Topic: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? - page 5. (Read 24798 times)
There have always been ups and downs in the market..In the past, Bitcoin experienced a similar loss of value..I don't believe this is an end.
New traders and investors behaving insane and they really don't know that Bitcoin is acting like past years.
Bitcoin is not going to zero and i am sure about it but Bitcoin can go down side never to Zero.
Bitcoin will rise and we will see next year we just need to HOLD and never ever panic, weak hands will sell out and move then prices will rise.
Bitcoin is not going to zero and i am sure about it but Bitcoin can go down side never to Zero.
Bitcoin will rise and we will see next year we just need to HOLD and never ever panic, weak hands will sell out and move then prices will rise.
Exactly. According to majority of comments here on forum it looks like all come from new users and investors. Where are all "old", experienced Bitcoiners gone?
Volatility and risk, that is something that you first have to remember before you get involved in Bitcoin.
And the price will not go to zero but the price will not be high so soon either.
New traders and investors behaving insane and they really don't know that Bitcoin is acting like past years.
Bitcoin is not going to zero and i am sure about it but Bitcoin can go down side never to Zero.
Bitcoin will rise and we will see next year we just need to HOLD and never ever panic, weak hands will sell out and move then prices will rise.
Bitcoin is not going to zero and i am sure about it but Bitcoin can go down side never to Zero.
Bitcoin will rise and we will see next year we just need to HOLD and never ever panic, weak hands will sell out and move then prices will rise.
Lol, really, most ppl here in the forums prolly got in quite early. So at worst i would imagine most you are at break even or a slight loss perhaps. But people tend to forget where we started, around the hundreds (which are the hardcore ppl and actually ppl that invested a lot), So again, these ppl are still in for a massive profit even at this price. Besides the pump from last year was nothing short of ridiculous and bound to drop back.
But the question is not if btc will be zero, that is a dumb question, anything that has some sort of usefullness will never go to zero. So your question should be is bitcoin going to have a value? is btc going to be valuable to ppl, and what brings value to btc.
But the question is not if btc will be zero, that is a dumb question, anything that has some sort of usefullness will never go to zero. So your question should be is bitcoin going to have a value? is btc going to be valuable to ppl, and what brings value to btc.
Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Everything is possible. However there are tokens/coins which act differently when the market is falling. MGO, IOTA and a few others experienced a good leap when the market was falling.At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
They can't act differently
I mean their acting differently doesn't mean they are to replace Bitcoin. With minor coins you can get any result by injecting a relatively small amount of fiat, thereby making it look like they are acting differently. Real difference comes from real use, but economically there is no reason to use anything other than Bitcoin. Strictly speaking, there is no particular reason to use even Bitcoin itself right now (i.e. for the exchange of anything on a grand scale), apart from specific niches like online gambling and speculation
Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Everything is possible. However there are tokens/coins which act differently when the market is falling. MGO, IOTA and a few others experienced a good leap when the market was falling. At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Now every self-respecting blogger considers it necessary to say something about bitcoin. Even if he does not understand anything in cryptocurrency and blockchain. Recently I read an article by a blogger who doesn't even know that bitcoin has a limited amount of coins )))
This is a strong indication that Bitcoin is already a mainstream technology. It does not anymore refer to a mode of payment which is almost exclusively used in the dark and deep webs by people who have reasons to detach themselves away from the authorities. Right now, Bitcoin has become a rising currency which is strongly believed to have the credentials to replace fiat.
Now every self-respecting blogger considers it necessary to say something about bitcoin. Even if he does not understand anything in cryptocurrency and blockchain. Recently I read an article by a blogger who doesn't even know that bitcoin has a limited amount of coins )))
Thats even too far from all the prediction. Its 100% sure its not happening. Btc price today has benn manipulating by whales so as the altcoins, and i think even banks has the fault on this one.
Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Even though it was written in site like Forbes, I don't really believe it. Bitcoin will not going to zero. Even the price isn't good lately, it doesn't mean bitcoin ends. the good and bad situation take turn in the surface, so keep calm and positive. At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
I do not think that the price of Bitcoin will be zero ever. He gained good popularity and is used by people every day. But at the expense of its value it is difficult to say something.
I believe as long as there are still people who never stop using bitcoin and never quit on bitcoin investments,then i think its price will never turn to zero.The price may be quite low at the moment but i'm still hopeful that one day its price will rise up again.It may be hard at the end of this year but maybe early next year it will bound to happen again.
Though Bitcoin is down there below...i think it won't go to zero in fact, a lot of people are now using it to pay for some daily needs.
Hoping for Bitcoin to come back up!
Hoping for Bitcoin to come back up!
For them it doesn't matter if they make a sound argument as long as they raise FUD in the market their good with it. I dont know who's pulling the strings in this but if you done research you could find proof and evidence that manipulation to bring down the market is real. They're purpose is to make crypto price cheap so that they can buy in.
I didn't believe on that bitcoin will never been on zero because as of now bitcoin is still on the top and leading than to all coins so that bitcoin will never on zero. This year is the year of falling but be patient and don't always be negative and saying bitcoin is a scam, it will die or it is bubble because of fluctuation of the value. Trust bitcoin that it will rise after this year of falling.
Same with your argument, which I have included and not believe that bitcoin will fall to no value because it is only natural that in trading such a situation can occur and ensure that bitcoin will succeed again and can convince it to rise.
Bitcoin is now down but the future is bright. we are in the technological era and the future of money is the cryptocurrency. We have a taste of what bitcoin can do as a payment method and store of value. I believe it will survive to shine again.
That is the worst thing that will happen to bitcoin that it will go to zero value , that is a very impossible to happen, because if coins in the cryptocurrency market has no value ,then the market is dead, this idea that bitcoin will go to zero value , can not be believe by the crypto holders , the good I believe will happen in reality is the bouncing vack of the market and bitcoin soon.
i guess no. because when the price of bitcoin reaches the lowest price, then the investors and even the user will buy bitcoins and if that happens, the price of bitcoin will rise again.
I don't think people will allow this to happen. Bitcoin will not go to zero, because many people will prevent it from buying Bitcoin when the price really falls in the hope that it will profit when the market situation recovers and the coin price rises again.
W can't say just because some people will buy bitcoin always,when it has low value everyone will just to make their capital money no one is willing to support it.But the chance of it is going to zero is less since it already got recognization,it is not some other shit coins which made bump and fades away. Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist
Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?
In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"
Lol...the dude is funny! It's normal to blast what you didn't understand-that what most average persons do! They are just set of people who missed the boat of Bitcoin! Therefore they will want it to fail badly just for them to tell you- i told you! ...blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies have come to stay! Its even beyond the reach of governments!
it is not possible because bitcoin is now a lot of people to buy it so that when prices go up get a double profit from ordinary capital.
The point is that there are still tens of millions of bitcoin users that exist and it is impossible to be zero users in a short time and without any reason. bitcoin will stay alive for a long time, calm down..
Jump to: