So now that btc is going parabolic again, how long until the bubble posters come out again...

if he buys in now, he would still be in a better state than you. you're down 30%. stfu.

I bought at $2300 and everyone was saying it was a bubble then. Same bubble graphs and everything. Turns out bitcoin is always in a bubble.

Nevermind Mandelbrot, it is the BTC-fractal of eternal bubbleness.

I honestly can't believe how easy this is. I bought some btc a week ago and I've almost doubled my money. Can't get 100% returns anywhere else this quick haha

Remember the last two big bubbles? Dot com and real estate? Here is a hint, websites aren't worth zero and neither does real estate.

I'm not him, but I also said it's going to zero, so I'll throw out a few reasons...

1. The coins themselves are an artificial creation needed to reward those who operated the decentralized servers. But this creates inefficiencies that make the overall system impractical. Once they are eliminated (and replaced with decentralized private servers), the coins become redundant.

2. Since coins can't really be spent in the real world (with the exception of a few places that do so as a gimmick), they have no real utility, so there is nothing supporting their price other than the hopes of speculators.

3. The whole system was set up to replace the current means of electronic payments, but doesn't do that very well, very efficiently, and without the ease, convenience and security of the existing systems.

4. Until recently, it wasn't possible to short bitcoin (or other coins), so the price has been controlled by buy-side orders, which results in the price drifting up due to lack of price competition.

5. While the big banks will come to use blockchain for a few of their needs, they will do so without coins, and certainly without any of the existing coins. So over time, these coins will have less not more use; which will result in a decline in their price.

6. Nearly all of the transactions in these coins (like any other bubble) are done by speculators looking to profit from price changes, not being buying them for utility. Once you run out of people willing to put money into a failing system (the bigger fool theory), you will see a price collapse.

The dot com bubble wasn't about companies that used the internet. It was about companies who didn't have realistic business models, and investors who thought that any company that threw dot com on the end must wind up making lots of money.

As far as real estate, that bubble nearly crashed the world, and resulted in hundreds of companies going broke and thousands of people losing their home.

just as easy to lose it

Thanks great explanation

how can someone be this misinformed and retarded?

And yet, just like everyone else around Veeky Forums I've talked to about this, you don't name a single fact to rebut these positions.

Who is going to run these "decentralized private servers" for free?

probably straight from reddit

The member firms.

When banks transact with each other, they don't have to trust the depositors/account holders of the other, they simply have to have an arrangement where each back is responsible for their own clients.

So when, for example BoA and Citi need to transact among themselves, they have no need for coin. they practically have no need for blockchain since they have an existing system what does it almost as well.

As far as the masses go, customers don't care WHAT method is used to handle their transactions, all they care about is whether their card works, whether transactions are fast, and whether they have security for their purchases.

>btc is going parabolic

It's not going parabolic again. It's just recovering to it's natural price. Just like the stock market a couple weeks ago, traders manipulated the price since everything is controlled by bots now. The bots oversold, traders by back at discounted prices. Price returns to a reasonable level. Basically how markets work.

The fact is, if the goal was simply a method for individuals to move money between each other, the credit cards companies could already do that with exiting equipment, just by updating the software in the credit card machines....

... Sender swipes his card and puts in amount, receiver swipes his card. Done.

Banks make billions of revenue each year, while cutting more and more jobs. In house blockchain will just step up the profits even further, and they'll need even less staff

You need to go ahead and read the bitcoin whitepaper, and read it without your preconceived notions.

>doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does

this does not look healthy at all

If it reaches $12k then I might reconsider, but right now it's still in a downtrend.

Almost everything you said is wrong.

Money laundering and illegal activities alone guarantee its use case. That's the floor. With new payment systems, such as litepay, the cost of transacting improves because transaction costs and fraud risk decrease while using existing infrastructure.

Futures markets are not created for things that are going away, they are created to increase liquidity exponentially in anticipation of more use.

The one thing you got right is that price is currently driven by speculators, but over time that will flatten out and likely become slightly deflationary, which was the end goal anyway.

It could be $500, it could be $5,000, or $50,000, but not zero. A lot depends on innovations not yet developed, but there is clearly a demand for features offered outside a central banking system and there are technologies that accomplish decentralized security and government. Demand exists, so a market will continue. No one can hold back a tidal wave.

>Remember the last two big bubbles?

This is a fundamental concept people seem to be ignoring. Not sure why...

Both those markets have much higher market caps now than when the bubbles burst. And the winners are exponentially higher. So maybe focus on picking winners?

Looks like the most recent uptrend is all from one buyer.

investopedia.com/news/anonymous-cryptocurrency-enthusiast-bought-400-million-bitcoin/

There's actually one reason that it's going to zero: Bitcoin is backed by NOTHING.

It's wallstreet. Game over.

1. What is a "decentralized private server"? That is an oxymoron.

2. Coins can be sold for cash and so can be traded as such... how is having some retail brick and mortar stores accepting crypto a requirement for the coins to have any value at all?

3. When was crypto merely an electronic payment system? Not even the original bitcoin whitepaper had the audacity to say an "electronic payment system," which has existed for over 100 years, was its novelty.

4. I've heard this argument a lot, and it still doesn't make sense to me. Shorting bitcoin goes both ways, for every short, there is someone lending. As more people short, the interest rises which will create demand to buy and lend. I guess this faulty argument makes sense to people who don't know how shorting works.

5. How will big banks avoid the use of the coins? Magic?

6. Same thing with literally every asset class. Why does anyone buy stocks or gold?

1. A decentralized private server is what we already have: companies operating servers that consist of multiple machines spread out among multiple geographic locations

2. The only reason coins can be traded for cash is because people think they have a future utility. Once you remove the utility, there is no reason for people to pay money for them, and certainly no reason to bid each other up on the price.

3. If you remove the use as a currency, you have eliminated the last thing a crypto can possible be useful for.

4. Compare it to stock markets. When shorting is prohibited, prices drift up. Once shorting is allowed, otherwise healthy companies can be destroyed in a short time via shorting. This is why emergency rules were passed in 2008 to prevent people from shorting key stocks.

5. See my prior reply. Once you remove the need to reward anonymous people for running the public ledger and verifying transactions, you eliminate the need for the coin.

6. A stock is at least (somewhat) a representation of ownership in a company that has real assets and real sales. You gold example is closer, since it too has no value other than the fact that people decided it has value. But... people have agreed to this for 8000 years.

The bottom line is this... if bitcoin has no real world use (and by real world I mean widespread every day use), there is no reason to hold them and no reason to bid up the price.

Yes, there will always be a need for black market currency, but that' s not a large enough market to support all of the existing coins and certainly not at their current prices.

Nope. It's always just "retarded no coiner!", etc. Most of the people here have no arguments, really. They're simply following the herd.

Money laundering, etc works just fine with a price of $1 = 1 btc, so that's not really much of a floor.

Futures markets are created to provide platforms for traders - they are (((agnostic))) in terms of the actual commodities traded.

>how long until the bubble posters come out again?
The bubble posters never leave.

Bitcoin is the most powerful and secure network the world has ever seen. Do you seriously think this has no value?
Do you think triple entry accounting has no value?
Do you think technology required for society to step into its next economical era has no value?

Brainlets man I fucking swear.

Which still doesn't explain why any of this can't be done without a coin.

The technology and the coin are not linked together once you get rid of the decentralized public ledger.

And that's going to go eventually, because it's a pretty good idea with a horrible implementation.

>Bitcoin is backed by NOTHING.
backing is a meme anyway

the coin is there to incentivize veryfing blocks

Hey bud, I'm trying really hard not to call you names and stuff, because I can tell you're new and you have some Dunning Kruger effect going on.
Read this.
bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
I mean even literally just the 1st sentence should do, but keep going if you'd like.

>why any of this can't be done without a coin
It just cant. You are retarded and dont seem to understand the first thing about distrubted ledgers.

...

another sad man that sold at 6k poor guy

both of you have obviously not read my prior comments.

The coin only exists to act as a reward for the outside parties who are verifying transactions and keeping the ledger.

A company (or a group of companies setting up a joint venture) to do this inhouse would have no need to reward those doing the transaction, so they would have no need for the coin.

The distributed public ledger is the weakest part of the system. What people think they gain from outsourcing this to anonymous servers & users is overcome by the risks of outsourcing this to anonymous computers & users.

This chart looks like Vechain V, so this means VeChain will be 100 EOQ2. Just bought 100k

>he thinks decentralization is a risk
>he thinks people can sign a ledger without sending a token or coin
Lmao, I'm not reading any of your other posts. Put a trip on so I can filter you kthnx

Dunning Kruger: the post.

You consistently misunderstand what I am saying. And you continue to replace reason with insults in the hope of winning this argument.

I don't know if you are intentionally misunderstanding me because you're hoping to swindle people into buying your useless fake money, or if you've just drank so much of the ctypto kool aid that you really don't understand the house of cards that has been built.

another post that tries to use insults as logic, and fails just as bad.

I have yet to hear anyone able to explain why the replies I have posted in this thread are wrong.

>You consistently misunderstand what I am saying
Because you have no idea what you're talking about, it's utter nonsense.

And here we go again. Another reply that insists that I am wrong, but cannot offer one argument to disprove what I am saying.

Who the fuck is making these pumps. The value is purely artificial.

Read 1st sentence please.

Yes, but the bigger fool theory requires that they act like it has value and potential.

(not to mention the hope that they will be able to get out before it all falls apart)

>A company (or a group of companies setting up a joint venture) to do this inhouse
a company will just use a server or servers, decentralized or not and then it isnt trustless anymore

>A company (or a group of companies setting up a joint venture) to do this inhouse would have no need to reward those doing the transaction, so they would have no need for the coin.

They also have no need for a blockchain. The advantage of a blockchain is that it enables untrusted parties to cooperate in maintaining a secure ledger. A private, in-house solution wouldn't require a coin because everyone trusts each other, and so there is no need for any of the trustless consensus schemes that are employed by blockchains.

A traditional SQL database would be far faster, cheaper, and better solution for a company who just wanted a private, in-house data storage and retrieval system.

Theres nothing to disprove because your arguments are entirely baseless and if you had the slightest udnerstanding of distrubted ledgers then you wouldnt be saying shit like that.

Its the "greater fool theory". Spend some more time on rbuttcoin before coming here and trying to act like a genius.

Truth

FUCKING truth

Well it all comes down to whether you want a bank/corporation to control your money, or if you want to control your money yourself. That's the power of the distributed ledger

Financial instituions, government, private money that at the top. Not all that business is done otc.

It it were a purely peer to peer system. If, for example, I were able to stand next to you and move money from my wallet to your wallet without any outside party being involved, then we would be talking about something.

But the paragraph you highlight is simply trading one master for another.

Yes, you complete the transaction without using a "financial institution", but they still need to be processed by outside parties.

So what you're talking about is taking the role of a financial institution, and replacing it with the anonymous outside party (or whatever you want to call the group of servers who verify transactions).

From this standpoint, the power isn't removed, it simply trades hands from the existing financial institution to the collective group of servers you put in charge of verification and handling the ledger.

Now, again.... if you could come up with an electronic system that is the same as me handing you an envelop of cash under a table; then you would have something.

But the current incarnation of crypto isn't that; and it even is worse in one way since every transaction we make now becomes part of the public record.

So make your own currency where you're the only miner. Then there is no middle man just you. But then it wouldn't be fair, so you let everyone mine and help facilitate the transactions

Tulip mania never actually happened
smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-tulip-fever-180964915/
Btw i hope BTC goes to 0 because then my coins will too and I'll be able to afford master nodes

Most all of your arguments are debunked here , mid to end thread.

>it simply trades hands from the existing financial institution to the collective group of servers
As to this, this is literally what decentralization does. You don't seem to understand the tech if you think this doesn't effectively remove individual and minority third parties' influence over the ledger. You also seem to be equating BTC with crypto. Also your reddit spacing is jarring.

>the power isn't removed

of course it is, considering anyone can become the anonymous "outside party"

you can't just become a bank

>and it even is worse in one way since every transaction we make now becomes part of the public record

what is monero

>So what you're talking about is taking the role of a financial institution, and replacing it with the anonymous outside party (or whatever you want to call the group of servers who verify transactions).
The difference between a financial institution and an anonymous outside party, is that anyone, with little effort, can become part of the anonymous outside party and facilitate transactions. Control is democratized, spread out among a much larger and more representative population than if it were to remain consolidated within financial institutions.

>Now, again.... if you could come up with an electronic system that is the same as me handing you an envelop of cash under a table; then you would have something.
XMR.

>taking the role of a financial institution, and replacing it with the anonymous outside party
and by doing so, changes in the network can only be done via consensus between the nodes, instead of a single institution making a decision.

Not so much speaking about BTC or coins in general (only vested in tokens nowadays) but here goes.
Servers are centralized, even clouds. Just because they are spread out over a few locations doesn't mean they are decentralized. True decentralization can only happen by combining cloud computing and blockchain. Imagine a data center using unused devices to run its processes, reducing the amount of energy needed to cool their devices while effictively utilizing the other devices so that they don't require as much cooling. This can also be done fir rendering, with the tokens being utilized to use the service.
This doesn't include the other applications for tokens, like supply chain management and big data.

RLC

The existing system is trash. It's slow and built on top of antiquated technology. DLT is the future for banking, whether you want to believe it or not.

Its still a bubble.

Have you ever heard of the bulltrap?