friedburrito
Junior Member
- Aug 3, 2019
- 16
- 2
- 16
You ignored what I said: "Common sense. If you don't have that, quit reading, now, it's a requirement for this. "
Good question! Usually this happens when BTC HODLers start looking for diversification.While this thread is gold. But now I am really wondering when alt coins will go up
I hope that is soon. i bought eth when it was at 940. been holding for almost 2 years. ive lost countGood question! Usually this happens when BTC HODLers start looking for diversification.
Ouch. ETH actually went up during the recent BTC bull while a lot of alts did not. But you may want to keep your eye on when Binance opens their U.S. exchange and see what they have on offer when that happens. That will probably move the market at little . . . maybe a lot.I hope that is soon. i bought eth when it was at 940. been holding for almost 2 years. ive lost count
But all that value was simply from someone saying they would choose to spend 'real' money on it.
Sunk costs don’t create value. The currency is only worth what people are willing to trade for it. The cost of producing a bitcoin simply doesn’t factor in the value of bitcoin. This can be easily demonstrated in that the earliest and cheapest bitcoins produced have exactly the same value as the latest, most expensively produced bitcoin.Craig, at least with current PoW schemes for mining, the tokens are not "value-less". Actual people ran actual computers that used actual electricity that cost actual money to pay for. So to state as you did that those token "had no real value", is being very disingenuous of you.
The fact they had real cost doesn't mean they have real value. As for your last comment - welcome to ignore.Craig, at least with current PoW schemes for mining, the tokens are not "value-less". Actual people ran actual computers that used actual electricity that cost actual money to pay for. So to state as you did that those token "had no real value", is being very disingenuous of you.
Yes, the technology behind crypto is interesting and I can imagine it having a lot of uses. It's these speculative currency investments to date I was commenting on.The value of crypto as a currency (rather than a utility token) is in how much money nation-states, banks, and other parties (through secondary costs) can avoid spending by doing away with existing spending mechanisms. Hard cash has to be trucked around on a fairly regular basis. Money orders/money wires, credit card systems, etc. have associated costs.
As much as I dislike XRP, that simple token can be used as an alternative to at least SWIFT (which is upgrading itself) and other payment systems, assuming you trust XRP's corporate master to resolve transactions fairly. And there are better options than that coming down the pike. There's a reason why Facebook and Walmart are looking at crypto. They may just not be looking at the exact token you happen to favor. All these open-source crypto projects are going to allow individual companies to roll their own payment systems, within certain limitations. The question is, who will tie together all those payment systems?
Which is fair. BTC itself is borderline useless as a payment mechanism. I don't care what anyone says about LN. Stablecoins are obviously necessary to make tokens like BTC more useful in payment systems. They may reduce tax exposure thanks to the bizarre IRS guideline for crypto from 2014 treating crypto as property for the purposes of all transactions.Yes, the technology behind crypto is interesting and I can imagine it having a lot of uses. It's these speculative currency investments to date I was commenting on.
And it will ultimately end up right back where it was before. There's nothing inherently better about cryptocurrency unless you're actively looking to bypass oversight, but that also inherently will cause problems of its own, such that its leading to oversight.The value of crypto as a currency (rather than a utility token) is in how much money nation-states, banks, and other parties (through secondary costs) can avoid spending by doing away with existing spending mechanisms. Hard cash has to be trucked around on a fairly regular basis. Money orders/money wires, credit card systems, etc. have associated costs.
As much as I dislike XRP, that simple token can be used as an alternative to at least SWIFT (which is upgrading itself) and other payment systems, assuming you trust XRP's corporate master to resolve transactions fairly. And there are better options than that coming down the pike. There's a reason why Facebook and Walmart are looking at crypto. They may just not be looking at the exact token you happen to favor. All these open-source crypto projects are going to allow individual companies to roll their own payment systems, within certain limitations. The question is, who will tie together all those payment systems?
Not necesarily true. One of the selling points of the Ethereum blockchain (for example) was that a side-project called OmiseGO offered the prospect of payment resolutions at speeds 10-100x faster than Visa, Mastercard, or Federal Express. Costs would be less than a penny per transaction. The only issue was oracles, for which there are things like Chainlink (Facebook is already looking at Chainlink for their solution . . . I think). Right now the major payment processors want a small percentage. If the combination of ETH (underlying blockchain) + OMG (payment resolution via Plasma) + Chainlink (Oracles for converting between different currencies/tokens) offers you transactions at a real-world cost lower than that, at speeds at least as high (if not higher) than those offered by the major payment processors, then yes there's something inherently better.There's nothing inherently better about cryptocurrency unless you're actively looking to bypass oversight
Saw this on the San Francisco subway system: https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2019/01/new-gemini-ad-campaign-calls-for-crypto-without-chaos/There's nothing inherently better about cryptocurrency unless you're actively looking to bypass oversight, but that also inherently will cause problems of its own, such that its leading to oversight.
Not true. XMR is leading the charge along with some other "privacy" tokens.And that anonymity no longer exists.
Not to mention you don't have to worry about the issuer of your currency suddenly deciding to devalue what you have by printing a bunch out of thin air.You must have forgotten how really valuable it is to have an asset class that offers wealth protection like physical bullion or cash under your bed, yet is far easier to store and transfer large amounts. No private key = no access. Seems that almost everyone misses this... Oh and the technology is meant to remove the need for banking. It's not there yet, but that's where it's trying to get between PoW, Smart Contracts, DEXes, etc.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-extortion-economy-how-insurance-companies-are-fueling-a-rise-in-ransomware-attacks?utm_source=pocket-newtabPrivately issued currencies like bitcoin have no natural market.
I've argued this for years. Although it's not true that they're aren't economic niches that cryptos might fill.Privately issued currencies like bitcoin have no natural market.
Bitcoin futures just went live! Should be interesting to see how that works. So far it's a bloodbath!Crypto-currency in a free fall right now. I guess today was the day everyone decided to sell. Hope none of you guys are losing your shirts/lambos.