Selling all at once doesn't magically make buyers appear at the spot price.
The best strategy is to place a sell order for your riches at the current spot price and let buyers trickle in and scoop up little bits of your offer until you're divested.
You've taken personal bias to a whole new level. Not only are you taking credit for past predictions that ultimately panned out, you're taking credit for past invalid predictions. Perhaps the people who bought years ago know something you don't? Nah, that would be too damaging to the ego...
Given the perceived ineptitude required to create the problem, it's kind of the only response they can offer. Looking at their track record, Apple is probably the worst of the big three (OS X/Windows/Linux) in addressing security issues. That said, that still puts them way ahead of most application developers.
Not yet. But large financial institutions in the U.S. are working on it. They are bundling up derivatives as we type. It's only a matter of time before the crypto cap is $1T, with a $10T derivatives market tied up in instruments so complicated their creators won't understand them (some perhaps created by some AI running on the Ethereum network), and then an overnight 30% drop in BTC sends the world economy into a 4 year depression.
Deflation is a neutral thing. It's a perhaps a terrible thing for a national currency based on fractional reserve banking, like the USD. BTC is not a national currency, and its not backed by debt, like the USD. This means there are no BTC-denominated debts that are getting more expensive with every move deeper into deflation. And as a secondary currency, there's little risk of deflationary spiral, because BTC isn't tied into the production and labor markets.
BTC deflation is arguably better suited to our future world economies, which should be focused on conservation, rather than consumption. BTC rewards the thrifty, not the spendthrift.
A currency does not need stability. A national currency based on fractional reserve banking (like the USD) needs almost continuous inflation. A reserve currency (like the USD) needs predictability. A third world currency needs flexibility. An international, digital currency needs... who the fuck knows? I've used it as currency. Plenty of other people have too. Currency is a utility; one which BTC offers.
To be fair, you're probably paying a fee somewhere; it just might be opaquely calculated into the spot price of the transaction or monetized as risk on some profitable derivative.
If you are truly sold on BTC growth, you might always convert your USD into BTC, expecting growth over time and dollar cost averaging to earn you some money, then use a BTC or a BTC backed debit card to make daily purchases.
Most conservative analysts seem to circle around Metcalfe's law, which says the value of a communications network is proportional to the square of its active user base. Now, we don't have a way of calculating some fundamental value to compare against, but the BTC price has been substantially correlated to Metcalfe's law over time. In other words, the "entities... working to drive up the price of bitcoins" might be largely explained as a result of the growth in its user base.
In addition to the obvious, the network's value - whatever that might be - will be positively affected by its age and by its market capitalization. The longer it goes without significant security holes, the more valuable it is. The larger the BTC market cap, the better secured the network is, and the better it is able to withstand price shocks from some whale moving around some money.
If the fundamental value is non-zero (and how could it not be?), then Metcalfe might explain the rest.
That's where I heard about it. I lost my drip coinage and waited too long before starting CPU mining on my laptop, producing just enough coins to be mildly annoyed today that I lost them on an old hard drive. But it did get me researching and paying attention well enough to wrangle some gains more recently, so I still credit/. for the win.
Don't salute miners. Most of them are idiots. With hardware upkeep and electricity, most miners would have been better off spending their money by buying BTC on an exchange. Even with free electricity, the payback period for some commercial mining rigs can run up to a decade. Those diminishing returns are brutal. Miners can outperform investors typically only by having an unusually cheap source of electricity, and by continually refreshing hardware at just the right time. This is why mining has moved to data centers and has become mostly professional.
It's actually the miners who took an otherwise unused gaming PC and hooked it up to their neighbor's electricity you should be saluting. Those guys made a killing for a while.
It wasn't much of a point of resistance for BTC. What's interesting is BTC analysts seem heavily weighted to Elliott wave analysis, and subsequently the market is weighted towards the Elliott wave analysis, as people look to analysis to make trades. This appears to be a self-reinforcing action, leading to higher volatility in both directions, but it also means trading on Elliott waves without regard to underlying value (technical vs fundamental) can be effective with BTC. It also means the points of resistance tend to be Fibonacci Elliott wave extensions, rather than more traditional psychological barriers of round numbers.
There is some serious potential with BTC in the emerging world to make a huge difference. Many nations are plagued by the lack of a decent currency. These places are ripe for BTC to take over the economy. By relying on an international currency, a poor nation can benefit from global economic activity without putting themselves at risk by tying themselves to some foreign currency. BTC could be problematic for an economy that needs to incentivise consumer spending over saving, but for third world nations who are more concerned about capital investment, an appreciating currency (especially an internationally accepted one) can be a game changer by increasing available investment capital over time.
But if gold's fair price compared to steel is predicated on its relative scarcity, then that just shows that BTC's scarcity is intrinsically valuable without utility.
People aren't looking for credit card BTC purchases to use leverage. They are looking for credit card BTC purchases because that's how people buy things online.
Currently, the recommended fees are around 170 satoshis/byte with a media transaction size of 226 bytes. This works out to 38,420 satoshis, which is about $4. Those fees are rare. What's also rare is only having access to BTC to pay for something. If BTC is experiencing high fees, most consumers can just use a different payment method. If BTC ever gets to become a primary payment method for people, then it will have grown so large that its price volatility would have dropped precipitously.
Slashdot Mirror
Security updates are handled by the OS, not the keyboard. Anyone claiming the keyboard needs Internet for security updates is an obvious scammer.
Would you like to install this keyboard that requires access to the network?
No.
Selling all at once doesn't magically make buyers appear at the spot price.
The best strategy is to place a sell order for your riches at the current spot price and let buyers trickle in and scoop up little bits of your offer until you're divested.
You've taken personal bias to a whole new level. Not only are you taking credit for past predictions that ultimately panned out, you're taking credit for past invalid predictions. Perhaps the people who bought years ago know something you don't? Nah, that would be too damaging to the ego...
Given the perceived ineptitude required to create the problem, it's kind of the only response they can offer. Looking at their track record, Apple is probably the worst of the big three (OS X/Windows/Linux) in addressing security issues. That said, that still puts them way ahead of most application developers.
The IRS is not helping. Tracking capital gains when you purchase a stick of gum is insane.
The IRS agrees. Which sucks, because it makes staying in compliance prohibitively difficult when BTC is used like cash.
Not yet. But large financial institutions in the U.S. are working on it. They are bundling up derivatives as we type. It's only a matter of time before the crypto cap is $1T, with a $10T derivatives market tied up in instruments so complicated their creators won't understand them (some perhaps created by some AI running on the Ethereum network), and then an overnight 30% drop in BTC sends the world economy into a 4 year depression.
Deflation is a neutral thing. It's a perhaps a terrible thing for a national currency based on fractional reserve banking, like the USD. BTC is not a national currency, and its not backed by debt, like the USD. This means there are no BTC-denominated debts that are getting more expensive with every move deeper into deflation. And as a secondary currency, there's little risk of deflationary spiral, because BTC isn't tied into the production and labor markets.
BTC deflation is arguably better suited to our future world economies, which should be focused on conservation, rather than consumption. BTC rewards the thrifty, not the spendthrift.
A currency does not need stability. A national currency based on fractional reserve banking (like the USD) needs almost continuous inflation. A reserve currency (like the USD) needs predictability. A third world currency needs flexibility. An international, digital currency needs... who the fuck knows? I've used it as currency. Plenty of other people have too. Currency is a utility; one which BTC offers.
To be fair, you're probably paying a fee somewhere; it just might be opaquely calculated into the spot price of the transaction or monetized as risk on some profitable derivative.
If you are truly sold on BTC growth, you might always convert your USD into BTC, expecting growth over time and dollar cost averaging to earn you some money, then use a BTC or a BTC backed debit card to make daily purchases.
Most conservative analysts seem to circle around Metcalfe's law, which says the value of a communications network is proportional to the square of its active user base. Now, we don't have a way of calculating some fundamental value to compare against, but the BTC price has been substantially correlated to Metcalfe's law over time. In other words, the "entities ... working to drive up the price of bitcoins" might be largely explained as a result of the growth in its user base.
In addition to the obvious, the network's value - whatever that might be - will be positively affected by its age and by its market capitalization. The longer it goes without significant security holes, the more valuable it is. The larger the BTC market cap, the better secured the network is, and the better it is able to withstand price shocks from some whale moving around some money.
If the fundamental value is non-zero (and how could it not be?), then Metcalfe might explain the rest.
That's where I heard about it. I lost my drip coinage and waited too long before starting CPU mining on my laptop, producing just enough coins to be mildly annoyed today that I lost them on an old hard drive. But it did get me researching and paying attention well enough to wrangle some gains more recently, so I still credit /. for the win.
Communists.
Don't salute miners. Most of them are idiots. With hardware upkeep and electricity, most miners would have been better off spending their money by buying BTC on an exchange. Even with free electricity, the payback period for some commercial mining rigs can run up to a decade. Those diminishing returns are brutal. Miners can outperform investors typically only by having an unusually cheap source of electricity, and by continually refreshing hardware at just the right time. This is why mining has moved to data centers and has become mostly professional.
It's actually the miners who took an otherwise unused gaming PC and hooked it up to their neighbor's electricity you should be saluting. Those guys made a killing for a while.
It wasn't much of a point of resistance for BTC. What's interesting is BTC analysts seem heavily weighted to Elliott wave analysis, and subsequently the market is weighted towards the Elliott wave analysis, as people look to analysis to make trades. This appears to be a self-reinforcing action, leading to higher volatility in both directions, but it also means trading on Elliott waves without regard to underlying value (technical vs fundamental) can be effective with BTC. It also means the points of resistance tend to be Fibonacci Elliott wave extensions, rather than more traditional psychological barriers of round numbers.
There is some serious potential with BTC in the emerging world to make a huge difference. Many nations are plagued by the lack of a decent currency. These places are ripe for BTC to take over the economy. By relying on an international currency, a poor nation can benefit from global economic activity without putting themselves at risk by tying themselves to some foreign currency. BTC could be problematic for an economy that needs to incentivise consumer spending over saving, but for third world nations who are more concerned about capital investment, an appreciating currency (especially an internationally accepted one) can be a game changer by increasing available investment capital over time.
Disagreeable people have always been the mainstays of Slashdot. Take a position; someone will be there to tell you how wrong you are.
Q.E.D.
But if gold's fair price compared to steel is predicated on its relative scarcity, then that just shows that BTC's scarcity is intrinsically valuable without utility.
Or you take an opportunity cost and thus you do take a loss.
Claiming an international, regulation-resistant payment platform is "not actually worth anything" is ignorant.
People aren't looking for credit card BTC purchases to use leverage. They are looking for credit card BTC purchases because that's how people buy things online.
Look for coins using the CryptoNight algorithm. Monero is the big one.
Currently, the recommended fees are around 170 satoshis/byte with a media transaction size of 226 bytes. This works out to 38,420 satoshis, which is about $4. Those fees are rare. What's also rare is only having access to BTC to pay for something. If BTC is experiencing high fees, most consumers can just use a different payment method. If BTC ever gets to become a primary payment method for people, then it will have grown so large that its price volatility would have dropped precipitously.