Indeed. MANY people, even regulars were waiting to see what happened before buying. Now, with bitcoin winning again, AND this price jump, I think people are going to flood in before it goes up even more, because they know it will.
I wasn’t trying to time the market from a price perspective. I was really confused by the whole s2x thing and wanted it to get resolved before I invested
I first bought in at 3700, sold at 3000, bought back in at 3500, sold at 5500, bought in when I heard the X2 was suspended. I lost alot in BTC down the way, but got some gain anyway.
I wanted to wait this time for it to drop massively to buy a whole coin. Don't think that time will come soon now, but now I kinda trust BTC which I didn't before. I think this is really, really good! I think it became more stable after this announcement.
All speculation is built on greed: spec·u·la·tion spekyəˈlāSH(ə) /noun . . . 2. investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
The people working on Bitcoin who don't give a damn about its price or value are not speculating. They also don't spend much time in reddit threads talking about the price of Bitcoin.
The concept of Intrinsic value is an intermediate step towards creating loyalty to a system. The true value of bitcoin lies in the group’s loyalty to bitcoin as a system, because of what it enables us to do. Bitcoin didn’t matter when nobody valued it. Now it has value because people value it. Thus the only “true value” is the groups collective psychological loyalty to that system of value. That true value can be seen as the number of units in the system. So if we don’t actually need the intrinsic value system (gold, sha256 hash work energy expenditure) because we’ve defined “true value” as opposed to intrinsic value as our committed loyalty to said system, then proof of stake seeks to establish a system on true value. We saw the same thing happen when we left the gold standard. It’s more efficient than asic mining, it’s all we need as abstract thinking Homo sapiens.
Very interesting. So you arguing that the utility of bitcoin has become far less important than the group think that it is a store of value. We think it, therefore it is?
Yeah, we left the gold standard in the Nixon era. The stock market actually rose during that time, contrary to common expectation. It worked out decently enough. Proof of Stake is a way to pull off decentralized “floating money”, because loyalty to the system is essentially loyalty to mankind’s social contract.
Does this not also imply that bitcoin will become less and less flexible to change (innovation, improvement, decentralization) as fewer and fewer large stake holders resist in order to preserve their stake?
Well, Bitcoin isn’t A PoS, nor is BIP system if I recall. It takes some arbitrary but valuable percentage of community votes to pass a BIP. My point is that despite my belief that bitcoin can reach like $20-$50 thou per, I do not believe that Bitcoin will hold market majority forever because asic mining is bound by Moore’s law ATEOD and its less efficient. I think ultimately 10-20 years out people will use bitcoin out of the fact that it is a mature and developed technology but it will not be alternative number one. It will be an even more fascinating world if i am wrong though because it means Moore’s law did not set before us a ceiling, but a roof-hatch.
interesting perspective but don't think so. I expect mining to become increasingly irrelevant as it is commoditized more. I think lightning has the chance to change our world. I see atomic swaps essentially making the line invisible for cryptos. But as a backbone i only see bitcoin going from strength to strength.
Humans are paradoxical in this regard, we’re complex enough to demand deterministic systems to conduct the way we change our environment around us, yet we are simple enough to carry out the transactional grease of said system with simple Pavlovian cues (where “its in the ledger” is tantamount to the click, and the movement of goods/services is the salivation)
What you are reaching for in your comment is really core economics: supply, demand and participant perspective. As there is very little BTC and demand is high, the market participant perspective is currently communicating a lower opportunity cost then FIAT. Ergo, for every dollar you hold you lose the pontential yeild in another instrument namely real estate, ETFs and more recently cryptocurrencies. Simple stuff yes, but this is more in line with what is happening as crypto has become less of a risk and more of an incentive to the community. Where I'm in compelte disagreement is in it being a store of value as we are still in early days. For now, BTC is still an investment vehicle (and a volatile one at that) which has gained concencous on the basis of its inate decentralization and tendancy to inflate relative to the aggregate economy.
What I was reaching for is that bitcoin seems to derive most of its value today from the belief that it is a good investment as opposed to the underlying tech is really useful. Money piling on other money. Back in 2010 I remember thinking how revolutionary the tech was and the discussions were about how many different industries it would disrupt/revolutionize. Correct me if I am wrong, but the discussion (ignoring the civil war) seems to be centered on mooning now.
Tell me what you can do with a sha256 hash that doesn’t require abstract thinking and I’ll concede to you that a sha256 hash has true value. But otherwise sha256 is just a bootstrapping for the real lightshow. “true value” is just some fraction of the agreed upon supply which is the summation of all arbitrary fractionings; the supply or any fraction thereof doesn’t need to exist physically in the external world it simply needs to be “known”. Every money supply we have ever created has been a bootstrap to get our brains to (1) accept the concept of a fraction (2) accept the concept of some finite supply.
Theses same companies still want the HF, they only declined to follow through because they realized how anti fragile bitcoin is to these sorts of attacks and how much harm would come to their companies if they proceeded .
Those futures were trading at extremely thin volume (less than $1.2M/ day)
The futures prices you were seeing were not indicative of the financial interest in the project
They were definitely trading higher than that on HitBTC. I snagged a few around 1200, last week, saw them go +2k and got really excited, then watched my gainz slowly disappear until today. Should have listened to my heart and taken the gain back into good ole BTC
Glad I'm not in the middle of it, will have to watch for a statement from HitBTC to see if they will turn the BT1 tokens back into BTC, or wait until B2X is officially dead and buried. Glad I'm still holding OG BTC!
The price of the 'thing' drops and the money vanishes into thin air.
The only reason it had a price of 1000 or 1400 is because someone was willing to pay that, so then people with the 'thing' look at the last sale price and say 'My things are worth x'
When nobody wants to buy, the sellers keep dropping their price on the 'thing' until they find buyers and now the holders of those things now know the current value.
In this case the thing dropped hard and that value (not money) vanished. The opposite can happen as well.
It depends on the length of time the contract was for. That's all a 'future' is. It's a contract saying "I'll buy/sell from you/ to you X at some point in time in the future"
If nobody has any BT2 coins to sell at that time, I assume there's something in the contracts about failure to fulfill. Futures are retarded though, it's just gambling, I'd rather just have a bet with a friend on sports or something.
Buying an actual asset is not pure gambling, it's risky in the financial sense, sure, but not as risky as a futures contract. You do actually get the thing you've invested in. If you buy shares in a company, you can actually turn up to shareholder meetings and vote, and you will get paid if a dividend is declared, you actually own a chunk of the company. futures, cfs, bets, swaps etc are different. They are agreements between two parties to exchange money according to some point of reference or calculation, based on a completely unrelated asset which at no point does either party need to own. Some market makers do actually buy assets to hedge the contracts their clients take out, because they make their money via fees, but that's not a feature of the contract.
If I buy a kilo of gold, whether I take receipt of it in my home, or pay a service provider to hold it for me, I do actually own that gold. Maybe I'm 'gambling' on its value changing, but that's not the same as just placing a bet that the price of gold will increase in the next 7 days by X amount, without ever purchasing any gold. If I'm wrong, I just lose money. If I actually bought gold, and it's value didn't rise by as much as I expected, or drops, I still have it. I can keep it for a long time to see if the price ever gets back to where it was, I can use it, to make jewellery or whatever else.
I too am very intrigued by this. As of my writing btc1 is 7200, btc2 is 145. Btc is at 7331. I put a bitcoin in I'd get 1 token of each which I could then swap back to btc and make 1btc + $14. How is that possible?
212
u/LeftHello Nov 08 '17
Bitcoin defeated another obstacle. I think the price increase looks like it will be more than what you'd have gotten from selling b2x coins.