Token Daily

Arnoud1987000 Negative | 8 months old | Karma CC: 244 EOS: -32 A Yesterday

Its just people keeping the TA triangle in check, its still manipulation. Now its closing in, probably going upwards now for a new trent.

1

Qryptoskydiver Redditor for 29 days. Yesterday

Did anybody else see "Bakky"?

0

Forgotten-History Positive | Karma CC: 44 Yesterday

Yep, ive been saying for a long time that its the last times to get in crypto

4

NigerPatrol 1 month old | Karma CC: 56 VEN: 425 Yesterday

Accumulating sperm in my blue balls as we speak.

5

DajZabrij 10397 karma | BTC Yesterday

Check this:

https://imgur.com/a/fA8VyHJ

https://cryptowat.ch/markets/bitfinex/btc/usd/3d

There are fewer panic bottoms in this bear. In previous bear 2013-2015 there were 6-8 full panic capitulations. Those capitulations were happening every several months, more frequently at the earlier stage of the bear. Longest span between two full panic events happened at the very end of the bear and was the longest span of all, lasting 7 months.

Thus far this bear 2017-2018 had seen some panic in the first two months. Full panic happened only once, at the beginning of February. Since then 8 months have passed and both times it bottomed (April and June) no panic occurred in BTC. Those bottoms were comparable to corrections in a bull market.

Reasons for lack of panic in this bear could be:

Fear is unreleased and major panic event is about to happen.
Whales are sufficiently stuffed with fiat to form a firm and uniform support.
Market has generally matured to the level where it is less moved by fear.
New big money is entering at this levels thus preventing panic events.

The way market bottomed in April and June, where panic was to be expected but didn’t happen, favours second and fourth explanation.

8

domericano Yesterday

I dunno mate, my bottom was pretty panicked for almost a year now.

1

qthistory CC: 2615 karma Yesterday

Price drops? Means massive accumulation by institutional investors.

Price rises? Means massive accumulation by institutional investors.

Price stays the same? Means massive accumulation by institutional investors.

Bull run begins when Wall Street gets their bonuses after Chinese New Year.

41

Fernseherr Karma CC: 1050 NANO: 444 Yesterday

Bakkt launch is the new Chinese New Year now.

1

Lunti89 2 months old | 10684 karma Yesterday

So you are saying THIS is the moment to buy in?

2

agnfab 5 months old | Karma CC: 125 Yesterday

Who knows?

0

Majo-Madness 5 months old | Karma CC: 113 Yesterday

I suggest better research.

0

Ant_azaleas 28 days old | Karma CC: 86 Yesterday

This may be so, but don't expect any spectacular price rises until after Janurary when the fear of a repeat of 2018 will finally subside.

If prices stay as they are for the long haul it will actually be better, as retailers may once again dare to accept crypto as payment.

11

SilverHoard 22700 karma | Karma CC: 2417 XVG: 624 Yesterday

>as retailers may once again dare to accept crypto as payment. That's not an issue anymore since most crypto payment systems convert to fiat and don't pay in actual crypto's.

2

Ant_azaleas 28 days old | Karma CC: 86 Yesterday

Ok so thats not really paying with crypto though, all you have is a convenient way to sell your crypto into fiat, then pay with fiat. It incurs fees and presents little benefit to the seller, and ultimately that just pulls the price of the crypto used down through constant sell pressure. What we need is companies to natively take payment in crypto. Even if they sell 99% into fiat themselves, the 1% they retain expands the size of the system, which over a long time will create adoption as they try to pay their supply chains with crypto.

2

Kessels-Stick Yesterday

Isn’t that just a problem of time though. If company A accepts crypto and does business with company B who doesn’t accept crypto. Company A has no choice but to cash out to do business with company B. But, say company C comes along and offers the same service as company B but accepts crypto. Maybe company A will have a big enough incentive to switch and do business with company C. All businesses are looking to increase profits. If profits can be found in efficiency, which I think a crypto economy can provide. Would it not be inevitable for crypto to win in the long run?

1

Ant_azaleas 28 days old | Karma CC: 86 10 hs ago

Yes, but the point is someone must accept crypto as payment in the first place. That was starting to happen but the volatility killed it and many companies stopped accepting crypto. The crypto communities chose short term speculative profit over long term adoption.

1

Kessels-Stick 10 hs ago

I think that’s a fallacy implying that volatility is something that is stifling adoption. there’s definitely tension right now with the price and I think 99% of people talking about what bitcoin should cost are talking out of there ass. But, you can’t expect something as revolutionary as crypto to just slide into society and not be volatile, there is going to be speculation and mania. I think the biggest thing stifling adoption right now is the uncertainty with how it is going to be taxed and regulated. No large business is going to step into something without that kind of information but it’s 100% something that is being discussed behind closed doors.

1

Ant_azaleas 28 days old | Karma CC: 86 10 hs ago

I don't dis-agree, taxation and legal issues are important, and a level of certainty is critical for businesses. However a few high profile businesses started accepting crypto payments then stopped, perhaps Im wrong but it seemed to be around the time when prices got crazy. I certainly prefer your version as it gives more hope.

1

Kessels-Stick 8 hs ago

Do you remember what companies they were? I only ask because the two big online stores I can think that have flip flopped on crypto were Newegg and steam. And to my knowledge the reason steam stopped accepting crypto was because the fees on the bitcoin network were getting outrageous. You could make the claim that high fees and high prices are correlated and that’s certainly been true but there is a distinct difference.

1

3

2

1 3 5

3 2

2

2 3

8 3

MrRGnome Yesterday

I like a lot of the work the NIST does but their cryptocurrency related work is quite a mixed bag. I like that they talk about the "nothing at stake" problem with PoS. I wish they would talk at all about the inherent inefficiency of blockchains and the superior traditional solutions that exist for many permissioned blockchains. They touch very briefly on the fact that blockchains aren't inherently immutable but do little to describe where the properties of immutability come from or the nash equilibrium that keeps all security actors, not just miners, working together. They don't discuss near enough the economic security model and its consequences.

My ideal NIST document would strongly discourage the use of permissioned blockchains that do not themselves resolve to an adequately secured permissionless blockchain, and delve deeper into the decentralized security models security actors including network participants and the incentives which drive them. Some talk of layered blockchain solutions like drivechains and sidechains and most importantly off chain solutions would go a long way too.

1

bondiblues Yesterday

3 building collapsing at near free fall speed along the path of highest resistance, symmetrically, on the same day, with rocks exploding and fizzling into dust in mid air. NIST need to go back to basics and learn the laws of energy conservation before trying to figure out how pow blockchain works.

2

KupKhunKrap redditor for 3 months Yesterday

And a hole in a field with much less wreckage than plausible, confiscated footage of the pentagon plane that was never released, molten metal for weeks after the collapse, firefighters in stairwell b who survived a 100 story building falling ontop of them. The whole thing is confusing as fuck

1

qznc_bot 1 day ago

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

1

LAXlittleant26 1 day ago

This is a big step towards adoption in the public sector. I suspect the steps will a basic framework for FedRAMP and HIPAA compliance.

2

ABitcoinAllBot 1 day ago

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: chabes

2

TraffikConeWizardHat 2 days ago

I really like the flow chart on page 42. A very easy to follow answer for "Should I use Blockchain?"

1

feath3r 2 days ago

Practically everyone publishes an overview

1

danyork 2 days ago

Nice overview from NIST

0

2

16 2

John_Muck Moderator 4 hs ago

I'll believe it when I see it....

1

Maulek 2 hs ago

Same here. I wonder how they want to achive it, making sidechains from bitcoin, it will be something like app for hard forks, more bcash chains.

1

bassman7755 redditor for 3 months 5 hs ago

In order for ICOs to be a positive thing for bitcoin and cypto generally, there needs to be some way for holders to be rewarded other than through token value i.e. they need to have some sort of yield or represent an enforceable equity share of the company.

Until that point is reached they are just money printing which serves only to part fools with their money and dilute bitcoin.

This is probably possible with smart contracts but its not gonna happen in highly regulated environments like the US UK or EU, this sort of innovation will need to come from somewhere else.

1

gr0b1 6 hs ago

Is this really the first time you guys have heard about RSK ? Nothing to see here. Just another hype article.

0

AutoModerator redditor for +5 years 8 hs ago

Your submission was automatically filtered because coindesk.com is not an approved site. You can read more about the changes on /r/altcoin this here. If you think coindesk.com should be whitelisted, please submit coindesk.com here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

DRetherMD 11 hs ago

This is why you should diversify in crypto. If people claim to be in it for the technology (whatever that means, lol) then they should be holding a variety of other crypto, not just lisk.

my personal opinion is that everyone should aim to own at least 1btc, and then various picks from other projects with a good track record / direction. no sense to just hold lisk and pray for an sdk, whilst other projects catch up or even overtake them.

sunk cost fallacy will catch out a lot of people in this bear market...if you find yourself doubling down on your alt which is down 90%, it doesnt mean its a sure bet in the long term. buy some Holy God Emperor btc and see what happens.

4

liskybiz Yesterday

Umm doesnt BTC still move like a snail? This sounds like an unrealistic goal. Articles like this are more FUD and hype. I'm not holding my breath. How could this be better then ETH let alone Lisk?

5

jjazzini Yesterday

Roadmap?

2

diamond_star2 Yesterday

The smart contracts are written in the same dominant language as ethereum – that being Solidity. And the network is fueled by a bitcoin-pegged cryptocurrency dubbed «smart bitcoin,» or SBTC.

1

briefcauliflower Yesterday

This will be great, an Initial Coin Offering on bitcoin.

1

evilgrinz Yesterday

no one is gonna invest, doesn't matter where they go for funding...

1

coolrunnings16 Yesterday

Could be the end of Lisk tbh, the fact that it's BTC.
Unless the team miraculously speed up.

5

oioi7782 Yesterday

i mean..hopefully we get some sort of roadmap or something soon..sidechains and JS was what got me excited..fast forward 18 months after i first purchased lisk and i see multiple cryptos talking about sidechains and offering JS in the future..this isn't good..i've never felt this way regarding lisk until now  can someone at lisk please give us something to look forward to? who cares about an atm or wallet..those are two things we can do without for a while..not saying they aren't cool..but those aren't important whatsoever at this point

11

Jedrzej_Lisk 3 hs ago

As Oliver said ([https://www.reddit.com/r/Lisk/comments/9gv2fy/lightcurve\_development\_team\_ama/e67660p/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lisk/comments/9gv2fy/lightcurve_development_team_ama/e67660p/)), we want to deliver, and work hard to create everything as high quality as possible. The roadmap still needs some time to get there, however it's being developed and updated constantly to become a reliable source of information of future Lisk developments when it already arrives. In the meantime, remember that it is way more to this than just a Roadmap. The Lisk Mobile will be an important part of Lisk Ecosystem that will bring some mobility and new user experiences. We're also preparing for a time of growth with our Business Development Department which will be a great addition to the team. There is a lot going on, that will profit our development. Our team members have also stressed out a lot of important information at our Lisk Berlin Meetup. I'll link you the summary of one of our Community Members, it should also help :) [https://medium.com/@LiskHighlights/lisk-berlin-meetup-4th-october-2018-69b3cab6ce8f](https://medium.com/@LiskHighlights/lisk-berlin-meetup-4th-october-2018-69b3cab6ce8f)

2

liskocrypto 1 h ago

Oh you mean the guy who had 0 self-confidence at the relaunch, because he knew that he would let explode the Core bomb every moment? First create an 0815 roadmap, so that enough hype arises and you can fill your bags yourself and then speak of quality, Bravo!!! Politicians might be a better job for him. And to the mobile wallets: ark, iota, trx they have mobile wallets and not such a slick thing to deliver something. But now you have at least something to work on in 2018/2019. I'm pretty sure you do not even know how to implement sidechains. There are more important construction sites than a mobile wallet. But in ignoring problems you are a prime example. Who needs an SDK if we have mobile wallets and desktop wallets? ICO are then simply hosted on the phone correct? And that's not a typical frustration post because of the course...... This is just a comment on an unprofessional statement from oliver......  edit: And to max statement "we do not want to create a shit coin". Tell me what is a shit coin for you? For me it is a coin that has no use and therefore no acceptance on the market. Do you notice something? Scarce 10% transaction fees for 1 lsk, great that speaks again and again for LSK. The only use the LSK currently has is the Academy ....  

2

ETHdude8686 9 hs ago

Would also want to hear SOMETHING from lisk hq but i noticed if you ask something that really matters they mostly ignore the questions u/Maxkk

6

11TMT29 5 hs ago

u/Maxkk

2

PieDealerLisk Yesterday

Not good imo.
The idea of side chains is nothing new - Lisk started 2016 and we are almost 2019.
Almost 3 years have passed since lisk is life. Lisk SDK is expected somewhere in 2019, probably Q4 at best as they cant release a road map for what it feels like ages- what can we expect about a finished product.

The way its going some other project will steal the first move. They will get all the hype and Lisk will be left in the dust.

If BTC does introduce side chains this year and is a working viable product its gonna take the market potential for itself... there will be breadcrumbs for the rest

17

Satora12 Yesterday

Lisk has one of the most professional while also most amateurish teams at the same time. There is almost no other project with the same team size and funding - yet they are unable to deliver...

22

oioi7782 Yesterday

been reading more and more about others and "sidechains"... i'm not sure whether this is good or bad for lisk? i'm sure more people can shed some light..

4

AXTurbo Yesterday

because it just fits so well - "*Ethereum researchers (...) introduced a solution called Snark-based side chain which could scale the network to*..." Maybe there is a enough room for several solutions, but after almost three years I would say we can at least forget the "first mover" advantage.

8

Light_of_Lucifer 17373 karma Yesterday

the ramble on /r/cc just clenched their assholes hoping this isnt true because they hope to get rich on w/e shitcoin they deeply believe int lol buy bitcoin now or cry later

1

bitusher Yesterday

no thanks , ICOs in general are extremely dangerous investments with strong incentives to fail unlike traditional venture capital investing

4

DesignerAccount Yesterday

VC investment equally have very high failure rates, but they make sure to not disclose that and only tell you about the Uber/Coinbase/AirBnB/... and other unicorns. I am firmly convinced ICOs will disrupt traditional VC. Some clarity will be necessary around it all, like you can't just issue fuck all (what's happening now) but you'll need to sell some shares in the startup basically, or debt, linked to the token, but it's just too easy to cut off the middle man with ICOs. And it opens early stage investments to ordinary people, not just the ultra rich. As usual, we're now in the early stages of this, and so far 99.9% of ICOs are scams. Including the grand daddy of all ICOs, ETH...

3

bassman7755 redditor for 3 months 5 hs ago

\>I am firmly convinced ICOs will disrupt traditional VC. They wont until such time as the token represent an enforceable claim on the business's income or equity. If that doesn't apply then the token is a currency in all but name and as such is in direct competition with bitcoin, hence the bitcoin community will (rightly) do everything in their power to undermine it.

1

hanakookie Yesterday

You are not cutting out VC’s. They just moved to the presales. Some give $5 million to a startup and then have them create a token and an ICO. Then they get tokens and as soon as they list they dump. And they still get to keep equity. It’s merely childish to think VC’s are being disrupted. Their job just got easier because now the have a way to exit without those security laws they have to go by. And if you ever ask them about this most if not all will deny it. It’s only retail who thinks they are disrupting VC’s. You’re not

2

bitusher Yesterday

All the incentives with ICOs are to exit without responsibility or a strong incentive to deliver , thus the very structure of ICOs are setup where even well intentioned efforts encourage a business to fail. The investors that ICO's attract simply are looking to pump and dump thus the liquidity that ICOs provide is also its undoing. Most Businesses end up failing , thus most VC investment fails and the few winners end up paying for the losers. There is a big distinction with Venture Capital however because with traditional VC there are regulations , qualified investors, stock and real assets typically acquired, and specific contracts drawn up unlike with ICO's. Many people don't like the restrictive nature of traditional investing but there are good reasons why these regulations exist as Illegal securities are not a new concept. Perhaps in the future someone can design a way for ICO's to be safer and with better incentives but that is a difficult task IMHO as one needs real world enforcement in some manner that cannot be replicated by a DAO. p.s... Yes, Ethereum is absolutely a scam and not merely because of the 72 million eth premine that should be considered an illegal security

2

DesignerAccount Yesterday

Didn't want to write too much, but if I did, I'd have written something very close to your follow up. ICOs must be linked to the company's assets, somehow, and I absolutely want the regulators to be vigilant and prosecute as necessary. Screaming down with all regulations and other such libertarian cries completely misses that the laws are there for a reason, that humans didn't start scamming with crypto. And yes, I also want enforcement by a physical entity, no freaking DAOs, unless it's something really marginal. With all this said, I think you can see we agree in large part. And if we find a clean way to do ICOs, and I believe we will, VC will be reduced to investment advisory because no one will be able to keep track of all the (legit) ICOs. Just like people can't keep track of all the scams today.

2

ABitcoinAllBot Yesterday

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: AnoniMiner

1

6 6

16 6

modeless - @modeless Yesterday

One of the problems with this metric is it's easy to manipulate. Exchanges can easily lie about their book depth and/or people can put in lowball buy orders they have no intention of ever filling. To find out if those buy orders are real you would have to purchase them and all the orders above them, which would be very expensive and move the price a lot.

On the other hand, the instantaneous price of a coin is easy to verify. Everyone who buys or sells at the exchange can verify it, so exchanges can't easily lie about it.

Here's an interesting solution for ranking exchanges by their order book depth in a way that's more difficult to manipulate. Perhaps it could be adapted to rank coins. https://bitcoinity.org/markets/rank_explanation

eriktrautman - @eriktrautman Yesterday

Unfortunately as a metric this is far too easy to game and is heavily influenced by algorithmic order regimes. Maybe decent as signal in trading strategies but not useful for real fundamental analysis. Market makers create phantom interest all the time to try and scare the market through stop loss orders.

Also why not focus on the selling interest too? Any one sided metric is even less trustworthy.

slivym - @slivym Yesterday

As someone who is not very financially orientated, I find this difficult. Firstly because I don't really have a feeling for what that % means - presumably the ratio of market cap to book depth gives an indication of how sensitive the market cap is to large orders. So it combines liquidity and total volume - but I don't know why you would combine them into one statistic? Either I want a single number which means something clear, which this fails on. Or I want more information, in which case isn't it just better to tell the market cap AND book depth?

Also whilst market cap is easy to measure, book depth seems more difficult. How far away from the touch do you count? A million dollar offer which values bitcoin at 3cents represents almost no information. Firstly because by the time the price drops there's no way that offer will still be good and secondly because even if that offer were still good that change in price would represent a total shift in the market.

Also, this seems to compare apples to oranges, because some coins will contain market makers who are likely to leave orders in the book and cancel in response to signals, thereby creating phantom liquidity whilst others won't have enough volume to attract market makers and so all the depth is real.

maged - @maged Yesterday

There is $1.5T of outstanding buy orders for BTC right now? That seems inflated.

Geee - @Geee Yesterday

There aren't many fiat trading pairs for smaller coins. That means, if people are holding fiat, they most probably put it on low buy order for Bitcoin. I'd like to see exactly which markets are calculated in the results.

DenGorbachev - @DenGorbachev Yesterday

With CoinMarketBook, you can evaluate cryptocurrencies by a different metric: "buy support".

Buy support is the sum of buy orders in USD equivalent from top 20 exchanges (planning to include more in future). It shows the actual amount that people want to buy.

One might say that it's easy to place a large buy order at very low price & increase buy support artificially. However, because of low price, the increase will be negligible.

What do you think? Tell us in comments.

tromp - @tromp Yesterday

I look at Daily Issuance (last column in https://onchainfx.com/v/SMT45r) as a measure of how well a (mineable) coin is doing, as this reflects the cost of energy spent on mining that coin every day.

This is one of the very few measures that is not easily faked...

shoshino - @shoshino Yesterday

> Buy support is the sum of buy orders from top 20 exchanges. > This is the actual amount that people want to buy.

Curious how you have arrived at $1.5T of buy support for BTC?

Given an example, a $1 bid on 100 BTC equates to $100 of buy support. In this example, would you count this as 100 * current price?

For reference, my custom tool reports BTCUSD pairs across major exchanges and shows approx 40kBTC of liquidity 10% either side of the current price. This is approximately $0.25B.

secondtom - @secondtom Yesterday

Whatever that validity of the metric itself, it's an interesting idea that if a market is different "enough", standard market metrics fall short of their goal.

On the website design, a fixed-width font would be helpful for the numbers. Currently, ETH at $22,898,033,476 looks one digit larger than BTC at $113,768,712,510.

impostervt - @impostervt Yesterday

- What does support/cap tell us? I see that it's a "gamble vs investment" metric but I don't understand the logic behind that statement.

- Is buy support at any level? As in, there's hug buy support for bitcoin, but is this counting people who have buy orders at the $6500 range all the way down to the $1 range?

cdiddy2 - @cdiddy2 Yesterday

Market cap isn't perfect by any means, but if there was a better metric that could be used to get a quick valuation of something then the stock markets would already use it.

megadragon9 - @megadragon9 Yesterday

What does the "Tell Friends" column mean in the table? Was it supposed to be a metric or just a placeholder?

_nalply - @_nalply Yesterday

How did you get the data from which exchanges?

aerique - @aerique Yesterday

Can the list not be sorted on other columns or are my mobile browsers failing me? (Firefox and Chrome on Android)

I_am_tiberius - @I_am_tiberius Yesterday

An alternative to the 24 hour price change would be a price change since a specific date.

Temasik - @Temasik Yesterday

Nonsense

Show all comments on Hackernews

25 2

Mr_Conductor_USA Liberal Democrat - Democracy Defender 1 day ago

I think this essay is very insightful. The mask came off in an obvious way and that will not be soon forgotten.

5

miketeeeveee 1 day ago

Apparently, he can.

2

aspz 1 day ago

Kavanaugh is the last puzzle piece in an effort by the GOP to install an activist and right wing supreme court who can push through laws which are generally too unpopular to make it through the senate and congress. Once he is in place, the pretence of the supreme court as being above politics can finally be dropped because there will be nothing that critics can do to change it for decades. Up until now, Kavanaugh has been careful to show his right wing credentials as part of his judicial decisions and opinions without being overly political (this is what makes him a great nominee for the GOP). But now he is inches away from his goal, he realises that politics is what will be needed to get him over the finish line and that is why he was so outspoken during the hearing.

4

dshd 1 day ago

Yes. He can. He did. He is.

1

h8full8 1 day ago

Yes he can, apparently.

1

FriendlyBadgerBob 1 day ago

Gamble Vs. United States is a little-known supreme court case coming up that could give Trump the power to pardon his crime family, while also making them immune to state charges. This is the real reason why the GOP is stacking SCOTUS with Kavanaugh, to make all of the crimes uncovered so far and in the future disappear completely. The Republicans will have the power to completely and forevermore commit all of the crimes their hearts desire with complete and utter impunity.

This is how America dies. We must stop this by any means necessary.

0

aspz 1 day ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but no, the Gamble decision won't give Trump the power to pardon state crimes and it's not the reason the GOP care so much about getting Kavanaugh through. There is lots of detail about this in the latest Opening Arguments podcast: https://openargs.com/oa215-is-gamble-v-us-the-real-reason-behind-kavanaugh/

1

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

Well said. We need to focus on the real issues and cases that could have consequences on expanded presidential power. This Gamble case is a red herring and the case on its merits should be decided by putting an end to double jeopardy.

1

CatsForever2020 1 day ago

My only comfort is that history will not be kind to Kavanaugh, Trump, Mitch McConnell, etc. It will not be like with the Civil War where they rewrote history and villainized better president like Grant (who had his problem but was a better president than people realize).

4

Twitstein 1 day ago

I am an outside observer (Aussie) and longtime supporter of your country. A lot of countries, like mine, rely on a healthy US sovereignty for our own prosperity and stability.

It is alarming to see the blatant treachery, sabotage and self-serving behaviour of Republican politicians toward your democratic institutions and the US constitution. They have declared war on the American people.

With Trump at the helm of the current gerrymandering, and now Kavanaugh going to the Supreme Court, it is clear they intend to usurp what was once democratic power of your citizens.
They are trying to install a dictatorship to operate under a thin veneer of democratic procedures.

You need to powerfully and immediately marshal and mobilize your voting contingencies to defeat this enemy within.
Once the Republican party have dismantled democracy in the US, rebellion will, at best, be readily and easily crushed. At worst, it could lead to the disintegration of the United States, and even civil war.

10

HonoredPeople :flag-mo: Missouri 1 day ago

Apparently, in republican land, it looks Brett can have it anyway he wants it.

Willing, not willing, drunk, sober, rape, sexual assault, whatever he wants, whatever he did... he's gonna be a SCOTUS. A prize day in America for morality. It's a good thing that the church crow endorses it.

3

c0pypastry 2 days ago

Sure he can. He's a devil's triangle mvp.

2

blackbeansandrice 2 days ago

But you don’t understand. He gets to have what he wants, do you see? Because he thinks he overcame serious challenges to be there. Because he’s entitled to it. Do you see that? It’s owed to him because he wants it. Brett gets what Brett wants or he gets angry. And if he gets angry it’ll be all your fault.

8

not-working-at-work :flag-il: Illinois 2 days ago

Well, I'm looking at some pretty compelling evidence that says he's about to have it any goddamn way he wants.

Y'know... Just like he's always been able to over the course of his privileged life.

3

negativfeedback 2 days ago

He clearly can and he will.

2

shatabee4 2 days ago

His performance is indelibly etched in the public mind. For as long as Kavanaugh sits on the court, he will remain a symbol of partisan anger

No, he'll "remain a symbol" of sleazy, lying, drunken sexual abusers.

8

gekogekogeko 2 days ago

He can’t have it both ways, but that isn’t going to prevent him for ruining the court’s credibility.

3

TheMidtermsAreComing 2 days ago

It’s gunna get real awkward when Brett with the Big Brain has to rule on evidence in rape cases. Just sayin!

8

ragevote99 2 days ago

Justice Kavanaugh on gang-rapists: I’ve condemned rapists. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were rapists, believe me. You had many people in that group other than rapists. The lower court has treated them absolutely unfairly. You also had some very fine people on both sides.

2

PoliticsModeratorBot 2 days ago

Hi dotter101. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, your submission has been removed for the following reason:

Already Submitted: This article has been submitted to /r/politics within the last three days:

https://redd.it/9lw3h5

I'm a bot and sometimes I make mistakes. If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/dotter101&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this submission.)

1

AutoModerator 2 days ago

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. We are temporarily only allowing accounts with a combined karma of 100 or more to comment.

In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

charmed_im-sure 2 days ago

He lies, he cannot be trusted in a position of public trust. That's just the way it's going to be for him; sort of what it's like when you're not a man of your word.

2

Rise_Above_13 2 days ago

There’s a Devil’s Triangle joke in there somewhere.

5

CoreWrect 2 days ago

>somewhere In the middle?

3

rohanshenoy 2 days ago

Having it both ways, or in other words a devil's triangle.

3

CharleyMarley512 2 days ago

I'm curious as to how the other justices will view the new guy. Not that we'll ever know for sure, they keep their own counsel, so to speak.

9

ragevote99 2 days ago

We'll know. DC loves gossip. Supreme court clerks love gossip. Stuff leaks out over time. In truth, even if some members of the court view Kavanaugh with revulsion, they revere the institution and will do what they think is best for the court, which will include treating BK just like any other justice. Kavanaugh obviously doesn't care about the court or its well-being and legitimacy. If he did, he would have withdrawn himself from consideration.

13

ChrisFromLongIsland 2 days ago

I cannot wait till in case after case litigants file motions for Kavanaugh to recuse himself since he is biased. He has admitted his bias in front of the Senate. Kavanaugh cannot rule on any case involving left wing media, the Clintons in any way or democrats.

54

RainbowWarfare 2 days ago

Recusal is at the SCJ's discretion. That is to say, it's down to each judge's personal sense of ethics and impartiality. So yeah, ain't gonna happen.

39

lcsulla87gmail 2 days ago

Scotus justices don't have to recuse. They have the final say

15

User767676 2 days ago

Without a quorum (6 people) the SC can’t rule in a topic. Could this be a way to force a recusal?

10

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

I’m not aware of that rule and I’m coming up empty on my cursory search. Got a source on that quorum rule?

1

underpaidgamedev 1 day ago

> U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter I, § 1 > The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. and > RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES › PART I. The Court › Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum > 2 Six Members of the Court constitute a quorum. See 28 U. S. C. §1. In the absence of a quorum on any day appointed for holding a session of the Court, the Justices attending—or if no Justice is present, the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk—may announce that the Court will not meet until there is a quorum.

1

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

Thanks. But it says “may.”

1

underpaidgamedev 1 day ago

That's because a quorum is the minimum number of people required to be there in order to make the meeting actually valid. If there is no quorum they can still technically meet but any results aren't valid.

1

lcsulla87gmail 2 days ago

That sounds like a fantasy. But I think it would work.

8

User767676 2 days ago

Yeah. It would inject more politics into the SC though. It may be one of those times where justice has to be done through dissension. Get back to normal after.

3

Firoso 2 days ago

Yeah I hate to say it, but I'm not sure that RBG, Sotomayor, or Kagan would consider it. They want less partisanship. An argument could be made that they're protesting partisanship however.

3

Nayre_Trawe :flag-il: Illinois 2 days ago

This article was written by a former Dean of Yale Law School, just for context. His closing comments were as follows...

Judge Kavanaugh cannot have it both ways. He cannot gain confirmation by unleashing partisan fury while simultaneously claiming that he possesses a judicial and impartial temperament. If Kavanaugh really cared about the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, he would even now withdraw from consideration.

But I see no evidence that he is about to withdraw. Kavanaugh will thus join the court as the black-robed embodiment of raw partisan power inconsistent with any ideal of an impartial judiciary. As the court moves to the right to accommodate Trump’s appointments, Kavanaugh will inevitably become the focus of distrust and mobilization. His very presence will undermine the court’s claim to legitimacy; it will damage the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. It will be an American tragedy.

229

c0pypastry 2 days ago

Yeah but half the country doesn't understand "American tragedy" because they only care about their team winning and couldn't give a flying fuck about the country.

4

GroundPorter 2 days ago

It will be the death of American democracy once this hyper-partisan, sexual predator votes to declares the president above the law and installs fascism onto our land.

36

Bunerd 1 day ago

It won't last forever, but when rebuild, can we give an honest go at communism this time around? Destroy the idea that the state owns property, and get rid of the entire idea of property altogether. Democracy was weak and hackable and didn't lead to the society of self-actualization like promised and always devolved to bad faith actors whipping people into a frenzy against their self-interest, or using the majority to bully the minority. If we replace our democracy with another, it'll only be a matter of time until Neo-Liberalism erodes it. No, the move forward is to go more left, and rescind faith in the systems they use to confine us: markets and the state.

0

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

How do you suggest our leaders come into power if not by democratic elections?

1

Bunerd 1 day ago

You presume we need leaders. I'm thinking a little more anarchistier. The inherent systemic hierarchy creates a dynamic that isolates the leader from the class of people they supposedly represent. I'm for any system that removes the need for leaders, usually community consensus and direct democracy, with an implementation of intersectionality to prevent it become about winning population dynamics. Popular vote just erases small populations, and it shows in America, where minority issues seem to only carry when it's about stripping rights from the minority. Ultimately, I'd hope for voluntary association, a union of egoists content in the fact that mutual concerns begets mutual rewards.

1

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

So pure democracy, vote on issues instead of leaders. But who decides who participates in what elections?

0

Bunerd 1 day ago

Elections? Are you kidding me. Consensus, not election. It's about abolishing power, not justifying it. Use pragmatism for solutions to problems, and maybe you won't have bad faith actors redefining all your terms and laws into nonsense.

1

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

You lost me. How do you decide disputes between people?

1

Bunerd 1 day ago

Neither party is assumed to be right, but should reach a conclusion in consensus backed by empathy and empiricism, obviously. Of course, if this is too utopian, so is every other state.

1

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

It’s certainly not practical. Your asking for anarchy. The person with the best weapon and most friends wins.

3

Elucafiend 1 day ago

Communism is way more hackable which is why it hasn’t worked. If humans weren’t greedy it wouldn’t be a problem but the second someone has a chance to make a dime off the misfortunes of others they will take it. We are obviously seeing the same thing with our system and I’m not saying ours is good. But communism is no bueno.

3

a_wank_and_a_cry :flag-mo: Missouri 1 day ago

People often fail to realize how *recent* capitalism is as an economic system, and the “but people are greedy” defense propping it up is no older. What about communism makes it more “hackable?”

2

Bunerd 1 day ago

People are greedy and irresponsible. I don't like sharing systems with them. I reject their paper value system, and their property deeds and claim the natural order of things is that they all belong to *all* of us. The greedy fair about as well as everyone else in communism, but are discontent to be the same as everyone else. Should we grant them more? Or less? If they think it's fair to take from us, can I claim their heads in return? I just think it's sad. I get a lot of enjoyment out of refining my skill and through work, but there's this assumption that we need to cater our systems to overly entitled individuals that can't just get by with what we expect over people to get by with. They think they're better than everyone else, and demonstrate consistently their failings in that regard, without recourse. The capitalist system is just monarchy decentralized. Does nothing about the oppressive hierarchy under the monarchy.

3

HolySmokeyPants 2 days ago

So why are these senators allowing this to happen? Do they not have ANY morals or commitment to the people of this country? It blows my mind.

21

anlumo 1 day ago

A Supreme Court decision stopped that, Citizens United. It's no longer in the interest of senators to have morals or work for the people, since only money talks.

7

CoreWrect 2 days ago

No, silly, they're *Republicans*.

10

BarbequedWalnuts 2 days ago

Of course they have morals, thats why they believe evidence over the screeching and wailing of women. Its nice to see them double down and not succumb to the PC culture.

0

7daykatie 1 day ago

Testimony is evidence, evidence good enough for a court of law and on the balance of evidence, he did it.

5

ToeJamFootballer 1 day ago

But it’s beyond that now. All that matters is his opening statement and his treatment of the Senators. Politics is politics but Garland showed us how a judge worthy of sitting on the highest court should respond to political attack. Kavanaugh on the other hand went on a politically biased tirade in the face of testimony that everyone, including the President, agreed was credible calling it a political hit job without evidence. Stoking the very flames of partisanship that judges must avoid even a hint of. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here but I think the argument in this article is spot on. Whether he did this or that or nothing in that room in 198-, we all saw him disqualify himself during that hearing.

1

nyet-marionetka 1 day ago

The only screeching and wailing I’ve heard lately was coming from Kavanaugh.

13

il_vekkio 1 day ago

What evidence

7

AMaskedAvenger 2 days ago

Dude, read that aloud to yourself and rethink your choices in life.

18

DarkestEmbers 2 days ago

Ah, the heinous PC culture of holding the perpetrators of sexual assault accountable for their actions.

23

Sleepy_Wayne_Tracker 2 days ago

No they don't. America betrayed them by electing a black man. But the Koch brothers and Putin never let them down.

32

[deleted] 2 days ago

[deleted]

22

fuzzylogistics 1 day ago

Maybe. Maybe not... not while the power is still on and there's food in the pantry.

1

FlyingRock 2 days ago

This guy gets It, it's beyond guilty or not now.

69

DeepMotor 2 days ago

he's just about to.

2

25 3

Kcoggin 1 month ago

I have a feeling that 2020 will be 100k not 1 million. 2021 however...after the half of btc maybe 1 million.

1

showrun 1 month ago

Dick curve.

1

leonidasx7 1 month ago

Just hodl

1

googlin 1 month ago

:(

3

ZPDM 1 month ago

What if Mcafee, assuming he is wrong, at 11:59 PM Dec 31 2019 puts in an order to buy 20 Dollars worth of bitcoin at $1,000,000? Given the alternative not a bad investment.

3

SVD85 1 month ago

Those orders would match to the lowest sell orders in the order book and not at 1M $

2

HumanPeace 1 month ago

What if he did that on a not liquid stock exchange or an exchange without automatic matching? Or maybe he would just buy them from smb?

1

SluttyMcNippleHands 1 month ago

Well in the current economic climate, there is going to be a crash worse than 2008 because all of the banks colluded and ignored the bankruptcy instead of facing it. This crash is predicted to happen within the next year and a half. This would make the dollar crash so likely one bitcoin would be worth a million but also a loaf of bread would be worth 1000 dollars.

4

FluxSeer 1 month ago

McAfee is a fool, ignore him.

0

si97 1 month ago

He might be a fool but math doesn't lie.

1

Turil 1 month ago

Ignorance is not bliss. Just because someone is weird/crazy doesn't mean they're not good predictors of life. Life is inherently unpredictable, so the weirdos are usually good at seeing possibilities where the normies are not.

2

Essexal 1 month ago

This is why I love Bitcoin.

I go into the office Monday - we're 57% below the McAfee Dickline, I get blank faces. Here, I get hugs.

10

Miffers 1 month ago

STOP!!! There will be no dick eating on live TV. Recently a group of researchers found a vulnerability in McAfee’s Bitfi wallet and they immediately changed the terms on their website to close the security bounty program.
In the end, he will not have the honor to eat his dick.

2

realrjd3 1 month ago

Lol so little known fact that NYSE volatility indices are now unofficially measured in “Standard Deviations from the McAfee Dickline.”

It’s a brave new world!

2

_I_O_T_A_ redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

You'll be surprised when Bloomberg incorporate the dick-line in its charts.

1

MicheleVisage 1 month ago

hahahahahaahahah

1

tokenleak redditor for 4 days 1 month ago

What a strange title. 57% sounds close enough.

3

knows_secrets redditor for 3 weeks 1 month ago

bitcoin will hit a million but not for a decade or more

0

Patreli redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

What a dickhead

0

Turil 1 month ago

You're measuring it on the wrong scale. McAfee's growth line is exponential, so we're only about 5% below it.

This is why math is important kids.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8zbrs0/this_is_what_a_logarithmic_chart_looks_like_puts/

8

vidaru-x redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

You, sir, are an idiot. 

0

Turil 1 month ago

Clearly you don't know me very well, otherwise you would never have called me a sir. :P

1

vidaru-x redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

That’s true, I did assume gender. My apologies. However, the method of log scaling that you’re describing does not work for determining the relative position of where bitcoins current price is compared to now on the McAfee dick line. It’s 57% below that curve line, no matter the scale. That’s numbers, you can’t fake them. Log charts are used to show relative increments because in finance the move from $1.00 to $2.00 is the same as €1,000 to $2,000. However that move is still a 100% increment. No amount of charting can change that. I can see where the confusion lies so I do apologise for being blunt. Hopefully the time I’ve taken to explain will be enough to redeem myself.

1

Turil 1 month ago

Yeah, I know it's confusing. I don't know how else to explain it. Sorry. Hopefully someone else can help you get it. Oh, maybe if you watch this Khan Academy video on logarithmic scales, it will help. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra2/exponential-and-logarithmic-functions/logarithmic-scale/v/logarithmic-scale I found a place that calculates any log base and found that 43% there (57% below) in log scale is about 82% there. So Bitcoin is within 20% of the line (or was yesterday, now it's even closer), which is within the normal distribution of variation for something like this.

1

fraa4all redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Well if you are going to run the number through functions to make then look better, why not just take the erf function of it? That grows even faster than an exponential, and then we are not behind at all!

1

Turil 1 month ago

The goal is accuracy, not "looking better". :P Most things in nature grow exponentially, at least initially, until they become "normal" in whatever relative sense. In the case of a currency, we're talking about mainstream adoption. So we use a "logarithmic" scale (which is really exponential, just to confuse you).

1

fraa4all redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Well the price is currently 57% lower than it should be. If you want to say "the log of the price is only 10% lower", go ahead and say it, but the point is that McCafe bet on exponential growth starting July 17th, 2017 and we have not seen anything resembling exponential growth since then. It only looks exponential if you go back to the beginning of bitcoin. Even if you were to fit an exponential from the point of his original tweet, you get a fit that looks like it doubles in price every year, which would still put you way off the $1 million mark. (by the way, you cannot fit an exponent if the number has changed less than two decades, which is the case here) When comparing logs, you have to fit the base, not the value. McCafee basically bet on base 10 growth, when in reality it looks like base 2 growth (80% off). And everyday it passes it looks closer to base 1 growth.

1

Turil 1 month ago

> we have not seen anything resembling exponential growth since then We have. I don't know why that's not obvious. We're almost exactly on the exponential line, which is where we should be to reach $1 million at the end of 2020. It doesn't double every year. (No one ever said that.) It goes up by a power of 10 every 15-16 months. And remember that natural growth is never a perfect line, not even an exponential one. It's a wobbly wavy wiggly thing that moves *around* a growth line. It goes well above and well below that line. But *on average* stays on it. We we're hugely above it last fall and now we're a bit below it. But we're absolutely exactly on track for something around base 10 exponential growth for the beginning of Bitcoin's adoption. Also remember that we're measuring against something else that's going down (US$), in it's own wobbly way. So we're not technically measuring Bitcoin adoption here, but it's adoption relative to US dollar value.

2

fraa4all redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

> We have. I don't know why that's not obvious. Plot the bitcoin price from July 2017 to now. It is not exponential. In order to fit to an exponential, you need a least two decades of growth. July 2017 was $2,700, one decade is $27,000, two decades is $270,000. We are not even on a power 2 level of growth ($2,700 -> $5,400 -> $10,800). If you want to claim a power of 10 every 15-16 months, we are also not on that current trend, (we should be at $18,800 at 13.5 months), but you could not even attempt a fit until 18 months from now. In the absence of fittable data, the best you can say is that we are below the necessary growth rate by about 80%, with nearly 70% error in the fitting.

1

Turil 1 month ago

You have to plot the *whole* growth pattern, silly, not some arbitrary time period. As I clearly said in the previous comment, we've been growing at multiples of 10 over the course of about 14 months since the start.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

I'm the author of that site and I'd like to understand your comment. Maybe I can add that number, too. How did you calculate the 5%?

6

Turil 1 month ago

Heh. I don't know how to calculate it specifically. I am just looking at the log chart visually. I have an issue with the mainstream way of writing functions and such, so I can't help you here. But maybe ask in /r/math?

0

raumi75 1 month ago

In order to calculate the percentage, you'd have to make an assumption where to place the lowest point on the y-axis. In my case it's $0.10. If you want a smaller number, you could chose $0.01 or if you want the percentage to look bigger, you'd use $1.00 That would make the whole 5%-number pretty unscientific.

2

tomic24 1 month ago

You could display the percentage difference in log scale - instead of doing actual/projected - 100% you could do log(actual)/log(projected) - 100% Edit: nice website btw!

1

InfiniteExtension7 redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Explanation: http://thereformedbroker.com/2013/11/20/bitcoin-likely-users-venn-diagram/

2

raumi75 1 month ago

Yep. I'm right in the middle. :-) Doesn't stop me from doing math, using currency, nor investing in bitcoin.

1

meadowpoe 1 month ago

Poor John

0

k1r0vv 1 month ago

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/scatophilia

3

gta3uzi 1 month ago

Kinky.

1

OldThymeyRadio redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

More importantly rape and murder.

2

gta3uzi 1 month ago

Gross.

1

germarros 1 month ago

Am i the only one that noticed mcafee tweet saying "bircoin" instead of "bitcoin"? Could this protect him morally/legally against his own affirmation?

24

gulfbitcoin 1 month ago

He also never said penis.

1

toerrisbadsyntax 1 month ago

I bet he eats british spotted dick....

1

mbrochh 1 month ago

Time to fork, then.

1

Bilzo70 redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

No, he recently doubled down and said Bitcoin will get to $1M by 2020.

2

[deleted] 1 month ago

link?

1

Bilzo70 redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

It was a Tweet sent last week or week before last. Also here’s an article from February of this year. https://www.ccn.com/despite-bitcoin-crash-mcafee-holds-his-1-million-by-2020-bet/

1

Bilzo70 redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Technically he tripled down if you include his recent tweet.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

Hence the alias [https://bircoin.top](https://bircoin.top)

3

Turil 1 month ago

Hey, I have a suggestion. Can you put the percentage in exponential terms, instead of linear, to reflect the nature of the prediction's logarithmic growth, and help people see how close it actually is to the prediction? Like right now it's just a few percentage points below the prediction, which is very different than 57%!

2

southofearth 1 month ago

You can switch between linear and logarithmic on this site (same chart): bircoin.top

1

Turil 1 month ago

I know. That's not what I was talking about.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

I kind of understand your point and I think it's a great idea. I'm just trying to come up with a formula that I can feed into the site. Looking at the logorithmic chart, the difference looks more like 5% of the way, ... but: you can see that the chart starts at $ 0.10 and not $0.00 - That is because you'd get a division by zero error. of course the 0.10 is completely arbitrary. If I'd chose 1 or 10, the chart would look totally different.

1

Turil 1 month ago

I'm not sure what you're saying there. I'm just talking about the difference between the current price and the predicted current price. Logarithmically it's only a tiny bit below the predicted price.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

The chart looks different depending on the rather arbitrary lowest number on the y-axis. I can make the chart look like it's only 3% [https://dickline.info/low001.png](https://dickline.info/low001.png) or like it's around 7% [https://dickline.info/high10.png](https://dickline.info/high10.png) Both charts represent the same prices, just a different choice of where to start the price in the lower left hand corner. I'd love to have an objective number and maybe someone with a better math background could contribute?

1

Turil 1 month ago

I found [this](http://www.1728.org/logrithm.htm), which uses any base to calculate a logarithm, and if we're measuring percentages, which we might be, then a linear 57% on a log scale (log (base 100) 57) is about 0.88%. Does that make any sense? **EDIT** That's not right! You're measuring the 57% from the top, not the bottom. Hmmm. EDIT II 43% is about 81%

1

Turil 1 month ago

Oh, and I see what you're talking about now! The problem is that you've got the 0 point of the y scale listed as .10 (10¢). At least I believe that that would be the zero on the log scale.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

Correct. And you cant use 0 as the lowest point because the rest of the chart uses multiples of that number to plot the other prices. Any multiple of 0 is always 0.

1

Turil 1 month ago

I don't know why you're doing it that way. But I have no idea what sort of coding you'd need to do it correctly.

1

raumi75 1 month ago

This is the correct way of plotting a log scale. You chose a lowest number and the other prices are multiples of that number. It‘s impossible to start at zero.

1

Turil 1 month ago

I understand that the starting point/price of Bitcoin is somewhat fuzzy. But it seems like it's not relevant for comparing current measurements. You just need to calculate the difference between the current price and the current predicted price, just do it exponentially, rather than linearly. (*Maybe* you just need to do the log of the percentage difference. But I feel like there is something missing from that.) The way I see it is like how if we're growing exponentially from 0 to 10, and we are at 5 right now, that is not 50% less than 10, but is only about 30% less than 10, logarithmically. That's because log(10)2 = .301.

1

Steve5555p redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

I think McAfee's trendline is too steep, so I plotted my own and came up with the following equation: Price = 10\^(1.3+(0.00116\*(no. of days after April 28, 2013)))

1

raumi75 1 month ago

That would look like this: https://fnordprefekt.de/?percent=0.3184228875366349&startdate=20130428&targetdate=20201231&startprice=134.44

1

Jerryfane 1 month ago

So why don’t we make a BiRcoin that reflects BTC price?

10

ElGuapissimo 1 month ago

Please somebody make it happen.

1

I_want_a_big_house redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Lame but yes

16

RedGolpe 1 month ago

ATL was 59.4% on August 20.

2

SadInappropriateness redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

If bitcoin were one million, it'd be worth about 1/3 the us stock market.

Ha ha, yeah right

3

AManInBlack2017 1 month ago

Bitcoin is borderless. Comparing to any national group of assets is not seeing the global potential.

6

fraa4all redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

at $300,000 it will be worth more than all the gold in the world (above ground).

2

SpontaneousDream 1 month ago

What about the global stock market? Global money supply? Global metals? Etc.

5

Raster_Eyes 1 month ago

When you put it that way it makes it seem more plausible.

3

BTCkoning redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Now imagine the value of debt, stock markets around the globe, precious metals, money supply around the world, real estate, other assets.  Wow even at one million a bitcoin worth its not an extreme percentage to other assets..

8

[deleted] 1 month ago

so, "Yeah!", right?

2

steele404 1 month ago

US stock market or global stock market?

5

parishiIt0n 1 month ago

Iirc McAfee was talking about bcash, not bitcoin

0

Coffeinated 1 month ago

Nobody talks about bcrash

2

coinmarshal 1 month ago

Neither bcash nor bitcoin, he said Bircoin

0

gta3uzi 1 month ago

You recall incorrectly, sir. https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/935900326007328768

7

TweetsInCommentsBot 1 month ago

[**@officialmcafee**](https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/) > [2017-11-29 15:56 +00:00](https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/935900326007328768) > When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bircoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong. >[[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPz8YCYVwAEdtbM.jpg) [[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/hJqSfmp.jpg) ---- ^This ^message ^was ^created ^by ^a ^bot [^[Contact creator]](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=jasie3k&subject=TweetsInCommentsBot)[^[Source code]](https://github.com/janpetryk/reddit-bot)[**^[Donate to keep this bot going]**](https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/80YvGrbq35)[^[Read more about donation]](http://np.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/7pwo2m/heres_an_interesting_one_league_source_says/dsmirtu/)

4

LostMathSoul 1 month ago

Clearly he predicted Bircoin not Bitcoin

10

gta3uzi 1 month ago

c o n t e x t

1

alexmattia81 redditor for a day 1 month ago

Bircahs

1

RusAlex 1 month ago

Anyway 500000 is also good

3

hhuzar 1 month ago

You found a loophole he's going to use to not have to eat his dick.

1

jzero4242 1 month ago

Unless someone outsmarts him and creates a coin named "Bircoin" first! 

2

pg3crypto 1 month ago

The dick line is a smoothed out average. I think McAfees dick is still safe.

45

42autismyolo 1 month ago

only way his dick is safe is if the US has a financial crisis before 2021... That said that is entirely possible but it ain't going to 1M per coin merely through voluntary adoption

2

gta3uzi 1 month ago

I mean - the M1/M2 money stock has doubled since 2008. If they go with negative interest rates and QE(infinity) we could see some rather obscene Bitcoin valuations. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2

1

michwill 1 month ago

Safu?

3

myquidproquo 1 month ago

What? His dick is smooth and average?

7

pg3crypto 1 month ago

Quite possibly.

2

rapgab 1 month ago

Tasty

4

Hanspanzer 1 month ago

and 300% in december

2

CONTROLurKEYS 1 month ago

What happens in December exactly?

0

Hanspanzer 1 month ago

in dec 2017 BTC was 300% above prediction.

1

JasonReed234 1 month ago

I'm assuming OP means 2017.

5

Dr_Hibbert_Voice 1 month ago

Nothing. I'm guessing he means that a stagnant BTC/USD value will mean 300% below in december. He's probably right

0

Hanspanzer 1 month ago

you can't be more than 100% below ;)

1

Dr_Hibbert_Voice 1 month ago

Ah fuck

1

Hanspanzer 1 month ago

lel

1

zappadoing 1 month ago

who cares ? - it's a win-win situation (for us)

60

RyanO44 1 month ago

Is It though? I kinda don’t want to see a man eat his own dick

1

antilex 1 month ago

Lol he won't People will ask him the question as too why he won't... which will be fucking hilarious.

1

xsxsi 1 month ago

Do pl

1

antilex 1 month ago

negative i own bitcoin... i still want it too not get to a million before McAfee dick eating year.

22

ElephantsAreHeavy 4 weeks ago

I would be very happy if it gets to a million. I don't care if it is before or after 2020, I don't care about sensational tweets, I care about a sustainable market and prize stabilization for bitcoin. Preferably as high as possible :-)

1

gravytraderextreme01 redditor for 3 weeks 1 month ago

you don't need to worry

2

zappadoing 1 month ago

so you can have both!

2

[deleted] 1 month ago

like, why?

1

NowhereDefined redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

Because fuck McAfee, that's why.

5

[deleted] 1 month ago

that's not very nice...

8

NowhereDefined redditor for 3 months 1 month ago

It's not but I stand by it. McAfee is a leech on the crypto community shilling shitcoins and icos for outrageous amounts of Bitcoin. The less we pay attention to him the better.

8

3

5

2

1 3

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2018 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily