Bitcoin RIP

[Tephnos]

For those complaining about volatility, that's a simple fact of life due to the low (relative) liquidity. It's not exactly a global fiat currency, Given time, regulation, greater adoption, etc. you'll see prices begin to stabilise at whatever the market agrees is the value.

 

[StriderX]

For those complaining about volatility, that's a simple fact of life due to the low (relative) liquidity. It's not exactly a global fiat currency, Given time, regulation, greater adoption, etc. you'll see prices begin to stabilise at whatever the market agrees is the value.

Pfft no, the public only have one view of this now and it's not going to change. It's shoehorned itself into investment vehicle and that's the end of it.

 

[aardvark]

For those complaining about volatility, that's a simple fact of life due to the low (relative) liquidity. It's not exactly a global fiat currency, Given time, regulation, greater adoption, etc. you'll see prices begin to stabilise at whatever the market agrees is the value.

and if the market decides the value is zero??

the problem is that anyone can create a new crypto'currency' and there are thousands.
There is nothing backing any of them except sentiment and the promise of future riches - once the confidence goes they are worthless.
There might be value in the blockchain technology but non of the cryptos are needed for this - a new one will simply be created with real (government) backing if they want, which makes the other ones useless.

 

[muon]

Remember to cost average, i.e. dig yourself a bigger hole, albeit slightly shallower.

 

[nine_tails]

So long as the barrier for entry is so low (almost non-existent), that an eight-year-old can create a new currency in about 30 mins, then I think we're going to have millions of entirely worthless "coins" pretty much forever.

Creation , yes , but no longer will these **** coins will be in a position to raise millions. ICO's are nearly dead , listing a coin on an exchange requires a massive capital injection therefore limiting their impact on the market (strictly speaking of coin value)

 

[Bigpops]

You can be listed for free on Binance, if your project is good enough. Just a couple of months ago, they listed Ravencoin with no fee.

In the past, they've listed XRP, Neo, EOS, Litecoin, Monero and some others for free too.

 

[Tephnos]

and if the market decides the value is zero??

the problem is that anyone can create a new crypto'currency' and there are thousands.
There is nothing backing any of them except sentiment and the promise of future riches - once the confidence goes they are worthless.
There might be value in the blockchain technology but non of the cryptos are needed for this - a new one will simply be created with real (government) backing if they want, which makes the other ones useless.

Then that'll be the end of it should the market decide that. It won't be decided by people on a forum moaning about how they think it is worth nothing, though. We go through this same song and dance literally every market cycle.

As for the 'anyone can create a currency' angle - sure, they can. The market cleans up the worst ones regularly during bear markets, and none of them has ever come close to touching the market cap that Bitcoin has, because Bitcoin has trust in its network. You don't call the stock market worthless because there's a ton of penny stocks, do you? That's what the other coins basically are, speculative penny stocks (bar a select handful that are actually aiming to achieve a purpose given time). There's a lot more that goes into this than what you guys seem to think. You're also right in that I think eventually government backed crypto may be a thing, but I don't think that will make Bitcoin worthless either - the lack of middleman is a huge factor. Government is also favourable towards Bitcoin itself, looking for ways to regulate it rather than just blanket banning, which they could've done many times already.

Pfft no, the public only have one view of this now and it's not going to change. It's shoehorned itself into investment vehicle and that's the end of it.

Market cycles take advantage of how short-term people's memories are. They've always done, and they will again. Posting absolutes with nothing but your opinion backing it seems... worthless?

 

[robgmun]

Good for graphic card prices ! (May be)

I'm hoping this is the case, the prices are idiotic and should never be over £600 for a top of the range card

 

[Tephnos]

Who'd have thought a currency generated by wasting electricity and wasted CPU/GPU cycles might turn out not to be worth the virtual wallets its stored in.

I could be wrong but the value of a currency is based on the "promise to pay" which itself is backed up a nations ability to pay. Remove the liklihood/ability of being able to pay (Geman Mark 1920s, Zimbabwe 2008/2009) and it becomes worthless. Botcoin has nothing to back up its value therefore its worthless except for vocal minority of miners and traders doing all they can to convince the masses otherwise and which were doing quite well at that job till earlier this year.

False. The inherent value of Bitcoin is in the cost used to produce more bitcoin and keep the network stable. The CFTC state this themselves. As it turns out, Bitcoin at $20k was worth multiples beyond what it cost to produce, so of course, the market was going to see a correction. I really don't get why people don't compute this concept. (To add on to that, if Bitcoin drops in price below what it costs to produce, then the difficulty will adjust after some time and it will become easier to mine again, ensuring that the network is never compromised by rapid changes in price in its early days).

The value of a nation's currency, in reality, is basically tied to its power to exert control over the world. It's not surprising that the US Dollar is top dog given the US's military strength. Beyond that, your fiat is worthless, as there's nothing backing it except that (and the fact people believe it's worth something, like everything ever). A few hundred years ago it was backed by gold which was definitely something of tangible and physical value.

 

[Raymond Lin]

False. The inherent value of Bitcoin is in the cost used to produce more bitcoin and keep the network stable. the CFTC state this themselves. As it turns out, Bitcoin at $20k was worth multiples beyond what it cost to produce, so of course, the market was going to see a correction. I really don't get why people don't compute this concept.

The value of a nation's currency, in reality, is basically tied to its power to exert control over the world. It's not surprising that the US Dollar is top dog given the US's military strength. Beyond that, your fiat is worthless, as there's nothing backing it except that (and the fact people believe it's worth something, like everything ever). A few hundred years ago it was backed by gold which was definitely something of tangible and physical value.

In one sentence your argument is bitcoin has value because of the cost of producing it.

In the following sentence you say a flat has no value, but it cost nothing to build it? It takes energy, it takes material, time, effort, skill, knowledge and even land, all finite resources...all cost money.

Not sure what kind of argument you are making but your argument makes no sense. Why is different logic use

 

[dowie]

For those complaining about volatility, that's a simple fact of life due to the low (relative) liquidity. It's not exactly a global fiat currency, Given time, regulation, greater adoption, etc. you'll see prices begin to stabilise at whatever the market agrees is the value.

It isn't a currency. It isn't just an issue of liquidity but rather this is something that has initially been given value by the enthusiasts who chose to get it off the ground and then subsequent adopters. There is the deliberate waste of electricity/"mining" involved, blockchain itself is interesting and I guess BTC has some brand recognition.

There is nothing to stop anyone from making a new "currency" using blockchain get a government to do so for their official currency and you'd have something likely far more useful.

The value of a nation's currency, in reality, is basically tied to its power to exert control over the world. It's not surprising that the US Dollar is top dog given the US's military strength.

Nope. See what happens to CHF and NOK when investors want a safe haven for their assets, are Switzerland and Norway bigger military powers than the US?

 

[Tephnos]

In one sentence your argument is bitcoin has value because of the cost of producing it.

In the following sentence you say a flat has no value, but it cost nothing to build it? It takes energy, it takes material, time, effort, skill, knowledge and even land, all finite resources...all cost money.

Not sure what kind of argument you are making but your argument makes no sense. Why is different logic use

I said fiat. Not flat. Paper money.

It isn't a currency. It isn't just an issue of liquidity but rather this is something that has initially been given value by the enthusiasts who chose to get it off the ground and then subsequent adopters. There is the deliberate waste of electricity/"mining" involved, blockchain itself is interesting and I guess BTC has some brand recognition.

There is nothing to stop anyone from making a new "currency" using blockchain get a government to do so for their official currency and you'd have something likely far more useful.



Nope. See what happens to CHF and NOK when investors want a safe haven for their assets, are Switzerland and Norway bigger military powers than the US?

There's nothing to stop it, no. That being said, I don't believe anything is going to surpass Bitcoin unless it is technically superior, which we have yet to see.

Considering the US Dollar is the global currency I don't see how this is an argument at all. It doesn't need to have the most relative purchasing power (as some small oil countries have currencies with massive values), it just needs to be the currency that all others are compared against, which the US dollar has absolutely done.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I said fiat. Not flat. Paper money.

No, paper money is at least worth the paper it is written on, a bitcoin is worth the imaginary value you place on it, I mean if you are going to go literally like that.

A bitcoin is no different than cigarettes or ramen in prison, it’s a method of trade.

 

[Tephnos]

No, paper money is at least worth the paper it is written on, a bitcoin is worth the imaginary value you place on it, I mean if you are going to go literally like that.

Agree to disagree, I can already see this is a pointless discussion.

 

[muon]

False. The inherent value of Bitcoin is in the cost used to produce more bitcoin and keep the network stable. The CFTC state this themselves. As it turns out, Bitcoin at $20k was worth multiples beyond what it cost to produce, so of course, the market was going to see a correction. I really don't get why people don't compute this concept. (To add on to that, if Bitcoin drops in price below what it costs to produce, then the difficulty will adjust after some time and it will become easier to mine again, ensuring that the network is never compromised by rapid changes in price in its early days).

The value of a nation's currency, in reality, is basically tied to its power to exert control over the world. It's not surprising that the US Dollar is top dog given the US's military strength. Beyond that, your fiat is worthless, as there's nothing backing it except that (and the fact people believe it's worth something, like everything ever). A few hundred years ago it was backed by gold which was definitely something of tangible and physical value.

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. The cost to mine bitcoin will always be however much it's price is (minus some profit), be that $1000 or $10000.

At $1000 what would happen is that people will drop out, difficulty will drop and suddenly each bitcoin costs $1000 to mine.

If the price is $10000 then more people will pile in, difficulty will increase and suddenly it costs $10000 to mine.

Obviously this mechanism doesn't react to sharp swings, but if the entire basis of the value of bitcoin is how hard is it to mine, then the price can be as low as you want or as high as you want. It provides no lower bound or upper bound.

With the sharp drop in price recently this has already started happening.

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/difficulty

Also remember better ASICs actually make it cheaper to mine if difficulty didn't change to correct that. Hence the gradual upwards march.

 

[Tephnos]

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. The cost to mine bitcoin will always be however much it's price is (minus some profit), be that $1000 or $10000.

At $1000 what would happen is that people will drop out, difficulty will drop and suddenly each bitcoin costs $1000 to mine.

If the price is $10000 then more people will pile in, difficulty will increase and suddenly it costs $10000 to mine.

Obviously this mechanism doesn't react to sharp swings, but if the entire basis of the value of bitcoin is how hard is it to mine, then the price can be as low as you want or as high as you want. It provides no lower bound or upper bound.

With the sharp drop in price recently this has already started happening.

https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/difficulty

Also remember better ASICs actually make it cheaper to mine if difficulty didn't change to correct that. Hence the gradual upwards march.

This is not actually true, because the cost of electricity used to produce the coins is different throughout the world. Clearly, it will cost more to produce in places where the cost of running the mining operations is higher.

It was very clear Bitcoin above $8k or so was way beyond the cost of mining it due to speculation.

Not sure why you're telling me I don't understand how it works despite the fact you just mostly agreed with what I was saying. The boom of it this year was far too quick for the cost of producing the coins to actually keep up.

And if you're trying to tell me that the inherent value of a commodity fluctuating makes it useless I'm not sure how to react to that. Is gold stable? Is oil stable? None of it is. They just fluctuate a lot less than Bitcoin does at the moment.

I guess you hold and/or mine bitcoins and can probably guess I don't.

Likley if I had some myself I too would be defending the concept that gives them "value" or refusing to argue the point due to no real points left.

The fact is bitcoin doesn't have anything backing its value other than those that hold them or mine them defending the concept that value can be produced by doing worthless calculations on expensive equipment and a lot of electricity. Its not even like SETI, climate or nuclear bomb calculations where the end result of the calculations have an end result, in the case of SETI so far negative but who knows. The poliference of the number of virtual currencies since the advent of the original bitcoin proves point that its all about immaginary (or wishful) value rather than actual value with Bitcoin itself the leader (and probably biggest looser over last year) in value simply because thats the one that 99% of people have heard of and may attach some sort of value to it, possibly even invest in it simply because its being talked about. Its similar to oil, gold etc in that the more its talked about and hyped up, the more people invest in it and the price rises but with one major factor missing, the value of a barrel or oil or onze of gold will never be $0

I actually do not, I just keep up to date with the space and so can clearly see whenever someone has a bias for it that'll never go away.

Until Bitcoin goes to $0 you can't say it will never be 0 either, that's just your bias talking. For the record, Bitcoin has corrected somewhere in the region of 80% this year. Many, many more altcoins have corrected above 95%. It isn't the biggest loser by far.

 

[muon]

I read your post as some of the people who espouse floors to the price. "Can't go below $5k because that's how much it costs to mine".

I'm guessing I'm wrong with regards to that.

Also I'm referring to average mining costs here.

 

[Tephnos]

I read your post as some of the people who espouse floors to the price. "Can't go below $5k because that's how much it costs to mine".

I'm guessing I'm wrong with regards to that.

Yeah no, wasn't trying to imply that. Many did believe it though with the 'unbreakable $6k support' lol.

Ultimately I take it as a 'watch and see' project, as it is all very interesting. I just dislike it when people handwave it away as worthless without knowing much about it at all, then feel validated when a very obvious market cycle happened.

Will be interesting to see where we're at in the next 10 years. For all the hate it has gotten, the chart for it has been uptrending since its inception, so the long-term price trend is still up.