Re-title please, Mods ... The Thread That Keeps On Giving.
To the experts ... as a general principle, if you play in a volatile market, isn't the best strategy to monitor things like a hawk and get in and out quickly when things are in your favour?
If someone hands you a box of frogs, you don't want to be holding it for too long.
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.
But how many do hold for that long relative to those who do not?
As with any investment knowing you are at the top of the market is only available with hindsight. Suspect many cashed in at lower / earlier profit levels but profit nonetheless.
But a number will inevitably have lost as with other investments of course.
My struggle remains the real world application of these that justifies the price. Investors have no right to make a profit and even less when its seemingly throwing money at something as intangible as (some of) these coins seem to be.
The fact that regulation is gradually being applied to protect retail consumers/investors tells me that the volatility is a real concern but also perhaps that the volatility it will reduce as the 'also rans' fall away and the genuine ones establish some tangible day to day usage and value.
Re-title please, Mods ... The Thread That Keeps On Giving.
To the experts ... as a general principle, if you play in a volatile market, isn't the best strategy to monitor things like a hawk and get in and out quickly when things are in your favour?
If someone hands you a box of frogs, you don't want to be holding it for too long.
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.
Not trolling, by the way. Just a genuine attempt to understand all this.
Also, why are there several cryptocurrencies? What do the others bring that Bitcoin (the one apparent success) doesn't?
Bitcoin is the oldest cryptocurrency; more data = better conclusions. A lot of other cryptos haven't been around so long.
Bitcoin is only a store of wealth - it's digital gold. Other cryptocurrencies have other utilities, some are used for governance, some cryptos are built on the ethereum network for instance, ethereum is like digital oil, or at least a platform in which you can build other cryptos (think of them like programmes). What's exciting now is a lot of cryptos are building themselves as crosschain, so depending on your needs you can use one crypto on a different network. Yes, it is a volatile market, but that's where the fun is. Don't put in more than you can afford to lose.
Re-title please, Mods ... The Thread That Keeps On Giving.
To the experts ... as a general principle, if you play in a volatile market, isn't the best strategy to monitor things like a hawk and get in and out quickly when things are in your favour?
If someone hands you a box of frogs, you don't want to be holding it for too long.
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.
I'm somewhere between the two sides on all this. The technical analysis is a bit of a waste of time imo, where you see lots of things along the lines of "if 35k breaks look out for 30k below, but it 40k is breached to upside it'll go to 45k"....and then they trumpet the side of the statement that was right!
But I am a believer in this being a game changing technology. Bitcoin as a store of value just makes so much sense to me now, I'm sort of annoyed it took me a few years to get it after first looking at it in 2013. The rest of them I don't know, it does feel like a lottery which will triumph and which won't but it certainly does have wider applications in finance and supply chains.
Ultimately there is a very simple strategy imo.... buy bitcoin, never sell it.
I bought Stella & matic when really low in the hope that long term they would increase! Trebled my money as it stands but leaving these alone for a few years. Only invest what you can afford to lose & you never know!
So, a bit like the Millennium Bug then? Invent a solution to a problem which could happen. A sort of 'insurance', if you will.
"Oh dear. I appear to have broken one of your cups. You know, maybe your shop window could get broken too. You don't want that to happen, do you?"
"I know ... why don't I get a couple of my boys to look after things for you?
"Knuckles! Killer! Look after the nice gentleman's nice shop for me, please. I'm sure he will be quite generous in return."
… you do realise the millennium bug absolutely was a thing and took billions of £ to unpick around the world?
Bitcoin was created as a direct reaction to the 2008 crash. Again, read the white paper, read the history.
The Y2K problem was essentially down to software using a two digit year without the century - no concept a lot of the code would last until 2000. An awful lot of code needed to be changed and tested.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
There were issues that needed to be fixed - the software wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm not exactly clear what your magical solution was?
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
There were issues that needed to be fixed - the software wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm not exactly clear what your magical solution was?
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
There were issues that needed to be fixed - the software wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm not exactly clear what your magical solution was?
Perhaps we all missed something?
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
I do recall the opportunity was taken to ‘fix’ other issues / upgrade things at the same time as there became appetite and budget to do so when otherwise the paymasters might not have prioritised such things.
That was a benefit for some but perhaps also exaggerated the scale of remediation needed in the eyes of some.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
There were issues that needed to be fixed - the software wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm not exactly clear what your magical solution was?
Perhaps we all missed something?
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.
The only systems (and not even all) that would have been an issue were those using 2 digit years. The reason 2 digit years were used is because back in the 60s, storage was at a premium. So storing two bytes instead of four would obviously save twice as much space. However, again systems ticking over to 00 would not have always been the catastrophe made out.
Anyone coding from then (especially the mid 80s) onwards should have been using 4 digits, if they weren't then any software issues that would have come about was down to pure laziness.
It's not a magical solution, it's just good coding practice. The Y2K bug was known about a good decade before it became this huge big deal.
I'm in no way saying it was a hoax, just that it was blown out of proportion and many countries like Korea done pretty much f all to prepare and had no more issues than anyone else.
Sorry but Y2K was mostly bollocks. Sure there were systems that needed updating but tens of billions if not hundreds were wasted to safeguard against it.
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. A lot of the software would have stopped working if it wasn't amended- I spent several years working on Y2K projects.
Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a computing degree and haven't worked with them most of my life. Just because the UK and US spent billions on it doesn't mean it was necessary.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
There were issues that needed to be fixed - the software wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm not exactly clear what your magical solution was?
Perhaps we all missed something?
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.
The only systems (and not even all) that would have been an issue were those using 2 digit years. The reason 2 digit years were used is because back in the 60s, storage was at a premium. So storing two bytes instead of four would obviously save twice as much space. However, again systems ticking over to 00 would not have always been the catastrophe made out.
Anyone coding from then (especially the mid 80s) onwards should have been using 4 digits, if they weren't then any software issues that would have come about was down to pure laziness.
It's not a magical solution, it's just good coding practice. The Y2K bug was known about a good decade before it became this huge big deal.
I'm in no way saying it was a hoax, just that it was blown out of proportion and many countries like Korea done pretty much f all to prepare and had no more issues than anyone else.
There are loads of date comparisons in mainframe software so there was no choice but to make the changes. The idea that if you didn't prepare for it you might be okay is ludicrous for any big business.
The work had to be done and companies that faced up to the problem sooner were better prepared. If companies didn't convert files to hold the date with a century the problem just persisted.
I'm not clear if most companies were hoping to have replaced their old software by 2000 or IT managers were just sticking their head in the sand. The later the changes were made the more expensive it got.
There seems to be fluctuations of 10% odd every couple of days at the moment. 10% up and then two/three days later, 10% down. Is this typical of a bear market?
There seems to be fluctuations of 10% odd every couple of days at the moment. 10% up and then two/three days later, 10% down. Is this typical of a bear market?
Comments
As with any investment knowing you are at the top of the market is only available with hindsight. Suspect many cashed in at lower / earlier profit levels but profit nonetheless.
But a number will inevitably have lost as with other investments of course.
My struggle remains the real world application of these that justifies the price. Investors have no right to make a profit and even less when its seemingly throwing money at something as intangible as (some of) these coins seem to be.
The fact that regulation is gradually being applied to protect retail consumers/investors tells me that the volatility is a real concern but also perhaps that the volatility it will reduce as the 'also rans' fall away and the genuine ones establish some tangible day to day usage and value.
Bitcoin is only a store of wealth - it's digital gold. Other cryptocurrencies have other utilities, some are used for governance, some cryptos are built on the ethereum network for instance, ethereum is like digital oil, or at least a platform in which you can build other cryptos (think of them like programmes). What's exciting now is a lot of cryptos are building themselves as crosschain, so depending on your needs you can use one crypto on a different network. Yes, it is a volatile market, but that's where the fun is. Don't put in more than you can afford to lose.
But I am a believer in this being a game changing technology. Bitcoin as a store of value just makes so much sense to me now, I'm sort of annoyed it took me a few years to get it after first looking at it in 2013. The rest of them I don't know, it does feel like a lottery which will triumph and which won't but it certainly does have wider applications in finance and supply chains.
Ultimately there is a very simple strategy imo.... buy bitcoin, never sell it.
I struggled to find an answer ... but, having read up a bit more, that now seems to be the wrong question.
A better one might be ... 'Cryptocurrencies - who benefits?'
And the answer seems to be:
1) Some investors
2) Those who take a fee for each transaction (miners?)
Good luck to those of you who have invested.
Can you get shares in the miners?
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
you can’t shut down bitcoin, just like you can’t shut down the internet.
Excellent. Thanks, Nick.
So, a bit like the Millennium Bug then? Invent a solution to a problem which could happen. A sort of 'insurance', if you will.
"Oh dear. I appear to have broken one of your cups. You know, maybe your shop window could get broken too. You don't want that to happen, do you?"
"I know ... why don't I get a couple of my boys to look after things for you?
"Knuckles! Killer! Look after the nice gentleman's nice shop for me, please. I'm sure he will be quite generous in return."
The same hysteria will be raised in 2037.
I'm not saying it wasn't a potential issue in some instances but the scale of it was blown way out of proportion. A lot of countries spent hardly anything on it and didn't have anymore or less issues than those that did. The bulk of issues came from old as fuck hardware and lazy ass programmers.
Perhaps we all missed something?
Anyone coding from then (especially the mid 80s) onwards should have been using 4 digits, if they weren't then any software issues that would have come about was down to pure laziness.
It's not a magical solution, it's just good coding practice. The Y2K bug was known about a good decade before it became this huge big deal.
I'm in no way saying it was a hoax, just that it was blown out of proportion and many countries like Korea done pretty much f all to prepare and had no more issues than anyone else.
The work had to be done and companies that faced up to the problem sooner were better prepared. If companies didn't convert files to hold the date with a century the problem just persisted.
I'm not clear if most companies were hoping to have replaced their old software by 2000 or IT managers were just sticking their head in the sand. The later the changes were made the more expensive it got.
It could have been planned a lot better...
I am looking for 32.5 as a bottom and then bounce back up (hopefully)