I'm in the same boat. What would be the point of selling now? If you had invested more than you can afford to lose, you shouldn't be investing in crypto. Everyone should know what game we're playing here and it's incredibly volatile.
Gizmodo: Crypto Platforms Are Halting Withdrawals as Bitcoin Tanks Over 13%
- Thread starter Teh_Lurv
- Start date
- Status
I'm in the same boat. What would be the point of selling now? If you had invested more than you can afford to lose, you shouldn't be investing in crypto. Everyone should know what game we're playing here and it's incredibly volatile.
People don't want to spend money like they did a few years ago with inflation, higher cost of living etc.
What the heck? If you really felt sorry for people who are being financially crippled by this you wouldn't keep feeding the beast. Get out of crypto entirely and let it die off. You may be able to afford to throw money at this giant scheme but others are being hurt by it.
It would have been a complete disaster if Venezuelans adopted crypto on mass. The technology is not ready at all. There are a lot of very serious problems to sort out (security, scalability etc). Perhaps crypto will lead to other solutions in the future. I am not one of these people who thinks we should get people on board on mass. BTC may not even exist in 10 years.
But what if your fetish is slow, inefficient, planet-destroying databases?
What about the volatility reinforces a credible thesis for BTC as a tool of economic exchange? I've seen it reduced to "digital bearer bonds" which feels very low value/ambition.
Just to put my cards on the table, I believe the end result of this is:
1. Much better frameworks for digital sales transactions with far lower friction.
2. Much better frameworks for management of entitlements for ownership of digital goods.
I just don't think the current architectures/schema will be the form of it, vs centralized platform holders and/or regulatory requirements at the statutory level.
Any you can say the same about fiat.
Even the Romans used to devalue their currencies to fund wars. Drugs can be bought with fiat too.
You're basically saying your argument is invalid then; because humans will find a way to wage war.
More fiat, adding other metals to coins, or whatever the crypto equivalent would be have no relevance to that objection. It's human nature, not how it's paid for.
Those are both primarily socio-economic problems not tech problems. It's the inherent incentive structures of digital goods that dictate what frameworks become dominant, not the technology platforms available.
No blockchain innovation is going to magically make Netflix cool with you watching Stranger Things on HBO Max.
"Bitcoin is a digital currency!"
- Too volatile and too inefficient to be a currency.
"Bitcoin is a store of value!"
- Down 60% from ATH
"Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation!"
- Down 60% from ATH during the worst bout of inflation in 40 years. You would've been better off holding USD.
"Bitcoin is a diversifying asset!"
- Bitcoin's correlation with the NASDAQ recently reached an all-time high.
- Too volatile and too inefficient to be a currency.
"Bitcoin is a store of value!"
- Down 60% from ATH
"Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation!"
- Down 60% from ATH during the worst bout of inflation in 40 years. You would've been better off holding USD.
"Bitcoin is a diversifying asset!"
- Bitcoin's correlation with the NASDAQ recently reached an all-time high.
Do we have to feel bad anymore? Bitcoin has obviously been a scam for years. Hundreds of news stories and commentaries have exposed just how the scam works. I don't feel bad for anyone losing money on Crypto at this point.
I don't see how it's better management and ownership of digital goods; ultimately you would still need a regulatory group to 'enforce' it bringing us back to where we are now (a digital landscape terribly enforced by random DMCA tickets). The big thing here is it would be self regulated as advertised; I have instant proof I own the NFT. But the second someone else in another blockchain ecosystem also 'buys' an exact digital facsimile, off to court we go.
oof what a good board lmao.
maybe someone can help field this one though, as, to me, was the most appealing "feature":
the blockchain being immutable. one of the coolest aspects of the 'tech' was that once it's on the chain, you can't change it. as in, it would be really good to keep companies and people and important documents honest, rather than via a human-controlled middleman that can change things after the fact and do shady shit with things behind the curtains.
Are there other avenues that can be taken for this same kind of security? this, and getting countries that don't really have their own good system in place always seemed like the two - to me - that showed the most value as far as the technology goes. appreciate it if anyone can set me straight on these. I just find it all really interesting.
One of these need to be swapped out with "[insert comparison to fiat]"
You could probably swap hodl for "what about fiat" and you'd have covered everything.
"The amount of wars funded by fiat is too damn high"
- Bitcoin is just fiat but with imaginary speculation on top.
"I care about the poor who are getting fucked over"
- Immediately comments about feeding the beast fucking them over.
The thing is nobody is actually storing that type of info on the chain anyways except as a gimmick. Also redudancy is frankly a better way to protect against things being changed. And really that's rarely ever the issue anyways. Like politicians aren't rewriting the letter of existing laws to make things they're doing legal, they're either spinning interpretation or just ignoring the laws altogether and an immutable ledger solves neither of those issues
Blockchain can protect against somebody hacking their bank account to add 0s to the end of their balance and inflate their money, but realistically that's not really happening anyways (because if it was the entire system would have ceased working ages ago). It's a fix for a problem that doesn't really exist, at least not at a noteworthy level
There is something called a "50%+1 attack" in blockchains where as long as you can provide more than half of the available calculations you can decide what actually happens. this is infeasable for larger coins but this has actually happened before on smaller blockchains to steal large quantities of coins. Even if the "past" of the blockchain is immutable the "current" of the blockchain is still decided as things go, and the system is not perfect.
That is exactly my point when I instead posit:
I have zero faith in cryptocurrency as a useful store of wealth, and only marginal faith in blockchain as a useful technical tool for consensus on digital record-keeping. But I didn't want to come off as purely snarky in my question to the poster.
It's also pretty much inevitable for proof of stake coins which is why no big crypto will ever seriously go proof of stake regardless of them pretending they will for years to try and deflect energy use criticism
I remember one of my Econ. Professors in college used to joke that libertarians are people who never made it past. Microeconomics 1.
It kind of reminds me of why I think, the way crypto S constitute, it will never work. Much like the very theoretical, free market supply/demand curbs , that economics uses, true decentralization requires perfect information from all actors to make rational decisions.
You can't have decentralization the scale that bitcoin ones. Just look at what happened overnight, are you supposed to be watching bitcoin prices day in and day out? Just to see if you need to sell?
What about figuring out whether or not someone is trying to scam you, or capture your deposits, and pull the rug? This is why we have the FDIC, so that people don't have to worry about it
The central bet of crypto, is the same central idea of libertarianism, which is that everyone is out for themselves, you're competing for resources, and you better watch your back, or you're going to get run over.
It kind of reminds me of why I think, the way crypto S constitute, it will never work. Much like the very theoretical, free market supply/demand curbs , that economics uses, true decentralization requires perfect information from all actors to make rational decisions.
You can't have decentralization the scale that bitcoin ones. Just look at what happened overnight, are you supposed to be watching bitcoin prices day in and day out? Just to see if you need to sell?
What about figuring out whether or not someone is trying to scam you, or capture your deposits, and pull the rug? This is why we have the FDIC, so that people don't have to worry about it
The central bet of crypto, is the same central idea of libertarianism, which is that everyone is out for themselves, you're competing for resources, and you better watch your back, or you're going to get run over.
In practice blockchain's immutability is as much a liability as an asset because you will need to change things stored on it and will not have the mechanism to do so while retaining its security. You can either easily change it or have it secure, not both, which makes it extremely hard to use. In most cases the flexibility of slightly less secure methods of data storage will be preferable to the *fingers crossed we thought of everything* risk that blockchain systems will always have.
Yep. It prevents tampering with existing data (except in a certain set of subsets where it actually doesn't like the 50%+1 attack mentioned or forking chains) but that's not actually where most attacks happen in the first place. Like between somebody rewriting the numbers in your bank account itself, or somebody taking over you bank account and transferring money from it to a bank account they control, the latter is much more common by orders of magnitude. And while block chain provides better security for the former, it does so by providing pretty much zero protection against the latter issue, which is the way more common one
True believers buying-in on the dip, walking over the corpses of others' investments to up their own gamble even more.
The bounce was inevitable, but the question is how high is the enthusiasm and how long can it keep it from going back down.
You might like this article: https://diem25.org/yanis-varoufakis-crypto-the-left-and-techno-feudalism/
It's a possibility. I have thought about it before and I do admit that they may find a way to inflate crypto for war. I am just hoping it's harder and that people will not fall for such projects. The future remains to be seen.
A non-inflationary currency also brings other problems.
I'm not sure there's been much in the way of huge news since the initial bits in the OP. If the particular dip today was mostly because of panic, people's panic will eventually have to end as well. There's also a lot of automated sell off points at various levels above 18K that probably accelerated the fall.
I think the big question for right now is will Celcius eventually be able to let people cash out without folding and what happens then? Tether hasn't crashed below $0.99 this week so I'm guessing they're fine for the time being.
There's also the hard fork option, but that requires what's essentially a vote by the miners/stakeholders.
This was good. Thanks.
It's been a little surreal being Salvadoran the last few months (lived there until I was 19 and have tons of family there still). But one of the things I've grown more and more alarmed as a Salvadoran history buff, is how much America is starting to look like that.
Seeing the same trends that led to our civil war here now. Rural despair, an oligarchy growing in power, a rising far right/fascist party
Prices have already come way down. Most cards can be had at or near MSRP these days.
Yes, a purely speculative market is an ideal store of value, as evidenced by the huge amount of data we've accumulated over
Short rallies. It seems to happen every few days. It could be the start of a turnaround, or it could be a drowning man briefly managing to put his head above water to catch a desperate breath.
Even with that amazing regain, it's still at least 5% down daily.
I was like "wait why does this guy look and sound like Rocco from Mega64" but then I finally realized it was just him lmao. he looks younger lol
- Status