/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10890924
>2018 100k
>2020 1mill

don't be a retard

>>10890924
only if we get to have enough cones, so shut up and fud

>>10890943
Ok daddy

>>10890937
Oh God I hope so

>>10890937
>2019 $100k
>2023 $1mil

imo

lmaoing at people who will sell at 100k when it's going to 300k

>>10891096
forgot pic so far this is the most grounded and well rounded scenario to me. every other looks wonky as fuck.

>>10890924

>>10891112
Likely scenario.

Remember to sell at 100k anon.

>>10891189
i will sell 20% at $100k that will more than cover my cost of being in crypto. i will leave the rest in cold wallet until it hits $1mil i can wait. getting into the market at that size will be very costly. the bank transfers and fees alone would be a significant amount of money not to mention taxes.

>>10891189
Never sell and you don't give tax money to your abusive slave masters.

>>10891231
>Sell for stable coins
>Still don't pay taxes

>>10891293
that could work putting it to some emerging alt, except for eth i would rather cut my own dick off than to buy eth.

>>10891324
I buy eth only to use for gas. Some erc20 tokens are more valuable than Ether, it's purely a utility coin. Using it as an investment or currency is just a bad idea.

>>10891379
i will not buy it if the world is running on it. i just go out in the woods and live a hermit life. ever since they did the dao hardfork that shitcoin and it's entire ecosystem is dead to me.

>>10891401
Why you mad that the community decided not to let some hacker ruin the entire network?

>>10891424
they did a fucking hardfork to rescue a bunch of idiots that were forewarned weeks before they got fucked. that sort of bailout should not happen in crypto space. it has to be cold hard math and market realities no feels no justice none of that sjw crap. also just think about it... the developer actually undid a transaction in the blockchain. yeah sure the morons went with it and i swore that day i won't ever touch that crap. i will keep to that oath.

>>10891460
Guess you could always use the classic chain, but it doesn't have anywhere near the support or functionality.

Beyond that, not very many decent platforms for smart contracts unless another one pops up some day.

>>10891424
The point is that a blockchain should be IMMUTABLE.

>>10891424
>we're valuable because of decentralized censorship resistance
>also, we're centralized and censor prone

the absolute state of ether tards

>>10891483
i think the blockchain will be dead soon anyways. something better has to emerge. bitcoin will survive for a good while the rest will perish. blockchains and mining are mighty inconvenient.

>>10891109
this is my fear

>>10890924
You realize BTC cannot go over 20k? It defeats the purpose.

>>10891512
cash out gradually... always 50% as it double. in theory you can milk it forever.

>>10891521
oh boy it sholdn't have gone above $20 that was unreasonable as hell back then. now it can go wherever the fuck it wants. if you want worldwide adoption and use tho it has to go way past $1 mil.

>>10890924
No.

>>10891504
what an idiot.lol We're making gains for the first time in 50 years and its got you scared. Companies like ETH and NEO arent going away.

>>10891521
How does that defeat the purpose? Do you not understand decimals? And who set the top at $20K?

>>10891112

god i want to believe

>>10891549
they will because the fucking blockchain can't handle near the transaction volume it would have to. not even on the fucking chart of what we need.

we will leave the blockchain behind pretty fast first stable cryptos that don't even use it will emerge in the next 5 years.

>>10891549
>We're making gains for the first time in 50 years
I bought back in April, still no gains. Then again I can say the same with the stock market. And with gold (bought summer 2016, 10% less since then). Only my ETF retirement funds are up double digits every year, mocking me as they hide behind a 59.5 age requirement to access. Investing in general is a black pill.

>>10891580
basically there will be coins you use every day no blockchain different consensus protocols not as tried and trustworthy but handle crazy transaction volume they will be the equivalent of your cc today.

then there will be btc that will take the vanishing role of gold on itself. it will go big slow and retarded as fuck but still it will be a store of value. nobody will pay with btc day to day.

>>10891580
If it doesn't use a blockchain, it isn't a crypto and it is completely pointless.

Crypto is following the path of every other network. In order to scale you have to cut networks into sections (shards or sidechains).

If all data is transferring on the same network you end up with a lot of congestion and collision. It makes the network unusable. That's why subnets are a thing and why routers and switches were invented.

>>10891112
That chart is already wrong. We're 3/4 done with 2018 and it's made in the first quarter of 2018. We have gone down since then to 7k rather than up to 70k where it thinks we should be.

>>10891655
>If it doesn't use a blockchain, it isn't a crypto and it is completely pointless.
that's factually wrong blockchain is just the first blundering step on the way. other distributed ledger technologies will emerge that don't chain blocks anymore in this primitive and inefficient fashion.

>>10891664
don't take the yellow memeline too literally! i don't even expect it to hit $100k in 2018. see >>10891096

>>10890924

2021 50K

Don't be greedy

i am not sure if i'll survive until 2019 anon :'(

>>10891704
Yeah, just like computers no longer use binary, networks don't use IP addressing, etc

Look into preferential attachment. The amount of people using and developing blockchain already has seen to its survival. Blockchain will be adapted to be more efficient. It won't go away. Just as networks and computers haven't despite their specific failures and shortcomings. It's easier to improve on a technology than to start a brand new one, get support for it, and then work around its own specific inefficiencies.

>>10892583
Can also search "network effect", it might be a bit more accurate for the phenomena

>there are people buying bitcoin right now

>>10892726
Well they were right.

>>10891109
People who don't sell at 100k and re-buy at a lower price point are Reddit-tier brainlets who didn't learn their lesson from December

>>10891717
I would unironically pay decent money for that art. Very nice.

Unironically

>>10892583
>The amount of people using and developing blockchain already has seen to its survival.
blockchain sucks and we will get rid of it soon enough. consensus doesn't need mining or blocks at all.

>>10893414
if you want an example how crypto without blockchain would work see byteball whitepaper. i'm not saying it's good or it's gonna be around, but you will understand blockchain is just one way to do it and it's slow cumbersome limited wasteful and old.

100k 2019
500k 2020
1m 2021
5m 2022
23m 2023
47m 2024
100m 2025

>>10893489
amen

pls

i only have 0.2 btc tho

>>10893489
The figures after 2022 is because usd will be worthless

>>10891549
>NEO
ouch
those will be some heavy bags come 2020
remember this word from the anon who tried to save you while there was still time: buttonhole

>>10891549
Why wouldn't they? They have like a 1000 other competitors and literally no real-world dapp is running on them. Don't even get me started on NEO, which is the coin that has absolutely no advantage over others. Nobody will even remember what NEO was in 5 years.

how hard is to start a bitcoin mixer service?
i imagine it goes like this
have a website, people register (no credentials nothing just username and password) people create addresses on server and send btc to them. then server starts sending them into a pot and sending from one pot to the other doing n iteration of just confusing the shit out of which coin came from where, then once the coins are mixed in these pots the users can send them out 0.1 btc a time to a strictly different address each time. this way it would be impossible for anyone to track who's coins went out to whom.

of course there would be fees cause transactions are not free and the site has to go on. but in theory you can keep these fees pretty small because the volume per transaction would be fairly high in the mixers and you can rest the coins before sending them out...

what would be the catch in a business like this?

>>10893782
i think the fees would depend on how soon the withdraw follows the deposit. if you leave the btc in long enough it might be very low fee like 1% if you want to take out immediately 10% more likely.

what country should the servers be in? which country tells every agency to fuck right off?

>>10893414
blockchain doesnt suck. if sharding gets figured out, the . nothing is wrong with it. there are also other ways to scale it through different governence like EOS has. People just havent discovered it yet. I bet your one of those DAG fags. Newsflash, dags dont work qnd are actually more centralised than a blockchain. And the only way to fix DAG's is through sharding as well

>>10894033
>dags dont work
they will that's my point. blockchains are things of the past. only a few of these dinos will survive till mass adoption. you can bet bitcoin will be one of them tho probably the greatest. it sucks hairy ass but it's way past the point where it matters. if $50 tx fees didn't kill it nothing will.

>>10894033
the only problem with dags is they bring authority back in one form or an other this seems unavoidable. but again refer to this: >>10891630


we don't need a perfect coin that does everything. we can use multiple digital currencies ones that store out wealth and ones that are good for daily payments and ones that actually handle the exchange be gateways between currencies.

dags will be good enough to buy cups of coffee every day. even if they rely on proof of authority for their consensus protocol it's still an improvement on the current system where you don't actually have full control over your money once you deposit it to the bank. it's just a number in an sql database and completely utterly dependent on central authority at every step of the payment process. compared to that crap poa with distributed authority based consensus protocol is a huge step forward.

>>10893565

>>10894084
>what is economic incentive to secure a network