Bitcoin drops below $18,300 as sell-off accelerates(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Bitcoin drops below $18,300 as sell-off accelerates
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/18/bitcoin-price-drops-below-18600-as-sell-off-accelerates.html
164 comments
It’s plausibly the collapse of the largest ponzi the world has ever known, by lrders of magnitude. Madoff was $60 billion. Crypto was $2.6 trillion at its peak.
This article itself doesn’t add much but having the ones with analysis pop up frequently seems valid. Very interesting to watch this in real time, as in 2008.
Ponzi doesn’t quite fit and my hope is some day crypto will be known as a Nakamoto Scheme.
This article itself doesn’t add much but having the ones with analysis pop up frequently seems valid. Very interesting to watch this in real time, as in 2008.
Ponzi doesn’t quite fit and my hope is some day crypto will be known as a Nakamoto Scheme.
> my hope is some day crypto will be known as a Nakamoto Scheme
It’s called this in various places. See https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/
It’s called this in various places. See https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/
pop up frequently seems valid
It's not HN-valid on a daily, never mind hourly basis which is where we're at. That's just how the site functions and maintains its own interestingness, irrespective of the interestingness of any individual topic or article.
It's not HN-valid on a daily, never mind hourly basis which is where we're at. That's just how the site functions and maintains its own interestingness, irrespective of the interestingness of any individual topic or article.
Crypto was not a $2.6 trillion scam.
The "market value" does not have any correlation to how much money was thrown into the pot.
Back in 2018 the estimate of the 2017 bubble that blew it up to $1T the first time was that there was $5B-$10B or so sent into the system.
This time was probably several tens of billion.
The "market value" does not have any correlation to how much money was thrown into the pot.
Back in 2018 the estimate of the 2017 bubble that blew it up to $1T the first time was that there was $5B-$10B or so sent into the system.
This time was probably several tens of billion.
They measured Madoff by amount of money promised, not money put in, iirc
It's probably close to the peak of people not knowing what the term Ponzi means, which is notable.
It's also the tech with largest misunderstanding of its value in HN. 13 years of existence without a center figure shilling for the most part, it's still holding as a way to store value without any central authority and more application logics built on higher levels and the conclusion that some people bring is a ponzi scheme?
Do people actually know what cryptocurrencies are about or are those people someone who lost buying ATH or missed the boat seeing a friend become a millionaire?
Do people actually know what cryptocurrencies are about or are those people someone who lost buying ATH or missed the boat seeing a friend become a millionaire?
Double entendre of dupe here? :)
For the non-native speakers here, dupe as in duplicate post, but also dupe as in scam as in Bitcoin is a scam.
More of a single entendre
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dupe#Serbo-Croatian
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dupe#Serbo-Croatian
I have no horse in this race but it seems like a lot of people are rooting for as much pain as possible for Bitcoin as that justifies/makes people feel good for missing its bull run.
Also it’s not just Bitcoin falling in a vacuum. The entire US and European stock market is absolute garbage too (housing showing cracks as well) so it’s hard to blame Bitcoin alone although it has undeniable failed as an inflation hedge.
Also it’s not just Bitcoin falling in a vacuum. The entire US and European stock market is absolute garbage too (housing showing cracks as well) so it’s hard to blame Bitcoin alone although it has undeniable failed as an inflation hedge.
I disagree.
Bitcoin is hugely wasteful. Estimates on the power usage of the Bitcoin network have it using more energy than Sweden.
Now that might be fine if it provided more than a modicum of utility but it doesn't. The only use case I've seen is to bypass laws on where money can be moved. Some of this is moral (eg totalitarian governments with capital controls on the poor) but most of it isn't (eg scams, ransomware, otherwise illegal gambling, drugs, child abuse material and so on).
I'll agree there's probably a little schadenfreude here because of how many Crypto Andys have pumping crypto so hard for many years pretty much for no other reason than their own gain.
Most don't believe in any utility here. It's just a get rich quick scheme. AGain, that would be fine if it wasn't so horribly wasteful.
Bitcoin is hugely wasteful. Estimates on the power usage of the Bitcoin network have it using more energy than Sweden.
Now that might be fine if it provided more than a modicum of utility but it doesn't. The only use case I've seen is to bypass laws on where money can be moved. Some of this is moral (eg totalitarian governments with capital controls on the poor) but most of it isn't (eg scams, ransomware, otherwise illegal gambling, drugs, child abuse material and so on).
I'll agree there's probably a little schadenfreude here because of how many Crypto Andys have pumping crypto so hard for many years pretty much for no other reason than their own gain.
Most don't believe in any utility here. It's just a get rich quick scheme. AGain, that would be fine if it wasn't so horribly wasteful.
the proportion of criminal activity with crypto is estimated to be an order of magnitude lower than the conventional economy:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-fal...
most crypto is actually not well suited to criminal activity. it is pretty appealing as a savings and transaction medium when your alternative looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/JcaAbC4.png
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-fal...
most crypto is actually not well suited to criminal activity. it is pretty appealing as a savings and transaction medium when your alternative looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/JcaAbC4.png
So you're saying crypto is not good for anonymity, privacy, decentralization?
with the exception of privacy coins most of it is not good for anonymity/privacy by default (a wallet address is effectively a public psuedonym with a social graph), but that has no bearing on the decentralization of crypto protocols, which ranges from fraudulent to extremely strong, depending on the project.
there are ways to use bitcoin with very good privacy, like chaumian coinjoin, but they are not the default behavior of the protocol. nobody describes bitcoin as anonymous besides local news anchors and other low-information audiences.
there are ways to use bitcoin with very good privacy, like chaumian coinjoin, but they are not the default behavior of the protocol. nobody describes bitcoin as anonymous besides local news anchors and other low-information audiences.
I also have no horse in this race, never owned any BTC/crypto, but I feel like the wastefulness is made to be too big of an issue. Seems like it can be solved eventually.
So if it wasn’t wasteful, my question is, does a decentralized currency provide any real value? From my limited perspective it seems like it would solve some problems with things like inflation, free market transactions — but it also probably creates new problems. I guess my question is, would the world ultimately be better off or worse off if a decentralized currency was the predominant world currency?
So if it wasn’t wasteful, my question is, does a decentralized currency provide any real value? From my limited perspective it seems like it would solve some problems with things like inflation, free market transactions — but it also probably creates new problems. I guess my question is, would the world ultimately be better off or worse off if a decentralized currency was the predominant world currency?
Probably better—one nation wouldn’t need to maintain its currency as the world’s reserve currency. Demand would drop, increasing that nation’s export competitiveness and reducing inequality.
I know that’s what bitcoin proponents would say, and this appears true to me on the surface.
I also see huge incentives for governments, banks, payment companies, tax companies etc. to NOT want this to happen. Some for self preservation and immoral reasons and some for legitimate humanitarian reasons and to prevent anarchy. It’d be nice if someone could paint the unbiased vision of what the future world would look like in that scenario.
It’s energy usage is indeed terrible. I’d love to see it move to a proof of stake model.
Is Bitcoin is as wasteful as say, poor zoning rules where N million Americans have to commute to job centers from suburbia, burning Y gallons of gas per year? We often talk about the environmental impacts of Bitcoin but look at how grotesquely wasteful we are in virtually all aspects of our living in the west. It's like when someone is hotly critical of a $10B portion of the >$2 trillion dollar national budget. I get you have to start somewhere but eliminating crypto alone won't solve any of our environmental problems without other material changes to our way of life.
Strawman much? Bitcoin, and most other cryptos, are both designed to be wasteful and also are directly competing with systems that are many many orders of magnitude more efficient (and useful).
Bitcoin isn't competing against commuting. Bitcoin is competing against governments & ACH. Against PayPal & Visa. Against wiretransfers & banks. And it's horrendously destructive at it. People commuting don't change that. Proof of Work is an environment disaster. Pointing at other environmental issues is just whataboutism, not a defense or excuse.
Bitcoin isn't competing against commuting. Bitcoin is competing against governments & ACH. Against PayPal & Visa. Against wiretransfers & banks. And it's horrendously destructive at it. People commuting don't change that. Proof of Work is an environment disaster. Pointing at other environmental issues is just whataboutism, not a defense or excuse.
> Bitcoin is competing against governments & ACH. Against PayPal & Visa. Against wiretransfers & banks
You're not making it look bad :)) They're all oligopolies that use their power to make obscene amounts of money and stifle any innovation that threatens their oligopoly. You want to blame somebody? Blame exactly those actors since it's directly due to them that we even need such a convoluted and horribly expensive alternative. From a strictly technical PoV you could implement micropayments in a week in a garage without any fancy blockchains.
You're not making it look bad :)) They're all oligopolies that use their power to make obscene amounts of money and stifle any innovation that threatens their oligopoly. You want to blame somebody? Blame exactly those actors since it's directly due to them that we even need such a convoluted and horribly expensive alternative. From a strictly technical PoV you could implement micropayments in a week in a garage without any fancy blockchains.
Bitcoin is not destructive compared to fiat currencies. Inflationary monetary policies are now causing a global recession, resulting in insane amount of human suffering. There's also climate catastrophe, wealth inequality, and all kinds of other economic and social issues directly caused by fiat currency. It's time to put stop to destructive fiat currency.
I think the environmental argument is the easiest one to make against crypto, and the easiest one for crypto fans to discount (“proof of stake is coming in X months!!”).
More importantly, though, it’s mostly a way for already-rich people to extract money from poorer people.
The people who “invested” in 2021 are almost all under water today, and they’re largely people who couldn’t afford to lose their investment.
More importantly, though, it’s mostly a way for already-rich people to extract money from poorer people.
The people who “invested” in 2021 are almost all under water today, and they’re largely people who couldn’t afford to lose their investment.
[deleted]
Most people who invested in a peak were "under water" a year later. That's what a peak means.
What a nice piece of whataboutism. The argument is not that nothing else is polluting and/or wasteful.
It's funny how when somebody is asking "Compared to what?" he doesn't get any answers, but gets downvoted to oblivion. Yey for being the right tribe, I guess.
Because it's a bad faith argument, quite deliberately so.
Why? Because it's an effort to distract from an issue with butwhataboutism. It's a really common tactic to derail an argument. Politicians use it all the time. Consider Chuck Schumer's opposition to removing a bizarrely low tax rate (15%) for hedge fund managers, called the carried interest tax credit [1]:
> But in his conversations with Wall Street executives about the tax proposals, Mr. Schumer said, he has told them that he would oppose a tax increase as long as it did not also apply to other industries, like energy and real estate.
If Bitcoin energy wastage is bad (which is my argument) then it's bad even if there are other bad things.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html
Why? Because it's an effort to distract from an issue with butwhataboutism. It's a really common tactic to derail an argument. Politicians use it all the time. Consider Chuck Schumer's opposition to removing a bizarrely low tax rate (15%) for hedge fund managers, called the carried interest tax credit [1]:
> But in his conversations with Wall Street executives about the tax proposals, Mr. Schumer said, he has told them that he would oppose a tax increase as long as it did not also apply to other industries, like energy and real estate.
If Bitcoin energy wastage is bad (which is my argument) then it's bad even if there are other bad things.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html
Is it bad faith? I mean, you yourself used a comparison. Even as an order of magnitude, I'd like to see some numbers. Somebody talking about numbers and alternatives should at the very least not be silenced.
> I have no horse in this race but it seems like a lot of people are rooting for as much pain as possible for Bitcoin as that justifies/makes people feel good for missing its bull run.
I for one am a supporter of progress in finance, no matter the medium, but the crypto fandom is so incredibly insufferable, full of snobs, tech-, environment- and money-illiterate folks that I might as well watch the bubble burst and cheer.
I for one am a supporter of progress in finance, no matter the medium, but the crypto fandom is so incredibly insufferable, full of snobs, tech-, environment- and money-illiterate folks that I might as well watch the bubble burst and cheer.
Money illiterate folk are generally poorer, with fewer job options. While the gifters deserve what befalls them, I find it hard to laugh at the misfortunes of those with fewer options that have been conned into this scheme.
I had plenty of opportunity to "get in" on the bitcoin - I did some trades back when it was in 1000$ range and thought it was an interesting peace of tech with potentially great future.
I even did a POC of a smart contract back when ETH was <100$.
Ever since then I've seen very little practical applications and soo much bullshit - I would never "invest" into anything crypto related even if the payout was guaranteed - for the same reason I wouldn't go work for a betting company, hack people for money or run scams - that's not how I want to make money, and I do feel contempt for that entire "movement".
I even did a POC of a smart contract back when ETH was <100$.
Ever since then I've seen very little practical applications and soo much bullshit - I would never "invest" into anything crypto related even if the payout was guaranteed - for the same reason I wouldn't go work for a betting company, hack people for money or run scams - that's not how I want to make money, and I do feel contempt for that entire "movement".
You feel contempt because you got “justed” like all the other high earners here. It’s “just” a decentralized database.
Most startups on AngelList are a waste of space, time, money, and employment. No different with blockchain.
Most startups on AngelList are a waste of space, time, money, and employment. No different with blockchain.
>Most startups on AngelList are a waste of space, time, money, and employment. No different with blockchain.
One huge difference - crypto had the time and money to find it's market. I was optimistic at first - but then it turned out to be a toxic cesspool fueling speculation, gambling, money laundering and other illegal activities, causing HW supply disruptions, burning insane amounts of electricity.
Getting into it just because I might randomly get rich goes against my ethos.
One huge difference - crypto had the time and money to find it's market. I was optimistic at first - but then it turned out to be a toxic cesspool fueling speculation, gambling, money laundering and other illegal activities, causing HW supply disruptions, burning insane amounts of electricity.
Getting into it just because I might randomly get rich goes against my ethos.
A lot of people are rooting for Bitcoin to crash so it will stop pumping carbon in the atmosphere like a middle sized country.
I think it depends on your perspective. If you believe the options are bitcoin goes down or bitcoin goes up, then you're rooting for more pain if you're rooting for bitcoin to go down. But if you believe the options are bitcoin goes down now or bitcoin goes down later, then bitcoin going down now is minimizing pain.
I bet I could've made a lot of money as an early adopter in Herbalife or Amway too. I don't care that I missed out and I'm not jealous of those who did get in. I don't want to be near it and I hope they collapse too.
> as that justifies/makes people feel good for missing its bull run.
That is the same argument that 'people wants to reduce inequality because they hate the rich'. It appeals to feelings but it is a not very realistic nor useful explanation.
> The entire US and European stock market is absolute garbage too (housing showing cracks as well)
If my house losses it's value, it's still my home. If bitcoin losses their you just got a very long number.
That is the same argument that 'people wants to reduce inequality because they hate the rich'. It appeals to feelings but it is a not very realistic nor useful explanation.
> The entire US and European stock market is absolute garbage too (housing showing cracks as well)
If my house losses it's value, it's still my home. If bitcoin losses their you just got a very long number.
If your house loses its value to zero as you suggest Bitcoin to become a random number, your house is in a terrible condition that no one can live.
> seems like a lot of people are rooting for as much pain as possible
No, some of us are very pro-Bitcoin, but we love seeing the bubble pop so that it can return to its correct use-case: as a currency, not a speculative risk asset.
No, some of us are very pro-Bitcoin, but we love seeing the bubble pop so that it can return to its correct use-case: as a currency, not a speculative risk asset.
Unfortunately for you, Bitcoin will soon be neither.
Personally I'm not /rooting/ for it to go to zero. I just don't see how you can value it.
The fact that it's worth $20k is as arbitrary as $60k.
When it was a toy and people were buying pizzas with it I can sort of understand that as a bit of fun, but beyond that I just don't see the value. And if there isn't value it's just pure speculation hoping there's a bigger fool than you so you can take a profit.
Housing and stocks at least have something tangible behind them. You may disagree about the correct value, but it is most of the time non zero.
When it was a toy and people were buying pizzas with it I can sort of understand that as a bit of fun, but beyond that I just don't see the value. And if there isn't value it's just pure speculation hoping there's a bigger fool than you so you can take a profit.
Housing and stocks at least have something tangible behind them. You may disagree about the correct value, but it is most of the time non zero.
>The entire US and European stock market is absolute garbage too
When markets grow by 20-30% a year, it's "wonderful". When they get corrected by 20% it's all of a sudden "absolute garbage".
Markets finally get back to a resemblance of sanity. Why people believed that double-digit growth without creating added value is somehow the new normal is beyond my understanding.
When markets grow by 20-30% a year, it's "wonderful". When they get corrected by 20% it's all of a sudden "absolute garbage".
Markets finally get back to a resemblance of sanity. Why people believed that double-digit growth without creating added value is somehow the new normal is beyond my understanding.
It's not about the money, it's about a scam finally unravelling and preventing a scam from doing future harm.
Even if someone missed the Bitcoin bull-run, they could have easily joined the stock market bull-run.
Even if someone missed the Bitcoin bull-run, they could have easily joined the stock market bull-run.
Maybe HN should incorporate a price ticker? /s
I appreciate that we get to look down upon the "fools" losing their shirt but there probably more appropriate places to do so.
Yes, we warned them. Yes, we told them that it was all greater fool theory, but remember it's usually the average punter who got in just before* peak hype that loses everything. And they don't really deserve it.
Those who fooled them do, but they're often the ones offloading their bags to the next.
* Just before because they're the ones who hit 60% gains and didn't sell, and risk chasing that high all the way down.
I appreciate that we get to look down upon the "fools" losing their shirt but there probably more appropriate places to do so.
Yes, we warned them. Yes, we told them that it was all greater fool theory, but remember it's usually the average punter who got in just before* peak hype that loses everything. And they don't really deserve it.
Those who fooled them do, but they're often the ones offloading their bags to the next.
* Just before because they're the ones who hit 60% gains and didn't sell, and risk chasing that high all the way down.
Maybe these waves of new lows stories will counter-balance the fomo-harvesting 'new all time highs' that were suspiciously absolutely everywhere.
I really really don't understand how anybody can look at a long term graph of bitcoin price and still think people were "tricked" into anything. It's... I don't know, I firmly believe there a lower limit of due diligence needed for something after which "tricking" just isn't a right word. You google "btc price" and you get a nice graph with all the info you need.
They could be mistaken - or not. Right now odds are maybe 4:1 for each price peak to be surpassed in about three years. Even if it won't and it turns out to be a bad investment, the odds make it a pretty legitimate decision, right or wrong.
They could be mistaken - or not. Right now odds are maybe 4:1 for each price peak to be surpassed in about three years. Even if it won't and it turns out to be a bad investment, the odds make it a pretty legitimate decision, right or wrong.
So does that translate for you into "I'm buying BTC"?
shrug I haven't touched the right/wrong part, and I did it on purpose. All I said is that it's a legitimate decision.
When an Alzheimer grandma gets a call with a great business opportunity and loses all her savings, that's a scam. When somebody invests maybe too much in bitcoin because his gym buddy told him so, that's at worst a bad decision (or a great one, depending on when he did the investment).
When an Alzheimer grandma gets a call with a great business opportunity and loses all her savings, that's a scam. When somebody invests maybe too much in bitcoin because his gym buddy told him so, that's at worst a bad decision (or a great one, depending on when he did the investment).
[deleted]
The thing to watch is the hashrate, once the bigger miners start pulling out it will get interesting.
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate
If larger miners pull out, what will that mean for the smaller miners?
The bitcoin algorithm that determines when to double/halve is well tested in one direction, but the halving suffers from some problems if the hashrate drops too quickly. I would imagine that suddenly the number of transactions that can be processed will rapidly decrease as well simply because not enough blocks would be mined.
This might cause a massive increase in the interval between two subsequent blocks and that in turn may cause more people to lose faith in bitcoin because transactions would slow down significantly. Which in turn would put more downward pressure on price and eventually again on the hashrate.
And halving are just that: they are halvings, you can't skip multiple halvings in one go.
So in short: it may cause a downward feedback loop.
This might cause a massive increase in the interval between two subsequent blocks and that in turn may cause more people to lose faith in bitcoin because transactions would slow down significantly. Which in turn would put more downward pressure on price and eventually again on the hashrate.
And halving are just that: they are halvings, you can't skip multiple halvings in one go.
So in short: it may cause a downward feedback loop.
Controversial take, but the amount of salty comments on crypto here always amuses me.
You're only going to see the salty and bullish takes, the truly neutral have nothing to say about it.
Comments on other internet sources I follow are mostly mixed bag of beans, however here they are prevalently salty when it comes to crypto and every time I stumble upon topic like this I wonder why. I was expecting that HN audience sees blockchain tech and bitcoin for what it is, and unique capabilities it offers, beyond "omg its a ponzi scheme!!11!" narrative.
I've used bitcoin for short term transactions to get some money to people that needed it, but in spite of that I have no illusions about that being the exception and not the rule.
At some point tech needs to prove itself through utility and economic viability. This is going to be a difficult to achieve thing for all these coins (BTC and others), and in the bulk of the cases they are money grabs or Ponzi schemes.
That does not help, if the money grabs and the Ponzi schemes (which happen in the 'real world' as well) were a very insignificant minority I suspect the sentiment would be entirely different.
At some point tech needs to prove itself through utility and economic viability. This is going to be a difficult to achieve thing for all these coins (BTC and others), and in the bulk of the cases they are money grabs or Ponzi schemes.
That does not help, if the money grabs and the Ponzi schemes (which happen in the 'real world' as well) were a very insignificant minority I suspect the sentiment would be entirely different.
Possibly people are richer than in Reddit and got burned more heavily in the past buying at the wrong time?
Where's the take? As it stands it's a silly flame-bait.
Anyone that uses the word "salty" makes me think they're 16 years old.
That word along with "cringe" desperately needs to get removed from the lexicon.
That word along with "cringe" desperately needs to get removed from the lexicon.
It's futile to ask for things to be removed from the lexicon. Language advances and those 16-year-olds will decide how they speak now and in the future.
I think this is already outdated but a fitting response to your comment could also be "ok boomer"
I think this is already outdated but a fitting response to your comment could also be "ok boomer"
"ok boomer" is also broken, particularly since it neglects to address the ways that younger generations are all equally narcissistic, just in different ways (plus it's the wrong generation).
and its not "fitting" it is just another useless "zinger" that suppresses thought.
yes, i'm suggesting that the human race attempt to evolve past the use of language constructs that shut down thought.
yes, i'm aware that i'm just yelling at clouds for all the good it'll do.
and actually i'm suggesting that language DOES evolve, but do it into something better. not just every generation inventing its own thoughtless zingers, which is just masturbation applied to evolution of language and thought.
and its not "fitting" it is just another useless "zinger" that suppresses thought.
yes, i'm suggesting that the human race attempt to evolve past the use of language constructs that shut down thought.
yes, i'm aware that i'm just yelling at clouds for all the good it'll do.
and actually i'm suggesting that language DOES evolve, but do it into something better. not just every generation inventing its own thoughtless zingers, which is just masturbation applied to evolution of language and thought.
Hypothesis: if, as some have asserted, the BTC market is driven by the Tether market, then BTC dropping might be related to the recent wobbling of Tether USDT, which never quite regained $1 peg.
If Tether is about to go the way of Luna and Celsius, then it may be that one of the major remaining purchasers of (heavily discounted) Chinese property bonds is about to go away. We have already seen a couple small runs on the bank in China in recent weeks. Perhaps we are about to see more?
Whether the above hypothesis is true or not (and I am not attached to it, as I own no BTC nor USDT), I suspect that one way or another, the crash of BTC is going to have knock-on effects on the rest of the global economy. Remember, at the beginning of the GFC not many people in Greece or Iceland or Spain probably thought that American housing bonds had anything to do with them...
If Tether is about to go the way of Luna and Celsius, then it may be that one of the major remaining purchasers of (heavily discounted) Chinese property bonds is about to go away. We have already seen a couple small runs on the bank in China in recent weeks. Perhaps we are about to see more?
Whether the above hypothesis is true or not (and I am not attached to it, as I own no BTC nor USDT), I suspect that one way or another, the crash of BTC is going to have knock-on effects on the rest of the global economy. Remember, at the beginning of the GFC not many people in Greece or Iceland or Spain probably thought that American housing bonds had anything to do with them...
> I suspect that one way or another, the crash of BTC is going to have knock-on effects on the rest of the global economy.
I highly doubt that because there just isn't enough volume in BTC compared to what the rest of the world transacts in other currencies. It may affect the price of drugs for a while.
I highly doubt that because there just isn't enough volume in BTC compared to what the rest of the world transacts in other currencies. It may affect the price of drugs for a while.
Considering that you're pricing it against a spreadsheet stored in a DC basement, maybe backupped in some Jersey data center, it's indeed doing poorly. Cheap USD and free (i.e., unregulated) derivative markets are doing the rest. Speculation is the lifeblood of commerce. There are some who rejoice at the sight of it.
If I understand correctly, the actual cryptography in cryptocurrencies isn't terribly interesting.
Blockchains are, however, trying (or claim to be trying) to solve the Byzantine Fault Tolerance problem, which has no known efficient solution.
Is that correct? Are blockchains an actual area of research for folks studying distributed systems in CS Departments?
Blockchains are, however, trying (or claim to be trying) to solve the Byzantine Fault Tolerance problem, which has no known efficient solution.
Is that correct? Are blockchains an actual area of research for folks studying distributed systems in CS Departments?
There are a couple of blockchain projects doing BFT development n the first one I read about was AntShares (now Neo) doing delegated BFT. There IS some interesting R&D happening, but most if it is lost in the get-rich-quick noise. Also Zk-SNARK research is interesting . Monero and Zcash technology is also quite interesting ,and can go beyond cryptocurrencies.
I'm very pro blockchain tech, and I'm glad this "winter" is coming so that all that noise is reduced and good interesting projects get more visibility.
There's a little known project called selfkey who have been developing some interesting "Sovereign digital id" stuff. Pretty early but interesting.
Just get away from the "money money money" stuff and you can find some interesting projects.
I'm very pro blockchain tech, and I'm glad this "winter" is coming so that all that noise is reduced and good interesting projects get more visibility.
There's a little known project called selfkey who have been developing some interesting "Sovereign digital id" stuff. Pretty early but interesting.
Just get away from the "money money money" stuff and you can find some interesting projects.
It is an actual area of research, mostly around scalability.
I don't know what happens in computer science departments, but you can watch Ethereum be developed in the open. They cite the research they're implementing.
For example: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/proto_danksharding_faq#...
I'm not quite smart enough to follow all the cryptography, but there are a lot of unsolved problems being worked on. It seems that doing trust and accounting at global decentralized scale is trickier than chaining blocks together.
I don't know what happens in computer science departments, but you can watch Ethereum be developed in the open. They cite the research they're implementing.
For example: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/proto_danksharding_faq#...
I'm not quite smart enough to follow all the cryptography, but there are a lot of unsolved problems being worked on. It seems that doing trust and accounting at global decentralized scale is trickier than chaining blocks together.
Also , the basic cryptocurrency stuff is basic PKI with signing. Plus a version of Kademilla plus a database linking records with hashed previous records and the infamous PoW. Nothing really fancy computationally.
The "genious" of Nakamoto was to put all the existing parts together. But hashcash was there, kad/BitTorrent were there, chained append only DBs were there, etc.
The "genious" of Nakamoto was to put all the existing parts together. But hashcash was there, kad/BitTorrent were there, chained append only DBs were there, etc.
What I'm most curious about is what the knock-on effect this will be to crypto businesses. From what I hear, a few pension funds invested into Bitcoin. Wondering how that'll turn out...
Generally a pension would put 1% or less to such investments. So while the absolute value of the loss may be large, the percentage of portfolio loss will be little.
The loss of S&P and equities at large impacts them much more greatly.
The loss of S&P and equities at large impacts them much more greatly.
A pension fund with significant Bitcoin exposure is not 'investing' they are recklessly endangering the funds they have been entrusted with and the fund managers ought to be held personally liable.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I fucking loathe crypto but to say fund managers are "recklessly endangering the funds" shows you have no knowledge of how a hedge fund works.
Source: I work risk management for a large UK fund.
I fucking loathe crypto but to say fund managers are "recklessly endangering the funds" shows you have no knowledge of how a hedge fund works.
Source: I work risk management for a large UK fund.
> I work risk management for a large UK fund.
Oh, that's ok then, carry on, user 'valdiorn' has spoken and it's ok for funds to invest a significant amount of their holdings into BTC.
Or did you miss the word 'significant'?
Oh, that's ok then, carry on, user 'valdiorn' has spoken and it's ok for funds to invest a significant amount of their holdings into BTC.
Or did you miss the word 'significant'?
Most pension funds probably had an exposure somewhere on the order of 0.05% AUM or less so it should have no significant impact. It's the crypto hedge funds and other businesses that were holding huge chunks of BTC/ETH that are in trouble.
[deleted]
The store of value argument is now dead.
oh no! anyway.
Still $18,300 to go. Getting closer, at least.
I'm a huge bear, but thinking its going to zero is crazy. Even beanie babies retain some value. And crypto still has utility as a transaction medium for illicit exchanges.
Crypto still has value, but bitcoin itself has shown little value in any of the things it's supposed to be a solution for. It's not really that decentralised (in as far as most people trade through exchanges, and the miners have pooled their power to elicit control), the transaction fees are too high to be good for commerce, it's too volatile to be a store of money, and it's not anonymous enough to be used on illicit markets (the majority of them have moved to Monero). In my opinion, for crypto to flourish bitcoin needs to die.
That said, I also don't believe it will go to zero because there's one thing it's great at.. speculation. It's an ingenious bit of technology that the general public doesn't really understand and so the greater fool theory will continue to prove true.
That said, I also don't believe it will go to zero because there's one thing it's great at.. speculation. It's an ingenious bit of technology that the general public doesn't really understand and so the greater fool theory will continue to prove true.
I think 0 is eventual end result. Unlike beanie babies or sports card. The operating costs of bitcoin is rather high. You can throw those in a box and then leave it at back of cupboard... But to do anything with bitcoin you need a network.
You know, this is actually raises a good point. If the marginal cost of producing Bitcoin exceeds the sale price, Bitcoin is toast and one of the proof of stake coins will win out.
https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/BTC-QF.pdf
"Comment 1: Why BTC is worth exactly
Gold and other precious metals are largely maintenance free, do not degrade over an historical horizon, and do not require maintenance to refresh their physical properties over time.
Cryptocurrencies require a sustained amount of inter- est in them"
"Comment 1: Why BTC is worth exactly
Gold and other precious metals are largely maintenance free, do not degrade over an historical horizon, and do not require maintenance to refresh their physical properties over time.
Cryptocurrencies require a sustained amount of inter- est in them"
In Russia 200 years ago the was a spike in interests in platinum. Gold melts at temperature of wooden house fire and substantial amount of it was lost this way. Platinum melts at much higher point.
That's a good point. What if enough miners quit such that suddenly one of the big mining groups gets a majority?
Beanie Babies actually exist IRL.
Yep, as did tulips. And tulips smell good and look pretty! That's more than Bitcoin can say.
There is unfortunately a fair amount of intrinsic exchange value in its use for illegal trades (drugs, CP, etc.) and tax evasion. So it won't ever drop to 0.
Unless governments actually start to do their job and stop all transactions to the fiat-crypto exchanges. They are literally being used to bypass international sanctions and fund all sorts of trafficking and cartels.
Unless governments actually start to do their job and stop all transactions to the fiat-crypto exchanges. They are literally being used to bypass international sanctions and fund all sorts of trafficking and cartels.
Bitcoin is here to stay. You're mixing up shitcoins and other ponzi-like schemes.
As with any new & emerging technology, blockchain ecosystem hosts various (intentional or unintentional) FUD and malicious coins that are backed by nothing and often run in a ponzi scheme manner. These coins will eventually crash and disappear.
Bitcoin's intrinsic values are similar to other asset classes, plus, its also decentralized and censorship resistant.
As with any new & emerging technology, blockchain ecosystem hosts various (intentional or unintentional) FUD and malicious coins that are backed by nothing and often run in a ponzi scheme manner. These coins will eventually crash and disappear.
Bitcoin's intrinsic values are similar to other asset classes, plus, its also decentralized and censorship resistant.
Nothing wrong with Bitcoin itself but the rampant speculation is what draws the proponents and critics alike.
If Bitcoin just worked like a peer-to-peer neutral currency and had no speculative element, most people would have no issue with it.
The annoying element is when it is used as a get-rich quick pyramid scheme.
If Bitcoin just worked like a peer-to-peer neutral currency and had no speculative element, most people would have no issue with it.
The annoying element is when it is used as a get-rich quick pyramid scheme.
I'm really curious why that annoys you? As I mentioned earlier, almost any emerging technology will go through period of instability, and with bitcoin and its speculative nature this is certainly the case. And there are people that are ready to ride that wave.
I like the sound of "this time it's different" from the bitcoin doomsayers.
This is the first time since inception it has traded below its previous bull market high.
This time is different.
This time is different.
It is different, it’s bitcoin’s first recession. The “ultrahard” currency has always depended on cheap money to grow, especially from Tether
Thanks for your work :).
[deleted]
Lots of support in $11-$12k range. Be hard to break that.
Anti bitcoin people are pretty toxic.
What an amazing invention to have the absolute truth published every 10 minutes.
Back in the day before naval armies, merchant ships used to have to carry their own cannons and couldn't max out their payload with goods.
Bitcoin has a neat feature of not requiring armies or vaults to protect itself. Is it a currency? I think not but it is many things all the same.
The people who focus on the price haven't seen the forest for the trees.
What an amazing invention to have the absolute truth published every 10 minutes.
Back in the day before naval armies, merchant ships used to have to carry their own cannons and couldn't max out their payload with goods.
Bitcoin has a neat feature of not requiring armies or vaults to protect itself. Is it a currency? I think not but it is many things all the same.
The people who focus on the price haven't seen the forest for the trees.
Relatively few people are against the blockchain as an interesting technology for creating distributed truth in areas that can actually benefit from that.
I think if we're extending your age of sail metaphor, I think people are against it being used for the modern version of tulip mania.
Personally, I'm now more excited now about blockchain than I have been in the past. I think the the rush to extract money from people via btc, nfts, etc. is what has overshadowed it's ability for interesting/novel use cases.
I think if we're extending your age of sail metaphor, I think people are against it being used for the modern version of tulip mania.
Personally, I'm now more excited now about blockchain than I have been in the past. I think the the rush to extract money from people via btc, nfts, etc. is what has overshadowed it's ability for interesting/novel use cases.
There aren’t many applications if any in which a blockchain can’t be replaced by a simpler and more efficient solution.
I'll agree that there are many situations where blockchain is being misapplied.
I think it's very unfair to say there aren't any applications though.
Blockchain solves the problem of "everyone has an agreed upon history of the entries in a ledger, and that ledger can't be edited by a bad actor, and there's a consensus algorithm to ensure new entries to that ledger are maintained."
That's exciting for situations where trusting a central actor to be well intentioned forever is not wise. Publishing "news" on a blockchain, so you don't have to worry about a future actor trying to whitewash what history is, as an example.
I think it's very unfair to say there aren't any applications though.
Blockchain solves the problem of "everyone has an agreed upon history of the entries in a ledger, and that ledger can't be edited by a bad actor, and there's a consensus algorithm to ensure new entries to that ledger are maintained."
That's exciting for situations where trusting a central actor to be well intentioned forever is not wise. Publishing "news" on a blockchain, so you don't have to worry about a future actor trying to whitewash what history is, as an example.
There aren’t that many situations where that it actually useful.
A blockchain where everyone is equal also means that any mistake requires far more effort to correct and nearly any system we have still needs some sort of centralized governance.
In your example publishing news well corrections and retractions can and do happen all the time and sure you’ll say well then just assume that the updates have to have the same key but that still doesn’t solve the problem you are worried about since the bad actor in this case would either have direct control or influence over the news organization so they can still force them to push a “malicious” update.
Then we get to the issue that a blockchain isn’t suitable for storing large pieces of information so in this case what would be published to the blockchain is just a link you can still either edit or remove the content that is referenced by the blockchain since the content itself isn’t on it.
A blockchain is a classical example of a solution in search of a problem.
In fact it might be the most technically correct example of that term I ever encountered.
Other examples I often hear about such as health records and land or vehicle registrars etc also don’t benefit from being on the blockchain as those are all heavily regulated and complex processes which are prone to mistakes and using a blockchain won’t solve those issues.
The only remotely plausible situation where a blockchain could work is voting however like with all electronic voting the moment you need a PhD or multiple ones to be able to understand how the system works and even then you won’t trust it completely the overall trust in the result would be completely eroded which defeats the whole purpose of having a more reliable system on paper in the first place.
A blockchain where everyone is equal also means that any mistake requires far more effort to correct and nearly any system we have still needs some sort of centralized governance.
In your example publishing news well corrections and retractions can and do happen all the time and sure you’ll say well then just assume that the updates have to have the same key but that still doesn’t solve the problem you are worried about since the bad actor in this case would either have direct control or influence over the news organization so they can still force them to push a “malicious” update.
Then we get to the issue that a blockchain isn’t suitable for storing large pieces of information so in this case what would be published to the blockchain is just a link you can still either edit or remove the content that is referenced by the blockchain since the content itself isn’t on it.
A blockchain is a classical example of a solution in search of a problem.
In fact it might be the most technically correct example of that term I ever encountered.
Other examples I often hear about such as health records and land or vehicle registrars etc also don’t benefit from being on the blockchain as those are all heavily regulated and complex processes which are prone to mistakes and using a blockchain won’t solve those issues.
The only remotely plausible situation where a blockchain could work is voting however like with all electronic voting the moment you need a PhD or multiple ones to be able to understand how the system works and even then you won’t trust it completely the overall trust in the result would be completely eroded which defeats the whole purpose of having a more reliable system on paper in the first place.
> That's exciting for situations where trusting a central actor to be well intentioned forever is not wise. Publishing "news" on a blockchain, so you don't have to worry about a future actor trying to whitewash what history is, as an example.
That is fundamentally a contradiction. Sure, the published news can't be changed later, but you have to trust the actor publishing the news to be trustworthy forever. Just because something is immutable it doesn't mean it's true.
That is fundamentally a contradiction. Sure, the published news can't be changed later, but you have to trust the actor publishing the news to be trustworthy forever. Just because something is immutable it doesn't mean it's true.
You can just solve the news issue, if indeed it is an "issue" at all, with just torrents for distribution and signatures for authentication. You don't need to solve transactions, so you don't need wasteful blockchain technology.
Which really gets back to blockchain as used by crypto (vs Merkle trees) is really a quite useless technology, in addition to one that's the least efficient computer system so far created.
Which really gets back to blockchain as used by crypto (vs Merkle trees) is really a quite useless technology, in addition to one that's the least efficient computer system so far created.
So far the only real use of blockchain technology is Git. Cryptocurrencies are misuse of it :-D
If you count Git, then “blockchain technology” is also used for Evidence Records: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4998
There’s probably a number of further Merkle-tree-based technologies in current use.
There’s probably a number of further Merkle-tree-based technologies in current use.
Tulip mania is the best stress test we could ask for. You are right though, the greedy will use it to exploit the uninformed. Not the best PR for Bitcoin in general.
> Bitcoin has a neat feature of not requiring armies or vaults to protect itself.
That premise is false.
If Bitcoin wins out and becomes dominant, nations with very large economies (in particular) and a lot to lose accordingly, will absolutely have to use their militaries to defend the networks that power Bitcoin.
There is no scenario where Bitcoin becomes a lot bigger and doesn't require military protection globally. It'll require military protection as much as any other super asset, if it reaches the scale of the others that comprise a large chunk of national wealth in a given country.
That premise is false.
If Bitcoin wins out and becomes dominant, nations with very large economies (in particular) and a lot to lose accordingly, will absolutely have to use their militaries to defend the networks that power Bitcoin.
There is no scenario where Bitcoin becomes a lot bigger and doesn't require military protection globally. It'll require military protection as much as any other super asset, if it reaches the scale of the others that comprise a large chunk of national wealth in a given country.
> Bitcoin has a neat feature of not requiring armies or vaults to protect itself.
Not even cannons can protect it.
- One day, due to the accidental wallet destruction during the server reboot, they lost keys to all BTC wallets, resulting in loss of 17k BTC.
- The hackers breached Bitcoin7 servers and gained full access to the main BTC depository and 2 of the 3 backup wallets.
- The 43,000 BTC Linode theft was not enough, and another 18,457 BTC was stolen from Bitcoinica’s reserves. The CEO Zhou Tong was barely able to prevent the loss of 30,000 more. The site was immediately shut down for security reasons.
- Hackers outside the country infected the internal network of the exchange with a virus that was transmitted through email, and it allowed them to steal private keys.
- ...
https://medium.com/hackernoon/a-huge-list-of-cryptocurrency-...
Bitcoin is not safer than the security of your key storage.
Not even cannons can protect it.
- One day, due to the accidental wallet destruction during the server reboot, they lost keys to all BTC wallets, resulting in loss of 17k BTC.
- The hackers breached Bitcoin7 servers and gained full access to the main BTC depository and 2 of the 3 backup wallets.
- The 43,000 BTC Linode theft was not enough, and another 18,457 BTC was stolen from Bitcoinica’s reserves. The CEO Zhou Tong was barely able to prevent the loss of 30,000 more. The site was immediately shut down for security reasons.
- Hackers outside the country infected the internal network of the exchange with a virus that was transmitted through email, and it allowed them to steal private keys.
- ...
https://medium.com/hackernoon/a-huge-list-of-cryptocurrency-...
Bitcoin is not safer than the security of your key storage.
On the other hand, Bitcoin obviously has a lot of drawbacks and so do most other cryptos. And, although crypto might has it's uses, it's currently used pretty exclusively as very speculative investment medium and for scamming people.
"Bitcoin has a neat feature of not requiring armies or vaults to protect itself."
I hear what you are saying but this premise is actually wrong. To steal someones money from the bank criminals probably need a group of armed men and must attempt to breach the banks vault. Which is very unrealistic. At any moment an army of police could arrive and kill them plus they have bank employees and customers to deal with and likely a security guard. To try and take fiat digitally is even harder as you have to actually hack your way into a banks systems and transfter the money and still withdraw or launder it somehow later. To take someones btc they just need to get into someones house with a gun or some pliers and a hammer and their target will just send it to their wallet from their laptop. Its far easier to steal large amounts of crypto currency than it is to steal large amounts of fiat.
Idk if it’s about btc or eth but it really started leaving a foul taste with hundreds of garbage Ponzi scams and NFTs - combined with non tech and older folks getting scammed. The moment someone brings up crypto (coins) not cryptography I just don’t entertain them anymore.
Most people around here eat (or wish to) at the Silicon Valley VC money manger. They are ultra-fiat people. It's understandable that a decentralized form of money that removes money mangers (other notable ones are the military and medical industrial complexes) makes them unhappy.
Digital fiat currency also does not require traditional armies or physical vaults.
Digital fiat and crypto both require armies of cybersecurity geeks and "vaults" of servers participating in the network.
I don't see your point.
Digital fiat and crypto both require armies of cybersecurity geeks and "vaults" of servers participating in the network.
I don't see your point.
They all require militaries with guns to protect them, to the extent they're worth anything of consequence.
Obvious, exaggerated example to prove the point: Ukraine is the center of the Bitcoin universe. Every computer that powers the Bitcoin network resides in Ukraine.
Does Bitcoin require a military to protect it or not?
I guess the electronic stock exchange systems of the US don't require a military to ultimately protect them either according to that premise.
Bitcoin is also a physical asset in the end, because it can't exist without the hardware. It's exceptionally obvious that you have to protect the hardware with a military (both the ability to defend and respond if need be, to an attack). This is particularly an issue if you're going to build an economy around it, or otherwise allow Bitcoin & Co. to become a supersized asset class (such that your economy could be severely damaged if that asset class is severely damaged).
Oh hey there Latvia, your domestic systems are holding $13 trillion worth of Bitcoin (which has become the globally dominant asset). You're the Switzerland of the Baltics. No need to protect your systems with guns, don't worry about it, you don't need a military for that, because Bitcoin is magical pixie dust that only exists in the digital realm. Oh whoops, the digital realm exists on physical hardware (that someone somewhere has to protect with guns).
Obvious, exaggerated example to prove the point: Ukraine is the center of the Bitcoin universe. Every computer that powers the Bitcoin network resides in Ukraine.
Does Bitcoin require a military to protect it or not?
I guess the electronic stock exchange systems of the US don't require a military to ultimately protect them either according to that premise.
Bitcoin is also a physical asset in the end, because it can't exist without the hardware. It's exceptionally obvious that you have to protect the hardware with a military (both the ability to defend and respond if need be, to an attack). This is particularly an issue if you're going to build an economy around it, or otherwise allow Bitcoin & Co. to become a supersized asset class (such that your economy could be severely damaged if that asset class is severely damaged).
Oh hey there Latvia, your domestic systems are holding $13 trillion worth of Bitcoin (which has become the globally dominant asset). You're the Switzerland of the Baltics. No need to protect your systems with guns, don't worry about it, you don't need a military for that, because Bitcoin is magical pixie dust that only exists in the digital realm. Oh whoops, the digital realm exists on physical hardware (that someone somewhere has to protect with guns).
[deleted]
I am dying laughing right now. Sitting here with popcorn watching all the ponzi-coin bs burn
To be fair: I am not laughing at people losing their shirts but that the Bitcoin mania is cooling off and this huge sell off in this super speculative, highly energy inefficient panacea-coin-of-the-future-solve-all-our-problems-project is experiencing a sell off.
My sentiments also would be the same for the NFT space. What a hilarious idea that a jpeg of some ape could be worth thousands or millions.
I hope this is a learning opportunity for those “investors” to not gamble With money they can’t afford to lose.
My sentiments also would be the same for the NFT space. What a hilarious idea that a jpeg of some ape could be worth thousands or millions.
I hope this is a learning opportunity for those “investors” to not gamble With money they can’t afford to lose.
Why is this funny?
I'm no crypto apologist, but a significant number of innocent bystanders are being absolutely ruined right now.
I understand the pull of schadenfreude when thinking about a certain subset of the crypto ecosystem, but that is also tampered a bit by the tragedy that comes with it. The life savings lost, inevitable suicides, relationships shattered.
Laughing about this seems like an odd response.
I'm no crypto apologist, but a significant number of innocent bystanders are being absolutely ruined right now.
I understand the pull of schadenfreude when thinking about a certain subset of the crypto ecosystem, but that is also tampered a bit by the tragedy that comes with it. The life savings lost, inevitable suicides, relationships shattered.
Laughing about this seems like an odd response.
Because a lot of those people acted like they were smarter than everyone else and shoved their gains in our faces for years. I'm happy to see crypto bros losing their shirts.
I'd imagine that majority of the people impacted by this crash are not crypto bros. They're people who saw a super bowl commercial, or heard about it from a friend. Hell, my mid-70s parents hold crypto, and crypto bros they are not.
As I said in the parent comment, I get the sentiment towards the shills/scammers/pumpers/etc, but the reality is that this is not really about them.
As I said in the parent comment, I get the sentiment towards the shills/scammers/pumpers/etc, but the reality is that this is not really about them.
Sorry that your grandparents decided to invest in shitcoin. However, they are an outlier. I’ve seen that not even 3 percent of 50+ individuals own bitcoin. If I recollect correctly, less than 20 percent of Americans own or have traded in bitcoin. Most fit the bitcoin bro mold. 18-39. Male.
Can’t wait till this “currency” dies.
Can’t wait till this “currency” dies.
Would you share some citations? Percentages obscure the reality behind this. Say it is 3%. That’s still 180K+ individuals. If we were talking about a “traditional” scam, that number is astronomical.
> Most fit the bitcoin bro mold. 18-39. Male.
So hang on, the “mold” is just “Male, 18-39”? I fall into that gender and age group, and I also dabbled with crypto for awhile (even CPU mined some way back when…). But I’ve never been a bitcoin bro, have never advocated for crypto, and all involvement was based on curiosity/interest in learning. I’ve actively discouraged the people I know from getting into the space.
Had I not sold awhile ago, would that make me worthy of the scorn/laughter being doled out here?
This whole mentality is pretty antithetical to what HN has historically been, and is pretty disappointing, especially here.
I think the crypto space has needed a dose of reality. I think the world would be better without it. It would make me happy to see the speculation and gambling and energy usage disappear. I wish “web 3” was focused on the real next generation of the Internet.
It does not make me happy to see people ruined because of it.
Whatever moral high ground some here feel they have as this unfolds is quickly lost when they take joy in the ruin of others.
> Most fit the bitcoin bro mold. 18-39. Male.
So hang on, the “mold” is just “Male, 18-39”? I fall into that gender and age group, and I also dabbled with crypto for awhile (even CPU mined some way back when…). But I’ve never been a bitcoin bro, have never advocated for crypto, and all involvement was based on curiosity/interest in learning. I’ve actively discouraged the people I know from getting into the space.
Had I not sold awhile ago, would that make me worthy of the scorn/laughter being doled out here?
This whole mentality is pretty antithetical to what HN has historically been, and is pretty disappointing, especially here.
I think the crypto space has needed a dose of reality. I think the world would be better without it. It would make me happy to see the speculation and gambling and energy usage disappear. I wish “web 3” was focused on the real next generation of the Internet.
It does not make me happy to see people ruined because of it.
Whatever moral high ground some here feel they have as this unfolds is quickly lost when they take joy in the ruin of others.
16% of Americans say they have ever invested in, traded or used cryptocurrency
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri...
The SEC has been crying foul of crypto-scheme’s since at least 2013.
> https://www.sec.gov/files/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf
Early journalistic opinion has had called out Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme years ago.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco...
Every major banker at Davos-, “ Bitcoin may be called a coin but it's not money. It's not a stable store of value," said Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund.”
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/investing/davos-central-bank-...
Now why does that matter? Those are the people the general populace are exposed to the most. Not some peddler buying crypto ads on Twitch.TV for his new Buttcoin.
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri...
The SEC has been crying foul of crypto-scheme’s since at least 2013.
> https://www.sec.gov/files/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf
Early journalistic opinion has had called out Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme years ago.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco...
Every major banker at Davos-, “ Bitcoin may be called a coin but it's not money. It's not a stable store of value," said Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund.”
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/investing/davos-central-bank-...
Now why does that matter? Those are the people the general populace are exposed to the most. Not some peddler buying crypto ads on Twitch.TV for his new Buttcoin.
You should probably have a chat with them regarding the stuff they put their retirement money into then. For their sake I hope it was only a very small fraction of their total holdings.
Oh I’ve definitely had this conversation with them.
Whatever version of the truth they’ve been sold is apparently quite convincing, which does make me angry.
Whatever version of the truth they’ve been sold is apparently quite convincing, which does make me angry.
Yes, those predators deserve a special place in hell, unfortunately I'm not religious but if I were that's what I would wish for them. In reality they are probably trying to decide on some garish color scheme for their Lambo...
[deleted]
BTC is currently UP 650% over 5 years.
but thanks for coming clean about the root of your criticism. Honestly it's refreshing that it wasn't couched in some reductionist economic fundamental jargon.
but thanks for coming clean about the root of your criticism. Honestly it's refreshing that it wasn't couched in some reductionist economic fundamental jargon.
This. Because folks were touting the coins and anyone investing their life savings in something so volatile is on them.
celebrating the downfall of strangers especially when the majority losing out are ignorant and were just trying to find some way to retire from their meaningless wage slaving is not a good look. Sure some of them were pretty unpleasant but to yearn for their downfall is a you problem my friend, not a them problem. I have no dog in this fight, have maybe 2k in crypto which is not a lot. Anyway all the best and hope you learn to find joy outside of the misery of others.
>and were just trying to find some way to retire from their meaningless wage slaving
Read: were hoping their laziness could be terminally subsidized by bigger fools' money (because the value they cashed out of the system was put in by others), presumably without being bothered that they condemn those bigger fools to additional meaningless wage slaving.
(With the added externality of an extra Sweden's worth of electricity.)
Read: were hoping their laziness could be terminally subsidized by bigger fools' money (because the value they cashed out of the system was put in by others), presumably without being bothered that they condemn those bigger fools to additional meaningless wage slaving.
(With the added externality of an extra Sweden's worth of electricity.)
If it’s too good to be true it likely is. Get rich quick schemes also are part of this mantra … didn’t their parents teach them that?
Is your conclusion then “they had it coming”? Does this somehow justify or validate the schadenfreude?
A country adopted crypto as their actual currency. Some retirement accounts started providing crypto as an investment option. Involvement in crypto does not automatically imply that involvement was just to “get rich quick”. For many people, it was a new investment that they didn’t really understand, similar to many of their existing investments that they didn’t really understand.
You seem to be implying that anyone involved should have known better, but this seems like a tenuous claim at best.
Do you feel the same about people losing their money in the stock market? Why or why not?
A country adopted crypto as their actual currency. Some retirement accounts started providing crypto as an investment option. Involvement in crypto does not automatically imply that involvement was just to “get rich quick”. For many people, it was a new investment that they didn’t really understand, similar to many of their existing investments that they didn’t really understand.
You seem to be implying that anyone involved should have known better, but this seems like a tenuous claim at best.
Do you feel the same about people losing their money in the stock market? Why or why not?
So we should coddle and protect everyone from everything? The central bank should make every Bitcoin “investor” whole?
If a company goes public gets investors and then goes bankrupt because of illegal practices and it’s shown it duped investors there is recourse.
If a bank goes under the assets are FDIC insured.
If you “invest” in the next big revolutionary currency that will upend everything and it falls some 60 to 70% from its highs is it really a currency or a stock or a wildly speculative possibly ponzi-style scheme?
So yes folks should know the risks. There’s no historical precedent for any of this. It’s always been volatile and if you wanna stay in it know you might lose your shirt.
But investing for the long term is a function of time and compounding interest. On average the US stock indexes have returned some 8% or more, again on average, for the last day 50 years or something along those lines. Consistent investing day every month for years and years will see things grow. Buying when things go down and as they rise - dollar cost averaging — is a fine and prudent way to put money aside and see it grow. But to think folks could just “invest” in Bitcoin and become millionaires — maybe — but also don’t bet the farm on it if you’re a farmer.
If a company goes public gets investors and then goes bankrupt because of illegal practices and it’s shown it duped investors there is recourse.
If a bank goes under the assets are FDIC insured.
If you “invest” in the next big revolutionary currency that will upend everything and it falls some 60 to 70% from its highs is it really a currency or a stock or a wildly speculative possibly ponzi-style scheme?
So yes folks should know the risks. There’s no historical precedent for any of this. It’s always been volatile and if you wanna stay in it know you might lose your shirt.
But investing for the long term is a function of time and compounding interest. On average the US stock indexes have returned some 8% or more, again on average, for the last day 50 years or something along those lines. Consistent investing day every month for years and years will see things grow. Buying when things go down and as they rise - dollar cost averaging — is a fine and prudent way to put money aside and see it grow. But to think folks could just “invest” in Bitcoin and become millionaires — maybe — but also don’t bet the farm on it if you’re a farmer.
> So we should coddle and protect everyone from everything? The central bank should make every Bitcoin “investor” whole?
Woah, you've jumped to something else entirely here. No, we shouldn't. Not what I was suggesting. Nor is coddling the opposite of ridiculing and openly sharing one's pleasure at the financial pain people are now going through, yes, by their own fault.
My issue was only with the schadenfreude.
Woah, you've jumped to something else entirely here. No, we shouldn't. Not what I was suggesting. Nor is coddling the opposite of ridiculing and openly sharing one's pleasure at the financial pain people are now going through, yes, by their own fault.
My issue was only with the schadenfreude.
[deleted]
This is a very good buying opportunity, because this is mostly caused by overleveraged people and institutions having to liquidate into thin markets. Too greedy people are now wiped out. This gives an opportunity for those who have been wiser and have spare cash around. If you decide to buy, buy only the amount which you wouldn't need in a couple of years, taking into account increasing living costs and coming recession.
Obviously, buy bitcoin only. Other coins can have their few months of fame but then fade away.
The price can still go lower, but I think we're quite close to the bottom of this cycle.
Obviously, buy bitcoin only. Other coins can have their few months of fame but then fade away.
The price can still go lower, but I think we're quite close to the bottom of this cycle.
If you are investing here please dollar cost average over the next ~6 months (likely recession/bear market duration) as opposed to buying in one go.
Sell ~4 years from now as Bitcoin tends to be cyclical and peaks 2 years after a halving event.
Sell ~4 years from now as Bitcoin tends to be cyclical and peaks 2 years after a halving event.
> as Bitcoin tends to be cyclical and peaks 2 years after a halving event.
Watch out for cargo culting.
Watch out for cargo culting.
I'd say the problem is that no-one can easily predict where the bottom lies right now.
We have Celcius with frozen withdrawals and in an undetermined state having called in restructuring specialists. We have 3ac apparently not talking to their partners with a lot of loans outstanding and margin calls due, then we have all of the other people who were partners/customers of those organizations, who at the moment either can't access their funds temporarily, or may not be able to access their funds ever, so are essentially schrodingers companies right now, until they can get accurate information about what's happening
Once all the companies that go down have gone down, then there's a reasonable chance that a bottom can be called, but at the moment I don't think there's enough information to know.
We have Celcius with frozen withdrawals and in an undetermined state having called in restructuring specialists. We have 3ac apparently not talking to their partners with a lot of loans outstanding and margin calls due, then we have all of the other people who were partners/customers of those organizations, who at the moment either can't access their funds temporarily, or may not be able to access their funds ever, so are essentially schrodingers companies right now, until they can get accurate information about what's happening
Once all the companies that go down have gone down, then there's a reasonable chance that a bottom can be called, but at the moment I don't think there's enough information to know.
Yeah, but I wouldn't care too much about the absolute bottom or short term price. Short term is impossible to predict, but it's also quite pointless to worry about. In the long term, this is a very cheap price.
Definitely XBT is still the best performing asset in the past 5 or so years. This correction is healthy.
There is still a lot of leverage and greedy protocols around, but Bitcoin is solid. With all the fear around, I’ll be doubling my DCA (averages).
There is still a lot of leverage and greedy protocols around, but Bitcoin is solid. With all the fear around, I’ll be doubling my DCA (averages).
It’s silly that you’re being downvoted because this is absolutely true. The idea that it would go to zero is mad, it will without a doubt go back up to similar numbers again. This is just a little gift
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...