What is it? I miss the concept - Will never get it even if it trades at 10,000. To me: no correction will ever be enough.
Away from this very subjective opinion, Bitcoin is reaching the cliff: Below here, it could fall vertically...
ALL THE POSTS I READ POINT UP.... It may be going lower then.. as it "should"... coming from nowhere and going back to nowhere...
This is not apple or a pharmaceutical company with a blockbuster... This is nothing... A human marketed enthusiasm...
Anyway... you got it, i dont buy into it.
評論
EthereumTradingForumFounder
⋅
Of course the price may not go up with the line you drew. It may not go down with a vertical line either. Maybe price will stay the same for many months or years. But the protocol that is bitcoin does not gain or suffer from it's price.
To sum it up,
If you had to assign a value to a "packet" of data being sent by tcp/ip in 1994, what would the value of that data be in 2014 (if, like bitcoin, there were a limited number of packets today)?
Also, there were not very many credit card transactions in the 1970's compared to today.
So bitcoin has scarcity AND it has increasing volume and transactions. Bitcoin also has increasing numbers of users.
Bitcoin also has competition.
I encourage you to look up any of the top 10,000's of pages of information around its subject. The Federal Reserve just released a paper about Bitcoin two days ago. It is taken very seriously, though still regrettably misunderstood by the vast majority.
Happy trading.
YaKa
⋅
For a change: I am part of the big majority that do not believe in it... Any new phenomenon needs to be studied and apprehended especially if it could be threat to tax revenues... billions of pages on the subject would still not convince me...
You are definitely a believer... dont we have enough real money support to study with tangible intrinsic value? And even for those, have enough difficulties knowing where they go?
BTW: To me would have much more "value" if its value was stable.... The fact it went up 50,000% makes a joke. sorry not to subscribe to the joke.
Lechango
⋅
I agree with your point that it needs more stability, but that won't come without more volume and liquidity, after all BTC only a has a few billion $ market cap, tiny in the scheme of things. And BTC may never reach a point of stability or ever achieve a large market cap, but it doesn't really matter, blockchain technology is nothing to scoff at, there is no doubt that it or something similar will dominate in the future for tracking accountability for all sorts of aspects (not just money).
Also intrinsic value is bullshit, it doesn't exist, gold doesn't have it, bitcoin doesn't have it, nothing does. But what BTC does have over gold is ease of transfer while still being scarce and requiring proof of work in order to obtain.
StuddMuffin
⋅
Bitcoin is a lot of things. One of the things it is is a cryptographically secure currency which can be transferred to anywhere in the world at almost no cost to the user without a trusted third party. Not to long ago millions of dollars in bitcoins were transferred for like a few cents. There is value in that alone and that is just one thing bitcoin can be.
An entire family fortune can be stored in a secure manner without the need of vaults and be transmitted anywhere anytime without ever having to worry about monetary controls or banks. There is value in that. And that is just one more thing bitcoin does.
Bitcoin is also a programmable money... meaning, for example, I can program the bitcoin protocol to release the money in my account to individuals of my choosing upon my death, or on a birthday, anniversary, etc. I can create digital contracts requiring the digital signature of multiple parties before bitcoins are transferred.
Work is underway to denote specific "coins" to represent deeds and other property, wherein the blockchain becomes a trustless, digital asset registrar. Meaning, one day, the ownership of realestate, cars, etc. may be declared by control over the private key of that denoted coin.
Mircotransactions... suppose you would like to charge people to read your articles, but you don't want to charge so much that it prevents individuals from visiting your blog... you can require a microtransaction of only a few cents or fractions of a cent to read your article... it is possible that the bitcoin protocol becomes directly integrated with the HTML standard - their browser may be tied directly to a personal wallet which makes the transactions. Now you don't require advertising on your site but get paid directly from users.
Seriously, possibilities are endless, no one has even come close to dreaming them all up. The question you are asking is exactly what most people were asking when told about the internet and email back in the 80s and early-mid 90s. Email didn't even become popular until late 90s/early 2000s. Prior to the mail providers, email could be cumbersome to use and was only accessible to sophisticated computer geeks.
johnrfraser
⋅
These are good points.
Can you answer the ‘rollback’ problem?
Take gold. Gold is fine as a commodity or money. You can pay me with it and a 3rd party cannot cause it to cease to exist once I’ve put it in my pocket and walked away with it.
If a ‘rollback’ of blockchain is possible it is like gold that can cease to be gold after I’ve acquired it…worse still, vanish altogether. So in fact the core value of bitcoin, ‘proof of work’ is not that at all. It is only proof so long as blockchain deem it to be and don’t write over it.
Making blockchain supremely powerful. It doesn’t get more Centralised than that!
StuddMuffin
⋅
A rollback is theoretically possibly but extremely unlikely. To my knowledge, bitcoin has never experienced a rollback. In addition, it would require the consensus of miners and users - so, if you got everyone to agree on a rollback, it could happen. More than likely this wouldn't be the case and if a large group tried it would probably result in a 'hard fork' - the creation of a parallel but distinct blockchain.
johnrfraser
⋅
Thanks for your reply.
By 'everyone' this would mean strictly only miners, right?
And if so, the minority?
StuddMuffin
⋅
If 100% of the miners did not agree to the rollback or any update to the protocol for that matter, then the blockchain would 'fork' - creating two different blockchains which would be identical up to the time of the fork but different thereafter. This probably would not be beneficial to most and thus unlikely.
Its largely the miners but it really requires the users to accept as well and node managers... no point in mining if there are no transactions and users don't accept the terms and conditions in the updated protocol - no one will accept those coins as valid. Therefore, if miners want their block reward to have value they need to secure the network the users want.
johnrfraser
⋅
Thanks a lot for your explanations AnonVigil
AKWAnalytics
⋅
BTW, your chart needs to include historical Mt.Gox data from 2010 to be legit. Bad TA altogether.
To sum it up,
If you had to assign a value to a "packet" of data being sent by tcp/ip in 1994, what would the value of that data be in 2014 (if, like bitcoin, there were a limited number of packets today)?
Also, there were not very many credit card transactions in the 1970's compared to today.
So bitcoin has scarcity AND it has increasing volume and transactions. Bitcoin also has increasing numbers of users.
Bitcoin also has competition.
I encourage you to look up any of the top 10,000's of pages of information around its subject. The Federal Reserve just released a paper about Bitcoin two days ago. It is taken very seriously, though still regrettably misunderstood by the vast majority.
Happy trading.