This is a price chart for one of the top-25 cryptocurrencies, from Jun 2019 to May 2020: And here is another coin: One of them is Iota, which had a technical problem that resulted in no transactions confirming from February 12 until March 10. The... | Gavin Andresen | Writings about geeky stuff
It's probably because... Nobody uses IOTA. All speculation happens on exchanges and speculators aren't even remotely interested in doing real transactions over IOTA chain. No wonder why they weren't bothered by crippled state for so long
> It’s probably because... Nobody uses IOTA. All speculation happens on exchanges and speculators aren’t even remotely interested in doing real transactions over IOTA chain. No wonder why they weren’t bothered by crippled state for so long
That mirror very well the situation with BTC.
A dev who realize that tech is not everything in a project, breaking news
cinnapearSilver | QC: CC 794, BCH 240, BTC 54 | NANO 229 | 1 month ago
Until onramps and offramps are more prevalent and businesses start taking advantage of crypto utility, speculation will remain the defining factor in every coin's price. Otherwise we'd see coins like Nano nearer the top, Iota would have dropped position when it stopped working, etc.
When utility finally does become a majority factor, the top ten will look quite a bit different.
Its like "fuck the unfucked" charity drive by Paris Hilton.
cr0ftPlatinum | QC: BCH 648, CC 572, ETH 211 | r/Politi1 month ago
A relative few cryptos are actually used for stuff. Most are entirely hype driven.
But the idea of the cryptocurrency revolution is nowhere to be found, not even in here. All people talk about is speculating.
And honestly, I don't think the idea of a cryptocurrency revolution is workable anyway. It's not the fact that fiat money is shit and easily exploitable, printable and otherwise crap that's the problem - capitalism is the problem, and cryptocurrencies are still capitalist to say the least.
Personally, I would never invest or use a cryptocurrency that had a centralized pre-mine, or one that hard forked to censor a tx they didn't like, despite the protocol working as designed. Eth has done both of those things.
I support Bitcoin for the fundamentals. Bitcoin may not be the fastest, or the cheapest, but it is the most secure, it is the only cryptocurrency that had a truly fair launch, and it has proven that the users can reject a hard fork that the miners wanted to shove down our throats. That is true decentralization.
Adoption will be about the tech but also about good marketting and a network effect. Pre adoption price will not generally be about the tech. Not every good project has a future and plenty of legitimately brilliant ideas are bad investments. There is also a lot of fluff and hype driven nonsense which will moon before your more solid choice.
RaymikqwerSilver | QC: CC 594 | IOTA 172 | TraderSubs 811 month ago
Technical merit doesn't matter in crypto. Hype sells, and also bag holders rarely fully capitulate which somewhat gives a floor to the price.
Iota has abandoned the data market place, Qubic, failed to deliver coordicide years after it first claimed. But it still floats around near the top 20. They could turn it off for another month and OPs charts still wouldn’t diverge.
Won’t argue with iota previously setting too-broad of goals. However, with a top 20 littered with money grabs and community ghost towns, someone felt the need to step outside the top 20 to criticize a project with active development, active academic research, active and diverse world-wide community, innovative ideas, real-world vision, and fascinating PoC’s. Ok.
This is the same spiel any crypto fanboy will give you in regards to their favorite coin. To the rest of the world it just looks like a sales man trying to shill their Ponzi scheme. Iota completely and utterly failed for a month straight. It will never earn that trust back.
The so called crypto traders don't give a shit about the fundamentals of the coin they trade but eventually they will. Market will force their hand. The idiots only think in terms of buy/sell/long/short xyz coin instead of thinking in terms of scalability/privacy/featues offered by the coin.
> Nothing is really posing a threat to banks.
Crypto was never going going to threaten banks before the fiat system implodes. It's still too early.
vegaslunaPlatinum | QC: ETH 200, CC 107, BTC 35 | TraderSub1 month ago
I think they have to wait to upgrade BTC until PoS is the go to leading technology replacing the early adopter PoW technology.
Once that happens, then can do a big upgrade that leaves a dead chain behind.
Otherwise, poloniex will post the old chain and some dood with a lot money and nothing better to do will start pushing a bitcoin classic shiatcoin .
I think of crypto’s history and trajectory relative to the history of money as a social technology that is as old as civilization itself.
In that context, crypto has accomplished an enormous amount in a very short period of time.
Find a better currency in the world today. Something that you cannot manipulate like fiat currencies, but still transfer across the globe within minutes & for a small fee.
Gold is the solution to the first one, fiat is the solution to the second, but they both have major flaws which cannot be fixed. Try transfering gold across the globe within a couple of minutes. Try holding on to fiat without investing it is some way, you will lose all your wealth with time. The FED is printing money faster than ever before... Look up brazil, venezuela, argentina and their inflation, this is going to happen in the US too. 0% interesetrates, FED is allowed to print infinite money & print money faster than ever.. people are getting "stimulus checks" and "free money" It is not sustainable.
You dont know what you are talking about..
Ownership of gold can be trasferred in seconds with no fees. The infratructure for this is getting better every year. Sure, not physical gold, but you dont own the bitcoin directly either, its on the blockchain.
Not really. Physical things have value in themselves, especially AU. Digital stuff will always be more fragile. You can´t touch or smell your bitcoin, and if the internet shuts down, it will be problems. Physical things are king at the end of the day, thats my point. I still like crypto.
>You can´t touch or smell your bitcoin, and if the internet shuts down, it will be problems
You can send bitcoin via radio, so no. Phyiscal things are king in a primitive world, i have to agree. If we lose internet, radio etc, we're not going to be using the USD, EUR or w/e anyway, so it doesn't matter in that case.
> this is going to happen in the US too
The biggest problem I have with this view, is that of belief. So if US's inflation doesn't increase to similar levels of Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina, will you change your views on money printing? Similarly I'd need to change my views if this indeed happens (and QE can be shown as a major reason etc).
As someone in the third world, there are MANY factors that lead to high inflation rates. Quantitative easing is one factor, but honestly it is also sometimes the smart thing for a country to do. Reducing it to evil money printing is one of the crappiest things about this subreddit.
>Reducing it to evil money printing is one of the crappiest things about this subreddit.
Tbh its not about the money printing itself for me, its about the possibility of infinite money printing, which the fed has, that is the problem. if they saw it fit, they could print 25 trillion tomorrow, which is the total US debt, and pay it off. THEORETICALLY. Noone should be able to do that.
From what i understand the FED "checks" themselves: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUrlNHTxuJM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUrlNHTxuJM)
Listen to the whole 60 minutes if you want. Scary stuff.
You make some decent points, but comparing the US economy to Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina is not one. You may understand crypto, but it would appear you don’t understand economics.
cr0ftPlatinum | QC: BCH 648, CC 572, ETH 211 | r/Politi1 month ago
The people who think they "understand economics" as we define economics today are a far bigger problem than the people who realize they don't, and can't, because it's not a science. "Economics" is an opinion-driven concept, and probably has more in common with religion than science...
And just one more thing, i didn't compare the economy as a whole, i compared money printing, deficit spending & inflation. There is plently of other reasons why those countries have a worse economy than the US, but those things are some major factors that contributed to their countries currency losing its value.
I get that, but the point is the underlying economy. I’m happy to chat this with you amicably, as you seam like a decent chap that has an interest in economics. I agree that endlessly printing billions would pop the dollar, but that is not what is happening here. The liquidity in the markets was the issue, and to solve that the fed has filled the gap.
You should also consider that as global demand has taken a hit, demand led inflation won’t be that high. You can see this effect in the currently very low oil price.
US citizens gets so butthurt when you talking negatively about their country.
How do you think the hyperinflation in those countries started? It started because of money printing and deficit spending.
What is the US doing right this moment?
You are nailing it as far as being incorrect. I’m British.
Increased money supply and weak economies caused those countries inflationary issues. You are comparing war torn jungles to the world’s biggest economy and home to almost all of the worlds leading tech companies. Their combined GDP is a fraction of the US. Remember when the US defaulted on its bonds? No, me neither.
You don’t really have a clue about economics. That’s why you’re comparing Venezuela to the US.
I work at a bank, i have education within economy, and no im not british nor from the US.
Remember when the US economy crashed in 2008 because of the "housing bubble" and they lowered interesetrates to climb back up, which now is at 0%? How is that sustainable. Again, im not comparing the economy as a whole. Im just comparing a few things that those countries did, and the US currenctly does.
**" Increased money supply and weak economies caused those countries inflationary issues. "**
Increased money supply is exactly what the US is currently doing... you are proving what i said.
As said in my other comment. Currently the US can print their debt tomorrow, and pay it off. How is that a sustainable system.
I think you get me wrong. Im not saying that the US is going under, that the "leading tech companies" you are talking about has no value. Im saying that the monetary system in the world is VERY flawed, because of the reasons ive listen above, and it's a danger to the DOLLAR.
Yes, it will happen to the US too, but thats in the long term, maybe a in decade, or maybe in 100s of years, if they don't change their monetary system. What i 100% know is that 0% interestrates and a FED that can print infinite money is not sustainable.
True, but the money printing they did back then is negligible compared to what they are currently doing.
Also look up a dollar devaluation chart since the US left the gold standard. The USD has lost loads of its value compared to most "hard" assets, and with more money printing it will lose even more of its value.
You will find that inflation has been pretty consistent across all major currencies since the all left the gold standard. You will also find that it doesn’t account for interest received, so it’s not a fair comparison. There is far more to it that money printing.
Again everything you said is true, and so is what is said.
" You will find that inflation has been pretty consistent across all major currencies since the all left the gold standard"
Of course, the current monetary system is whats flawed, so all fiat currencies, not the US dollar specifically. I think bitcoin is a good alternative, maybe the best we have so far, but its not close to being perfect.
"There is far more to it that money printing."
But it certainly won't make the dollar more valuable, while i guarantee it will contribute to it losing its value.
Youre right, but still the US does have a key difference with others: it controls the world currency.
So when they print, they fuck everyone and not just them.
Not to mention other countries have a vested interest in preventing the USD from collapsing and will often match the US printing to keep their currencies aligned with the dollar...
So they have much much more inertia hence what theyre doing now.
This will probably come to an end as China with Russia increasingly challenge this but theres gonna be some dangerous waves...
Very true, and i was actually about to take up the point of China challenging the US as the reserve world currency. Everything you wrote just provides me with an better argument in the long term, so it seems like we agree.
An interesting sentiment from Gavin - I've recognized that the markets of the coins ebb and flow together, but never put the thought about how that ignores the separate tech in each coin so far to the forefront. It must mean that it's still early.
A possible explanation of flash crashes, is margin contracts \*), because those always have a limit to how much the bet can go against the speculator before he is "stopped out", this amplifies the effect of the price move and can lead to a chain of failure of contracts with slightly more safety. *This is normal*, and it has to be like that as long as people do speculate.
*) but also people making decisions without leverage, when they have certain limits in their minds for them to take action on.
> A possible explanation of flash crashes, is margin contracts *), because those always have a limit to how much the bet can go against the speculator before he is "stopped out", this amplifies the effect
Sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous. The size of the BTC market is approximately **170 BILLION** dollars. There is no way 85 billion dollars is comprised of margin. And it's just "margin" not contracts... that's options. Also it's "margin called" not "stopped out".
>but also people making decisions without leverage, when they have certain limits in their minds for them to take action on.
The majority of any "normal" market is structured like this (no leverage), where people put stops at their price targets, because people are usually more conservative with money than risky, unless they're purposely gambling as entertainment. What more likely happened is some event spooked some sizable portion of the market and as it sank stop limits *were* triggered which sent prices downward which spooked more people who then sold which triggered more stops etc. Either way my point is the **50% selloff** wasn't based on anything technical.
> Sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous
It happens in almost all markets. It does not have to be formal contracts with a stop loss, re my last line above.
Of course it can happen more if someone considers the volume of speculative contracts is high (people working with the largest exchanges can know) and trigger the cascade if they can.
This is basic stuff
I don't know why you keep using the word "contract". Most selling happens on crypto exchanges, and they are not trading derivatives (at least not more than ~1-5% of them I'd guess).
Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange. Show me one place they use the word "contract" related to something financially traded (and I'm not including "smart contract" which is a whole other subject).
Hehe everything you do on an exchange is a contract. But I meant futures, often called margin trading, a simple to use variant. The point is there are limits, and when you cross them the contract is sold. Long or short, same thing, so when you give up on your bet, the move in the opposite direction of what you hoped, becomes stronger. *The same thing happens if you decide to sell, because the price went down to much and you got scared, or the opposite, even if you have no contract, but you only have a balance in your own wallet*. Even a margin contract does not need to have margin, but at least the short will have a limit anyway (always when longing if the collateral is of the same type that you speculate with, and with shorting if the collateral is of the other type).
Of course it is the speculation, when it comes to pure money, *because there is nothing else*
These are definitely not unknown cryptocurrencies.
ZCash had unfair distribution of coins and its primary purpose was to enrich its creators (see [Founders’ Reward](https://electriccoin.co/blog/funding/)).
Iota has always had a coordinator node, which makes it a centralized cryptocurrency. Those who cared about tech, were perfectly aware that this centralization allows to shut down the network among other things. And when this actually happened, this didn't surprise anyone.
So what is Gavin Andresen trying to claim? Those who really cared about tech, never invested in these two cryptocurrencies in the first place. And these cryptocurrencies don't have any significant market share either, so there don't seem to be many tech illiterate investors.
The price chart of every cryptocurrency looks the same: because too many exchanges still use BTC as the "base" trading pair.
So when BTC moves, everything moves with it.
The BCH-BSV hashwar you mentioned was notable because it was enough to move BTC as well.