Topic: WS money (Read 1282 times)
Bitcoin doesn't have much of an solid network. There is a network that is supporting bitcoin, but that network isn't dependant on bitcoin and the network can and will switch to better alternatives when they are presented.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Wow you re clearly ahead of times. You cannot compare bitcoin with Facebook or Coca cola... This is just the beginning.
The network will switch to a better alternatives for sure. Exactly like, people are going for bitcoin right now. This is a better alternative than fiat and all the products that banks are selling.
I agree with your future vision that this is just the beginning and bitcoin is just only the first step of this long process of financial evolution. But sadly this step is coming to the end, because the technology is still too raw to be an alternative to fiat and too raw to get serious investors interested. But I'm also very optimistic about the future and I also vision the future in a way where the success of monetary services is decided by fair competition, not by state law and legal tender. But this won't happen overnight and there has to be something better then bitcoin to do the job.
You seem to understand the basis, but i m really not with you with your conclusions. bitcoin is an amazing technology. 2 years ago, you could have said that it was not important because the big guys decide for you what you should use. But today not anymore. It s an alternatif technology, and there is a massive merchant adoption at the moment. That is what gives it value. And in order to allow those merchants to use it, the market capitalisation will have to raise. or die.
That s true, it s opensource. That is why banks will never have control, neither big players. If they want to make money, they will have to invest in startup that is building the bitcoin economy. And it makes me smile to think that they will not want to invest in it because they don t control it.
I m reading so much posts about americans that think that they are alone on this planet. It s amazing. It s a global currency, so there is not a chance that someone will control it some days.
While the technology that bitcoin is based on is innovative, it's still far from being refined enough to support a proper quality currency. And that could be seen bby the merchants who have to use bitpay, so that the stability of USD would make doing business possible. Sadly this makes bitcoin more of an gimmick, that isn't adopted by making business more efficient, but adopted for goals like free press or new loyal customers gained among those who are loyal to bitcoin.That s true, it s opensource. That is why banks will never have control, neither big players. If they want to make money, they will have to invest in startup that is building the bitcoin economy. And it makes me smile to think that they will not want to invest in it because they don t control it.
I m reading so much posts about americans that think that they are alone on this planet. It s amazing. It s a global currency, so there is not a chance that someone will control it some days.
Banks would already have control if they wanted to. Right now they already have the power and they don't need to fix something that isn't broken. They will speed up their works with creating their own alternatives, when the technology is developed enough to offer a proper quality currency with price stability. As long as businesses can only be run with bitcoin through USD, then bitcoin is a joke to them and poses absolutely no threat to them as competition.
Bitcoin doesn't have much of an solid network. There is a network that is supporting bitcoin, but that network isn't dependant on bitcoin and the network can and will switch to better alternatives when they are presented.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Wow you re clearly ahead of times. You cannot compare bitcoin with Facebook or Coca cola... This is just the beginning.
The network will switch to a better alternatives for sure. Exactly like, people are going for bitcoin right now. This is a better alternative than fiat and all the products that banks are selling.
There are huge differences. Buying penny stocks is gambling on the recovery of the company. Bitcoin is a new technology, maybe some years ago it was gambling but not anymore. Adoption is growing, and every country have to give their opinions nowadays. That tells a lot. Bitcoin have a limited number of coins ( or today a fixed inflation ) It makes it a good candidate for successive bubbles.
I have absolutely no idea why one want to compare penny stocks with Bitoins. It is more related with the internet stocks of 2000s.
I have absolutely no idea why one want to compare penny stocks with Bitoins. It is more related with the internet stocks of 2000s.
Bitcoin IS NOT the technology. Bitcoin is a name that is supported by technology that is open-sourced, meaning it is not tied to bitcoin and it isn't giving monetary value to bitcoin.
Countries are giving their opinions, because of the transparency problems that bitcoin has and the criminal schemes it enables. This isn't giving value to bitcoin as an investment.
While I agree with you that there probably will be another bubble, but it won't pumped by major players on Wall Street but by some poor schmucks in south- and central-America. Bitcoin is not a game for those who have knowledge and experience investing. It's a high risk, low reward investment to them. Bitcoin is mostly attractive to those who have little experience with investments and who follow hype more then data that they were educated to follow.
I agree with the experience of investors in bitcoins. That s still a new technology, just a baby. Future looks very bright. Past is a little shady as you stated. But it will not stopped big players to come along. So you agree that the BTC economy need more transparency and more "educated" investors. I couldn t agree more!Just to be clear. I don t refer Bitcoin to the coin but to the technology. But like you said, for the time being, there is no chance that another coin will step up. And i think that there is no chances that some big banks (goldman sachs for example) will issue their own coin to sell it to the world. They will more likely use their own coins to intern money transfers, another good examples that this new technology could do for big companies.
And i m not worrying about the volatility. Once it will be widely accepted, every thing will stabilise. It s just too soon.
And i m not worrying about the volatility. Once it will be widely accepted, every thing will stabilise. It s just too soon.
But the thing is that Bitcoin isn't the technology. It's just a name that is one projection the the technology. You can't give monetary value to open-sourced technology, because it can be copied and also perfected. When big banks would want to use the technology, then it would make no sense to pump bitcoin while 50% coins have already mined and owned by others. If you would use the same amount to create your own coin, then the investment would give you better control and predictability. People think that the hype surrounding is important, but the only thing that creates this illusion is the lack of proper competition. And there is a lack of competition because people who have a clue in finance, know that the technology is too rough at the moment to be used to support an practical currency. Hype can be created with proper funding and clever advertisement and the public opinion can be easily formed.
Bitcoin isn't important and the technology isn't very important. What is important here is the idea that jump-started the development of open-sourced monetary systems. Truly interesting things in the field won't happen in the near future.
You seem to understand the basis, but i m really not with you with your conclusions. bitcoin is an amazing technology. 2 years ago, you could have said that it was not important because the big guys decide for you what you should use. But today not anymore. It s an alternatif technology, and there is a massive merchant adoption at the moment. That is what gives it value. And in order to allow those merchants to use it, the market capitalisation will have to raise. or die.
That s true, it s opensource. That is why banks will never have control, neither big players. If they want to make money, they will have to invest in startup that is building the bitcoin economy. And it makes me smile to think that they will not want to invest in it because they don t control it.
I m reading so much posts about americans that think that they are alone on this planet. It s amazing. It s a global currency, so there is not a chance that someone will control it some days.
Bitcoin doesn't have much of an solid network. There is a network that is supporting bitcoin, but that network isn't dependant on bitcoin and the network can and will switch to better alternatives when they are presented.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Monetary services isn't like social media or carbonated soft drinks, where consumers stick to the first choice because they are too indifferent to look at other options. Facebook and Coca-Cola are both easily replaceable services and products and they have a strong network around their brand. But that is only because of the nature of the business their in, where most of their consumers prefer to stay apathetic.
I have read enough about bitcoin and I can tell you that it seemed a lot more potential before I did the reading.
And the talks about hardware support investments is a joke, because Proof-of-Work method is a joke. More hardware and more electricity used, doesn't actually make the network more secure or faster. It doesn't improve anything, it's just a game for greedy fools.
Bitcoin as an payment system is not worth much, because the technology itself is open-sourced and easily replaceable. It would be easy for bitpay and the exchanges to just jump from Bitcoin to any other crypto if it's needed. Only thing that stops them doing this is the hype that is surrounding the name 'Bitcoin'.
Jeez this forum really converted into a troll pit
Every brainless monkey who does not know what bitcoin network actually is now has an opinion they need to publish here Amazing. Go on.Please take some Adderall, so you could concentrate enough to read through my post.
It would also help, if you would take notes while reading. Maybe then it's possible, that you can actually debate against the arguments what I presented here.
Thank you.
You should go back to reading about bitcoin instead of trying to project your questionable conclusions. Bitcoin the network is what gives bitcoin the currency it's current valuations, and this is neither opensource nor copyable, this is a multi-million dollar worldwide hardware setup.
Bitcoin as an payment system is not worth much, because the technology itself is open-sourced and easily replaceable. It would be easy for bitpay and the exchanges to just jump from Bitcoin to any other crypto if it's needed. Only thing that stops them doing this is the hype that is surrounding the name 'Bitcoin'.
Jeez this forum really converted into a troll pit
Every brainless monkey who does not know what bitcoin network actually is now has an opinion they need to publish here Amazing. Go on.Please take some Adderall, so you could concentrate enough to read through my post.
It would also help, if you would take notes while reading. Maybe then it's possible, that you can actually debate against the arguments what I presented here.
Thank you.
There are huge differences. Buying penny stocks is gambling on the recovery of the company. Bitcoin is a new technology, maybe some years ago it was gambling but not anymore. Adoption is growing, and every country have to give their opinions nowadays. That tells a lot. Bitcoin have a limited number of coins ( or today a fixed inflation ) It makes it a good candidate for successive bubbles.
I have absolutely no idea why one want to compare penny stocks with Bitoins. It is more related with the internet stocks of 2000s.
I have absolutely no idea why one want to compare penny stocks with Bitoins. It is more related with the internet stocks of 2000s.
Bitcoin IS NOT the technology. Bitcoin is a name that is supported by technology that is open-sourced, meaning it is not tied to bitcoin and it isn't giving monetary value to bitcoin.
Countries are giving their opinions, because of the transparency problems that bitcoin has and the criminal schemes it enables. This isn't giving value to bitcoin as an investment.
While I agree with you that there probably will be another bubble, but it won't pumped by major players on Wall Street but by some poor schmucks in south- and central-America. Bitcoin is not a game for those who have knowledge and experience investing. It's a high risk, low reward investment to them. Bitcoin is mostly attractive to those who have little experience with investments and who follow hype more then data that they were educated to follow.
I agree with the experience of investors in bitcoins. That s still a new technology, just a baby. Future looks very bright. Past is a little shady as you stated. But it will not stopped big players to come along. So you agree that the BTC economy need more transparency and more "educated" investors. I couldn t agree more!Just to be clear. I don t refer Bitcoin to the coin but to the technology. But like you said, for the time being, there is no chance that another coin will step up. And i think that there is no chances that some big banks (goldman sachs for example) will issue their own coin to sell it to the world. They will more likely use their own coins to intern money transfers, another good examples that this new technology could do for big companies.
And i m not worrying about the volatility. Once it will be widely accepted, every thing will stabilise. It s just too soon.
And i m not worrying about the volatility. Once it will be widely accepted, every thing will stabilise. It s just too soon.
But the thing is that Bitcoin isn't the technology. It's just a name that is one projection the the technology. You can't give monetary value to open-sourced technology, because it can be copied and also perfected. When big banks would want to use the technology, then it would make no sense to pump bitcoin while 50% coins have already mined and owned by others. If you would use the same amount to create your own coin, then the investment would give you better control and predictability. People think that the hype surrounding is important, but the only thing that creates this illusion is the lack of proper competition. And there is a lack of competition because people who have a clue in finance, know that the technology is too rough at the moment to be used to support an practical currency. Hype can be created with proper funding and clever advertisement and the public opinion can be easily formed.
Bitcoin isn't important and the technology isn't very important. What is important here is the idea that jump-started the development of open-sourced monetary systems. Truly interesting things in the field won't happen in the near future.
Bitcoin as an payment system is not worth much, because the technology itself is open-sourced and easily replaceable. It would be easy for bitpay and the exchanges to just jump from Bitcoin to any other crypto if it's needed. Only thing that stops them doing this is the hype that is surrounding the name 'Bitcoin'.
Jeez this forum really converted into a troll pit
Every brainless monkey who does not know what bitcoin network actually is now has an opinion they need to publish here Amazing. Go on. Yes, bitcoin can be compared to penny stocks because both are valued out of speculation.
There are huge differences. Buying penny stocks is gambling on the recovery of the company. Bitcoin is a new technology, maybe some years ago it was gambling but not anymore. Adoption is growing, and every country have to give their opinions nowadays. That tells a lot. Bitcoin have a limited number of coins ( or today a fixed inflation ) It makes it a good candidate for successive bubbles.
I have absolutely no idea why one want to compare penny stocks with Bitoins. It is more related with the internet stocks of 2000s.
Bitcoin as an payment system is not worth much, because the technology itself is open-sourced and easily replaceable. It would be easy for bitpay and the exchanges to just jump from Bitcoin to any other crypto if it's needed. Only thing that stops them doing this is the hype that is surrounding the name 'Bitcoin'. But if you know the meaning of Hype, then you know how fragile and short lived it actually is. And how easy it would be to create hype if you invest into clever advertisement.
Meaning, if an important Wall Street investors sees value in bitcoins technology, then it would make more sense for him to use the same technology and create, endorse and pump the coin that is mainly in the hands of him and those who stand close to him. Not in the hands of some unknown criminals and geeks. Because this blind trust could make them lose all the money that they invested.
I think that the problem is that most of the people here have 0 experience and knowledge on investments. You don't EVER buy stocks or invest into an company that isn't transparent enough to you. You don't ever buy stocks of an company that is going in a bubble and the majority stockholders are not known and the company itself has a shady history. Investing seems like gambling to the untrained eye, but actually investing is about risk management that could only be practices when things are transparent and most of the variables can be known.
Meaning, if an important Wall Street investors sees value in bitcoins technology, then it would make more sense for him to use the same technology and create, endorse and pump the coin that is mainly in the hands of him and those who stand close to him. Not in the hands of some unknown criminals and geeks. Because this blind trust could make them lose all the money that they invested.
I think that the problem is that most of the people here have 0 experience and knowledge on investments. You don't EVER buy stocks or invest into an company that isn't transparent enough to you. You don't ever buy stocks of an company that is going in a bubble and the majority stockholders are not known and the company itself has a shady history. Investing seems like gambling to the untrained eye, but actually investing is about risk management that could only be practices when things are transparent and most of the variables can be known.
I agree with the experience of investors in bitcoins. That s still a new technology, just a baby. Future looks very bright. Past is a little shady as you stated. But it will not stopped big players to come along. So you agree that the BTC economy need more transparency and more "educated" investors. I couldn t agree more!Just to be clear. I don t refer Bitcoin to the coin but to the technology. But like you said, for the time being, there is no chance that another coin will step up. And i think that there is no chances that some big banks (goldman sachs for example) will issue their own coin to sell it to the world. They will more likely use their own coins to intern money transfers, another good examples that this new technology could do for big companies.
And i m not worrying about the volatility. Once it will be widely accepted, every thing will stabilise. It s just too soon.
It makes no sense to create a bubble that is out of your control, and that could start collapsing any moment. It makes as much sense as serious investors trying to get rich by pumping penny stocks that is 70%+ owned by unknown people who are also in all probability former drug dealers, scammers and computer crackers. The scheme only makes sense when you have control.
Sorry i m not sure to follow. Are comparing the penny stocks market that they used to sell to uneducated people with the BTC economy?
For the control part, i disagree. They want to have a ROI. Bitcoin is used as a payment system, so they need to increase the volume of BTC payments on a daily basis. In order to do that, the only way is to increase the market cap. So starting a new bubble is a good way to do that quickly or it will do it byitself but take more time (and they will not have the control
). Yes, bitcoin can be compared to penny stocks because both are mainly valued out of similar speculation of pumping and dumping.
Bitcoin as an payment system is not worth much, because the technology itself is open-sourced and easily replaceable. It would be easy for bitpay and the exchanges to just jump from Bitcoin to any other crypto if it's needed. Only thing that stops them doing this is the hype that is surrounding the name 'Bitcoin'. But if you know the meaning of Hype, then you know how fragile and short lived it actually is. And how easy it would be to create hype if you invest into clever advertisement.
Meaning, if an important Wall Street investors sees value in bitcoins technology, then it would make more sense for him to use the same technology and create, endorse and pump the coin that is mainly in the hands of him and those who stand close to him. Not in the hands of some unknown criminals and geeks. Because this blind trust could make them lose all the money that they invested.
I think that the problem is that most of the people here have 0 experience and knowledge on investments. You don't EVER buy stocks or invest into an company that isn't transparent enough to you. You don't ever buy stocks of an company that is going in a bubble and the majority stockholders are not known and the company itself has a shady history. Investing seems like gambling to the untrained eye, but actually investing is about risk management that could only be practices when things are transparent and most of the variables can be known.
It makes no sense to create a bubble that is out of your control, and that could start collapsing any moment. It makes as much sense as serious investors trying to get rich by pumping penny stocks that is 70%+ owned by unknown people who are also in all probability former drug dealers, scammers and computer crackers. The scheme only makes sense when you have control.
Sorry i m not sure to follow. Are comparing the penny stocks market that they used to sell to uneducated people with the BTC economy?
For the control part, i disagree. They want to have a ROI. Bitcoin is used as a payment system, so they need to increase the volume of BTC payments on a daily basis. In order to do that, the only way is to increase the market cap. So starting a new bubble is a good way to do that quickly or it will do it byitself but take more time (and they will not have the control
).
to say that thousands of WS investors will all act in the same lock step way is simply not true. There are always exceptions and risk takers. I wouldn't doubt that a few hundred million will be coming from a select few to start. Someone will take the plunge to tell everyone else that the water is fine.
Funny to see those dreams that Wall Street (like some single abstract entity?) will start pumping billions to BTC.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
Agreed. I didn t say that they will buy BTC. As you stated, that is unlikely, not with the current marketcap. But if they want to make money, they need velocity and a large bandwidth of BTC changing hands. With all the geeks waiting to get rich quick, they will have to raise the market cap a lot. -> next bubble in sight.
It is possible though that the big players in Wall Street will eventually create their own coin, that they have enough control over because they were in the game from the start.
Nice first april joke. Just a little late.
It makes no sense to create a bubble that is out of your control, and that could start collapsing any moment. It makes as much sense as serious investors trying to get rich by pumping penny stocks that is 70%+ owned by unknown people who are also in all probability former drug dealers, scammers and computer crackers. The scheme only makes sense when you have control.
Funny to see those dreams that Wall Street (like some single abstract entity?) will start pumping billions to BTC.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
Agreed. I didn t say that they will buy BTC. As you stated, that is unlikely, not with the current marketcap. But if they want to make money, they need velocity and a large bandwidth of BTC changing hands. With all the geeks waiting to get rich quick, they will have to raise the market cap a lot. -> next bubble in sight.
It is possible though that the big players in Wall Street will eventually create their own coin, that they have enough control over because they were in the game from the start.
Nice first april joke. Just a little late.
Funny to see those dreams that Wall Street (like some single abstract entity?) will start pumping billions to BTC.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
It is possible though that the big players in Wall Street will eventually create their own coin, that they have enough control over because they were in the game from the start.
If you want to earn by investing in crypto, then buying bitcoins directly is the most simplistic and riskier way of doing things.
You should only buy bitcoins directly if you have maximum 5mil.$ to spend.
If you have 5-50mil.$ to spend, then the smart move would be to invest in companies like bitpay that offers support for utility.
If you have 50mil.$+ to spend, then it makes more sense to create, endorse and pump your own coin.
Some bitcoiners are hoping that people at Wall Street are stupid, and they will make every GPU mining geek from 2011 rich by just blindly throwing money at bitcoin. Smart investors won't pump big sums in a game that is out of their control and out of their field of vision. They have no way of knowing if someone decides to dump 500 000+ BTC and reduce the price back to single digits or less, after they have pumped BTC with 100mil.$. Because of transparency issues, bitcoin can never be a solid high-stake investment and it will always be more of an gamble then an investment. No serious player will enter the game when in all probability the biggest holders are unsavoury characters like drug dealers, scammers and hackers.
It is possible though that the big players in Wall Street will eventually create their own coin, that they have enough control over because they were in the game from the start.
The "45 degree" comment betrays the authors profound disability.
I haven t found any chart on Bitcoin.
Never the less, it s more for the chart than to promote the guy. I don t think he needs any promotion
Never the less, it s more for the chart than to promote the guy. I don t think he needs any promotion
Same guy, but now on bitcoin:
https://www.tradingview.com/v/97hCiiAX/
''its going below 50 within the coming months''
OK. It will surprise me but that wasn t the point. I have no clue of the bottom. Im just sure it will rocket one day
I haven t found any chart on Bitcoin.
Never the less, it s more for the chart than to promote the guy. I don t think he needs any promotion
Never the less, it s more for the chart than to promote the guy. I don t think he needs any promotion
Same guy, but now on bitcoin:
https://www.tradingview.com/v/97hCiiAX/
''it's going below 50 within the coming months''
Jump to: