _completely_ | irrelevant to the conversation. | DSingularity wrote: | What do you consider fundamental value? Seems to me that | people are willing to pay 50,000$ a BTC and companies are | willing to hoard it. How is that not evidence that it has | value? | mrpopo wrote: | Regardless of whether you agree with all the evil stuff, the | fact is that Bitcoin is generating a lot of noise, speculation, | and wasting a bunch of energy for practically nothing. | | I know practically no one around me who has ever used Bitcoin | for actual purchases other than buying drugs once. And I know | literally no one who uses it in daily life. However I have a | few dozen friends who bought Bitcoin because it's going to go | to the moon or something. | ur-whale wrote: | > I know practically no one around me ... | | You need to travel and/or get out of your social bubble more. | | I've met folks who bought houses with Bitcoin and moved | millions across "money transfer unfriendly" borders. | mrpopo wrote: | I've met folks who bought houses with fiat too. Moving | millions across "money transfer unfriendly" borders sounds | like money laundering to me. | bhupy wrote: | > ...for practically nothing | | > I know practically no one around me... | | I recommend reading a bit more about its use in countries | with poor fiscal/monetary policy. | | https://qz.com/africa/1947769/nigeria-is-the-second- | largest-... | ur-whale wrote: | Yeah, 100% with you here. | | I actually tremendously enjoy hearing a well constructed | negative argument against Bitcoin/Crypto that presents a | perspective I haven't heard a 100 times before and/or hasn't | been debunked in depth. | | These are actually necessary given how new and different the | whole shebang is. | | But that hasn't happened in a rather long time on HN, or if it | has, it's buried 10 level of indent deep amongst HN randos | parroting lame climate change arguments they've heard on reddit | of FB. | 1996 wrote: | > I actually tremendously enjoy hearing a well constructed | negative argument against Bitcoin/Crypto that presents a | perspective I haven't heard a 100 times before and/or hasn't | been debunked in depth. | | Me too! /r/Buttcoin is a nice place for that, but you must | already know (as your nick looks familiar to me) | | My personal favorite well constructed new negative argument: | like India and Nigeria, governments will try to ban crypto | since it endangers their total control. | | It will come as a coordinated attack by OECD countries, who | will need to inflate big time after Covid: they will ban all | transactions to fiat accounts, and all exchanges on their | territory. | | Counter argument: politicians (and the 1%) need to protect | against inflation/taxations, so they may not all be in favor, | and will leak the plan. It will cause a huge Streisand | effect, as "there is no such thing as negative publicity": | random Joes will buy crypto, making the plan politically | undefensible. | audunw wrote: | > Counter argument: politicians (and the 1%) need to | protect against inflation/taxations, so they may not all be | in favor, and will leak the plan. It will cause a huge | Streisand effect, as "there is no such thing as negative | publicity": random Joes will buy crypto, making the plan | politically undefensible. | | Uh, what? This makes zero sense. There is absolutely such a | thing as negative publicity, especially if major | governments threaten to effectively wipe out the value of | Bitcoin. | | You could just as easily see a large fraction of the | holders of Bitcoin try to cash out, to put into more safe | investments while the situation stabilizes. This will | probably create a crash, as Bitcoin is so prone to. More | people will cash out. This will probably increase support | for regulating or banning crypto exchanges. Some will | already have cashed out, they're happy. Some of the ones | that haven't will direct their anger against Bitcoin and | support regulations. Some of the ones still holding will | try to fight it, but they'll be in the minority. Most | people who never invested will probably support bans ("I | don't want to risk unwittingly getting hit by a crash like | that in the future"). You'll probably have lots of | emotional stories about grandpa losing all his savings in | the media. I mean, we've seen this story over and over | before in the stock markets. Someone figures out "get-rich- | quick" schemes, they crash, people demand regulation. What | makes anyone think that it'll be any different with | cryptocurrencies once they become big enough? | | I think it'd be absolutely reasonable to require exchanges | to guarantee that there's X% of reserves behind any | cryptocurrency it trades. That'll probably kill Bitcoin, | since you'd probably want to build such a requirement into | the implementation of the currency. And it'll probably put | a big damper on the growth of the conforming | cryptocurrencies. | Jochim wrote: | I'm interested in what you find lame about the climate change | arguments? | | They seem fairly appealing to me, cryptocurrency is a | fraction of the size of current payment processors and is | already consuming a small country's worth of power. How much | more power will it consume if scaled further? How will power | efficiency strategies affect the utility of the network? | | I think there are some reasonable arguments for mining farms | that draw from excess power during periods of low | utilisation, but even that power seems like it could be put | to more productive use. | matwood wrote: | Personally, I'm neutral to slightly bullish on crypto. It's | reached mainstream and it looks like many companies are going | to put a portion of their cash in BTC as an inflation hedge. | The price will definitely fluctuate, but it does seem like a | floor is being put in because of this move to the mainstream. | | So my advice on owing crypto, is own enough that if it goes | parabolic you aren't kicking yourself later, but not so much | that it breaks you if it goes to zero. | NhanH wrote: | I hold some amount of cryptocurrency. I am living in a country | where some of the premise for cryptocurrency makes sense | (strong capital control, banking and financial sector is ... | questionable). And my intution likes the idea of | cryptocurrency. | | But by far and large, there is no product-market fit still. And | people are rational in being against it for various reason, | please don't call them luddite. | | Personally, I'd still support crypto in the same way I'd | support FSF (though much less of a support, just for | clarification!). Because I think there is something there with | the idea, and I like the principles. But there is a high chance | the detractors are correct in their assessment. | Jochim wrote: | That enough people have bought into the idea doesn't change the | merits or issues that lead people to take their position on it | in the first place. I didn't like the original iPod, I still | don't, a lot of people did and do. I don't think either group | is "wrong", just that we each value things differently. | | The same applies to Bitcoin. It doesn't offer me any tangible | benefits over traditional currency and it has some major | drawbacks in areas that I value. The only reason I would | purchase is if I felt like gambling on speculation. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | Whilst I think bitcoin will be around long term, it will be in | somewhat of a precarious position once the proof of stake and | high TPS blockchains start gathering steam. | | Sticking with PoW long term is my only concern about Bitcoins | ability to remain relevant. | | I'm more bullish on Ethereum, pending successful transition to | V2. Also bullish on some of the emerging competitors to | Ethereum; heterogeneity provides a healthier ecosystem. | exabrial wrote: | Pretty hard to take "green" companies seriously when they're | promoting the environmental disaster that is Bitcoin. | | At some point, someone needs to step in and say "no more mining". | doggosphere wrote: | 73% of mining is renewable energy | | https://pd.coinshares.com/EN-Mining-Whitepaper-December-2019 | Geee wrote: | We're truly witnessing an extraordinary paradigm shift in human | history. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Not really, crazy stock market events have been happening for a | while now. like. nearly 400 years: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania | UncleMeat wrote: | 99% of all news stories in major outlets written about BTC lead | with "this is the price of BTC". Nothing about its use. BTC | functions precisely as well if it is $10 per coin or $100,000 | per coin. Popular interest in BTC is almost entirely based on | "I can get rich". That is certainly a thing. People have gotten | rich and likely people will continue to get rich. But that's no | paradigm shift. | onepointsixC wrote: | How so? Bitcoin's excitement comes entirely from its value in | fiat, as opposed to regular usage in daily life. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | Bitcoin as the gateway to Ethereum and the possibilities | opened up by smart contacts such as the currently embryonic | DeFi market. | | Paradigm shift isn't too strong a terminology. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | While ETH is cool technology, I haven't seen it impact my | personal life in any way yet. That might just be my | sheltered life though. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | Even if you said Bitcoin hasn't affected your personal | life you'd be in a vast majority, and Bitcoin has got a | few years on Ethereum. | | It really is nascent; embryonic. | | Personally, I think it's future-defining technology | that's being created, but it's a decade at least from | reaching common acceptance and use. Cultural change is | long and slow, it's one of those things that doesn't | change until the status quo generations die off and are | replaced, and there's a good couple of generations that | don't even know of / care about / understand bitcoin | nevermind smart contracts and decentralised finance. I | don't understand the absolute fundamentals, but I | understand the implications. | | Long term change, generationally slow migration. | bhupy wrote: | I've only just begun to wrap my head around all of this, | and I tried playing with some of the DeFi lending | platforms built on top of Ethereum. | | It has its kinks, but I think on the net it's a | remarkably cool thing. I was able to lend $50 | (overcollateralized) at 12% APY without any central | institution. The only real wrinkle has been the insane | transaction fees: it cost me about $80 to execute the | "smart contract" for the $50 12% APY loan. That said, | this is a flat cost, and I can very much see the value in | paying $80 in transaction costs to be able to lend | $50,000 or $500,000 at 12% APY. It also very much feels | like "mainframe" days of computing where everything was | expensive and impractical, but it was just the beginning. | | For the time being, I continue to keep my money safely | parked in index funds, but one can get a first hand look | at the potential for Eth/DeFi by testing small(ish) | transactions out. | mrpopo wrote: | That's so amazing to me. Most of the Bitcoin memes are about | dudes who get rich selling half of their stash and buying a | lambo with fiat. | | How is this gonna change human history more than dudes | getting rich selling some stock? | fogihujy wrote: | This. Cryptocurrencies in general seem to have potential for | being used in day-to-day transactions in the future, but | Bitcoin itself mostly seem to be used to store value. | | The planned limit on the total amount of Bitcoin in | circulation, transaction fees and long transaction times seem | to be quite a blocker for using it to buy a cup of coffee. | Geee wrote: | Money has to be first established as a store of value, | before it can be used as a medium of exchange. As Bitcoin | finds a more stable price point, it will become more | interesting as a medium of exchange and an unit of account. | fogihujy wrote: | Still, transaction times longer than a few seconds, and | fees larger than a few cents puts Bitcoin in a worse | position than regular Visa transactions/Bank transfers. | Geee wrote: | You can use Visa with Bitcoin: | https://www.binance.com/en/cards | tlb wrote: | You could be excited about the purchasing power of 1 BTC | being 100x what it was a few years ago. No fiat currency has | ever deflated more than a tiny percentage in our lifetimes. | [deleted] | azinman2 wrote: | So it sounds like lemming group think. It seems like someone one | should hold "just in case," but no real valid reason to do so yet | (that I've heard). We know transactions are slow and expensive, | so it's not a good replacement for ordinary commerce. It can be | used to transfer across borders, but there often is asymmetry in | capital movement that makes this difficult in the places you need | it most (poor countries with rapid inflation, who aren't buying | Bitcoin but rather only selling), and it's often regulated such | that it needs to be fully declared (removing the whole anti-gov | part). It also lacks a lot of the controls that traditional banks | have for good reasons, so fraud becomes harder to tackle, and | things like refunds are just at the mercy of the other side of | the transaction (making commerce even harder, as well as basic | banking). So then it becomes a digital store of value, one that | is only as valued as the market gives it, and typically markets | eventually correct when there's no underlying true value | proposition (as we can see with $GME). It also pushes only | towards deflation, so it's terrible as a wide spread value store | because it removes an important tool that governments have to | handle the economy (dealt with debt via inflation aka printing | money, which can be executed "well" (US) and really poorly | (Zimbabwe)). | | What am I missing? | adhoc32 wrote: | That it is a hedge against inflation because of the network | effect and vice versa. | UncleMeat wrote: | Isn't everything other than cash a hedge against inflation? | anm89 wrote: | Yes but not equally. | luxurytent wrote: | How much of this Bitcoin wealth is centralized to the top %? | majani wrote: | Satoshi owns $54 billion worth of Bitcoin at this point. | jordigh wrote: | I just wanted internet money, not a speculative financial | instrument. :( | sphix0r wrote: | Yeah, that's what bitcoin should have been. Too bad it also | consumes an insane amount of energy and isn't able to process a | lot of transactions per second. Hope that a good cryptocurrency | gets more traction and will be the next decentralized "paypal / | digital currency". | bouncycastle wrote: | DAI is your friend - always pegged to the USD, non-custodial | stablecoin. | srgpqt wrote: | The only cryptocurrency that might one day become real | "internet money" is _nano_ , because it has no fees and | transactions are almost instant. | tromp wrote: | Speculation could be discouraged by having a fixed block | reward, so that it takes all of a century to bring yearly | inflation below rate 1%... | CyberDildonics wrote: | How would that discourage speculation? | sprash wrote: | It doesn't. Doge works that way and is highly volatile. | [deleted] | superbcarrot wrote: | Does anyone else feel like: | | - they've missed an opportunity to get rich with minimal effort | from crypto | | - still have absolutely no interest in jumping in at this point? | sethammons wrote: | Haha, yes. In 2011, a guy on my team was all about bitcoin and | dogecoin and such. I think bitcoin was like 11 cents a coin, or | maybe a dollar by that point. I just plain didn't get it. Still | barely do. I could have easily picked up a few hundred dollars | of coin or, if I was a believer, a grand or two. Had I held | onto it, I would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. | However, if I got in at 10 cents, I would have sold at a | dollar. And if I didn't sell there, I would have sold at 10 | dollars, 100, 1000, etc. I would never, ever have ridden it to | 10k, 20k, 30k. Still not putting money on it. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Kind of. But it's a thing with a lot of investments; if one | invested in Apple ten years ago their investment would have | been 10x now. If one invested in Tesla ten years ago it would | be worth 100x now (I think? there was a split at some point. | Yahoo Finance's chart indicates it's gone up 10x in a year). | | Jumping in now is a bad idea because it's at peak hype; never | buy at peak hype. It MIGHT go up a bit more, but it won't be a | 10x increase at this point - you should've bought a year ago in | that case. | | But a year ago, nobody could have predicted it would go up 10x. | sky_rw wrote: | Judging by the sentiment in this thread it is definitely not | at peak hype. | | That's what everybody said when it was $17k and crashed to | $5k. I loaded up on it, now its $50k. I bet there were a lot | of similar comments saying that it would never be 10x. I also | seem to recall a lot of people 10 years ago saying TSLA was | overpriced and they would never hit their production goals. | Time will tell. | IgorPartola wrote: | Remember that pizza you bought in 2013? You could have invested | that money into TSLA and it would be worth a heck of a lot more | now. Opportunities like that exist today also. Does that make | you not want to eat pizza? | | I bought BTC at $20. I sold at $1000. When I sold I had | something like 1.95 BTC (had a bit of it stolen from poorly | secured exchanges, lost some trying my hand at bot trading). | Still happy with it because what I bought at the time with with | it made me happy (Sonos speakers and photo gear). Would it have | been nice to hold onto it until it was $50k? Maybe. But I have | been enjoying the benefits of what I got for far longer. | | Having said that, I think XLM is in a good position to jump up | in price and I still have their free initial allotment. | [deleted] | georgyo wrote: | A long long time ago, I mined 3650 coins on a single cpu in a | month. Bitcoin was worthless at the time, and I thought the | idea was interesting. After a month, I went back to folding at | home. A little over a year later bitcoin hit a dollar and I | sold it all. | | On one hand I made a few thousand from nothing. However if I | held it I would have been a pretty rich right now. | | I truly believe that bitcoin is something that cannot work, so | I have not and will not reinvest in it. But the sting of it | doing so much better does bother me at times. | sperma wrote: | Do you ever think that you losing out on tens of millions of | dollars might have affected your desire to challenge your | believes that "bitcoin is something that cannot work"? I know | I'd probably cope in a similar manner | loceng wrote: | No more or no less than it is influencing people who are | pro-Bitcoin, and in fact that bias may give them a clear, | less biased view. | Zhyl wrote: | It's also a possible butterfly effect. Would Bitcoin have | taken off without those specific few thousand coins in the | economy? | | If even half of Bitcoin holders at the time thought they'd | make it big and held, how could Bitcoin have had the | liquidity to gain value? | majani wrote: | That's US $178m today for those who are curious | rich_sasha wrote: | To make meaningful amounts of money on BTC, you'd need to | invest a significant amount. My feeling is, yes, maybe it go up | 50%, or double, or whatnot, but mostly it can go down to 0 any | time. If you want to bet a tiny bit and hope it tentuples, you | still won't be rich. | | I'm always tempted to make some kind of agent simulation, where | all agents know they are in a bubble, but hope they can get out | before everyone else. Then eventually the price pops and, pop. | syrgian wrote: | I would have slept a lot worse if people thought that I held | millions in an asset that can be easily stolen by invading my | home and putting my family at risk. I would only be happy if I | was very careful with not revealing who I was, ever (hard to do | if a exchange gets compromised). | | It helps that I have all my necessities well covered. | ur-whale wrote: | >I would have slept a lot worse if people thought that I held | millions in an asset | | That scenario only holds if you go around blabbing about your | BTC holdings ... why would you ever do something like that? | lazide wrote: | I mean, that was a trend for a long time hah. Even in this | thread we've got folks talking about the 3k+ Bitcoin they | used to have. | | There were a number of robberies of people somewhat | prominent in the early movement even on the assumption they | still held some. | luxurytent wrote: | When _everything_ is going up, you can feel like everyone is | winning but you. There 's many get-rich-quick-schemes available | right now and if you put in the effort to know where to go, you | can get "rich" quick too. | | Or, you can continue enjoying your life the way you are without | worrying what others are doing. Many times, they are only | projecting one side of the story. | kungito wrote: | What helps me sleep at night is that even had I entered all | this time ago with BTC I would have exited 100 times by now. | There have indeed been many 2x,3x,5x multipliers with BTC but | there have been so many instances when it was unclear how | everything is going to turn out which would personally prompt | me to consider exiting with what I had. | | As my friend nicely put it: only way we could have gotten rich | from BTC is had we bought it when it was pennies and forgotten | about it up until last year | petercooper wrote: | That's exactly my attitude towards it too. But this has also | given me a strong lesson for the future. If I get in on the | ground floor of anything and decide to sell out, always keep | a _little_ skin the game that you don 't touch.. because you | never know if it'll go big. | | If the GP had sold 99% of his 3650 coins and kept 1% till | now, that would still be $1.8m. | ur-whale wrote: | AKA : no risk, no rewards. | belval wrote: | Same thing here, I made a good profit a while back. To | believe that I would be a millionaire today requires ignoring | everything I know about my risk tolerance and while Bitcoin | worked, it could've gone the Ponzi scheme way and crash to 0$ | overnight. There were risks of Chinese miners going for a 51% | attack, regulation in the US to downright outlawing mining in | Canada. | dawnerd wrote: | I gave up after multiple attempts to get in at the wrong time. | | I'm not exactly interested in risking enough money for it to be | worth it long term anyways. | | Now if only I still had my original wallet... | paulcole wrote: | I've definitely missed the opportunity to get rich but I still | jumped in. | | I started putting a small amount into BTC each month on | Coinbase. It's money I can lose and that I would have spent on | a vacation this year if not for COVID. I figure I'll pull it | out at the end of the year and if it's gone up, then next | year's vacation will be a bit better. | | I don't understand BTC at all and consider it gambling. But | like Nick the Greek said, the next best thing to gambling and | winning is gambling and losing. | ur-whale wrote: | Yours isn't an unreasonable attitude. | | Just like when you go to Vegas: put $500 cash in your pocket, | leave all other means of payment at home. | | You'll either come back with $0 or more than $500. | | In both case, you'll definitely have had $500 worth of | entertainment. | | Bitcoin is like that: only invest money you don't need | (assuming you have any) and meantime, just enjoy the feeling | of having your stomach crawl up to the back of your throat on | the roller coaster. | | You're also obviously allowed to enjoy yourself when/if you | become rich. | bayesianbot wrote: | Luckily I'm absolutely terrible with money. I was talking about | bitcoin to everyone in 2011, but didn't invest myself as I | thought I didn't have enough to put for it to matter. | | Had I invested, I'd have wasted the coins long time ago, and | would be just kicking myself daily or on suicide watch. | pjc50 wrote: | Yup. That reminds me, I need to sell the free Stellar Lumens I | got from Keybase. If I can work out how to do that without a | scam or a disaster, I might consider touching the rest of the | ecosystem. | fullshark wrote: | I imagine that's the majority of people who've heard of it. | ur-whale wrote: | Your feeling is IMO the norm for lots of folks. | | I have had this conversation with many a friend, who actually | view Bitcoin as a Ponzi, and therefore decide not to play the | game (a ponzi ca be lucrative if : a) you know it's a ponzi b) | you're smart in your timing and not too greedy but it's still a | crapshoot). | | The real questions are: - what if it isn't a | Ponzi ? - how much will your "won't touch it with a 10 | feet pole" attidude cost you then ? | pdimitar wrote: | It hasn't costed me anything though since I never spent or | gained a cent on/off of BTC. | ur-whale wrote: | Cost is probably not the right word. | | Opportunity cost is likely better. | pdimitar wrote: | Yep, that is true. I regret I haven't hopped on the hype | train but oh well, I am not an oracle. -\\_(tsu)_/- | wodenokoto wrote: | When it reached 100, I thought, this is the apex, it is not | gonna grow anymore, it is too late to jump on. | | And I've repeated that thought on 1.000, 10.000, 20.000 and | again now. | | So yes, you are not alone in feeling this is a missed | opportunity. | akvadrako wrote: | Why not just buy a small amount of bitcoins now, something | you won't mind losing? If they increase 100 fold you won't | feel like you're missing out. And if they don't just think of | it as insurance. | | I personally hate the idea of bitcoin and avoided it for a | long time, but I feel better having a little just to avoid | the thought I let my personal feelings get in the way of an | opportunity with a good risk/reward ratio. | adamisom wrote: | This doesn't necessarily mean you're invalid, but if BTC | increased 100x, they'd exceed the world's GDP. So... yeah, | though maybe you can't say that's _impossible_ , if by some | miracle BTC became the dominant currency in a (much richer) | future. | ilkkao wrote: | It helps to think that odds for not selling during the first | peak are quite close to 0%, at least for me. Other outcome | would have meant very stressful last years. | pdimitar wrote: | That's exactly how I feel. But is there a way to actually cash | out? I mean, suppose you had 2 BTC for years. Can you literally | get $100K right now in your bank account and can you actually | exchange them easily for the fiat currency? | superbcarrot wrote: | Yes, this is very easy to do exactly in the way you describe. | pdimitar wrote: | Oh well, in that case I do feel a tinge of regret. :( | matwood wrote: | Easily cash out yes, but would have you kept track of that | BTC for years is another question. There were plenty of | gotchas along the way with BTC before it went completely | mainstream. Buggy hardware wallets, scams, exchanges going | bankrupt/stealing btc, people's hard drives dying, etc... | mean for anyone to have held from $1 to $50k they were | prescient and a bit lucky. | akmarinov wrote: | So does it make sense to put in some money that I'm okay with | losing now or have I missed it? | Geee wrote: | It's never too late, because it's an deflationary asset. You | are early if you invest now. The top of the current cycle is | predicted to be about $250k. However, the long term value is | much higher. | tomcooks wrote: | Put in some money you'd use for Netflix, Amazon prime and a few | other extras you can happily do without. | | Mark the amount you paid and its BTC value on the calendar and | completely forget about it for one year until some out of the | loop person (i.e. uncle at Thanksgiving) asks you if it's a | good time to put some money into it. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | Put Netflix money in per month. Dollar cost averaging. | | (Not a financial planner, funny invest anything you're not | willing to lose, do your own research, etc.) | adhoc32 wrote: | There is the hyperbitcoinization scenario. If this holds you'll | be an early adopter. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | You probably missed it, since the hype around it has been going | on for a while now. | | If the cycle continues like it has a few times now, there will | be a big crash / correction, things will be very quiet around | BTC / Crypto again for a few years, and then the next surge | will happen. | | Not financial advice, but if you have BTC, sell now - or sell | half, whatever. At least make sure you have your investment | back. If you don't have BTC, don't expect to earn 10x your | investment. I'd wait for things to settle again, buy, and hold | for a few years. Then if things go crazy again, sell off a | part. | | And of course, don't be hard on yourself if the price keeps | going up; you cannot know if it will. Take what you can. Greed | is what makes people lose all their money. | ffggvv wrote: | the saddest thing is people see it as a success because its price | has gone up. | | But the entire idea behind it was to be a decentralized currency. | Its absolutely failed at that. What its succeeded at is being a | speculative gambling instrument like beanie babies or tulips. | | So yes, it's "successful" currently in that its price is going | up, but no, no one actually uses or cares about using it as a | currency or buys it for any other reason than they think they can | sell it to a greater fool sometime later. | | wonder what satoshi would think | [deleted] | HelloFellowDevs wrote: | Anyone know when transaction fees will get cheaper? | yawaworht1978 wrote: | I have some satoshis and some ripple on an exchange, but the | exchange seems to be gone?? I suppose I can write those off? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-16 23:01 UTC)