/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11493851
my english sucks but i put effort into this thread ffs im trying to learn something and have a discussion

where are you niggers. who shorted biz? i bet even /lgbt/ has more traffic ffs

I think bitcoin is valued exactly as it should be, 1 BTC = 1 BTC

>>11493851
>is the consensus now officially that it is digital gold or what?
yes pretty much, the fidelity announcement meeting thing they were all saying something like that.
>digital gold
>finite amount
>no middleman
>global reach and fast
the room was packed with boomers as well. gonna be good.

>>11493851
hi lana, circa august 2017

>>11494017
neat.

>>11493851
I think it's going up in 2020 or 2021, maybe to 100k or 200k. However before that I think it's still going down., My low target is $4000.

>>11494037
yeah, block reward halvening aint a meme. it will be funny to see how this plays out.

hashrate ath means billions invested in infrastructure so btc literally has to moon in 2020 or its game over for all of them

>>11494037
why do you think it's going down?

>>11493851
Overvalued as a % of total market cap.
Undervalued in $ terms.
Plus it's a dinosaur and the lightning paper is garbage.

>>11494092
Less adoption than before, places like Microsoft and Steam no longer accept BTC
Lots of angry kids who lost money in BTC will shittalk it
(((they))) want it to

>>11494092
He sold the bottom

BTC is exactly right. 6k-7k seems like the good price so buying in right now is not a bad idea. I would be stocking up right now if I had more cash.

>>11494092
It has failed to serve as to why it was born in the first place, so its massively overvalued right now.

>>11494114
Adoption and price are only very loosely corelated if at all

>>11494123
People who want to make money don't care what Satoshi intended to do

>>11494101
>Overvalued as a % of total market cap.
i disagree. name 1 useful dapp, its all memes looking for a problem.

btc doesnt have to scale, nobody gives a shit and wants to pay a gay coffee latte with crypto. only usecase crypto as a currency has is blackmarket which dont require instant tx, laundering money and simply investing in a deflationary asset fighting inflation.

segwit is at +50% adoption now, there will never be a situation as bad as last december now.

>>11494137

>>11494123
bullshit, dark market is working just fine with btc. decemember was world wide fomo and a once in a decade situation.

check the fees and tx time now, segwit +50%.

>>11494143
you didnt get the memo
>i ask bch people to stay out of this thread, it has worse tx adoption, btc has about 13-16x more marketcap, hashrate and tx so it aint in no way competing.

>>11493851
efficient market theory look it up

>>11494137
Uncensorable permissionless economy. It's about what's coming not what's there.

Decentralized backpage, decentralized uber, decentralized app that lets people sell food to each other. Anywhere shitty regulation exists is an opportunity to disrupt.

BTC making it impossible to develop on through overcomplicating in the name of scaling is
straight up retarded.

>>11493851
BTC = overvalued
BCH = undervalued

By that logic litecoin = undervalued

>>11494155
Thinking that this core situation is based on fundamentals.
>pic related

>>11494176
>this

>>11494169
>Uncensorable permissionless economy.
IF normies, aka 95% of the world are looking for that.

you really think people will switch from dropbox to siacoin? or booking.com to something called beetoken?

imo i agree with pic related research institute, general consensus is that only p2p currencies have a value, personal swiss bank account, deflationary new asset, offshore billions, tax evasion.

think about it anon, there are 500 billion dirty money sitting in swiss alone from people around the world and the us + eu is slowly cracking down on that. where will they flee?

actual money invested and marketcap in crypto has a rate of 1:50 according to multiple experts

so with 10 real billion dollars i can push the marketcap +500b$

Where can I find an innocent, highly educated virgin like this girl?

>>11493851
>if bitcoin is over or undervalued
It's both. It's a volatile asset and there is no true value. It's going to have huge pumps and huge dumps, because it has no intrinsic value. It's both valueless and invaluable.

>>11493851
Miners shouldn't mine, if they aren't profitable right now. That's because if they wanted to speculate on future gains they could just buy BTC cheaper.

The newest Antminer is breaking even (on power cost) at 0.10$/kWh, but there are some more recent miners like Ebang Ebit E11++ (that's the most efficient if you can trust the data), who're breaking even at 0.20$/kWh.

Who is still making money on mining? Miners with low electricity cost, for example in china or russia.
They can reinvest their gains into new hardware until it isn't profitable anymore.

To answer your question: hashrate isn't important to analyse BTCs fundamentals because it's only determined by outside factors (mining device efficiency, power cost, BTC price).

This great article explains how we should analyse BTCs security and why hashrate doesn't matter in that context:
https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-security-a-negative-exponential-95e78b6b575

>digital gold
It's a digital pyramid scheme that isn't secure, because it can get 51% attacked. BTC Core people try to create security (= inflation) by high transaction fees. Won't work.

>>11494225
>hink about it anon, there are 500 billion dirty money sitting in swiss alone from people around the world and the us + eu is slowly cracking down on that. where will they flee?
Thats something Synth would say

>>11494350
its obviously not perfect yet its still the first deflationary new asset class with a fixed tiny supply. if you think this a simple pyramid scheme in times of high inflation, debt crisis and cracking down on tax heavens, you obviously biased and anti crypto for whatever reason

>it can get 51% attacked
how? close to literally impossible

>>11494395
It'd be very expensive to 51% attack BTC now, because of the still relatively high inflation of 4%. But with the halvenings it will happen sometime in the future. 2020? 2025? 2030? Don't know but it's surely going to happen.

>>11494420
so are you implying that "smart money" already knows this and wont invest now? do you think we will top the ath?

>>11494225
You're not reading into it right. Nobody wants new tech when it first comes out. It hits a slow trajectory of adoption untill the benefits of the tech are well enough explored to offer it as product to consumers. Nobody felt a need for cellphones in the 80s, now everyone has them. Smartphones have all the gimmicks consumers want and back in the 80s the term smartphone must have sound like a technical miracle.

>>11494143
You didn't even understand what he was saying. He is basicly arguing that BTC (and crypto in general) will never be used as a payment system for micro transactions. All cryptos (including BCH) have seen very limited growth in mainstream adoption as payment systems (in some cases even negative growth). Why is that? Personally, I'm a huge fan of the idea of decetralized cash, but unfortunately I agree with him.. Bitcoin's main selling point is being a store of value.

>>11494439
you might be right about this but the timeline p2p currencies will find their right value will be much quicker.

btc been adopted since half a decade daily in the black market, it brings new value has a use case right at the moment. now speculation took over and now we are looking for more use cases, stuff core is bringing out like liquid and possible LN aint no jewish memes but are real innovations imo

>>11494470
yet as i said even if btc could do a trillion tx a second, why would people pay with their coffee with that instead of their cc?

btc doesnt have to scale, the fees should just remain stable for niggers in 3rd world countries to benefit from it aswell and said innovations like liquid, segwit and ln will make it happen

>>11493851
Good thread. Sauce?

>>11494516
lana rhoades

>>11494428
Maybe the chances are 50/50 that we make a new ATH.
Smart money definitely knows what's going on, if they're really smart. But that doesn't restrict them from buying here and selling to the suckers at 300k.

Overvalued. It will be fairly valued when 1 BTC=1 LINK.

>>11494123
same could be said for you

>>11493851
everyone knows BTC is going to $1M +

hence why there is an arms race to get the last few bitcoins

>>11494548
>But that doesn't restrict them from buying here and selling to the suckers at 300k.
please god

what is your opinion on xmr, nano and bch anon?

bumb

>>11493966
Tell that to the ransomware guys who couldn't get their btc onto any exchanges. And people have sold freshly mined blocks for a premium. BTC is not fungible and therefore 1btc /= 1btc and never will.

>>11496535
>what are btc mixers
>what is otc
literally no issue

>>11496606
>what is fungibility
You total fucking retard

>>11493851
Once lightning starts getting more widely used it will be all ogre for just about every other cryptocurrency.
>able to send sub Satoshi amounts near instantly for almost nothing
>tor routing for extremely enhanced privacy/fungibility
All that's left will be to add something like rootstock and the remaining usecase for crypto goes away too

>>11496765
A fixed-supply coin will never achieve widespread adoption as a currency. Monero and even Dogecoin are unironically better options for currency.

Long-term Bitcoin security depends on tx fees.
https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-security-a-negative-exponential-95e78b6b575

Default privacy will always be more secure than optional privacy.

For sure, Bitcoin was a technological breakthrough, but it's not as perfect as you make out.

>>11494091
yeah at worst towards end of 2019 we will see returns to 10k and early 2020 new ATH

given it's end of 2018 now, there aint much time for much else to happen.

>btc going to 3k
there aint time for that mofo

>>11493851
Incredibly overvalued compared to Monero or hell, even Zcash

>>11496971
A fixed supply is meaningless when we're dealing with digital cash. 20,999,999 bitcoins could be permanently lost and that remaining 1 bitcoin could still serve as the monetary base because of infinite diviaibility.

Fees will be enough to secure the network without a tail emission because miners will be gradually weaned off the teat of block rewards. Fees will gradually take up a larger percentage of the reward so by the time the last bitcoin is mind the fees will already be the majority of the insentive anyway.

Privacy by default is the only flaw I see in bitcoin. That said, the problem can be mostly solved on layer two without a hard fork, and can 100% be solved in the future with a hard fork.

>>11496971
Also, I could unironically see doge become the defacto monetary base because everyone thinks it's a joke, so there's not nearly as much hoarding as other cryptos.

I'm just gonna leave this here...

>>11497318
with a hard fork you can also make lost wallets mineable. say miners can spend x sats from any wallet that has input older than 30 years. all you have to do is transact one every decade to be safe and no bitcoin will ever be lost forever.

>>11497318
If privacy is at the layer 2, then it largely is meaningless because there is no privacy at the base layer.

>>11497421
actually privacy is at the exchange. because if you an cash in and out anonymously then nobody can prove anything. even if they suspect plausible deniability is a bitch.

>>11497563
Good luck implementing a fiat to crypto exchange anonymously. And even if you could, transactions being fully visible on chain would allow the same problems we currently see with bitcoin where you can blacklist certain coins if they have been associated with illicit activity like dnm. Which would make the currency non-fungible.

>>11497605
if there is privacy at the exchange nobody would care about taint on coins is my point.

>>11497696
Legitimate business accepting the coins would as they would still have to go through regulatory channels that would prevent them from accepting the coins. But regardless of that point, how do you plan to implement an anonymous fiat to crypto exchange when it would ultimately have to be a centralized business that would still be subject to regulatory oversight.

Can someone explain halvening

>>11493851
>is the consensus now officially that it is digital gold
Yes.

>>11497772
The "halvening" is when the block mining reward is cut in half. It happens every 210,000 blocks and the next one will will happen in May of 2020. The block reward will go from 12.5 btc per block to 6.25 per block.

That means half as much new bitcoin will be created -- half as much new bitcoin to potentially come to market. As long as demand doesn't drop off at the same time, the price would naturally rise.

>>11497744
>that would prevent them from accepting the coins
nothing prevents them to accept coins

>>11497924
Thank you.

>>11498166
Minus getting sued into oblivion by their respective governments for accepting dirty funds.

>>11498210
>>11498166
You know, like how Coinbase is about dirty funds. This type of shit happens on the regular. There are real world examples everywhere. Hence why I said if privacy isn't at the core level, it's practically worthless.

>>11498210
you can't prove it legally even if you can follow coins there is no way to prove it was from the same person that committed a crime. after a few dozen presumably completely legitimate transactions it's smoke.

>>11494255
nowhere cause nice girls are always the sluttiest ones

>>11494490
Because it would be cheaper on the merchants accepting the payment. They would get their funds right away. They wouldn't have to rely on the middleman.

>>11498262
You can tie the specific coins to illegal transactions which automatically causes them to become blacklisted and denied by centralized services. Due to the nature of how public blockchains are, this will never go away. No matter how many transactions legitimate transactions follow. We've got coins floating around from the days of Silk Road still that will get your accounts banned.

There are entire companies that make their money by tying transaction and address data to individual users. It's far easier than you think with the right amount of resources. Bitcoin is not a privacy coin. It never was and likely never will be. This is why the original users have largely jumped ship and the only people remaining are those that think it will moon and make them rich.

>>11498346
>which automatically causes them to become blacklisted and denied by centralized services
this doesn't exists and there is no incentive for such a blacklist to be accepted.

WHY WONT IT FUCKING DO ANYTHING

>>11498424
>No incentive
Other than not getting sued into oblivion
>This doesn't exist
Literally cases everywhere of bitcoins being denied due to exactly this reason dude. You must be new?

>>11498479
>Other than not getting sued into oblivion
again plausible deniability they can't fucking win any of these. there will always be exchanges that don't give a fuck if need be i start one and flip them when they complain.

>>11498516
Plausible deniability doesn't go very far in the world of financial institutions. Especially ones taht serve customers in the first world. You have to meet strict government regulations just to operate. This is why KYC is becoming incredibly prevalent in practically all major exchanges. It's also why accounts get frozen or banned when they violate terms of use which includes not having funds tied to prohibited activities like gambling or dark net markets. Funds related to ICO's could also easily be banned since ICO's are often the issuance of a non-registered security. This is why many ICO's are now going the same route of IPO's and only selling to accredited investors.

You can deny the world we live in all you want, but it is what it is. Your denial doesn't change the reality of what's going on in the slightest.

>>11497375
so this is the future of money
transact or you get mined

>>11498656
>Plausible deniability doesn't go very far in the world of financial institutions
still till there are services that don't give a fuck eventually every bitcoin will get taint on it via mixing addresses and it becomes meaningless.

>>11498688
don't see the problem with it you can move it between two of your own wallets like i said like once a decade. you probably get free transactions on coins that old anyhow.

>>11497744
Not really. The way they do that is by going back and checking for recent illicit transactions. The problem is, if they are checking 3 transactions back you churn it 4 times. If the check 4 times, you churn it 5. Eventually there are so many possible transactions to analyze that every transaction encompasses thousands of possible inputs, which is not a business model that scales because it is asymmetrical. I might spend a couple dollars in fees sending myself bitcoin 20 times, but to check every possible output will cost far more than I spend.

>>11498791
Explains all the bitcoins from Silk Road still causing problems seeing as that shit was like 6 years ago.

>>11497375
You have no moral right to do so. If I choose to burn my bitcoins it is my will to do so, just as it is my right to burn a stack of bank notes, or bury gold coins in the woods and forget about them. Besides, finding "lost" bitcoin will be a new industry as technology improves. It'll be like looking for shipwrecks on the bottom of the ocean.

>>11497421
Privacy is very important and ought to be included in layer one now before we build on top of it. But if we cannot, a layer two solution would go a long way. If most people transact on layer 2 in the future, then onion routed channels with cross chain layer 2 swaps would be the best case if we can't get it on layer 1 first.

>>11498819
There's no legal basis for there to be an issue. If I spend a dollar that was involved in a drug deal 6 years ago I am not liable for the crime. This is mostly a byproduct of exchanges existing in a legal grey area and erring on the side of exclusion. Plausible deniability as a legal construct is != bitcoins psudofungibility, and just because you can trace a coin in every transaction back to the one that mined it does not mean you can prove ownership.

>>11498914
>If I choose to burn my bitcoins it is my will to do so
you do realize you are not allowed to burn currency right? bills are not yours either. it's a medium of exchange destroying it is retarded. but probably won't happen anyhow.

>>11498914
>Besides, finding "lost" bitcoin will be a new industry as technology improves. It'll be like looking for shipwrecks on the bottom of the ocean.
not in the next 10000 years as things look like.

>>11498989
If you spend a dollar used in a drug deal 6 years ago, there isn't a giant written ledger for the whole world to see that ties it to that drug deal.

>>11499040
It's a crime in the same way j walking is a crime.
>>11499054
No one can predict when something will happen, but people are already doing it now by buying old computers and checking then for forgotten wallets.
>>11499430
You realize dollars have serial numbers right? If dollar 12345 is known to have been used in a drug deal, you don't get prosecuted for spending it after it went from the drug dealer, to a stripper, to a quickie mart, to a you.

>>11499430

If it was done through banks then there is.

>>11499653
I don't think even the dumbest of criminals use banks for drug deals. But even then that ledger is confined exclusively to the bank records and only available upon request via law enforcement.

>>11499551
I'm well aware. But in practice paper money can trade hands without it being recorded to a ledger. I can give 20 bucks to Jim for X and only myself and Jim know about it. However if I give .2 bitcoins to Jim for X anyone and everyone can view the blockchain and see that I sent .2 bitcoins. They may not know what for, but say Jims address is identified to be that of a known drug dealer. The assumption is it was for drugs and the medium makes it further incriminating since LE already assumes crypto is for illegal activity. In truth and in practice, tying a physical currency to a specific transaction is near impossible. Digital currency is another story.

>>11499719
Yes it can be easier to track people on a public ledger, but it's not as easy as you make it out to be. It will only be easy for someone to correlate your identity with a specific wallet if you don't take some basic opsec precautions. Sure if I only use one wallet I could be tracked, especially if I use exchanges like coinbase that have my info or get something shipped to my house, but it's easy enough to make an anonymous account on an exchange like binance that you can use as an intermediary to obfuscate the transaction. You can further increase your anonymity by jumping between currencies and exchanges. So if I buy bitcoin on coinbase, send it to craptopia, buy litecoin, send it to binance, buy monero, send it to xmr.to, which sends bitcoin to Jim's address, that's about as untraceable as it gets despite being on several public ledgers.

I'd really only ever do that if I wanted to do something illegal, but it's always an option.

>>11499551
>but people are already doing it now by buying old computers and checking then for forgotten wallets
who the fuck uses unencrypted wallet?? meh.

>>11500004
The Monero and XMR.to are the crucial aspect of this since Monero has privacy built in at the base level which goes back to what I was initially saying about that being critical for actual anonymity.

>>11494420
If you performed a 51% attack on BTC you’d likely fork the network. And you can cryptographically prove which network is the legit one. It’s possible, but the money you gain would only have value until someone figured out what was going on.

>>11500360
a 51% attack is unlikely on btc but... you don't need 51% of the hashrate to accomplish a localized 51% attack even inadvertently. only thing that has to happen is the internet has to break up between continents. that way the hashrate will not participate in the same network anymore. and you got serious problems with settlement if any transactions are made on two of these segments.

>>11500360
A 51% attack on btc is almost certainly never going to happen. Even if you have 51% of the network, you still have to redo all the proof of work in real time which would cost electricity. The further back you go the less and less likely it is that you'll be successful because you'd have to sustain the attack for the whole time without profiting from normal mining.

Even if you do, the most likely outcome is you'll break bitcoin which would make your investment worthless. And even then there is still the nuclear option of hard forking to a new algorithm.

>>11493966
No, 1 BTC = 1 BTC - fees