A bit of a bitcoin crash yesterday! Does show the volatility in the market. Thankfully I didn't yet make a deal with my friend. Strengthens my negotiating position
Not sure if I posted in here or another one...but sorry if I am repeating myself. About 7 years ago a friend told me about Bitcoin. We both work in IT, but I didn't 'get' it. I bought a couple and used them to buy music. Last time I checked, I was paying about 50 quid per coin.
It's staggering to see how this has all kicked off, and I think I need to get back into it. I want to get in touch with this friend and see if he kept many from back then.
If you view this as a 5 year investment you will be richly rewarded.
I think at this stage, its really about putting some money in and seeing how it does over say 5 years as opposed to seeing the ups and downs each day - doesn't stop me looking though. Definitely a longer term play I would have thought.Originally Posted by Chinnock
Any thoughts on EOS which is being launched in a few days?
As others have said, thanks for your excellent contributions to this thread.
Hi folks,
Thanks to all those who have contributed to this thread so far, it's been an enormous help in getting started. I've made some small purchases of Ether so far but only as an individual (all money I can afford to lose if the punt goes south...). To do this I've set up accounts with Coinbase and Bittylicious and ordered a couple of Ledger Nano S vaults (not due til September).
I'm now interested in putting a little retained profit from my Ltd company into Ethereum (with the goal of taking out any eventual capital gains via a pension contribution). I've been trying to contact Bittylicious and Coinbase to find out if this is possible but I'm not getting very far.
Has anybody on here done this so far? If so, I'd be really grateful for a steer!
Cheers
Dave
Sorry, had a few days offline...
Not huge on ICO's as I just find it too hard to pick between legit new coins and so called 'scam' ICO. And by scam, I don't suggest they aren't bone fide crypto coins, just that the founders of a new coin will need to pre-mine a quantity of coins (to provide market cap, assets for immediate sale/trace etc) and one could see how tempting it would be to pump the coin and dump your pre-mine, then exit stage left a very rich lady.
I'm also reading some less than positive things about EOS.
My tip for a decent punt remains Golum, ridden the recent Ether/Bitcoin storm well and has good prospects. Still early enough for holders to pick up volume at low cost.
And I'll add to that IOTA, for all the usual reasons (good background tech, good team and coherent applications)
As with most of these posts, always do you own due diligence before putting your hand in your pocket :)
Sorry I can't help with this.
Roll on the day when there are crypto pension funds....
...and retail acceptance - https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...es-a-hard-sell
Q: Where do bitcoins come from?
A: Bitcoin mines.
Trust the Chinese to do it on an industrial scale!
Illustrates one of the possible weaknesses of the Bitcoin system: Concentration of mining influence and power based upon cheap electricity.
This could be interesting...
Don't panic, but your Bitcoins may just vanish into the ether next month
This is where I stand on cryptocurencies: https://polemics-pains.blogspot.com/...ny-number.html
While blockchain technology will change the world, I find little to no reason to own Bitcoin. Nicely summarized in this snippet from the above piece:
"Having decided that Bitcoin technology has no unique value to Bitcoin itself, as it can be replicated by others (indeed the proliferation of crypto-currencies is a testament to this) and decided that for transactions one only needs to rent it for a fraction of a second, then why would one want to hold and store it?
It is said that Bitcoin is a store of value that will only go up as there is a limited supply and the rules of issue are immutable.
Even before the current issue of a bifurcation of the Bitcoin platform is considered, the primary condition for storing value is that the value of your store does not change relative to what you value. Most of us value the security of food, shelter and warmth, all of which have to be purchased in local currency. The value of Bitcoin relative to these things is currently oscillating at +/-30% a month. That is one heck of a risk that leaves even investing in CDOs a preferable store of value.
Yet despite all of my cynicism towards the price of Bitcoin, the price has indeed gone up. When the price of something moves in the direction that the narrator predicted it is used as a form of substantiation of their initial arguments. The ‘see I was right’ view is dangerous for the old reason that correlation does not imply causation. Bitcoin prices can effectively soar on the ‘greater fool’ theory rather than any of the tulip like arguments of long term value holding water."
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
I have read your blog post with interest. The use of a steam engine by way of analogy should have been an indicator of the point of view you went on to propound. And please dont get me wrong, all opinions are equally valid if we are going to get under the skin of ANY of the problems we face daily.
I think where our opinions diverge is in your attempt to ascertain the value of BTC, you look at its long term technical sustainability (unless I have misunderstood), comparing the person "buying a Bitcoin for long term investment purposes will end up as rich as a man who ordered 200 of Trevithick's 1802 Coalbrookdale steam locomotives expecting them to dominate the railway age for the next hundred years".
The Blockchain is a fluid piece of de-centralised technology, as such it is adaptable and updatable based on consensus. I have tried, but i dont see it becoming out dated or outmoded in the same way as a steam engine, for example. The steam engine was a springboard to the internal combustion engine, the blockchain has served as a blueprint for other 'blockchains', each with their own USP. Now, we could theorise about the time when computer code is replaced with some type of...who knows what, or how? a fun exercise but one couched in subjective fantasy. What we might be more likley to see, is the broader acceptance of BTC and other crypto's- more places to spend them, easier transactions, more equitable regulation, reoval of the 'dark net' stigma etc. Arguably, this is already happening (Overstock were great, but they are now far from unique).
As to its intrinsic value, I think it is misplaced to reference the current incumbents (fiat currency etc) as comparators. Of course there is no gold reserve or trade balance underpinning its value. If we are going to truly engage in 'future looking', then I would be bold enough to say that these are relics of a capitalist economy that has all but eaten itself. Capitalism is dead, and we are in a time whereby its corpse is being stripped of serviceable organs, in an effort to stitch together a Frankenstein’s monster that 'just might' stay on its feet long enough to maintain the illusion that we aren’t staring global economic collapse in the eye. Literally on the precipice. The intrinsic value of BTC is no more, or no less, than those who use, trade, hold BTC choose to ascribe it. Exactly the same as anything else, tulip bulbs included :)
My belief (bracing myself for the slings and arrows….) is that we are slowly entering a new age. The curtain has dropped on manipulative and corrupt banks and governments, the concept of debt slavery is becoming more broadly understood, mainstream media is slowly exposing itself as a privately/publicly owned propaganda machine and people are sharing stories of dissent and starting to critically analyse the options out there to make the world a better place. This is the museum-story which BTC should illustrate, not alongside a dirty, smoky, slow steam engine.
And by way of conclusion, its no surprise that the 'value' of BTC and its associated technology is being eyeballed by the likes of those it seeks to liberate us from. Or maybe we should see this as some sort of 'validation'?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...oin-technology
Enjoying the rest of your blog BTW :)
EDIT: I have assumed it is your blog, apologies if this is in correct...
Last edited by Hewjardon; 19th July 2017 at 12:10.
It isn't.
For what it's worth, I agree very strongly with most of what you say in the message above, especially the parts I have quoted.
My only point of difference with what you write above is that I think that capitalism is alive and well. It seems to work very successfully and beneficially as part of the general concept of free and open markets, of which Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are natural progressions. What people seem to hate hate (even if they wrongly call it 'capitalism') is, to my mind, state-issued advantage for certain types of corporation and entity, all of which tends to entrench the status quo and prevent hard work and innovation from paying off as people think they should.
In short, there is nothing wrong with capital or free and open markets but there is a lot wrong with the state and those it effectively sponsors (who, naturally and in turn support the state).
Hey Mark....At the cost of steering this thread in an overtly political direction I would have to disagree.
Like you, I'm not saying that elements of capitalism don’t work, just as an economic principle on the whole, it has failed. Its a long debate, and one possibly not one best had here BUT I'M GOING THERE ANYWAY :)....
Aside from looking at ones own levels of personal deb to determine how well the economy has served them, lets look at some broader economic issues. The UK has a current national debt of GBP 69 billion (guess who has to pay that off?), our governmental imposed austerity plans have failed so miserably that the deficit has actually increased during that period, over 1million people in the UK used foodbanks in the last 12 months, we have a generation that will never be able to afford their own homes, we have elderly generation that have seen their pensions devalued to the point at which they have to return to work, we have a national health system that is buckling under the strain of underinvestment and mismanagement, students are leaving education with debts averaging GBP 57k, our government has had to bail out recklessly managed financial institutions with public money, we are failing to pay national servants such as nurses and firemen a wage that mirrors increases in inflation, public institutions have been nationalised for the sake of generating profits for private shareholders, council housing has been sold off with no significant increase in social housing commensurate with that divestment of housing stock, we engage in printing money (so called 'quantative easing') to bolster the economy, we have no real export trade anymore, a hand full of billionaires control the global economy and press/media, high street stores pubs and other outposts of local community are disappearing in the wake of Tescos Amazon etc etc....I could go on, and on, and on.
With such a depressing list of boxes being ticked, it is hard to see who isn't being failed (in this country) by a minimally regulated, free market economy. Just consume more and don't take off your blindfold, every thing will be peachy, Honest....
What really tickles me, is that people appear to be blind to many of these problems, and instead grumble about immigrants and how hot/wet/cold the weather is. We have been lead to believe that the power to change this miserable (for many) status quo resides in the hands of politicians. It doesn't. It’s in our hands.
Change is there for the taking, but that would mean we would probably miss the next episode of Strictly Ballroom and might possibly get a few more swirlies on the bracelet, and that would never do :)
In short, we're fncked.
I'm heading to the bathroom to run a warm bath and find a blade.
All the best
I disagree. But I think we may be defining 'capitalism' in different ways.
I agree that all these are problems to varying extents or are unfair. But none of them seem to be much to do with capitalism (see below for a definition of capitalism). All these problems and issues are to do with statism, the excessive and corrupting power of the state. The state is central to the issue in all of the problems you mentioned since its overriding function is to maintain the status quo through control, regulation and enabling of the conditions that allow for the ills, a status quo which is fundamentally unfair to those who are not already successful in these terms.
Again I say that capitalism seem to work, and work well. It is meddling by the state that is the problem.
What minimally regulated, free market economy is that? We have a heavily regulated (increasingly regulated, in fact) economy in all areas. The government never ceases looking for ways to 'regulate', meddle and micromanage. However, even if we disagree over what "minimally regulated" means, this is still nothing to do with capitalism as such.
The problem is neither lack of regulation nor is it capitalism! The problem is related more to statist, centralising control through excessive regulation.
Is not consumption the only real physical driver of economic activity, in the last analysis? Where else can demand and thus economic activity and growth come from?
We need consumption, but we also need creation and entrepreneurialism.
I absolutely agree. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Capitalism is just fine. Whilst it is very common to refer to all the ills you mentioned about as 'capitalism', this is nevertheless a factually erroneous term for them. Instead they are not directly related to capitalism; they are caused instead by excessive state meddling and excessive 'regulation' (i.e. the imposition of rules and laws that actually benefit those who take from the economy, such as the state itself and very large corporations, and which disadvantage innovators and smaller businesses).
So called 'anti-capitalist' campaigners are hilariously not campaigning against capitalism at all (except the communists, perhaps). They mostly seem almost entirely concerned with perceived unfairness sponsored, created and perpetuated by the state (i.e. issues that are orthogonal to capitalism), although I also think that they are very often victims of the mindset that you refer to below, where they hate the effects that the state has and yet still want the state to magically provide everything for them.
Let me define capitalism (I took this from Google as a convenience): "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state". As you can see, there is nothing at all in this that automatically or necessarily gives rise to all the ills that you mentioned. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that the ills that you mentioned are all a function of the state meddling in the market instead of letting it respond to genuine demand at all levels without state-sponsored so called 'protections'.
Yes, people have become inured to the status quo due to the welfare state mindset: The state will protect you and make everything safe; just consume and do not create; if you do try to create you will be disadvantaged by excessive and meddling regulation and statute, all in the faux name of public safety.
But we're not foobared. We can break out -- those of us who recognise the problem. You are doing so, for example, from what you've said about your cryptocurrency investing.
This is also why I was surprised to see you say that lack of regulation is a bad thing. It is lack of regulation (well, bypassing of regulation) that has allowed cryptocurrencies to exist and become popular. It is the fact that they escape excessive regulation that (amongst others things) makes them useful.
Last edited by markrlondon; 20th July 2017 at 21:45.
Interesting reading Mark, and a dialogue I think we can get away with calling an economic, rather than political one :)
I'll try and be as brief as possible...
Sorry if I appear to be confusing the ills of capitalism with the ills of government. I maintain that the examples given above are symptomatic of an economy premised on capitalism, and I shall try to explain why.
Capitalism, conceptually my understanding is that it favours free enterprise and private ownership (as opposed to state governed/owned), and the accumulation of capital ('wealth') by private/corporate individuals, as opposed to the state the or government.
We therefore have a system that favours, and arguably is premised upon, the accumulation of wealth by individuals and/or their privately owned companies. Now, I am not against anyone making a living, but like everything, it needs to be within reason. My personal feeling is that there are certain services and products that should not be operated on the basis of their ability to turn a profit: education, healthcare, social welfare, infrastructure, transport etc We also have a system that allows individuals and their companies to generate huge revenues and profits from consumers in this country whilst avoiding the payment of vast amounts of tax to the exchequer, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Sir Richard Branson. All happy to take out of our nation-pocket but contribute nothing of those revenues back into the system.
Since the advent of neo-liberalism (Thatcher, Reagan, Friedman etc) the state has become increasingly hands-off and the position of the individual has been elevated. We have been told, for almost 4 decades, that we should 'supply demand', make a profit, be 'entrepreneurial', cut costs and increase margins etc.
We have witnessed the transfer of state owned and managed assets into the private sector. So, away from ‘not-motivated-for-profit’ management (that may have been good/awful) by the government, for example, and into the hands of private companies that are ONLY motivated by the ability to turn a profit. All companies have a legal obligation to turn a profit for their shareholders, or rather, to engage in activates that are for the purpose of generating dividends for their shareholders. Its been a while since I was a 'real' solicitor but I am sure this principle still exists within the Companies Act.
Combine this with the limited liability that corporate entities enjoy. In short, liability is limited to the investment of the shareholders, the officers of the company cannot be held personally liable for the mis-actions, debts, etc incurred by the company. This provides a corporate shield behind which the owners and managers can hide and avoid responsibility.
Trying to keep this brief..
And this is where regulation comes in. Individual’s come in all shapes and sizes, good or bad, altruistic or narcissistic etc We aren’t perfect. And regulation can be a ‘guiding hand’ or something more controlling, and I think we have exhausted the efficacy of the former.
In certain instances, perhaps say where they are being tempted by large profits, individuals may become a little more nefarious. Further, there may be individuals out there that are so motivated by the accumulation of wealth and profit that they will chase it down by any means necessary (Sir Philip Green might be a good example, but there are far worse). Asset stripping viable businesses, putting workers out of work, pillaging pension pots etc. Incurring huge debts through their companies, then winding up those companies leaving creditors unpaid, only to reincorporate under a different name (phoenix company’s etc) and to continue trading. Again, I understand why we allow for this to take place but the ability and ease by which this provision is exploited surely outweighs the benefit for which it is intended?
Financial regulation should ensure that banks act within their authority and that their investment activity (for example) with customers money is tightly controlled. Regulation ensures against the existence of cartels, companies that act in consort to maintain inflated prices, it should prevent the existence of anti-competitive practices, currency manipulation, against polluting the environment, exploiting child labour, ensuring sufficient social housing stock exists to meet current and future demands, to ensure safe working practices, food safety etc And that’s before we look at regulation on a broader basis, for example the fact our government grants export licenses to individuals, and their companies, that are supplying arms to be used by states who appear on our governments list of human rights abusers. Crazy, right?
Yes, regulation can be a huge pain in the ass, but regrettably all humans aren't good, and we need to keep those that travel a slightly less scrupulous path in check, otherwise we all suffer, long and short term. Given half a chance, they will happily funnel their profits into an off-shore tax avoidance scheme, taking money out of our pockets but contributing nothing back.
I believe that in such instances it is better to put the interests of the majority over those of the individual. Close to 40 years of neo-liberal capitalism has wrecked our finances and (arguably) our society. For 90% of the time humans have been on this planet, they lived as hunter-gatherers in groups of 40 or less. Community, tribalism and collectivism are in our DNA. We have been distracted by the elevation of individual advantage and benefit, wads of cash, and have been sold an unsustainable lie. The accumulation of wealth and the elevation of the interests of the individual over that of majority is, simply, contrary to our innate being. It’s not the best of possible outcomes for achieving happiness.
We have the ability to work a lot of this stuff out, unfortunately we have effectively been brainwashed to accept a system that is acting against our best interests, and places groups and individuals in positions of power and governance that have absolutely no interest in changing the status quo, despite vocal protestations to the contrary. Combine this with a media industry that is owned by a handful of billionaires, and you start to see how much of an uphill struggle it is.
But it's doable.
And bringing it back to Bitcoin.....I think BTC will benefit from regulation. I don’t want my coins devalued overnight because someone has tried to game the system, I want broad acceptance at the top level, I’d like to see commercial (eg pension) investment funds be allowed to get behind crypto’s etc. These are good things.
Where I may have confused the issue, is in my support for de-centralistion. I think that we, as people, can manage this by acting collectively. And so far, this has served Bitcoin well. Whether or not it continues to do so in the future, we shall see. Finger crossed.
I also think that we, as people, can govern ourselves without a traditional model of government. But thats probably a little way-out and overtly political a drum to start banging here.
And yes, the irony of this having this discourse on a website that celebrates the shiny baubles of the accumulation of wealth isn't lost on me. Please dont take my baubles away....
Last edited by Hewjardon; 21st July 2017 at 23:59.
Although the discussion is about economics, I think that discussion of economics is fundamentally political. It's not an objectively measurable science, so it is inevitably political. :-)
For that reason I'll reply in BP and post a link here when I have written my reply.
** Update **
Reply here: http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...=1#post4428663
Last edited by markrlondon; 22nd July 2017 at 04:38.
Sadly Mr Hew hasn't got BP access yet Mark.
Cheers..
Jase
Tbh I think Mr hew has probably got better things to do with his life
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Im not so sure, looking at his post above, I think they may have a few things in common
Actually very strongly opposed political positions, albeit in response to agreed problems!Im not so sure, looking at his post above, I think they may have a few things in common
Thanks for taking the trouble to formulate a response Mark, albeit one I cant see yet :)
Happy to put this part of thread into suspended animation, at least until I get my credentials jacked-up enough to access the BP.
IMHO there is nothing duller than a conversation that is couched in agreement and confirmation, otherwise we might as well just talk to a mirror. Enjoy the weekend, and looking forward to picking this up in the future.
^^^ Ok. :-)
So, now on our third day of a forked-Blockchain.
Bitcoin looks strong after a flurry of pre-fork activity.
The new 'Bitcoin Cash' token appears to be doing well on their third (second really) day of trading, currently at EURO 351.57, reflecting the price at which Bitcoin Cash futures were trading at prior to the fork. I wonder if the new upstart will challenge Bitcoin for market capitalisation value, and if so, how long might it take?
Hopefully both will do well side by side and we will see some of the scaling issues resolved. Of course, I think the best thing about the blockchain-fork for most people with Bitcoin in their wallet, is that they now hold an equal number of Bitcoin Cash tokens. When was the last time your bank gave you money when they added/removed coins, increased/reduced interest rates etc?
(its ok, that was a rhetorical question and not quite analgous to this example, but I cant let a bank bashing opp sail by.....)
I am confused.
So you are saying the as well as the bitcoin I hold in Coinbase I now have the same amount of bitcoin cash?
If so where is it?
Just looked into this more.
Coinbase didn't fork the wallets apparently so there was never any bitcoin cash created and therefore they have cost their users a load of money.
Something fishy here. Awful business practice from them. I need to use an alternative going forward.
They did email customers over the past few weeks to warn them of the impending fork and that they would only be supporting BTC going forward.
I ate lunch with a fork.
Sent from my SM-G930F using TZ-UK mobile app
I did see it to be honest. I just didn't understand the significance of it.
Reading more about it why didn't they just fork and then make you store somewhere else?
Such a strange decision.
I didn't really understand the email they sent either so did nothing. But Coinbase are in the news now saying they will support trading of Bitcoin Cash as of next year and that their users will be able to withdraw their Bitcoin Cash at that time - at least that's what I understood the article to say. Having said that, I can't see any Bitcoin Cash in my account so maybe it's just not visible?
Or is it really the case that if you took no action then you didn't get the Bitcoin Cash? Seems like a very strange way to work. I can understand their reluctance to allow trading, but not letting people hold coins that are automatically isssued to them doesn't make any sense.
What have I missed here?
Edit - in the email they sent, it says:
2. Customers with balances of Bitcoin at the time of the fork now have an equal quantity of Bitcoin Cash stored by Coinbase.
So it would seem it is there but users can't see it or access it until they support it.
Last edited by bambam; 4th August 2017 at 13:30.
Yeh the way I read it is you wont see it until Jan.
I suppose its good to know its somewhere, Although by Jan it could be close to worthless.
The recent 'hard fork' (system upgrade) appears to have had a very positive effect on BTC, and crypto's in general. Public confidence is high, the press is good and activity in the market geneally is very, very vibrant. Total market cap for combined cryptos has been hittting all time highs all week.
At time of writing BTC is running at GBP 2931. Are we going to see it hit the GBP 3k milestone over the weekend?
I dare say there will be a level of market correction, as we saw after the last rally back in June, but this is to be expectedf. IIRC in one of my previous posts, i mentiined that this movement has been fairly typical over the long term. Perhaps an over simplification, historically we have seen the price rise to point X, it drops, then rises again past point X to point Y, it then drops, it then rises past point Y to...etc Yes, very volatile. Yes, like a roller coaster but it is strengthening in the long term, with adequate margin for short term trades/
Bitcoin cash is also levelling out, currently trading at around GBP 257. Incidentally, if you are holding Bitcoin cash you should be able to trade them. If you are still stuck on how to access them, there are a number of god guides online, however, my advice would be to a) wait; and b) be absolutely how to seperate your BTC from your BTC Cash when you are ready to sell. At this time, unless you are using one of the better hardware wallets (Trezor, Ledger etc) that support BTC Cash, I would leave them as is for the moment.
Good luck to those holding BTC (and now BTC Cash), hope it works out positive for you all.
Have a great weekend!
Couple of Ledger wallets arrived last week and managed to get both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash across (from Ethereum wallet).
Feel a lot happier now having the hardware wallets.
Ah, good stuff.
Im guessing you got the Ledger Nano S?
I have had the Ledger Nano for some time but that only holds BTC. Think I am going to upgrade to the Nano S and put everything in the one pot.
Up, up, up we go.....
Yes, Nano S. Have Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Ethereum.
Think it can also hold Dash.
My concern with Hardware wallets is that drives can fail e.g. harddrives, USB sticks, flash cards. What makes a hardware wallet more reliable/stable than a digital wallet like Jaxx (which I currently use)?
Can you get 2 Nano's and link them, so if one fails the other has an exact copy at all times or does nano say sync with a laptop or cloud so there is a second copy somewhere?
I became interested in CryptoCurrency last night, after reading through a thread on another forum. Interesting to see that one Bitcoin was worth £811 when this thread was started, but as I type, £3,679.
Made a modest investment in Litecoin, mostly for fun. Interesting to see how it does.
The 'coins' themselves aren't actually on the device - they're just on the blockchain but you need your 'key' to use them. (Hope this is the correct, layman's, terminology!)
Buy a new device, enter the 24 word passphrase (which you have to write down when setting up the first) and they can both access the coins (as I've done). If both devices fail (unlikely) you've still got the recovery passphrase. Advantage of these USB devices is that all encryption is carried out off the PC so should be secure.
Perfect explanation thanks.
Should also add that the Nano's are protected with an (up to) 8 digit pin so even if lost or stolen can't be used (they lock after a few attempts) w/o re-entering passphrase.
BTC will either hit $100000, or $0.
Either scenario is possible.
Personally I can't see what will stop it from going through the roof... there's a finite supply of 21 million BTC.
It's feasible that the first trillionaire could be the holder of a significant amount of BTC.
ICOs have been banned in China. The implication of that will be interesting, as liquidating large amount of coins isn't easy and so people invested in ICOs. It will also be interesting to see how things progress in regulating ICOs which is a natural progression from where it currently sits.
My brother got me into buying cryptocurrency a few months ago and so far i have invested some spare cash and had a bit of fun buying different coins.
A friend of mine has sold his business and just trades full time and he also set up a website and blog, I find it quite useful but judge for yourself.
www.whatbitcoindid.com
Seems that Jamie Dimon's comments (JPMorgan) just caused BTC prices to plunge 12%?!! I would speculate he's just pushing prices down for either JPM to build their own blockchain/cryptocurrency or for him to buy some BTC!
I'm new to Bitcoin investing and I'm looking to dip my toe in. I have limited experience in share trading/day trading but I have quite a diversified portfolio of Unit Trusts that I hold. Spent yesterday reading through the thread and a couple other websites and I have a couple of questions I hope some people can help with (apologies in advance for stupid questions):
Background questions
1i) The value of cryptocurrency is the blockchain tech that underlies it. The market will price it just like how it would price any openly traded shares, i.e. based on expectation of future value. But this future value is only the value of the technology. To put it another way, the intrinsic value of BTC is the costs it takes to mine these coins, electricity, labour, machines etc? The more money is spent on mining, the more the intrinsic value increases? But otherwise, BTC itself does not generate any real (FIAT) cashflows?
1ii) What is the theoretical max market cap. of BTC? I assume this max limit is due to how the algo is written? How far are we away from the theoretical max market cap at today's prices?
1iii) How is the supply side of BTC controlled? I gather it is done by "mining", an activity where machines runs algorithms to "discover" coins. As computing power increases, rate of BTC mining will increase as well? Is there an estimate on when will all BTC be mined?
Market Events & Impacts to Crypto value
2i) The cryptocurrency market seems to be surging in prices each time these products are adopted on exchanges, being adopted as a form of payment for tangible goods/services. Why is this the case given that no real cashflow has been generated?
2ii) Given a hypothetical scenario of an adoption of a blockchain tech, say of Bitcoin, by big companies like Amazon. How does this happen in practise? Does Amazon have to buy a certain amount of BTC for them to use the tech? Thereby driving prices up?
3) There has been several attempts at listing Bitcoin as an ETF by the Winklevoss bros. But SEC didn't approve it. Seems that it is because BTC is trading in an unregulated market which is susceptible to fraud or manipulation. There is another new ETF listing BITC which is trying to get approval again but it seems unlikely to get pass the SEC. I assume that by letting Bitcoin trade as a ETF should increase BTC prices massively, given that it implicitly means that there is mainstream acceptance of cryptocurrency as an asset?
Investment Strategies in Crypto
4) There are several funds that invests in cryptocurrency. I found ARK Web and Hargreaves Lansdown has a ETN too? I would assume that investing in funds that invests (not only) in cryptocurrency should get me some exposure to these products but provide some diversification as well? Reason of going into funds to start off with is that I'm not quite ready to actively (day) trade a portion of my cryptocurrency portfolio whilst holding some longer terms shares. (I believe this method of trading is quite similar to what one would do on a portfolio of "regular" assets)
5) I assume that direct investment in cryptocurrency vs. indirect (through funds or companies with exposure with cryptocurrency) should work in the same way as a direct investment in shares vs. indirect investment in shares?
6i) In terms of day trading, how many trades does one average a day. And I assume that's done using technical analysis i.e. looking at graphs/charts etc? My view on technical analysis is that it only works because there's a whole bunch of people/machines out there doing the same thing. Plus the fact that people are building in profit taking/ loss cutting or mental barrier to prices etc that is driving this.
6ii) In terms of a buy and hold strategy, this seems to be what the market would call fundamental analysis. Where one would assess the long term value of a coin?
I'll just comment on your first (background) question: -
Something like 80% of Bitcoins have been mined and it is predicted that they will all have been mined by 2140 and although the rate of mining could increase with computing power, mining 'difficulty' is increased to compensate. There is some good information on mining projections here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlle...oins_Long_Term.
I can't see how the value of the coins can be predicted though - surely depends on their uptake, competing coins etc. No 'real' cashflow is generated either!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote