I started with $600 and I have made 486% in cryptos

Here's a comment I read on HN I really agree with:

> definitely a bubble, really cant deny that anymore

You could be right.

But I don't understand everyone's certainty that cryptocurrencies are a fraud-bubble-scam-Ponzi-mania.

The growth curve fits both exponential and logistic (S-curve) functions.

Exponential growth is unsustainable, while logistic growth describes most technology adoption. Halfway through the cycle they're indistinguishable.

When there's 98% agreement this is a bubble about to burst, my instinct is that the conventional wisdom is wrong.

/quote. I think BTC has become more robust every crash, and if BTC dips below 8k, everyone in the world knows it's a steal at that price. I see a few dips, but I don't see us crashing for at least a year (I'd forecast farther, but the more distant, the less accurate). Everyone saying it's a bubble only convinces me even more that it's just going to trade sideways for a bit, with occasional runs and dips.

discord.gg/BRG8duN
anyone seeking to double their coin is welcome

MODS

Personally, I think this spring we'll really start to see widespread alt adoption in industry, and this is shaping up to be even bigger than the last alt spring. Just my 2 sats though.

IMHO, the growth curve is logarithmic, and we've reached a sort of critical capacity and awareness levels that tell me it's unlikely to crash unless there's gov't intervention or widespread Mt. Gox2.0.

Well I can support why this is a bubble with some analysis from enterprise world. As I said my job is to work with blockchain technology (not crypto). Basically, there is no intrinsic value to Bitcoin itself. It has first mover advantage, but no one is currently using it to do anything. The store of value is not a good explanation either as it takes only a few new exchanges to open that offer fiat to alt directly to kill basically 90-95% of Bitcoin's use.

It is too slow for mass adoption, and as the price increases the transaction fee becomes far to unwieldy.

>”I work in the field of blockchain tech”

Yep it’s a bubble.

>If a normie bubble pops the BTC/alt pair will lose value.

If they hold their USD value as BTC pops, you'd actually gain satoshi value though! :3 This is what I'm hoping for, sort of "cashing out" in alts.

I work for one of the largest companies in the world implementing smart contracts to automate people's jobs.

I am saying bitcoin is a bubble, not blockchain technology or alts.

>analysis
>intrinsic value

Both of those words are meaningless here. Nothing has intrinsic value, and most analysis is bunk (it's been wrong since 2009, save for the occasional broken clock's).

>no one is using it do anything
Yes, they are. They're using it as a store of value, since FIAT is inflationary and depreciates in value, while BTC is not. And transaction speeds/tx fees are being improved upon. FIAT to alt exchanges already exist, but I believe BTC will still be the supporting backbone of all these.

this is an example of someone who will lose all their money due to imaginary internet money and an hero

What do you mean nothing has intrinsic value? Money has intrinsic value because it can be easily traded for goods. Other coins have intrinsic value because they can be used to pay for certain services.

I just explained why the store of value is not a good argument. It is too volatile and lacks any real use. Why would you believe BTC would be the backbone? Literally makes no sense at all, just because you want it to be valuable doesn't mean it is.

And this is an example of an overconfident person who thinks his opinion is right, without any supporting evidence or refutations.

At least read my above comments too.

I laughed when you said "promising alts that have real utility"

This is all shit, don't ever forget that

You must be one of those who don't understand the tech.

>Money has intrinsic value because it can be easily traded for goods.
Things can be bought with BTC, including money. Mostly money, actually. So by an extension of your own argument, you agree with it having intrinsic value.

When I said nothing has intrinsic value, it was because this argument is going to boil down to that. You are saying goods have intrinsic value? Why? Because they help you live? Well, life has no intrinsic value either. It's a roundabout, shitty argument and BTC wins anyway you look at it (either it does have intrinsic value as exemplified above, or doesn't because nothing really does).
>I just explained why the store of value is not a good argument.

This was your explanation:

>he store of value is not a good explanation either as it takes only a few new exchanges to open that offer fiat to alt directly to kill basically 90-95% of Bitcoin's use.

And I told you why I disagree, but here it is again: "FIAT to alt exchanges already exist, but I believe BTC will still be the supporting backbone of all these." People have seen BTC's worth, and it will likely remain a store of value for as long as crypto exist, like the savings account of crypto (even if tx tech stays shitty, but it will only get better).

>Why would you believe BTC would be the backbone?

Because it's a speculative asset, and if it dips too low people will buy that dip hard. Most people will never be as aware of the market as most here are, and BTC will remain the brand name that people buy into. I think it's volatility will decrease in the future too, but that's just speculation.

>Literally makes no sense at all

It doesn't make any less sense than your arguments, to say the least.

You are not defining what BTC is worth in any way. You are just saying it will keep going up because people know its value.

What is its value? The fact that it keeps going up because it has value?

>What is its value?
I already told you: "They're using it as a store of value, since FIAT is inflationary and depreciates in value, while BTC is not."

What makes storing your wealth in cash so special? This isn't rhetorical and I'd like you to answer, since you seem to think it has some sort of intrinsic worth.

USD is worth less everyday. BTC on the other doesn't have an exponentially increasing supply, like FIAT does. Speculation aside, it's mathematically more sound to store your wealth in an asset that doesn't depreciate like FIAT (of course, this overlooks the speculative and volatile value of it, since BTC can flash crash at any moment and never recover, but the principle is still true and sound as ever). But, that is BTC's value - a logarithmically inflationary currency instead of an exponentially inflationary one.

>I work in the field of blockchain tech

So you should be making $60-80k++ at least
why you worried about 3k?

BTC's only value is volatility. If you use it as a store of value, you're an idiot unless you live in a shitty country where the economy is failing.

If BTC volatility was similar to other investment assets, the value would plummet. If you have 100k why would you own an non-dividend paying asset that has no prospect for appreciation?

That's when fun time begins

we detected his LARP

If you have been using BTC as a store of value since the beginning of this year, you'd be almost x20 up from where you were. I don't think you'd be "an idiot" to do something like that.

>If BTC volatility was similar to other investment assets, the value would plummet.
Why do you think this? And fact of the matter is, it's not, so it doesn't really matter (until it is).

>If you have 100k why would you own an non-dividend paying asset that has no prospect for appreciation
BTC has a prospect for appreciation, that's why I called it a store of value.

Your premise is based off a hypothetical future where BTC no longer appreciates. I don't see much of a point in discussing that at the moment, as less than 1% of the worlds wealth is in BTC.

I make a little more than 80K, but I am more interested in not losing what I have made. I wanted to see others opinions in a thread that wasn't absolutely retarded.

Storing wealth in cash is special because I can use it to pay my mortgage, pay my bills, pay for college classes, pay for job training, pay for internet services, pay for goods, pay for things to start a business.

USD or whatever your currency is backed by trillions of dollars in weapons and millions/billions of people. In addition it is highly regulated.

What I am saying is, and what you seem to not realize is that bitcoin can be worth literally nothing in the future as it has no system backing it. No petrodollar, no gold, no military, literally nothing other than speculative increase.

If you needed to pay your mortgage tomorrow and all you had was BTC and all trading to fiat was illegal how would you pay for your mortgage? Or if you invested at 18K and it is at 15K will you just sell off at a loss assuming exchanges are never regulated?

Fair enough, better description is "lucky AF"

It's opportunity cost of holding. I can collect a cash flow from equities or bonds, not from bitcoin. We will see volatility decrease with increased entry to the BTC and growth in the futures market.

You need to think about that scenario since you have no idea when the opportunity cost of holding bitcoin exceeds other asset classes. I've been watching this closely and I suggest you do the same.

>Storing wealth in cash is special because I can use it to pay my mortgage, pay my bills, pay for college classes, pay for job training, pay for internet services, pay for goods, pay for things to start a business.

This is a complaint of lack of adoption, not a good argument for actually storing your wealth in cash long term. Yeah, you need cash (for now) to pay the bills. But $10k in a bank after ten years is still $10k.

>USD or whatever your currency is backed by trillions of dollars in weapons and millions/billions of people. In addition it is highly regulated.
Ok, not really applicable in any way I can think of.

>What I am saying is, and what you seem to not realize is that bitcoin can be worth literally nothing in the future as it has no system backing it. No petrodollar, no gold, no military, literally nothing other than speculative increase.

I mentioned an inherent risk in BTC is it going to 0. I also said I don't think we'll see that happen for at least the next decade. And when it's beginning to happen, you'll know.

>If you needed to pay your mortgage tomorrow and all you had was BTC and all trading to fiat was illegal how would you pay for your mortgage?
I can make hypothetical situations too, but it doesn't make my argument any stronger. This isn't the case currently, and it ever is, I'm buying more BTC.

>Or if you invested at 18K and it is at 15K will you just sell off at a loss assuming exchanges are never regulated?
I don't know, I guess I'd hold unless I wanted to move it into something else. Not sure at all though how this refutes anything I said.

>"lucky AF"
Certainly.

>We will see volatility decrease with increased entry to the BTC and growth in the futures market.

While I agree, I don't think this is so bad. I think it will just appreciate more calmly and linearly rather than exponentially.

>You need to think about that scenario since you have no idea when the opportunity cost of holding bitcoin exceeds other asset classes. I've been watching this closely and I suggest you do the same.

I don't hold any BTC.

>other asset classes
What are interested in though? I'm assuming you don't mean "altcoins", kek.

started with 400$ 3 month ago i'm now at 11k$ don't cash out now there is still money to be made.

there's been a huge influx of faggots claiming "reddit spacing" because they think when people hit enter it means they come from reddit. claiming "reddit spacing" should be a bannable offense 2bh.

It's pretty bad (read: plebbit) when it's one sentence per line though desu. Especially when they're all part of the same thought.

I don't get it, don't people write like really long things on reddit or link to posts on imgur?

I honestly cannot wait until you get absolutely fugged by overexposure to coins.

BTCs value will wane when better coins that have better tech, broader acceptance, and stability get launched. BTC is more or less a centralized and shitty litecoin (also not great). the value of BTC should be monetarist - although a transaction volume function is a poor measure because transactions are mostly self contained (i don't get how you brainlets don't realize these things). your argument for why BTC would serve as a backbone is better if you replace it with BNT because its value will be primarily derived from the number of tokens in circulation or something to that effect. sure some people might put their faith in the mining cartels and a drama shitstorm of BTC with 10 - 20% swings, but it really will be replaced by something better. The idea of a coin that has a value based on a monetarist definition is appealing. the idea of a financial system with no central point of failure, no trust, and defined monetary policy has been inroduced, but bitcoin is not this (yet). there's huge pain points and other minutia that will keep BTC away from the idea it introduced, and I'm nearly positive that another coin will do it better. if not, and if BTC is king, the value of BTC has far outpaced the real adoption of BTC. You can hope that the value stays where it's at, but the value of BTC has all of the reason to crash and the greater fool fallacy to rise.

>I honestly cannot wait until you get absolutely fugged by overexposure to coins.
You don't know anything about my levels of exposure though, user. And I don't know why you're fostering this odd hatred of me (not that I care, it's just a curious thing).

Tell me what other asset classes you're looking at though, it's the only reason I'm still in this thread.

I am looking at putting a new roof on my house, with fiat.

My background is in equities and commodity derivatives. By asset class I mean those in addition to bonds and real estate - generally any asset that yields rights to cash flow

I agree that it's centralized and it's tech sucks, but it's pure conjecture to say it will wane in value long term. Further, BTC can adopt better tech to gain broader acceptance and stability, rendering the advantages another coin would offer moot.

>a transaction volume function is a poor measure because transactions are mostly self contained
I made no comments on this, so don't know why you think I'm being a "brainlet" here.

>BNT
BNT does not have the brand name recognition.

>but it really will be replaced by something better.
I hope so, but think it will take longer than you think, if ever.

>I'm nearly positive that another coin will do it better
Again, conjecture, and BTC can implement whatever advantages another coin offers.

>the value of BTC has far outpaced the real adoption of BTC
Certainly.

>You can hope that the value stays where it's at, but the value of BTC has all of the reason to crash and the greater fool fallacy to rise.
Once again, just your opinions, and that's fine, but I wouldn't be so confident in them. The greatest fool will get burnt, but the cycle will continue on as long as there's demand.

You are dumb OP, and you're arguement boiled down to you hoping I get "fugged". I mistook you for this guy when you said that. All I did was debate you politely, which was why you created this thread anyway. Get fukt if you were just looking for confirmation.

And I'm a carpenter so perhaps you can pay me to do it, with BTC.

>:3

Ok, thanks.

Here's a relevant thread and good read:
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15906742

go for it. you will regret cashing out in a few months guarentee it

So basically "do the opposite of what everyone else says"

I'd evaluate more on a case by case basis, personally.

The thing is some of this crypto bullshit has tangible use in the foreseeable future. Most of it is dot com bubble tier bullshit though. It’s all gonna collapse but there will be legit advancements both monetary and societal from some of them.

t. dot com survivor.

Dude that’s like no money. You can buy a nice vacation but that’s it

is $3000 life changing for you?

if not might as well stay

Take out half, and keep investing the rest. You'll feel more comfortable that way and less prone to stupid decisions.

>But $10k in a bank after ten years is still $10k.
Its actually worth less because you will lose about 3% of buying power per year to inflation.
>"back in my day a candy bar was 5 cents boy!!"