/biz/ - Business & Finance

I hope you don't read forbes and listen to them

i can't believe a forbes article contains the word "hodl." MSM has become such a joke

>>16016602
>>16016550
Forbes constantly does pieces about crypto. I don't listen to them but its on their radar even if their insights are retarded

>>16016517
it fell after last halving anyway, this time it will be no different

>>16016602
I remember Forbes being a respectable outlet, but you have to keep in mind even then for them it was all about making money. Unfortunately, the Internet has opened up the doors for insane revenue streams for these companies and that's because instead of having to be a niche content provider to sell their news they can access EVERY LOW IQ RETARD with clickbaity titles and poor "journalism."

It's just business. While it sucks, it's what most people apparently want. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way and good journalism will be rewarded again.

>>16016517
you can't price in future scarcity
unless you bring it to the present
which did not happen

>>16016961
For scarcity to be important, something needs to be actually desirable.

>>16016961
For scarcity to be important, something needs to be actually desirable.

>/sites

how many faggots per bitcoin?

>>16017202
demand for btc did not decrease the market structure changed. number of wallets holding over a 1000 btc grew steadily ans still grows as we speak.

>>16016961
>you can't price in future scarcity
of course you can, how stupid are you
if something become scare out of nowhere it will pump the price due to the sudden and unexpected change in supply, but everybody know about the halvening since the beginning, so anybody betting the price will pump due to the halvening has already bough

>Forbes
It is a fucking advertising blog. Anybody taking a single sentence of "journalistic" outlets serious will never make it, those who pay money to read ads should unironically go on a Somalia holiday and catch some bullets

>>16018177
the following dump shows very clearly what happens when you try. the scarcity did not change. the fags that rushed ahead were dumped on. halving not priced in. never was fully to be honest. but with a 50% drop we are practically back to last years average price.

thus you can objectively say nothing is priced in right now except the previous halving.

is now a good time to buy BTC? I'm considering putting some money into it to make some small gains as I hope the halving will effect the price somewhat positively

>>16018224
the current dump is just the result of the exit pump we saw 3 month ago
if halvening really pumped the price, LTC would not be at 50$ right now

>>16018295
actually LTC is the best example of priced in halvening, as soon as the LTC halveing new hit mainstream in January the price started pumping and it peaked a month before, and then crashed
I still remember all the fags who were crying because they bought the top and the price never recovered after the halvening

>>16018234
YOUR IQ IS TOO LOW TO POST HERE OR YOU ARE 17 YEARS OLD OR A FUCKING NORMIE

GET THE FUCK OFF MY FUCKING BOARD NIGGERRRR

>>16018438
>normie
I bet all of my fucking money on you being an even bigger normie, you absolute waste of oxygen

>>16018345
>the price never recovered after the halvening
btc usually takes a few month and a slow rampup after the halving, alts don't have it's dynamic simply because network security and demand is not the same.

>>16016517
The competitive mining process, especially after the subsidy fades and miner income is mainly transaction fees, where miners take entrepreneurial risks in pushing the capacity envelope, is the beating heart of capitalism in Bitcoin.
Miners profit additionally by spotting any error, malfeasance, or even just misjudgment by other miners.

The incompetent are left in the dust.

The infrastructure professionalizes relentlessly as tx demand grows, and this molten core of capitalism radiates out to everything.
In a mature competitive mining market, the protocol has long since been locked, but the transport layer is constantly innovated upon. No need for communistic ideas of volunteer development, free software, even open source (though miners will often prefer open source b/c profits).
Node software development is incentivized by the competitive edge it gives to miners who innovate to connect even a millisecond faster to more other miners. The topology of the mining network is incentivized to form a complete graph, avoiding all sybil and other proposed attacks.
Miners are further incentivized to offer services to merchants in exchange for a preferential flow of transactions. Under miner competition, everything that people thought was broken about Bitcoin suddenly makes sense. It grows more secure only by scaling. Orphans blocks = good!
Orphans are the incentive mechanism in action. As tx demand grows to terabytes per minute, miners create huge, high-revenue blocks at the risk of having their blocks orphaned. This is the natural, market-determined blocksize constraining function that drives professionalization.
Without high orphan rates, a blockchain's infrastructure can NEVER reach global-adoption-level robustness because there's no incentive for miners to compete on connectivity nor transmission speed nor judgement based on understanding of other miners' capapcity. Lame duck miners.

>>16019280
With tiny blocks and miniscule fee revenue we get miners competing mainly on hashpower, rather than serving the network by improving its speed and robustness or by offering intelligent merchant services.

As the subsidy declines we see which coins were swimming naked.
The virtuous cycle of

tx demand

miner competition

infrastructure professionalism

demonstrated capacity

corporate confidence

tx demand

etc.

where demand drives capacity which then drives demand, is alive and well on Bitcoin (BSV), and nonexistent on BTC.
Capped blocksize guarantees that infrastructure remains mediocre (except hashpower*) and grows exponentially less secure via the halvings.

*imagine the incentives that drive astonishing hashpower growth turned toward speed, capacity, robustness, and overall professionalism.
Signatures were deliberately included within the scope of Bitcoin's proof of work, to ensure that it functions in law as an immutable evidence trail. The cypherpunks don't like legal traceability, so they removed this feature in BTC (via Segwit). BSV has kept it.

>>16019292
>miniscule fee revenue
rofl where do miners get more fees on btc or sv? lemme help you with that even tho btc has only 100 times the hash sv has the fee reward from tx-es is a thousand times higher. and that's actual subsidy because without the shitty weather app sv would have about 3 tx per block.

>>16019459
Cope.

>>16019590
so you didn't bother to look at the fees? not to mention what those fees are worth on the market?

>>16019912
right now a btc miner gets 100000 times more in fees per block counted in $ than an sv miner

>>16019925
well technically only 68000 times but this thing shifts daily. been wore a lot worse.

>>16016961
Literally the point of the first futures contracts for grains and shit.

>>16019959
early futures did not price in future scarcity. they never gave a fuck about following years crops. they were about the next delivery. if they did price in future scarcity that meant they brought that scarcity to the present. just as i said.
which did not happen in bitcoin. this was basically a small echo bubble of the 2017-18 one.

>>16020017
>early futures did not price in future scarcity
If you're speculating on demand and how demand relates to price, how is that not also speculation on supply (scarcity)?

>>16020171
early futures were direct contracts between producers and buyers. also changes in scarcity were impossible to price in. if you had a contract to deliver 50 tons of grains and your yield was only 30 tons (and everyone sucked similarly) you could speculate to the worlds end on the contracts nobody could deliver on them overall.