If you have 1000BTC then you may well want to support its value but it's not a foregone conclusion that you would do that by converting more of your other assets into Bitcoin. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.
why would you sell 10 months after the all-time high? if you're such a true believer you might as well continue to hold, unless you need cash now. it's like saying you should sell your manhattan real estate in the 1970s. or you should sell your raphael paintings in the late 1940s.
I was a huge bitcoin skeptic up until a month ago - now it's obvious that with all the institutional investors in the space the days of wild yo-yoing are over. I don't know that it will "shoot to the moon" but the risk of collapse is pretty small now. Good chance it will go up in years to come, good chance it will stay about where it is, not much chance it collapses. The market is liquid enough that it's a viable store of wealth or way of transmitting money for people who need it.
I used it yesterday to send $125 to India, for $0.11 (minus the fees to buy the bitcoin in the first place). The alternative would be to wire money (expensive) or to give the person my bank information so he can do an ACH through a US account (are you fucking insane, hell no).
This is really interesting. I think it might inspire confidence in new investors.
Also, my guess is that otherwise inexplicable candles- whether they are red or green- have more to do with not trading and events going on World wide that we are not aware of in the anglosphere and on Reddit.
When I used to go on coinbase the price of bitcoin kept going up and up and up little at a time for a long time BUT it take a couple seconds to crash the price and it goes up and up and up little at a time for a while. The point of my post is that at coinbase the price seemed like it was going up all the time.
You don't have to prove that any particular coins are lost, though.
Statistically, it's pretty inevitable now. There were many miners in 2010-2012. Roughly a million of those mined coins appreciated as much as 60 million percent and still haven't been sold. There is no other explanation for that many people not cashing out at all, except that they could not do it. The most reasonable explanation is that the vast majority could not cash out because the keys are lost.
That's not proof but I don't see any other reasonable conclusion.
>There is no way to prove the coins are lost. Satoshi ~~hasn’t~~ *haven't* touched **their** coins ever but I’m guessing **they** still have the keys. Just because the coins don’t move doesn’t mean they are lost.
Grammar bot. Satoshus, pl. Satoshi.
Probably was Finney. But why not Szabo?
Hodling does lower the required amount of volume of money to maintain or pump the price because of technically increasing scarcity. You can already see this effect on super scarce sh1tcoins, like 42 coin currently priced 24k, only a few thousand dollars and a handful of schmucks are enough to maintain the price simply because of scarcity.
Bitcoin/fiat pricing is relative.
The fluctuation in price is showing us the real time purchasing power bitcoin has.
End game for bitcoin is that we are hoping to become the currency of choice over fiat.
> End game for bitcoin is that we are hoping to become the currency of choice over fiat.
This was never true and is not now. Fiat has its purposes, and bitcoin will never (completely) replace it.
They are both good for their own uses.
> Hoarding it? No.
> Using and spending it, yes.
This only helps if other people are hoarding it.
If everyone spends, and noone hordes, the value drives to zero fast along with the utility.
Holding is the single most important and fundamental aspect of money.
> Holding is the single most important and fundamental aspect of money.
It's kind of interesting that this is frequently ignored, but the purpose of money is to coordinate spending *over time*, which implies some amount of "hoarding" - although hoarding seems like a loaded term. Obviously for it to be useful it needs to be spendable/saleable, but the point is that it can be spent, not that it is spent.
Hypothetically, if everyone hoarded money and no one spent it, the money is completely useless.
Point of money is a medium of financial exchange.
Fiat is actually pretty good at being money.
The big problem with it is inflation. It’s being inflated because its flow is centrally planned.
vs things you can buy. If you put small pocket change in to some currency, then people decides to hoard it until the price was worth a cruise liner, most people would be tempted enough to sell.
All the value of the money comes from holding, period.
The definition of currency is irrelevant. The original argument is spending vs. holding as it relates to increasing value. Holding clearly wins. Gold is a hedge specifically because it holds value better than any "currency".
Nowhere uses gold as a currency.
Gold doesn't get it's value from being hoarded. However diamonds are 100% stockpiled to create artificial scarcity and keep the price at an unrealistic level (kinda like tether)
Yes it does. Gold is rare, which makes it valuable, which makes people want to "hoard" it. If it wasn't rare, all the other attributes of gold would be all well and good, but it wouldn't hold value because everyone could have as much as they want. Things that are "used as a currency" don't hold/increase value. Dollars, Euros, etc, are all terrible stores of value. These all decrease in value over time. Name me one "currency" under your definition that doesn't lose value over time. You are right about diamonds, though it just further proves my point, not yours (scarcity creates value).
Golds “value” is from perception and not rarity.
The industrial revolution brought with it a higher frequency of commerce and gold was ousted by fiat. Fiat is much more mobile than gold. Gold prices were insanely cheap up until the last few decades, where it was arbitrarily decided to become a hedge to fiat.
The technological revolution is now proving fiat to be inefficient and bitcoin will replace that.
In today’s global economy, bitcoin excedes every capability that gold had.
Also, gold is insanely inefficient as a store of value because you can’t convert it to fiat without using a series of custodians and brokers.
If you own a lot of gold, you can’t just sell it. You need to hire a broker to find you a market and these brokers take huge cuts.
Safe guarding gold? Bitcoin has gold beat by a mile.
Gold has a controlled level of inflation from gold mines. It’s not as scarce as you think and there are rarer metals out there than gold.
Gold was used for many reasons, it's rarity being one of them. Another being the fact that it is immutable. It's used in computers, in space to protect against radiation, it looks great. Gold doesn't increase in value, it is a hedge against inflation.
A currency can be a store of value AND lose purchasing power, they aren't mutually exclusive. If I have $10k in cash and I lose $200 a year, it's not going to have a meaningful impact, especially since I can cover that in a savings account. Low inflation keeps money moving and being productive. Inflation isn't a bad thing. Even bitcoin is inflationary, both in it's supply and in it's purchasing power. Bitcoin is shit as a store of value, but that's okay. Bitcoin has potential but people have to be realistic, it's not going to replace fiat anytime soon.
>Gold was used for many reasons
Plastic is used for many reasons, so is glass, and aluminum, and many other things that do very useful things for us, and are used in vastly higher quantities than gold. That doesn't make then more valuable though, because they aren't rare. The "all the other uses" of gold argument is completely irrelevant.
There are a few things that need to happen for bitcoin to become adopted.
The ETF approval doesn’t mean squat for the price (hint, price will go up) but the significance of an approval is that it’s a government agency telling the common folks out there that bitcoin is viable.
This will remove/contradict the narrative of bitcoin being a scam.
Once the greater population accepts bitcoin, the use case will follow along right behind.
It's hard to know for sure, but you can use aggregate data and heuristics to make good guesses.
It's a very similar problem that advertisers have solved to extraordinary effect to track internet users without their knowledge or consent. It's easier for them because TCP headers contain quite a bit more information than Bitcoin addresses, but the principle is the same.
> To identify the whales in its study, Chainalysis did not simply look at wallets holding large amounts of Bitcoin. Instead, the company applied what it calls a “co-spend” analysis to Bitcoin’s public blockchain ledger, which let it identify clusters of wallets that appear to belong to the same individual.
Reliable no, but with change address, people grouping utxo to claim forked coin more easily, people who reuse the same address several you would be surprise.
Here is a free website that provide a small idea of what smart wallet tracking is :
I originally thought like you but I was impressed by this website, and I guess that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Co-spends are 100% reliable in one direction: if X and Y are spent in the same transaction, they belong to the same individual/wallet. If they aren’t spent together, they might still belong to the same wallet
Edit: this is wrong now at least as CoinJoin becomes more common
This is false, multiple users/wallets can fund a single transaction. See examples such as joinmarket, P2EP txs, etc. Much work is being done to break this assumption, as it is very bad for privacy/fungibility on the blockchain.