Attached: NONONONONONO.jpg (621x415, 53K)

Other urls found in this thread:



liquidated shorter confirmed

AT 15K


We literally had that exact fucking picture in 2013, as well. And, no doubt, earlier than that.

It has been used in every single crash. And it's always true, actually.

I didn't get in years ago because I read the same shit being thrown around today.

>you are late majority
>crypto is dead
>only a fool buys at this point

It will go to new ATH this year retards

>b-but this time it's true, didn't you see that 8% of paid online survey takers are also invested in crypto? that's like an accurate representation of the world, man

I don't believe you.


Btc to 1 million by the end of 2020


History repeats itself you brainlet.

Attached: 1521958633643.png (207x243, 6K)

Realtalk: mining makes it impossible for BTC to break high values.

How did it look, when BTC was $1.000?
12.5 * 1,000 = 12,500 USD per ten minutes
12,500 USD * 6 = 75,000 USD per hour
75,000 USD * 24 = 1,800,000 USD per day
1,800,000 USD * 30 = 54,000,000 USD per month

What if BTC is $100,000?
12.5 * 100,000 = 1,250,000 USD per ten minutes
1,250,000 USD * 6 = 7,500,000 USD per hour
7,500,000 USD * 24 = 180,000,000 USD per day
180,000,000 USD * 30 = 5,400,000,000 USD per month

What are these numbers?
This is the maximum amount of money, that needs to flow into the industry, to keep a price of 100k in the corresponding timeframe for BTC fucking alone.

Assuming just half of the miners cash out, we still end up with 2,700,000,000 USD per month.
Assuming that in all of 2017, less than 10,000,000,000 USD flew into crypto space, this is ridiculus.

Do your math. The mainstream was there and will now continue to get reckt, while prices will never reach 20k again.
I got out at 15k and very happy, but this whole "blow off phase will come" is cringy af.

Not so deflationary, our bitcoin. Mining rewards as well as transaction fees fuck over this whole retarded "one BTC will become a million" very fast.

lol dude your wrong

explain this again, but in a non-retarded way and without a big mess of numbers
also explain why you didn't account for difficulty adjustments

Difficulty adjustments have nothing to do with it, the mining reward is inherent to Bitcoin.

12.5 BTC mining reward per ten minutes.
60 minutes per hour.
24 hours per day.

You want to get rich.
You should be able to do some early highschool math. Even if I add electricity to the equation, we hardly leave highschool levels here.

But okay, lets do a short version and walk this path to understand this together.

Price is determined by demand and supply, correct?

nice quads.
I was wrong about difficulty, I'll admit i don't know much about mining. However, you're assuming that every bitcoin mined (or half of them) is immediately market sold on an exchange, which I doubt is accurate.
Another consideration: at 10k/BTC we should be seeing .5 billion (or .25 with only half sold) USD enter the market per month. A year ago that would have seemed ludicrous, just as 2.7 billion seems ludicrous today
your argument seems similar to when people say "x coin will never reach y price because the MC will be z"

Jokes on them I'll hold this bag all the way to 0 if it goes there so they can never buy from me for cheap

what happens in 2024 when no more btc can be mined?

My god... you fucking pajeet. Do you not understand difficulty rates?

he's not wrong, no matter what the difficulty is, it's still going to be around 1 block every 10 minutes, and it's still going to be 12.5btc/block... at least until 2021 where it'll be 6.25.

This would be the case, if the circumstances would be the same. If still the majority would not know about crypto and a project getting $X million would be worth news.

I remember a guy mentioning Digibyte on television back in June. This was BIG news, Veeky Forums was overflowing with half of the threads being about digibyte alone. Bitcoin was mentioned from time to time on the back pages of finance newspapers, but an alt on television? Big thing. The mainstream did not discover cryptocurrencies. The money that could possibly enter, was not aware of crypto even existing.
Remember: it was a fucking accessory sentence that was not even clearly positive, he just said something along the line "if you want to become rich fast, buy Digibyte" and no one talked about it again afterwards.
We went COMPLETELY crazy about it here.

If Trump is not on the front page because he did something stupid, it is Bitcoin.
Media featured even altcoins and interviewed everyone who is able to spell "blockchain" correctly, calling them experts.
Projects get millions with literally SCAM written on them, it is considered normal that they blow up on a weekly basis.
Even my father asked me about fucking Litecoin and if he should buy some in January and this man does not even have internet in his house.

The amount of money willing to uphold BTC is not nearly at the actual levels, let alone higher ones.

Nothing we need to care about, I guess?


>$1000 worth of crypto needs to be purchased to move the market cap $1000
post disregarded brainlet

You are fucking retarded and sperging off about shit you have no clue about.

Can you stop? It's just embarrassing.

If we consider the economy as a whole, okay - it might be slightly thinkable, to pump so much money into the market, if we enter the level of corporations, banks, states and large parts of the population.

Corporations have no incentive to buy BTC.
Neither do banks.
States are the same: no incentive.

Why should my old elementary school teacher Ms. Miller buy BTC?
She cannot buy anything with it, as the fee makes it less usable than just using the dollar she has in her pocket.
She will not hold it for future gains, if she does not want to speculate.
She does not want to change the primary currency of her country from USD to BTC, as her pension is in USD and she would lose, if BTC would become the main currency.

We need a certain amount of "believers" (I call them "ideological idiots" or simply "bagholders") to hold the price and a certain amount of speculators for the price to rise. If the later ones are gone, we are back to the level of believers. There are more believers right now than it was a year ago, but the outlook to reach the same amount of speculators to come back to high levels is low.

Think again, this is as much about the market cap as it is about the difficulty...

I guess technically 2140, but my point was block rewards will start being minuscule in the next few decades, certainly within our lifetimes

Yes but that assumes that just because 12.5 bitcoin are introduced to the supply that $12,500 needs to enter the system to keep market cap constant.

Doesn't account for the fact that $1000 worth of is not needed to move the market cap by $1000. OP doesn't even understand metcalfe's law -- one of the most fundamental facts about bitcoin, but he's trying to spout off like he's aware.

Everyone knows about bitcoin, but not many have purchased it.
Cryptocurrencies could be dead and old news, maybe not. In my opinion they have plenty of growth left.

however, all my investments are in smart contract projects and other non-currency blockchain projects. If you look at the data, the smart contract bubble, which has an arguably many times more valuable use case than cryptocurrencies, hasn't even begun. Ask your dad if he knows what a smart contract is, or what some of the uses of it or DLT are. He will say "huh?". Banks and companies are looking into this shit. Look at Swift with their studies, and the REQ partnership that was just announced. The smart contract bubble hasn't even started.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 3.05.13 PM.png (808x838, 81K)

This is something to care about in 20 years, no? We have better tech than BTC right now and the dominance of BTC has systemic reasons (as everything trades against it). Wobly prerequisites for a sustainable high value, if you ask me.

Also, then you still have the problem with the transaction fee, lack of usability, low adaption, concentration of wealth of BTC itself...


good point, that is very true.

Do you really think $1000 is needed to flow into the system to increase the market cap by $1000? Doesn't account for long-term holders, satoshi coins, lost coins, etc,

your argument that $12,500 needs to flow in to keep the price constant is based on a faulty assumption. In reality, it's probably much closer to $1000 if that.

As long as ICOs of bad projects are the predominant use case for smart contracts and the academic world is pretty much in agreement, that the use-cases in law are narrow at best, I would be very carefull with the statement that smart contracts are not in a bubble already.

Quite on the contrary, I would say because of ICOs, ETH and other smart contract currencies will crash hard in the next months. The projects cannot pay their landlord with ETH, so they need to cash out ETH into USD, creating overall additional selling pressure. This also effects other projects with ETH, putting them in turn under pressure to also sell their ETH.

he isn't wrong because the miner (in theory) would take their 12.5 bitcoins and sell them on an exchange for 12.5x current price


Fair point, OP. Any rebuttal?

>Banks and companies are looking into this shit
2018-19 are the smart contract ponzi years
get into icx, xtz, eth, et al

that's a stupid claim, and makes me think that you have a short open and are trying to FUD the price down.
Many of the recent ICO projects are very legitimate, and smart contracts have a multitude of very clear use cases. Like I said, look at the REQ partnership for one massive example of smart contracts/DLT derivative use cases

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 1.19.08 PM.png (1536x872, 838K)

I wonder if people would act like this if stocks were actually organic.


>academic world is pretty much in agreement, that the use-cases in law are narrow at bes


You realize market makers exist, right? 12.5*8000=100k, 100k won't do shit to the price, it'd be lucky to move it 0.1% during off-hours.

>Do you really think $1000 is needed to flow into the system to increase the market cap by $1000? Doesn't account for long-term holders, satoshi coins, lost coins, etc,

Again: this is not about marketcap.
It is about the rising amount of fiat money needed to sustain a selling pressure, that BTC cannot get rid of. A pressure, that also gets higher, the higher the value of BTC is, as the incentive to sell rises along with the price. Imagine it as a reverse chicken race.

When BTC is valued at $1k, the miner might say to himself: "okay, I make $100 in profit per month - I speculate on a higher price later on, I can do without these $100."
When it is at $10k, the miner tells himself "Wow, I suddenly make $1,000 in profit per month. Better cash out as long as the price is high and my neighbour, who is also mining, sells his coins first, ruining my profit on this".


Finally, someone gets it.
Miners naturally act in their own self interest (myself included, I mine). I don't get why some people can't wrap their heads around it.
I'm not mining for muh digital revolution fuck banks blah blah, I'm mining to get paid.

Wow, you cannot be serious.
>use cases in law are narrow at best
Just to name a few how about debt, mortgaging, leasing, financing, structured settlements, loans, titles, insurance. The list of use cases for smart contracts is vast and these applications can be digitized with the technology as it stands today, or with very little advancement. Smart contracts are going to revolutionize and streamline many industries.

Just ask yourself, if you would like to be stuck in a smart contract in which the other party snucked in a clause, that would make it unfavorable for you to uphold your part of the contract.

Law is not codable into solidity, it is fluid and up for debate.

but that's 14.4 MM USD added daily (assuming a BTC price of $8k)
That's pretty significant, and is actually a real number; 1800 bitcoins sold for USD on the market each day. It's not some bullshit valuation like MC
of course, to put a cap on the price of bitcoin based on that, you have to make some big assumptions
>miners actually sell their mined coins on the market and don't hoard them
>the amount of money coming in won't increase drastially
it's a pretty dumb premise because several years ago when bitcoin was 500 bucks, people would have said the exact same thing; "bitcoin will never reach 1k USD because that would require 1.8MM to enter per day"
nowdays of course we think that's a trivial amount.

I'm a little too tired to make a concrete comparison but this dude's argument is reminiscent of those TA "indicators" that are somehow supposed to be indicative of the future price, but it's based off of previous moving averages. Not sure if you get my drift

You idiots do not “get it” when bitcoin price goes from 1,000-10,000$ In your scenario, competition increases and difficulty skyrockets. Instead of a miner spending 600$ to mine a 1,000$ bitcoin he will be spending more like 8,500$ to mine a 10,000$ bitcoin. His overhead will increase with increases in bitcoin price.

listen to this guy

you are rambling hours on a topic you have no clue about lmao

>snucked in a clause
you should just say "snuck in a clause"

nobody takes the "smart contracts will replace lawyers" headline literally. It's more about very basic kinds of insurance (or warranties), royalty payments, escrow services, etc. Obviously a smart contract is only applicable to very cut and dried formulaic legal situations. Another thing, the contracts are all open source. Parties won't be able to sneak shit in unless the other party is negligent and doesn't inspect the code. That's why there will be an entire new industry for smart contract "lawyers" who write and sell/license generic smart contract code, and write custom contracts for companies.

>Just ask yourself, if you would like to be stuck in a smart contract in which the other party snucked in a clause, that would make it unfavorable for you to uphold your part of the contract.

Hey dumbass, this stuff happens today it is why you review your fucking contract before signing it.
You are also implying there can be no secondary litigation in the world of smart contracts. Just like today if you enter a predatory contract you can bring it to court. You will also be able to do this if you entered a predatory smart contract. Smart contracts will streamline and make inital contracts much cheaper, it won’t do away with secondary litigation.

>debt, mortgaging, leasing, financing, structured settlements, loans, titles, insurance

Again: law is not able to be set into code.
Law is about interpretation, mediation and sometimes even formality which cannot be set in simple code. The automation of enforcement alone does not constitute a contract but on the overall assessment, which a computer cannot understand.

You are only considering law as the generation and interpretation of laws. Right now a lawyer is needed to create contracts for all of those agreements and it comes at a large fee and is extremely inefficent. Those things can be set in code and remove that inefficency and cost from the market and people who interpret and create laws can still exist to do the functions you state.

>Everyone knows about bitcoin, but not many have purchased it.

Because people don't want a fucking volatile asset. Most people don't even buy stocks. Why the fuck would they buy something that, in their minds, is nothing but digital internet money? If someone (maybe 10%?) wants to invest any kind of money they buy stocks. Take 5% of those people and you have people interested in buying meme money. There will never be even 5% of people in any given country who own crypto.

Wow, can op come back from this one?

Attached: images (45).jpg (439x335, 12K)

Even these small things cannot be touched by smart contracts, as it is about the definition of a lawfull act itself, not about the degree of the impact it has on the service itself. If e.g. a smart contract handles a minor part of a regular contract and is faulty, it even may go as far as to void the whole contract.

>Another thing, the contracts are all open source. Parties won't be able to sneak shit in unless the other party is negligent and doesn't inspect the code.

Replace "snuck in" with "find a loophole one can abuse".
3 letters: DAO.

No, they cannot be set in code.
A party might change its mind and after they talk about it, both agree on a seperate contract to void certain pieces of it.
Both parties might know each other and dont mind extending deadlines set in the contract.
One party might ceases to exist, voiding any liability of the other.
Or one might remember, that what the other party did write into the contract is unclear, deceptive or even illegal and wants to sue.

I do not talk about big and complex corporate contracts but "small" legal issues like loans, mortgages, insurance etc. - there is a reason why e.g. in Germany you need to study about 8 years before you can call yourself "lawyer" (and even then, you are not allowed to do e.g. tax advisory wthout yet another period of exams and work experience).

>Hey dumbass, this stuff happens today it is why you review your fucking contract before signing it.

Hey dumbass.
Now sue the guy who did it.
Thank you very much.

>Wow, can op come back from this one?

I go to bed now, maybe tomorrow we can do this again.

>this one example of a faulty smart contract means that they have no usecase
>If a smart contract can't settle a lawsuit then it will never be useful for insurance, warranties, gambling, bond markets, banking, etc

But it hasn't even crashed yet.