Topic: BTC feeling the realtive market Cap decline (Read 3892 times)

That topic has been ignored by many, but I'm sure it still happens, according to some of the information I've read recently, hardfork will surely happen with bitcoin, however, there are 3 directions to choose from. , And I still have not seen any information about their choice. I think that despite the high value of bitcoin, it still needs segwit, which is a necessity for the development of bitcoin.

It is funny that people say that, because I read that the Japanese government said something about *crypto currencies* and didn't single out bitcoin.

In fact, most jurisdictions will have to decide what asset class crypto currencies are in:
- illegal ones
- commodities
- currencies

or simply not say anything about it.

I would think that the statute of "currency" is not all rosy, because usually, handling a currency publicly requires stricter (banking-style) regulation than being a salesman of commodities.  On the other hand, usually currency acquisition is less taxed than commodity acquisition.

The popularity of bitcoin may be a factor in its value, however, which is not the reason for the rapid increase in bitcoin in recent times. In addition, some information shows that bitcoin no longer dominates the market, it is slowly being pushed back by the altcoins even though it still heads. If I talk about the reason that makes bitcoin rise, I think that's the bitcoin acceptance of the Japanese government. This also marks a new step for bitcoin.

Yes, that's on the level of the daily bitcoin (speculative) volume.  (well, WAS because now this volume is 5 times higher)

In other words, that's not why people use bitcoin mainly, and it is not what drives its price.

yes yes, there is no difference.

Now more than 3-million things you can buy with BTC, from 100's of merchants

Over 100,000 Merchants Accept Bitcoin listed in this directory!

Microsoft is accepting bitcoin as a currency

Dell is also accepting bitcoin payment.

as of 2016 BitPay is processing 200 million dollar worth of transaction monthly.

some small number of examples:
Overstock is a major retailer to accept bitcoin since January 2014. The firm offers everything from furniture to jewellery to electronics. Prices are in dollars but there is an option to pay in BTC on the checkout page. Initially a US-only offering, the firm opened up bitcoin purchases to over 100 countries in September.

Newegg, also a retail giant, with $2.8bn in annual revenue is accepting bitcoin.

AirBaltic, the Latvian airline, has been accepting bitcoin payment with no additional fee.

CheapAir  the California-based online travel booking website, started taking bitcoin in November 2013 and announced in July that it has completed more than $1.5m in bitcoin sales on flights, around 200,000 hotels and Amtrak railway bookings via its platform.

Purse.io and Gyft.com don't even need introduction, they are the biggest places for getting huge discounts using bitcoin for payment.

REEDS Jewelers a large jewelery chain in the US, is one of the most notable merchants to accept bitcoin as a form of payment.

at least 100 more of these on coindesk


List of all places to spend bitcoin on coinbase

With the price of bitcoin going up at this point of time the topic UASF was no longer been a talk in this forum. Probably with adoption and support coming from countries such as Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Switzerland and other countries bitcoins value is at its highest. With the trend today we do not need segwit, BU and UASF but the current blocksize and code is ok.

There is no fundamental difference between bitcoin and "alt coins".  All these are highly speculative assets, and in as much as the market becomes efficient, their evolution will be entirely unpredictable and not understandable.   Don't make a mistake, bitcoin is in the same boat.  From the moment that big smart money enters the scene, it is not bound to emotional attachment, and optimizes the greater-fool game.  In the same way as in the complex derivatives market, towards which the crypto scene is evolving, ideally nothing is predictable.  When you are sure it will go up, it will come down, and vice versa.  Because otherwise, there was an opportunity that smart money would have missed, which is against the hypothesis of it being smart.

This is nothing else but the "efficient market hypothesis": all there is to know is already in the price (except for inside knowledge).

I think the market is not there yet.  There is still too much asymmetry between, for instance, bitcoin, and all the rest, which makes things still somewhat previsible.  When you are sure that bitcoin will "go to the moon", for sure, it will crash.  When you are sure that altcoins will take over, for sure they will retract.  Until all of this becomes perfectly chaotic (except maybe for some insiders).

It is very simple: if smart money were 100% convinced that bitcoin is going to, say, $500 000 in a few years, then it wouldn't miss the opportunity in flowing massively in bitcoin.   To the claim that "no, they are misleading you with going to alt coins", the answer is: this is impossible because of the tragedy of the commons.  The smart money that would pump alt coins "to mislead you" would be losing out to the smart money that would go early into bitcoin.  There is no "single boss" in smart money.  So if smart money is convinced that bitcoin goes to $500 000 in a few years, its current price would already tend quickly to $500 000 because they would out-race one another to get in early and rip off one another.
This doesn't mean that bitcoin won't go to $500 000.-, but if smart money cannot know, you can't, either.

BTW, on the 5th of mai, bitcoin's market cap lost about $2 billion too.  That's not a problem for highly speculative gamblers' tokens.

There do not need to be "old fiats", because very long time frames are not what a currency is for.  A currency serves to fluidize economic interaction, and those interactions are never century-long ; even decade-long economic interactions are rather rare.  As such, a currency needs to be as speculation-free as can be, because it needs to be a unit of account.  It is true that very often, state issued money has been corrupted by political interference.  But currencies have rarely be highly speculative assets, simply because you cannot use them reliably for commercial interaction.


There could have been more or less automatic systems.  For instance, a slow, steady increase in difficulty would provide an upper boundary for its value, guaranteeing the one writing out a contract in BTC that he will not have to pay a fortune when he intended to pay a normal sum ; simply because if you have a given difficulty, people will never accept coins that would cost more than the economic cost of computing to make new ones.  

You are, however, perfectly right that "no-one joined bitcoin for that", because no-one joined bitcoin to have a currency.  Everybody joined it to play a greater-fool game and to "earn money with it".  This is why I say that bitcoin is designed to be a highly speculative asset, and not a currency.  As a speculative asset, it functions very well.  Its price is highly unstable.  If you can earn (a lot of) money with it and if that is the main drive to acquire it and to sell it, it is not a currency.

yes yes,
- altcoins are not in a bubble,
- their marketcap is real
- they are good and will grow

i just don't know why in the past 2 days the total marketcap of altcoins has declined -3,860,900,000 USD and that is a big ass 14% decline.

i also don't know why this "pattern" repeats itself each year.

everything is very real in altcoin market. yes yes.

UASF is to trick morons into thinking they can control the destiny of BTC.

The Chinese Miners control it , no one else , not GMaxwell or his piss ant Core Troll army.

All the Chinese have to do is rent a few hundred VPS, and setup their own full nodes,
they control the new blocks and their full nodes keep their network running.

Running UASF is the Same as turning your PC off, because it won't do shit.

Tell the wussies to quit talking about UASF and do it so I can laugh at them for the fools they are.
Want to change PoW, do it , it will be even funnier when the chinese kick your asses up and down the blockchains.

Lets use bitcoin as digital gold,digital asset and commodity ,use as a currency or a transaction platform ,we can use according to out choice and so is the beauty of bitcoin. @OP, if you look at the price of bitcoin you would not feel any decline in anything and if you are not aware that people are using alt coin to convert back to bitcoin.

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it.

[/quote]

What the fuck is this garbage? A true currency? Much like every single fiat that has failed in the past? Why are there no old fiats you ask? Because they are all the same. Infinite supply controlled by a government. How would that ever work for bitcoins? There's no central king pooba to tell us that rates should be this or that and that and no one that joined bitcoins will agree with it.

False generalization. My statement pretty much destroyed your argument that "miner consensus" is above else.

You don't understand UASF apparently. You are also at risk of an attack every single day. Nothing changes and UASF has nothing to do with a PoW change either.

No. UASF works with even <50% of the miners. Both LTC and Vertcoin primarily ended up getting miner consensus due to their fear of UASF. In both cases miners caved in pretty quickly, as per the idea of the game theory behind it.

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it.

The "limited supply" thing is only good for speculative assets.  It has not much to do with gold ; it has to do with pure speculation, hence, instability.  It is a great way to gamble on, and to try to get money out of the pockets of peers.  The simplest version is a greater-fool game: a pyramid game, but it can be much more complex of course with booms and busts.  But it can never be used, nor as a currency, nor as a reserve currency, exactly because it is an unstable system.

My biggest open question is, whether such a thing needs to come down entirely or not at a certain point.  There's something totally "absurd" in crypto, which is the absolute non-uniqueness of it.  Anyone can start a crypto.  Bitcoin's uniqueness is of course that it was "the first", but apart from that, there are many others around - in fact, there's an unlimited supply of crypto.  I have a hard time imagining that this game can go on for ever, because it becomes then quite obvious how to make a huge amount of money: start a crypto !  Just ANY crypto.  If the hunger for deflation is unlimited (that is, if the amount of money willing to gamble on crypto is unlimited), then ANY coin will end up taking off, because "early adopters" make a lot of money.  But then this game becomes obvious, and the "sponge" of cryptos will absorb every new form of capital until no penny is made on an existing coin any more.

In other words, instead of having a single "greater fool" game with a single chain ; instead of having a multiple greater fool game (which I think we are now witnessing) ; we would have an "infinite number of greater fool games".  That cannot exist, because there aren't enough greater fools.  We'll burn through the stock of greater fools quite quickly if the number of greater fool tokens becomes unbounded.  Something will have to give in.




Well, first of all, there's no need for a "gold" if the idea was to have a freedom currency.  And if that "gold' isn't stable, it cannot be used to peg anything against it.  Moreover, LTC is just as "autonomous" as BTC, and doesn't need any "reserve" ; but LTC suffers exactly from the same problems of having an economic model that is purely a speculation tool.  Almost no existing crypto can function as a general currency, because none has a stabilizing mechanism and kills seigniorage.

Everyone would dump their coins because we like the limited supply. It's better to leave BTC as gold, and use another coin for the currency part. We need some sort of limited supply standard in the crypto world and BTC is just as good as it gets for that, got the biggest network effect, it's very difficult to change (as we are seeing)

So BTC as gold, then another currency that (somehow) has a stable price pegged to BTC.
This could be LTC.

No, but it is quite ironic that an "anarchist currency" turns into a speculative fest full of seigniorage because it adheres to an erroneous idea of sound money.  Normally, one shouldn't "become rich" with a CURRENCY.  There's normally no money to be made with a currency.  Crypto had criticism on the finance world and becomes 100 times worse itself.

BTW, I think that the sky is still the limit, now that crypto is clearly just like the derivatives market.  But with such behaviour, of course soon regulation will set in, and every hope of having a true underground currency for subversion is totally blown up.  Big finance will soon entirely put its hand on this crypto world and you can say goodbye to any form of individual liberty in this domain.

For those who want to get rich with crypto, I think there's no better time than now !  But one shouldn't.  That wasn't the idea.

Regardless of how mad you are that you didn't buy in when you should have you can't blame the coin for it! It's not in a decline whatsoever from my viewpoint, it's been on a steady increase for DAYS now(not hours). I don't see any large pools of people sitting at a sell off anytime soon. My speculation is that you're just mad you didn't buy when the time was ripe, I'm mad too

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

A very simple way to do so, which would also *automatically* solve the scaling problem, is by freezing the difficulty (or severely cranking the difficulty increase down) and freeze the block reward.  That would give rise to an ever increasing bitcoin emission, stabilizing its price around the difficulty cost, generate more and more blocks per 10 minutes, solve the fee pressure and solve so many other things.

But it is against bitcoins' religion.  Even though it would have been a great way to turn bitcoin into a currency one day.

Coinmarketcap is now showing also other crypto as "market share":

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue. The problem we are facing is a more complex one. We are looking at a change that would require a PoW change, because otherwise you risk an attack, and with a PoW change, problems arise: What happens to all the miners that wanted segwit? You leave their millions worth of gear useless in the new chain. Are you sure that they will respond positively to that? They may keep mining the old chain just to keep using their mining gear.

The game theory is so complex, this can end up really bad if there is not 100% consensus with all big merchants and payment processors, exchanges etc. Ultimately those dictate who gets to keep the BTC token. So we need everyone on board before any attempts to UASF. We want to do this as conservatively as possible. And yes i've read all the documentation on UASF, the risks are still there unless we get a pretty broad consensus on all big players wanting to do this.

Meanwhile, LTC continues to enjoy his segwit agreement with no drama.