Bitcoin price hits $100K for first time in history(cointelegraph.com)
cointelegraph.com
Bitcoin price hits $100K for first time in history
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-price-hits-100-000-first-time-new-all-time-high
162 comments
if quantum computing cracked encryption, everything secured on the internet would be in trouble, not just btc
every 4 years there is a halving event where the btc reward is cut in half. Eventually all btc will be mined and the only role of miners will be to process transactions and they get to keep the fees. that will be the incentive
i agree, Ethereum might be the better approach.
i'm not too concerned about the electricity usage in the long term. for btc it will be less and less profitable for miners to operate consuming large amounts of energy. as the price plateaus and mining rewards decrease, energy consumption should also plateau. that is if energy price stays the same and doesn't become cheaper.
every 4 years there is a halving event where the btc reward is cut in half. Eventually all btc will be mined and the only role of miners will be to process transactions and they get to keep the fees. that will be the incentive
i agree, Ethereum might be the better approach.
i'm not too concerned about the electricity usage in the long term. for btc it will be less and less profitable for miners to operate consuming large amounts of energy. as the price plateaus and mining rewards decrease, energy consumption should also plateau. that is if energy price stays the same and doesn't become cheaper.
Progressively harder mining means that the price of bitcoin must rise in pararell to cover the expenses of the miners securing the network.
I stopped following Bitcoin closely a decade ago, so I might be wrong, but I think the issue is the following. Mining was supposed to be eventually financed by transaction fees instead of the mining reward but the usage of Bitcoin for payments never really materialized. So there are not enough transactions to pay for the mining costs at reasonably low transaction costs. This also interacts with the low transaction limit of Bitcoin, even if people wanted to use Bitcoins for payments at large scale, there is no capacity for that. And the other way around, without the necessary capacity, transaction fees will be high, which will deter people from using Bitcoin for payments.
I stopped following Bitcoin closely a decade ago, so I might be wrong, but I think the issue is the following. Mining was supposed to be eventually financed by transaction fees instead of the mining reward but the usage of Bitcoin for payments never really materialized. So there are not enough transactions to pay for the mining costs at reasonably low transaction costs. This also interacts with the low transaction limit of Bitcoin, even if people wanted to use Bitcoins for payments at large scale, there is no capacity for that. And the other way around, without the necessary capacity, transaction fees will be high, which will deter people from using Bitcoin for payments.
> Quantum Computing actually cracking the encryptions which will kill the entire network instantly.
It will not. This issue was talked as far as 2012.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
It will not. This issue was talked as far as 2012.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
Everything you've just brought up as a concern is addressed, and more, over at https://endthefud.org
The energy use is a big one people who don't think it through keep coming back to (thanks to the WEF planting this bogeyman back in 2017 or so). Miners do not operate when the cost of electricity is high, for economic reasons. What they do, however, is look for stranded power. This has led many to operate where gas is otherwise being flared, as well as on wind turbine and other green power sources, making it economical to build them out as it creates demand. That demand in turn falls off if other use for the power materializes, but is there to pick up the slack if the surplus re-emerges.
These are a few examples, of which you'll find many if you bother to look. Bitcoin in many ways serves as a battery to balance demand for energy, and may well be one of the greener initiatives out there. Which certainly can't be said for traditional banking infrastructure.
The energy use is a big one people who don't think it through keep coming back to (thanks to the WEF planting this bogeyman back in 2017 or so). Miners do not operate when the cost of electricity is high, for economic reasons. What they do, however, is look for stranded power. This has led many to operate where gas is otherwise being flared, as well as on wind turbine and other green power sources, making it economical to build them out as it creates demand. That demand in turn falls off if other use for the power materializes, but is there to pick up the slack if the surplus re-emerges.
These are a few examples, of which you'll find many if you bother to look. Bitcoin in many ways serves as a battery to balance demand for energy, and may well be one of the greener initiatives out there. Which certainly can't be said for traditional banking infrastructure.
> Bitcoin as a digital store of value is fine.
It is not. It has multiple >70% drawdowns over the last ~decade:
* https://newhedge.io/terminal/bitcoin/price-drawdown
During the 1930s US stock market crash, things went down 90% and, a century later, has never been that bad. Bitcoin has had multiple Great Depression equivalent drops in one-tenth the time.
Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile: it should keep it's value, or at least be fairly predictable in the rate of decay.
It is not. It has multiple >70% drawdowns over the last ~decade:
* https://newhedge.io/terminal/bitcoin/price-drawdown
During the 1930s US stock market crash, things went down 90% and, a century later, has never been that bad. Bitcoin has had multiple Great Depression equivalent drops in one-tenth the time.
Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile: it should keep it's value, or at least be fairly predictable in the rate of decay.
> Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile
If it mostly goes up, it's still a good store of value, even if the volatility is high.
So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.
If it mostly goes up, it's still a good store of value, even if the volatility is high.
So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.
> If it mostly goes up, it's still a good store of value, even if the volatility is high.
So does the stock market, but if I want to buy a house in 2025, I don't keep my downpayment savings in the stock market but rather in a savings vehicle that protects the principal. I don't want something that goes down (or up) regularly if I want to store value: I want something that is predictable so when I go back to it to spend it (the whole point of currencies) I have a rough idea of what I'll have to work with.
> So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.
The point of currencies is not performance but stability.
So does the stock market, but if I want to buy a house in 2025, I don't keep my downpayment savings in the stock market but rather in a savings vehicle that protects the principal. I don't want something that goes down (or up) regularly if I want to store value: I want something that is predictable so when I go back to it to spend it (the whole point of currencies) I have a rough idea of what I'll have to work with.
> So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.
The point of currencies is not performance but stability.
How does a new thing become a store of value?
Could it be that there is a path to medium of exchange ->store of value? -> unit of account?
That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly
Could it be that there is a path to medium of exchange ->store of value? -> unit of account?
That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly
> That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly
Even if we grant that, Bitcoin has probably not reached that point (yet?).
Even if we grant that, Bitcoin has probably not reached that point (yet?).
First HN submission: Feb 3 2009 (0 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793
First HN submission I could find mentioning the price: 30 Apr 2011 "Bitcoin hits US$ 4, after being mentioned on CNN yesterday" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2501006
One of the comments "I've been watching the price of BTC rise pretty steadily in the last few days but I can't bring myself to believe that this price range is in any way sustainable. $4 per bitcoin? ..."
One of the comments "I've been watching the price of BTC rise pretty steadily in the last few days but I can't bring myself to believe that this price range is in any way sustainable. $4 per bitcoin? ..."
I'm starting to think Inverse HN would perhaps rival Inverse Cramer.
The inverse Cramer ETF lost 15% after a year and got shut down. Being wrong on the stock market does not mean that someone doing the opposite is right. Just like in software dev, there are infintely many ways to be wrong and by comparison only very few to be right.
I was just humorously insinuating that HN generally isn’t particularly good at financial advice. Take this top comment from 2022, simultaneously bearish on both crypto and AI... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34196161
There's no "opposite" when the decision space is very wide and with time as a factor. There's many "opposites" to choose from when you want to do "not what the guy did", so in the end it was just a "we promise to do anything except what Cramer says" rather than opposite.
There’s still a clear opposite for many predictions. If someone says he’s betting on stock X, the opposite would be to go short. And if someone says the stock is overpriced, you buy it.
No, that is literally the fallacy.
If someone says he's betting on stock X, the opposite is not to go short. That's one way of doing "not what he did". Another way of doing "not what he did" is to for example sell a PUT, because maybe you think it's just going to stay flat. Another way is to not do anything, and instead wait, because going short costs money (you're borrowing a stock and borrowing fees on it), and so the act of shorting itself can lose you money if he isn't "wrong fast enough". So is the opposite to short it on the day he says he's buying, or is the opposite to short it the next week? Even "pure opposite" situations would require exact entrypoints and exit points which you wouldn't have.
You literally fell for the exact thing I was describing.
If someone says he's betting on stock X, the opposite is not to go short. That's one way of doing "not what he did". Another way of doing "not what he did" is to for example sell a PUT, because maybe you think it's just going to stay flat. Another way is to not do anything, and instead wait, because going short costs money (you're borrowing a stock and borrowing fees on it), and so the act of shorting itself can lose you money if he isn't "wrong fast enough". So is the opposite to short it on the day he says he's buying, or is the opposite to short it the next week? Even "pure opposite" situations would require exact entrypoints and exit points which you wouldn't have.
You literally fell for the exact thing I was describing.
Isn’t selling puts „going short“? I understand „going short“ as „betting the stock is going down“, not literally selling shorts. But I’m also not a daytrader, so I’m not clear on the words used.
And not doing anything clearly isn’t the opposite. If someone says he’s going North, what’s the opposite of that? It would be going south, even though you could go west or east too, or just do nothing. Just because it’s a spectrum with more than one dimension doesn’t mean that some actions don’t have an opposite action.
And not doing anything clearly isn’t the opposite. If someone says he’s going North, what’s the opposite of that? It would be going south, even though you could go west or east too, or just do nothing. Just because it’s a spectrum with more than one dimension doesn’t mean that some actions don’t have an opposite action.
Buying PUT options is equivalent to shorting i.e. the more the stock price goes down, the more money you make.
Selling PUT options is equivalent to being long i.e. the more the stock price goes up, the more money you can make.
The OP seems confused.
Selling PUT options is equivalent to being long i.e. the more the stock price goes up, the more money you can make.
The OP seems confused.
You make the most money on a PUT you sold if it stays above strike, it doesn't have to go up at all for you to make 100% of the possible profit of the trade. You just wait as it goes to zero. The example was to show how to profit off of something staying flat.
Selling puts is a volatility bet mostly, but can be seen as bullish like buying stock, but doesn’t just behave as up=good, so your understanding is not up to par yet for this example. This is literally the issue.
How is that the issue? Even then, if someone’s position is „this stock is going up“, betting on „this stock is going down“ is the opposite. How you’re doing that is an implementation detail. You can even go to a Bookie and make a bet about the stock if you want to, the point is inverting the prediction. The issue is whether there’s a clear inverse, which I would argue there is.
You can invert specific positions with specific timings, you cannot invert statements from a show because implementation details as you call them will be paramount to performance. There's plenty of "reverse" ETFs that last a long time and aren't meme money grabs that do just that. The problem is in the interpretation of what "opposite cramer" means. If Cramer says something goes up, but it stays flat, going short will also lose money, selling PUTs as I described would make money - which strategy is "the opposite" of what he said? Both are other things that can happen that aren't what he said. And there's way more things that can happen.
How did Cramer do in the same time frame? What about the S&P 500?
They don't actually have to be positive every year. They just have to do better than comparable indexes. It's hard to tell the value of a strategy after just one year.
They don't actually have to be positive every year. They just have to do better than comparable indexes. It's hard to tell the value of a strategy after just one year.
This increases the market for bitcoin mining and subsequently energy waste. For me personally this enough reason to ban bitcoin
> This increases the market for bitcoin mining and subsequently energy waste.
News technologies will require more and more energy.
> For me personally this enough reason to ban bitcoin
It's possible to ban bitcoin?
News technologies will require more and more energy.
> For me personally this enough reason to ban bitcoin
It's possible to ban bitcoin?
I feel this way about AI. Oh wait, AI is actually an existential risk to humanity, also.
Generative AI is hardly an existential risk. There’s huge fears around AGI, but that’s not what people are building.
Look at (the comments on) the Genie announcement on the front page today or yesterday, and earlier generative "world models". People are itching to use those kind of models for the internal world representation of autonomous robots. More generally the fact that a model is "generative" does not mean it can not become an effective component in or pathway to AGI.
There’s huge fears around AGI, but that’s not what people are building.
Everyone is trying to build this.
Everyone is trying to build this.
“Trying” is an overly generous interpretation of what’s going on.
Training an LLM is not actually working on AGI just as people building skyscrapers aren’t getting to the moon. It’s an inherent limitation on the approach.
Training an LLM is not actually working on AGI just as people building skyscrapers aren’t getting to the moon. It’s an inherent limitation on the approach.
Training LLMs is not the only thing people are trying. They dominate the public attention right now but there are people everywhere trying all kinds of approaches. Here's one from IBM: https://research.ibm.com/topics/neuro-symbolic-ai
First sentence: "We see Neuro-symbolic AI as a pathway to achieve artificial general intelligence"
First sentence: "We see Neuro-symbolic AI as a pathway to achieve artificial general intelligence"
I agree some people are doing novel work, but that’s a long way from “Everyone”.
Everyone is trying to get to AGI, and yes mostly through LLMs for now.
You said you don't believe LLMs are capable of ever getting there, so I offered a link showing people are trying other things as well. My point was never "Everyone is doing novel, non-LLM work towards AGI".
But everyone is in fact trying to get to AGI:
Google: https://www.fastcompany.com/91233846/noam-shazeer-back-at-go... https://deepmind.google/research/publications/66938/
Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/do-more-with-ai/artific...
Meta: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/18/24042354/mark-zuckerberg-...
Salesforce: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/09/12/salesfo...
Not to mention obvious suspects (OpenAI, Anthropic etc). Just because you think it won't work doesn't mean they're not trying. Everyone is trying to get to AGI.
You said you don't believe LLMs are capable of ever getting there, so I offered a link showing people are trying other things as well. My point was never "Everyone is doing novel, non-LLM work towards AGI".
But everyone is in fact trying to get to AGI:
Google: https://www.fastcompany.com/91233846/noam-shazeer-back-at-go... https://deepmind.google/research/publications/66938/
Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/do-more-with-ai/artific...
Meta: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/18/24042354/mark-zuckerberg-...
Salesforce: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/09/12/salesfo...
Not to mention obvious suspects (OpenAI, Anthropic etc). Just because you think it won't work doesn't mean they're not trying. Everyone is trying to get to AGI.
OpenAI has specifically said LLM’s aren’t a path to AGI, though they think they have utility in understanding how society can and should interact with a potential AGI, especially from a policy perspective.
Your other examples are giant companies with many focus who can trivially pay lip service to fundamental research without spending any particular effort. Take your link:
“Benioff outlined four waves of enterprise AI, the first two of which are currently real, available, and shipping:
Your other examples are giant companies with many focus who can trivially pay lip service to fundamental research without spending any particular effort. Take your link:
“Benioff outlined four waves of enterprise AI, the first two of which are currently real, available, and shipping:
Predictive
Generative
Autonomous and agents
Artificial general intelligence”
Please, before we discuss this further, and I would like to, provide some idea of what would qualify as an "actual effort into AGI" for you.
I exclude things like increasing processing power/infrastructure as slow AGI is still AGI even if it’s not useful. Yes AGI needs energy, no building energy infrastructure doesn’t qualify as actually working on AGI. You’re also going to need money but making money it’s isn’t inherent progress.
IMO, the fundamental requirements for AGI need at minimum: A system which operates continuously, improves in operation, and can set goals for itself. If you know the work you’re doing isn’t going to result in that then working towards AGI implies abandoning that approach and trying something new.
Basically researching new algorithms or types of computation could qualify, but iterative improvement on well studied methods doesn’t. So some research into biological neurons/brains qualifies but optimizing A* doesn’t even if it’s useful for what you’re working on. There’s a huge number of spin-offs from AI research that are really useful and worth developing, but also inherently limited.
I’m somewhat torn as to the minimum threshold for progress. Tossing 1 billion dollars worth of computational power at genetic algorithms wouldn’t produce AGI, but there’s theoretical levels of processing power where such an approach could actually work even if we’re nowhere close to building such systems. It’s the kind of moonshot that 99.99…% wouldn’t work, but maybe…
So, it may seem like moving the goalposts but I think the initial work on LLM’s could qualify, but subsequent refinement doesn’t.
Edited with some minor clarification.
IMO, the fundamental requirements for AGI need at minimum: A system which operates continuously, improves in operation, and can set goals for itself. If you know the work you’re doing isn’t going to result in that then working towards AGI implies abandoning that approach and trying something new.
Basically researching new algorithms or types of computation could qualify, but iterative improvement on well studied methods doesn’t. So some research into biological neurons/brains qualifies but optimizing A* doesn’t even if it’s useful for what you’re working on. There’s a huge number of spin-offs from AI research that are really useful and worth developing, but also inherently limited.
I’m somewhat torn as to the minimum threshold for progress. Tossing 1 billion dollars worth of computational power at genetic algorithms wouldn’t produce AGI, but there’s theoretical levels of processing power where such an approach could actually work even if we’re nowhere close to building such systems. It’s the kind of moonshot that 99.99…% wouldn’t work, but maybe…
So, it may seem like moving the goalposts but I think the initial work on LLM’s could qualify, but subsequent refinement doesn’t.
Edited with some minor clarification.
> It’s an inherent limitation on the approach.
What's your evidence for this?
What's your evidence for this?
AGI needs to be able to generalize to real world tasks like self driving without needing task specific help from its creators.
But the current LLM process separates learning from interacting and the learning process is based on huge volumes of text. It’s possible to bolt on specific capabilities like say a chess engine, but you’re now building something different not an LLM.
But the current LLM process separates learning from interacting and the learning process is based on huge volumes of text. It’s possible to bolt on specific capabilities like say a chess engine, but you’re now building something different not an LLM.
I assure you people are very much trying to build the titular Torment Zone in the hit scifi novel "Don't Build the Torment Zone"
Either way it’s headed off the rails. Sloppification of everything, followed by eventual machine takeover.
Wow, this old argument brings me back a decade. You need to update your priors, my friend. Bitcoin is actually a net positive for the environment.
Discussion (134 points, 15 hours ago, 314 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42324263
One worse outcome is that Bitcoin is the bellwether in the cryptocurrency space. A big rise in it has a tendency to push others (called Altcoins) to rise with a much higher amount of speculation, rug pulling, scams, etc. When there is a crash, many of these altcoins could eat up gullible or greedy people’s life savings.
as someone who follows crypto its crazy how much US dominates the prices
during euro/asian hours price will go sideways or go down, then during US hours you get the huge moves up or down
i'm guessing all financial markets are like that. it's like US is a behemoth
during euro/asian hours price will go sideways or go down, then during US hours you get the huge moves up or down
i'm guessing all financial markets are like that. it's like US is a behemoth
If you are sure of this then congrats, you’ve spotted a pattern in the market that you can exploit and get rich off.
Seems unlikely tho for this reason.
Seems unlikely tho for this reason.
well the money comes from predicting the direction. this doesnt tell you the direction just that when US trading hours start the probability of a large move up or down increases
One can make money predicting volatility.
What do you mean by that?
Like FooBarBizBazz says below. One can buy and sell multiple options at the same time such that the trade overall makes money if the price stays within a range or (with a different set of option trades) makes money if the price goes outside a range, regardless if it is up or down. Search for straddle and strangle options. Option trading for Bitcoin and all major crypto currencies is possible and it is where the majority of trading happens.
"Reverse collar" (aka "long (iron) condor") options strategies would be one possibility, depending on the premiums people are charging. This is assuming that options trading for Bitcoin is possible and works the same as options trading on the ordinary stock market. Also, I am not an options trader.
The big move above $100k happened after 9pm Eastern time.
that would be 6pm pacific time. still falls under reasonable US time.
i think US accounts for 25% or over of global wealth, so it makes sense the big moves come from there.
i think US accounts for 25% or over of global wealth, so it makes sense the big moves come from there.
[deleted]
Are there theories why Trump getting elected caused such a spike?
Expected sanctions devaluing other currencies, higher risk of conflict (eg Iran -Israel/US war) causing economic instability, ... ?
Expected sanctions devaluing other currencies, higher risk of conflict (eg Iran -Israel/US war) causing economic instability, ... ?
I think it's as simple as expecting his administration not to be outright hostile to the industry, and maybe even encourage its development.
Most companies in the space have had "the government could, at any moment, make it nearly impossible for us to continue operating" as an existential risk, so if that risk goes down, the expectation for further innovation and development soars.
Most companies in the space have had "the government could, at any moment, make it nearly impossible for us to continue operating" as an existential risk, so if that risk goes down, the expectation for further innovation and development soars.
Yes, there will just be more fraud since there will be less regulation and so the fraudsters are drooling.
Maybe there will. But literally everything has fraud, and not every other industry is worth this kind of money, so it seems naïve to attribute it all to fraud.
He's been crypto-friendly during the campaign, but last spike is probably related to this[0], which solidifies state support for what was born as a state-independent asset.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/sec-chair-atkins-gensler-investor...
[0] https://apnews.com/article/sec-chair-atkins-gensler-investor...
Weren’t the last spike in crypto prices mostly done by major holders who needed to unload? I admit I don’t follow it very closely but I seem to recall some Danish articles about it essentially being a form of market manipulation largely unrelated to anything that was actually happening in the world.
I’m probably wrong though.
I’m probably wrong though.
Unloading doesn't increase price. Price is driven by supply and demand. Unloading lowers price.
There isn't an "increase price so I can unload" button.
There isn't an "increase price so I can unload" button.
You are probably partially right but there are many levels to this game.
Microstrategy is also running a pyramid scheme. Surely, there are also hedge funds in the space playing all kinds of games.
It is interesting how the digital Yuan is rolling out right now as part of HarmonyOS NEXT while the stupid west waste time with these digital currencies that can't function well as actual currency.
At the highest level, I suspect this is a brilliant game of currency Kung Fu.
Microstrategy is also running a pyramid scheme. Surely, there are also hedge funds in the space playing all kinds of games.
It is interesting how the digital Yuan is rolling out right now as part of HarmonyOS NEXT while the stupid west waste time with these digital currencies that can't function well as actual currency.
At the highest level, I suspect this is a brilliant game of currency Kung Fu.
Because deregulation or non-enforcement means manipulation/pump-and-dump etc. will still be profitable. The market probably believes that Trump will keep his word [1] on this topic. Since Trump could continue to enrich himself using crypto and with guys like Peter Thiel owning him, sorry advising him, that is a common sense interpretation.
[1] https://archive.ph/KsI4s#selection-1575.114-1575.206
[1] https://archive.ph/KsI4s#selection-1575.114-1575.206
People took what they wanted from his change of heart in July. First, to promise not to spend from a Federal strategic reserve. Later, he mentioned paying down the debt, which his administration was largely responsible for. Finally, he talks about a sovereign wealth fund, which implies he doesn’t plan to buy bitcoin with money.
https://time.com/7173421/what-donald-trump-election-win-mean...
----
Trump spoke glowingly about crypto this year on the campaign trail, despite casting skepticism upon it for years. At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville in July, Trump floated the idea of establishing a federal Bitcoin reserve, and stressed the importance of bringing more Bitcoin mining operations to the U.S.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump vowed to oust Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who has brought many lawsuits against crypto projects for allegedly violating securities laws. Gensler is a widely-reviled figure in the crypto industry, with many accusing him of stifling innovation. Gensler, conversely, argued that it was his job to protect consumers from the massive crypto collapses that unfolded in 2022, including Terra Luna and FTX.
Gensler’s term isn’t up until 2026, but some analysts expect him to resign once Trump takes office, as previous SEC chairs have done after the President that appointed them lost their elections. A change to SEC leadership could allow many more crypto products to enter mainstream financial markets. For the past few years, the SEC had been hesitant to approve crypto ETFs: investment vehicles that allow people to bet on crypto without actually holding it. But a judge forced Gensler’s hand, bringing Bitcoin ETFs onto the market in January. Now, under a friendlier SEC, ETFs based on smaller cryptocurrencies like Solana and XRP may be next.
Many crypto enthusiasts are also excited by Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk, who has long championed cryptocurrencies on social media. On election night, Dogecoin, Musk’s preferred meme coin, spiked 25% to 21 cents.
----
Trump spoke glowingly about crypto this year on the campaign trail, despite casting skepticism upon it for years. At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville in July, Trump floated the idea of establishing a federal Bitcoin reserve, and stressed the importance of bringing more Bitcoin mining operations to the U.S.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump vowed to oust Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who has brought many lawsuits against crypto projects for allegedly violating securities laws. Gensler is a widely-reviled figure in the crypto industry, with many accusing him of stifling innovation. Gensler, conversely, argued that it was his job to protect consumers from the massive crypto collapses that unfolded in 2022, including Terra Luna and FTX.
Gensler’s term isn’t up until 2026, but some analysts expect him to resign once Trump takes office, as previous SEC chairs have done after the President that appointed them lost their elections. A change to SEC leadership could allow many more crypto products to enter mainstream financial markets. For the past few years, the SEC had been hesitant to approve crypto ETFs: investment vehicles that allow people to bet on crypto without actually holding it. But a judge forced Gensler’s hand, bringing Bitcoin ETFs onto the market in January. Now, under a friendlier SEC, ETFs based on smaller cryptocurrencies like Solana and XRP may be next.
Many crypto enthusiasts are also excited by Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk, who has long championed cryptocurrencies on social media. On election night, Dogecoin, Musk’s preferred meme coin, spiked 25% to 21 cents.
Gensler has confirmed his intention is to resign on January 20.
Duplicate comment from the other thread:
11 years ago I sold 100 BTC, and made pretty good money. With that said, the more I think about BTC, the less sense it makes to me. Exceedingly few people actually use it for anything practical. The “store of value” functionality has completely eclipsed the practical use that Bitcoin maxis were preaching back then. Since 2016-2017, it seems like people have bought it for the sole purpose of seeing someone else pay more for it. It will never become some “universal” currency that overtakes national fiats. Right now it seems like people are only hoping for governments to hoard up BTC, to moon the price and provide exit liquidity for early holders - which IMO would be reckless spending. It is the ultimate make-believe asset.
Also, when I ran the numbers some time ago, I figured a realistic max value for 1 BTC would be 500k-1M.
So the big money has been made, imo. Betting on a good stock could make you just as rich, as waiting BTC to reach its max. Most money will be made buying and selling between the boom cycles.
11 years ago I sold 100 BTC, and made pretty good money. With that said, the more I think about BTC, the less sense it makes to me. Exceedingly few people actually use it for anything practical. The “store of value” functionality has completely eclipsed the practical use that Bitcoin maxis were preaching back then. Since 2016-2017, it seems like people have bought it for the sole purpose of seeing someone else pay more for it. It will never become some “universal” currency that overtakes national fiats. Right now it seems like people are only hoping for governments to hoard up BTC, to moon the price and provide exit liquidity for early holders - which IMO would be reckless spending. It is the ultimate make-believe asset.
Also, when I ran the numbers some time ago, I figured a realistic max value for 1 BTC would be 500k-1M.
So the big money has been made, imo. Betting on a good stock could make you just as rich, as waiting BTC to reach its max. Most money will be made buying and selling between the boom cycles.
In 2015, we paid 20.4 bitcoins for a comic book [1] signed by several key contributors to the cryptocurrency space, including Nick Szabo (known for his work on smart contracts) and Adam Back (the inventor of Proof of Work). A glimpse of these signatures is available on page 4 of this whitepaper [2].
Today, I view cryptocurrency prices as just another signal within the broader economy. While some of my companies focus on cryptocurrency research, security, and development I am not obsessed with trading.
[1] https://bitcoinist.com/meet-the-guys-who-paid-10-thousand-do...
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L0Me9si4iMclOq8n-oG2yNQf...
Today, I view cryptocurrency prices as just another signal within the broader economy. While some of my companies focus on cryptocurrency research, security, and development I am not obsessed with trading.
[1] https://bitcoinist.com/meet-the-guys-who-paid-10-thousand-do...
[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L0Me9si4iMclOq8n-oG2yNQf...
I ran the numbers some time ago, I figured a realistic max value for 1 BTC would be 500k-1M.
Extremely curious about your methodology here. Also I'm not sure how to process "the max value is only 5-10x from current prices so the big money has already been made". Can you explain?
Extremely curious about your methodology here. Also I'm not sure how to process "the max value is only 5-10x from current prices so the big money has already been made". Can you explain?
There's no methodology anyone can show you, that's why they never show their numbers.
Bitcoin is an asset like any other, there's no math I can do that will prove to you that someone can't just arrive tomorrow and buy this rock off of me for $2. And there's no math someone can do that can prove someone else won't show up the next day and offer $2 trillions for it, specially because their math can't predict inflation, or they'd be billionnaires on the futures market very quickly instead of showing off their math claims online.
Bitcoin is an asset like any other, there's no math I can do that will prove to you that someone can't just arrive tomorrow and buy this rock off of me for $2. And there's no math someone can do that can prove someone else won't show up the next day and offer $2 trillions for it, specially because their math can't predict inflation, or they'd be billionnaires on the futures market very quickly instead of showing off their math claims online.
"If lots of optimistic things happen, then it can't be more than X" doesn't require predicting the future.
For example, the total value of all gold is something like $10-20T. At 21M coins, if bitcoin fully replaced all gold you'd be looking at something like 500k-1M. I don't really get the difference between M1 and M2 for money supply but this is about the same as all US dollars.
So $500k-$1M seems like a realistic maximum value. That's different from "I think this will happen" and you can have a value much lower than this but the key part here IMO is saying "I cannot see a way it can be higher". I think there are other investments that require significantly less optimism to see 5-10x growth over any reasonable timeframe.
> Also I'm not sure how to process "the max value is only 5-10x from current prices so the big money has already been made". Can you explain?
A maximum upside of 5-10x assuming lots of things go extremely well for your investment requiring massive global shifts is a tricky sell. To make a huge amount of money you have to put a lot on the line.
So I think broadly this is just about whether you read "realistic max value" as "the maximum I expect this to reach" or "scenarios where it goes above this are unrealistic even with a lot of optimism".
For example, the total value of all gold is something like $10-20T. At 21M coins, if bitcoin fully replaced all gold you'd be looking at something like 500k-1M. I don't really get the difference between M1 and M2 for money supply but this is about the same as all US dollars.
So $500k-$1M seems like a realistic maximum value. That's different from "I think this will happen" and you can have a value much lower than this but the key part here IMO is saying "I cannot see a way it can be higher". I think there are other investments that require significantly less optimism to see 5-10x growth over any reasonable timeframe.
> Also I'm not sure how to process "the max value is only 5-10x from current prices so the big money has already been made". Can you explain?
A maximum upside of 5-10x assuming lots of things go extremely well for your investment requiring massive global shifts is a tricky sell. To make a huge amount of money you have to put a lot on the line.
So I think broadly this is just about whether you read "realistic max value" as "the maximum I expect this to reach" or "scenarios where it goes above this are unrealistic even with a lot of optimism".
I believe cryptocurrencies have played a significant role in awakening traditional finance and fintech industries. It’s remarkable that systems like ACH [1] have been used for U.S. payments for decades, and yet FedNow [2], a real-time payment solution, has only recently been introduced in the world’s leading economy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_clearing_house
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_clearing_house
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
> Exceedingly few people actually use it for anything practical.
That is actually fairly common. Gold has been around for millennia, found basically 0 practical applications [0]. The value of something is roughly the marginal difficulty of procuring the thing by whether someone wants to own it, and at the moment nobody can create bitcoin for substantially less than $100k and broadly speaking people will always want to own them at some price.
That being said, I don't think bitcoin will hold its value long term. But the money question now is whether the collapse happens on the scale of years, decades, centuries or millenia.
[0] The purpose of gold jewellery is to demonstrate that someone has gold/the wealth to do something impractical; otherwise we could make plastic jewellery that is prettier, lighter and cheaper.
That is actually fairly common. Gold has been around for millennia, found basically 0 practical applications [0]. The value of something is roughly the marginal difficulty of procuring the thing by whether someone wants to own it, and at the moment nobody can create bitcoin for substantially less than $100k and broadly speaking people will always want to own them at some price.
That being said, I don't think bitcoin will hold its value long term. But the money question now is whether the collapse happens on the scale of years, decades, centuries or millenia.
[0] The purpose of gold jewellery is to demonstrate that someone has gold/the wealth to do something impractical; otherwise we could make plastic jewellery that is prettier, lighter and cheaper.
Gold is not only used for jewelry. It has many practical applications and is essential for electronics.
> Gold is not only used for jewelry. It has many practical applications and is essential for electronics.
47% of gold is used for jewelry and 6% is used for electronics:
* https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml#history
You're not wrong, but not entirely right either.
47% of gold is used for jewelry and 6% is used for electronics:
* https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml#history
You're not wrong, but not entirely right either.
Gold was the universal medium of exchange for the vast majority of recorded human history. That also gives it a good track record of being a good store of value. This track record can't be said about Bitcoin which has only existed while the of the economy of the nation driving Bitcoin prices has been growing.
Plastic jewelry and other cheaper jewelry only really look good when it's new in a store. The main buyers of gold jewelry are Indians, who prefer higher karat gold, which looks good forever. The intersection between a non-reactive metal and a colorful metal make gold the ideal material for jewelry.
Plastic jewelry and other cheaper jewelry only really look good when it's new in a store. The main buyers of gold jewelry are Indians, who prefer higher karat gold, which looks good forever. The intersection between a non-reactive metal and a colorful metal make gold the ideal material for jewelry.
To bring that needle slightly off of 0, there's a long history of using gold in dentistry.
"Gold is suitable for dentistry because it is malleable, nearly immune to corrosion, and closely mimics the hardness of natural teeth, thereby causing no harm to natural teeth during chewing" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_teeth
"Gold is suitable for dentistry because it is malleable, nearly immune to corrosion, and closely mimics the hardness of natural teeth, thereby causing no harm to natural teeth during chewing" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_teeth
Gold has many practical applications though. I think our electronics have gold in them, for example…
First comment of any bitcoin thread on HN is always something like this, generally negative and a bit grumpy.
But do you actually disagree? Has the Crypto Revolution to date produced anything other than financial speculation and a slight warming of the Earth's surface?
Sure. Millions of people in the third world use crypto for payments. There's also Polymarket, very much recognized within the mainstream. And generally, crypto will continue to spawn new digital infrastructures in a sovereign space.
In addition to speculation, with longer time horizon people anywhere in the world can retain the value of what they earn by buying bitcoin with it. Also, mining it can make otherwise not cost-effective power plants cost-effective by buying the excess energy.
> First comment of any bitcoin thread on HN is always something like this, generally negative and a bit grumpy.
And not entirely wrong.
Bitcoin is now just a commodity play: it doesn't have to be rational to make money. Humans assign "value" to all sort of arbitrary things:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
And not entirely wrong.
Bitcoin is now just a commodity play: it doesn't have to be rational to make money. Humans assign "value" to all sort of arbitrary things:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
^ Typical second comment.
HN is full of engineers, founders, etc. who kind of resent that there’s a large class of people who got rich doing nothing and creating no value.
I get it but I’d say if you’re mad about Bitcoiners you should be a lot more angry about much of the financial industry and property speculators, two other huge groups that get rich without creating much value (or even by creating negative value).
There's a lot of value-free getting rich lately. People call it "late stage capitalism," but that frames capitalism as the villain when in fact it's a symptom of capitalism having created so much wealth we don't know what to do with it. The problem is that we're allocating it in incredibly dysfunctional ridiculous ways. I think what we're seeing is the symptoms of an early-stage post-scarcity society in denial.
The dysfunction arises from our clinging to scarcity-era puritanical ideas that only those who do a lot of work or do miraculous things "deserve" wealth. So we create all kinds of elaborate games and then convince ourselves that the winners of those games are somehow superhuman or superior in some Calvinist sense when they really just won a video game.
In a post-scarcity society baseline levels of wealth become like oxygen in the atmosphere. You don't "deserve" it. It's just there.
We are not quite post-scarcity yet, but we're close enough that craziness like $100k Bitcoin is possible. A few more key innovations will do it. Another order of magnitude drop in solar/battery prices and/or successful demonstration of a net-positive fusion power plant will do it. Embodied AIs that can do factory jobs will get us pretty far too, making the cost of manufactured goods almost equal to the cost of raw material inputs and energy inputs.
I get it but I’d say if you’re mad about Bitcoiners you should be a lot more angry about much of the financial industry and property speculators, two other huge groups that get rich without creating much value (or even by creating negative value).
There's a lot of value-free getting rich lately. People call it "late stage capitalism," but that frames capitalism as the villain when in fact it's a symptom of capitalism having created so much wealth we don't know what to do with it. The problem is that we're allocating it in incredibly dysfunctional ridiculous ways. I think what we're seeing is the symptoms of an early-stage post-scarcity society in denial.
The dysfunction arises from our clinging to scarcity-era puritanical ideas that only those who do a lot of work or do miraculous things "deserve" wealth. So we create all kinds of elaborate games and then convince ourselves that the winners of those games are somehow superhuman or superior in some Calvinist sense when they really just won a video game.
In a post-scarcity society baseline levels of wealth become like oxygen in the atmosphere. You don't "deserve" it. It's just there.
We are not quite post-scarcity yet, but we're close enough that craziness like $100k Bitcoin is possible. A few more key innovations will do it. Another order of magnitude drop in solar/battery prices and/or successful demonstration of a net-positive fusion power plant will do it. Embodied AIs that can do factory jobs will get us pretty far too, making the cost of manufactured goods almost equal to the cost of raw material inputs and energy inputs.
Believing that misallocation of capital means that we are living in a post scarcity society is a very techno optimist way of looking at things.
HN is unbelievably apolitical, apart from it's baseline tendency towards the left and whatever silicon valley demands people believe.
If you were anywhere near a post scarcity society (applies to USA) you wouldn't be hurtling towards national sovereign debt default at a rate of knots, and you wouldn't have the most expensive healthcare in the world.
As it happens, what appears to be a "post scarcity society" is just pathological misallocation of capital due to a political failure (that shaln't be spoken of here) that has the entire west circling the bowl at the moment.
HN is unbelievably apolitical, apart from it's baseline tendency towards the left and whatever silicon valley demands people believe.
If you were anywhere near a post scarcity society (applies to USA) you wouldn't be hurtling towards national sovereign debt default at a rate of knots, and you wouldn't have the most expensive healthcare in the world.
As it happens, what appears to be a "post scarcity society" is just pathological misallocation of capital due to a political failure (that shaln't be spoken of here) that has the entire west circling the bowl at the moment.
Capitalism isn’t generating so much wealth ifaik, life standard of average working person is constantly going down since 1970s
By what measure?
I know of only one obvious dimension where the life standards of the average person have declined significantly since the 1970s: housing affordability. The entire developed world has a housing affordability crisis driven by cartel-like behavior among homeowners and bad zoning policy among other things. This is a policy failure resulting from bad regulation and undue influence / corruption.
Most other things have stayed largely the same or improved. Food is better and more varied, and while restaurants and some types of food have increased in cost they are still available. Health care is more expensive but also vastly better, especially when dealing with diseases like cancer or heart/circulatory issues. A cancer diagnosis is much less of a death sentence today than it was in the 1970s. Access to information is absurdly, exponentially better. Travel is probably about equally available. Communication capabilities are infinitely better. Appliances, gadgets, and other manufactured goods are significantly cheaper.
I know of only one obvious dimension where the life standards of the average person have declined significantly since the 1970s: housing affordability. The entire developed world has a housing affordability crisis driven by cartel-like behavior among homeowners and bad zoning policy among other things. This is a policy failure resulting from bad regulation and undue influence / corruption.
Most other things have stayed largely the same or improved. Food is better and more varied, and while restaurants and some types of food have increased in cost they are still available. Health care is more expensive but also vastly better, especially when dealing with diseases like cancer or heart/circulatory issues. A cancer diagnosis is much less of a death sentence today than it was in the 1970s. Access to information is absurdly, exponentially better. Travel is probably about equally available. Communication capabilities are infinitely better. Appliances, gadgets, and other manufactured goods are significantly cheaper.
This makes sense, I was thinking about income equality, my bad
Yes that has gotten worse, mainly because the high end of the power law distribution of incomes has gone insane.
As person with both a finance and economics degrees, bitcoin is a successful fraud. I can list out how they use bitcoin private definitions for standard financial terms, how they do not disclose those differences in conversations with financial professionals using the standard terms and their definitions, and the bitcoin community itself is composed of people that expect someone else did the homework to validate this, but no one did. I did, it's not there. Bitcoin is a fraud designed to trap smart people that trust other smart people, who do not do their homework.
Please do (unironically).
And invite all manner of debate with aggressive non-homework do'ers? No Thanks.
So you have nothing.. Alright then.
Devils advocate / steel man reply: isn't that what all currencies are?
Why does the Federal Reserve US dollar have value? Because people trust other smart people who say they've done the work and trust other smart people who work for the Federal Reserve.
Money is a thing people agree upon as a medium of exchange. It is not value itself. Value is the people, places, and things that make up the actual economy. Bitcoin has no value but neither does the USD. Can't eat them. Can't build a house with them.
My problem with Bitcoin is that I don't think a hyper-deflationary currency is a good idea. Bitcoin is even more deflationary than gold due to breakage (loss of keys) and a hard mining limit.
Why does the Federal Reserve US dollar have value? Because people trust other smart people who say they've done the work and trust other smart people who work for the Federal Reserve.
Money is a thing people agree upon as a medium of exchange. It is not value itself. Value is the people, places, and things that make up the actual economy. Bitcoin has no value but neither does the USD. Can't eat them. Can't build a house with them.
My problem with Bitcoin is that I don't think a hyper-deflationary currency is a good idea. Bitcoin is even more deflationary than gold due to breakage (loss of keys) and a hard mining limit.
Fiat currencies have value because governments enforce using them to pay taxes, and to buy goods and services.
> a hard mining limit.
This is what I keep telling people. No government will use BTC because of this.There is a reason the US went off the gold standard, so they can print create money without causing inflation tied to money supply. Inflation now is not tied to money supply, but to money spending. (ie. if people did not spend money buying things there would be no increase in prices.) In the past, if you printed more money inflation would be immediate since it, in effect, immediately devalues the price of gold.
This is what I keep telling people. No government will use BTC because of this.There is a reason the US went off the gold standard, so they can print create money without causing inflation tied to money supply. Inflation now is not tied to money supply, but to money spending. (ie. if people did not spend money buying things there would be no increase in prices.) In the past, if you printed more money inflation would be immediate since it, in effect, immediately devalues the price of gold.
USD has value because there are things people need to pay for that can only be paid for with USD.
[deleted]
USD has value because it’s backed by a sufficiently large group with guns.
BTC has value because it’s backed by a sufficiently large group with encryption.
Mechanisms which are difficult to bypass have value. You can’t eat an RSA private key but private keys have immense value.
BTC has value because it’s backed by a sufficiently large group with encryption.
Mechanisms which are difficult to bypass have value. You can’t eat an RSA private key but private keys have immense value.
My big concern with bitcoin (like AI) is the energy costs. We have to figure those out. The biggest fraud we perpetuate is destroying the planet/climate for shareholder value. But if I was in an unstable country, I'd probably buy bitcoin (or dollars/euro dollars). Bitcoin is portable though so easier to get if your country imposes export controls.
Just for the last 5-10 years. Before, BTC was cool.
Because 10+ years ago it was being used as a cool currency you could generate with your desktop GPU and buy steam games with.
Now there doesn’t seem to be any use case other than hoping it goes up higher, and enabling crime.
Now there doesn’t seem to be any use case other than hoping it goes up higher, and enabling crime.
I understand you disagree with the whole thing but blockchain has a lot of uses already. Most obvious ones are storing money or investment and transferring money. It factually works amazing for these. Assuming you believe in capitalism, people won’t put such enormous amounts of money on something if it has no use. Speculation also applies to stocks in the same way, there is no world where nvidia should be priced like this but people have some view on it and it effects the price. Same idea with blockchain, there are already use cases and it is expanding constantly. Also there is a ton of investment going into research of development of it, there is no reason why people shouldn’t invest in it by buying coins, it is factually a good investment so far if you are able to hold for long periods of time
> I understand you disagree with the whole thing but blockchain has a lot of uses already.
Not really.
NIST has a good blockchain explainer with a handy flowchart that has questions you should ask to see if blockchain is a useful solution:
* PNG flowchart: https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/enhanced-distribut...
* https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/enhanced-distributed-ledger-t...
* https://www.nist.gov/blockchain
And other things are probably a better fit for the majority of people's needs.
Not really.
NIST has a good blockchain explainer with a handy flowchart that has questions you should ask to see if blockchain is a useful solution:
* PNG flowchart: https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/enhanced-distribut...
* https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/enhanced-distributed-ledger-t...
* https://www.nist.gov/blockchain
And other things are probably a better fit for the majority of people's needs.
Stats mean nothing when I use it every month for my savings and salary. As many people already do. I can also send money between countries very easily and cheap.
I understand this can be just as easily done with banking system in more developed countries but blockchain is much better other parts of the world
I understand this can be just as easily done with banking system in more developed countries but blockchain is much better other parts of the world
Because there was naive optimism about it as a technology?
> With that said, the more I think about BTC, the less sense it makes to me. Exceedingly few people actually use it for anything practical.
The same can be said of gold.
It's primary modern use is jewelry, with some industrial uses (electronics, aerospace) as well as medical and dentistry. For a little while it was used as (the basis of) money, and now that particular fetish has stuck around:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249245.The_Power_of_Gold
Bitcoin and gold are now simply commodities, like oil or frozen concentrated orange juice.
Human psychology is weird.
The same can be said of gold.
It's primary modern use is jewelry, with some industrial uses (electronics, aerospace) as well as medical and dentistry. For a little while it was used as (the basis of) money, and now that particular fetish has stuck around:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249245.The_Power_of_Gold
Bitcoin and gold are now simply commodities, like oil or frozen concentrated orange juice.
Human psychology is weird.
[deleted]
BTC was designed as a drop-in replacement for both the USD and SWIFT for processing transactions. If it were successful, it would be a grave threat to the US financial position. Trump recently issued threats to BRICS nations for contemplating issuing a common currency with precisely those same aims.[1]
If BTC was on the verge of realizing its purpose, Trump would work equally hard to burn it down. So, who knows if BTC price goes up or down, but categorical statements about a fundamentally transactional politician sending this permanently to the moon bake in a significant degree of risk of later being contradicted.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/30/politics/trump-brics-currency...
If BTC was on the verge of realizing its purpose, Trump would work equally hard to burn it down. So, who knows if BTC price goes up or down, but categorical statements about a fundamentally transactional politician sending this permanently to the moon bake in a significant degree of risk of later being contradicted.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/30/politics/trump-brics-currency...
[deleted]
> BTC was designed as a drop-in replacement for both the USD and SWIFT for processing transactions.
That may have been the original intent of BTC's creators, but what is it actually used for now? USD and SWIFT are being used daily for transactions, whereas two-thirds of Bitcoins have been inactive for the last year:
* https://en.macromicro.me/charts/32355/bitcoin-supply-last-ac...
It's simply being hoarded.
That may have been the original intent of BTC's creators, but what is it actually used for now? USD and SWIFT are being used daily for transactions, whereas two-thirds of Bitcoins have been inactive for the last year:
* https://en.macromicro.me/charts/32355/bitcoin-supply-last-ac...
It's simply being hoarded.
[deleted]
Agree. Bitcoin used to make sense when it could actually be used to buy things, but at this point it's only useful for moving money for extra-legal purposes and even then, it's possibly the worst crypto to use for that because of traceability.
I don't deny that a Bitcoin is worth $100,000 right now, but it could just as easily be worth $0 because at the end of the day it has zero intrinsic value.
I don't deny that a Bitcoin is worth $100,000 right now, but it could just as easily be worth $0 because at the end of the day it has zero intrinsic value.
Bitcoin at this price level is generally hated by banks, treated with suspicion everywhere around the world, outright banned, and regulators almost actively try to grind it to a halt. They don't do those things for gold for example, and gold is still going up
Certainly gold has been the subject of some suspicion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
I don't know why you're being downvoted.
Cryptocurrencies in general are a big pain in the ass for banks, due to how much of fraud is associated with those currencies. AML and KYC regulations have made practical use of cryptocurrencies a pain for both parties, for the past 10 years. It's just now, in the very recent years, that it has become somewhat easier and streamlined.
Cryptocurrencies in general are a big pain in the ass for banks, due to how much of fraud is associated with those currencies. AML and KYC regulations have made practical use of cryptocurrencies a pain for both parties, for the past 10 years. It's just now, in the very recent years, that it has become somewhat easier and streamlined.
> a realistic max value for 1 BTC would be 500k-1M
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
>Also, when I ran the numbers some time ago, I figured a realistic max value for 1 BTC would be 500k-1M
In what units? What makes you think there won't be Argentina-style inflation of the USD?
In what units? What makes you think there won't be Argentina-style inflation of the USD?
My rationale is the following:
1) A very high (BTC/USD) rate will come from HUGE whales hoarding BTC. Like governments creating crypto reserves, and purchasing BTC in the magnitude of tens of thousands to low million (US have talked about purchasing a million).
2) BTC will never be a currency that is used for huge worldwide transactions, for things commodities like oil, gas, etc. No serious country will give up control of their currency like that, especially not US that will literally go to war if things aren’t purchased in the Uas dollar
3) Likewise, countries will not adapt BTC as their currency, if they cannot control the supply 100%
4) If BTC becomes too competitive, it will be fairly easy to regulate it into being too unattractive.
Those are my macro views.
I think it will continue to be some asset that competes against silver, gold, etc.
1) A very high (BTC/USD) rate will come from HUGE whales hoarding BTC. Like governments creating crypto reserves, and purchasing BTC in the magnitude of tens of thousands to low million (US have talked about purchasing a million).
2) BTC will never be a currency that is used for huge worldwide transactions, for things commodities like oil, gas, etc. No serious country will give up control of their currency like that, especially not US that will literally go to war if things aren’t purchased in the Uas dollar
3) Likewise, countries will not adapt BTC as their currency, if they cannot control the supply 100%
4) If BTC becomes too competitive, it will be fairly easy to regulate it into being too unattractive.
Those are my macro views.
I think it will continue to be some asset that competes against silver, gold, etc.
> If BTC becomes too competitive, it will be fairly easy to regulate it into being too unattractive
Will it though? There are millions of US voters who hold crypto and both sides attempted to appeal to this voting block in the last election (obviously one with more success than the other). Heavily regulating crypto seems to offer massive political downsides with very little potential gain.
And we haven't even seen the crypto version of the NRA yet.
Will it though? There are millions of US voters who hold crypto and both sides attempted to appeal to this voting block in the last election (obviously one with more success than the other). Heavily regulating crypto seems to offer massive political downsides with very little potential gain.
And we haven't even seen the crypto version of the NRA yet.
There might be smarter elected officials in the future that facing two choices:
USD losing the world's reserve currency status and:
1. Yuan becomes the reserve currency
2. BTC becomes the reserve currency
they would understand that choice 2 is preferrable for the West
USD losing the world's reserve currency status and:
1. Yuan becomes the reserve currency
2. BTC becomes the reserve currency
they would understand that choice 2 is preferrable for the West
BTC is not a currency however. The Yaun is a currency because it is controlled by a government. BTC is controlled by no one. It is just like gold, but worse because it has no intrinsic value.
There is a reason the US and other governments went off of the gold standard, and that is so we could control the price of our currency, which is what led to te mess we are in now.
If BTC were controlled by the government it would be no different than the dollar when we were on the gold standard, and that it why it will never be a currency.
There is a reason the US and other governments went off of the gold standard, and that is so we could control the price of our currency, which is what led to te mess we are in now.
If BTC were controlled by the government it would be no different than the dollar when we were on the gold standard, and that it why it will never be a currency.
> 1. Yuan becomes the reserve currency
Who trusts China enough to sign on board with them to do this?
> 2. BTC becomes the reserve currency
Given what we know of history, why would anyone go towards a new (digital) gold standard? It's a bad system:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
that limits monetary and fiscal flexibility and helped usher in and prolong the Great Depression.
Who trusts China enough to sign on board with them to do this?
> 2. BTC becomes the reserve currency
Given what we know of history, why would anyone go towards a new (digital) gold standard? It's a bad system:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
that limits monetary and fiscal flexibility and helped usher in and prolong the Great Depression.
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
just wanted to note that they are using a 20-year history window as an argument, while the gold standard existed for about 3500 years before that, across very different cultures.
just wanted to note that they are using a 20-year history window as an argument, while the gold standard existed for about 3500 years before that, across very different cultures.
> just wanted to note that they are using a 20-year history window as an argument […]
The troubles with a fixed monetary supply existed much earlier than that, having historically recorded issues going back almost five hundred years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine
We call the thing in the 1930s the "Great Depression", but before it occurred there was another time period that held that label, which has since been renamed:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
It's just most folks accepted that this is how things were "supposed" to be because they didn't know any better, but there was great dissatisfaction on how things were:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
It took until the likes of Irving Fischer, Keynes, and FDR until the old habits could be thrown off (too late in some places, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan):
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945314-the-money-maker...
> […] while the gold standard existed for about 3500 years before that, across very different cultures.
It did not. For most people, most of the time, it was credit that was used in day-to-day life:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
And even the rich often forsook coins:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument#History
* https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/30672/1/12%20Chapter%201839%20...
They earliest records of monetary transactions used credit:
* https://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/jesho_UR_14.pdf
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36854772-the-open-sea
Where gold was perhaps around, most folks were too poor to deal with it. And in a lot of cultures gold was not used at all:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50358103-money
The use of gold was mostly concentrated around the Mediterranean.
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249245.The_Power_of_Gold
The Chinese used silver (as the Spanish learned post-1492). The Incas had gold (as the Spanish happily learned) but not for currency (of which they had none) but for ornament/jewelry. Other cultures simply used other things, like non-shiny rocks:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
It is actually the gold standard—the convertibility between paper money and shiny rocks—that is the historic anomaly, existing between (depending on how you count things) between one and two hundred years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
Even the very meaning and nature of what is meant by "money" has changed over the millennia, starting with Aristotle and continuing to the present day:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58933308-the-currency-of...
The troubles with a fixed monetary supply existed much earlier than that, having historically recorded issues going back almost five hundred years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine
We call the thing in the 1930s the "Great Depression", but before it occurred there was another time period that held that label, which has since been renamed:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
It's just most folks accepted that this is how things were "supposed" to be because they didn't know any better, but there was great dissatisfaction on how things were:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
It took until the likes of Irving Fischer, Keynes, and FDR until the old habits could be thrown off (too late in some places, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan):
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945314-the-money-maker...
> […] while the gold standard existed for about 3500 years before that, across very different cultures.
It did not. For most people, most of the time, it was credit that was used in day-to-day life:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
And even the rich often forsook coins:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument#History
* https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/30672/1/12%20Chapter%201839%20...
They earliest records of monetary transactions used credit:
* https://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/jesho_UR_14.pdf
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36854772-the-open-sea
Where gold was perhaps around, most folks were too poor to deal with it. And in a lot of cultures gold was not used at all:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50358103-money
The use of gold was mostly concentrated around the Mediterranean.
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249245.The_Power_of_Gold
The Chinese used silver (as the Spanish learned post-1492). The Incas had gold (as the Spanish happily learned) but not for currency (of which they had none) but for ornament/jewelry. Other cultures simply used other things, like non-shiny rocks:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
It is actually the gold standard—the convertibility between paper money and shiny rocks—that is the historic anomaly, existing between (depending on how you count things) between one and two hundred years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
Even the very meaning and nature of what is meant by "money" has changed over the millennia, starting with Aristotle and continuing to the present day:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58933308-the-currency-of...
Where's the numbers, you said you did the math?
What makes you think BTC is an inflation hedge? BTC did not hedge the inflation event in 2022.
There’s still room for it to become an inflation hedge, we still havnt really seen much in terms of USD inflation and people scrambling for the exit.
OTOH, government crackdowns might be able to tank the price.
OTOH, government crackdowns might be able to tank the price.
the bet is that the incoming regime won't crackdown and may go do the opposite
> There’s still room for it to become an inflation hedge, we still havnt really seen much in terms of USD inflation and people scrambling for the exit.
Bitcoin is no more an inflation hedge than gold is, which it is not:
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w18706
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3667789
and both are something worse, deflationary:
* https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-an...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
Gold did not help in stabilizing currencies or economies:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
and neither would Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is no more an inflation hedge than gold is, which it is not:
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w18706
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3667789
and both are something worse, deflationary:
* https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/financial-markets-an...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
Gold did not help in stabilizing currencies or economies:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
and neither would Bitcoin.
[deleted]
Adam121(2)
Ah, the main application of Bitcoin - ransomware - is now more lucrative then ever.
Well, bitcoin has many legitimate uses like buying drugs or evading taxation
but still the most popular currency for tax evasion, buying drugs and international terrorism funding is USD using citibank and deutche bank infrastructure.
Well, USD is used too. For decades. Even with too many regulations and security controls implemented by financial institutions around the world.
...just like, fiat money.
At least, Bitcoin can't be printed and not centralized like a government-controlled money.
Bitcoin is not perfect, also not fully decentralized either, but still much better than more-centralized fiat which are government-controlled and are still used for all the harmful purposes already.
At least, Bitcoin can't be printed and not centralized like a government-controlled money.
Bitcoin is not perfect, also not fully decentralized either, but still much better than more-centralized fiat which are government-controlled and are still used for all the harmful purposes already.
[deleted]
Don’t forget money laundering.
There are plenty of better ways to money launder right now than to use BTC. The classic buying of art work and shell companies are fantastic to evade taxes and clean black money
Bannanas taped to a wall.
how? bitcoin is not anonymous
Just the latest one: https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-destab...
It's anonymous as long as you manage to sell it without connection to your real identity
Never understood this kind of sensational statements without inflation adjustment. Although does not make difference in this case, but all these claims "X has never been this expensive" often ignore inflation adjustment; render them meaningless.
Surely you're not serious. The price of 1 bitcoin was less than a dollar in 2010.
As I emphasized, very clearly, that it does not make difference in this very particularly case, I want to stress, nontheless, that the phrasing of the title is misleading; from what you've said yourself, we need to measure bitcoin price in 2010 dollars then, as the title suggests "first time in history", presumingly Bitcoin history. Guess what it is not there yet. It is 80K in 2010 dollars.
However, I am concerned about the security model on a 5-10+ year perspective. Miners secure the blockchain and get paid for it in bitcoins. We have seen that the mining has become more and more sentralized as the mining gets progressively harder (as by design). Progressively harder mining means that the price of bitcoin must rise in pararell to cover the expenses of the miners securing the network.
Here are my concerns:
- Increasingly centralized mining means a higher risk of a 51% attack (controlling 51% means you control the entire network).
- Bitcoin not able to maintain a constant price growth that will lower the incentive to keep mining as the difficulity increases.
- Quantum Computing actually cracking the encryptions which will kill the entire network instantly.
- Instability in the world might lead to spikes in electricity prices, which will affect the incentive to secure the network with mining.
I also think spending so much energy on security, when there are other viable options available is insane in our current age.
Transitioning to a Proof of Stake model like Ethereum instead of a Proof of Work model would be much more robust with a fraction of the power consumption, but thats just my opinion.