Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Cryptos
Comments
-
But how many do hold for that long relative to those who do not?kentaddick said:
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.Dave Rudd said: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.kentaddick said:The Prince-e-Paul said:FishCostaFortune said:
Same, I'm still 30% down on my ZIL.cabbles said:Greener days for a lot of the alts, but boy do I need to see more ground being made up before I return to the green :-)
'sad face*
I'm still £1400 down on Bitcoin. Come on Elon, say something nice.
The others I've more or less given up on.
but hey, don’t let that stop you from trolling.
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.1 -
Bitcoin is the oldest cryptocurrency; more data = better conclusions. A lot of other cryptos haven't been around so long.Dave Rudd said:
So, that's Bitcoin. How about all the others?kentaddick said:
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.Dave Rudd said: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.kentaddick said:The Prince-e-Paul said:FishCostaFortune said:
Same, I'm still 30% down on my ZIL.cabbles said:Greener days for a lot of the alts, but boy do I need to see more ground being made up before I return to the green :-)
'sad face*
I'm still £1400 down on Bitcoin. Come on Elon, say something nice.
The others I've more or less given up on.
but hey, don’t let that stop you from trolling.
I'd hate to accuse you of data selection.
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 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.0 -
I suspect that the Bitcoin Express has left the station.
0 -
"I'm not trolling"Dave Rudd said:I suspect that the Bitcoin Express has left the station.4 -
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=use+of+differernt+cryptocurrenciesDave Rudd said:
So, that's Bitcoin. How about all the others?kentaddick said:
Nobody who’s held bitcoin for more than 200 weeks has ever lost money on it.Dave Rudd said: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.kentaddick said:The Prince-e-Paul said:FishCostaFortune said:
Same, I'm still 30% down on my ZIL.cabbles said:Greener days for a lot of the alts, but boy do I need to see more ground being made up before I return to the green :-)
'sad face*
I'm still £1400 down on Bitcoin. Come on Elon, say something nice.
The others I've more or less given up on.
but hey, don’t let that stop you from trolling.
I'd hate to accuse you of data selection.
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?1 -
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.1 -
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!0
-
Currently holding BTC, ETH, Litecoin, Theta, Link, Zil and Solana. Down, but excited about all of them as long term investments1
- Sponsored links:
-
One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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?0 -
One "problem" that Bitcoin solves is the Byzantine generals one. There is lots out there on this so I'll let you dive into it!Dave Rudd said:One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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?0 -
Broadly - centralisation. Might be worth reading bitcoin’s white paper.Dave Rudd said:One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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.Yes you can get shares in publically traded miners. You can also buy shares in coinbase, a popular on and off ramp for fiat currencies.0 -
@PolzeathNickPolzeathNick said:
One "problem" that Bitcoin solves is the Byzantine generals one. There is lots out there on this so I'll let you dive into it!Dave Rudd said:One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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?
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."0 -
… you do realise the millennium bug absolutely was a thing and took billions of £ to unpick around the world?Dave Rudd said:
@PolzeathNickPolzeathNick said:
One "problem" that Bitcoin solves is the Byzantine generals one. There is lots out there on this so I'll let you dive into it!Dave Rudd said:One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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?
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."Bitcoin was created as a direct reaction to the 2008 crash. Again, read the white paper, read the history.0 -
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.kentaddick said:
… you do realise the millennium bug absolutely was a thing and took billions of £ to unpick around the world?Dave Rudd said:
@PolzeathNickPolzeathNick said:
One "problem" that Bitcoin solves is the Byzantine generals one. There is lots out there on this so I'll let you dive into it!Dave Rudd said:One of the original questions I asked (not here) was ... 'Cryptocurrencies - what problem are they trying to solve?
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?
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."Bitcoin was created as a direct reaction to the 2008 crash. Again, read the white paper, read the history.0 -
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 2037.0 -
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.cafcpolo said: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.
0 -
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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.
0 -
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?cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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?0 -
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.cafcpolo said:
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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?0 -
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.cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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.That was a benefit for some but perhaps also exaggerated the scale of remediation needed in the eyes of some.But some things did need fixing regardless.0 -
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.cafcpolo said:
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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.
0 -
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.cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I thought you might have an intelligent answer but obviously you don't.cafcpolo said:
Ask the Koreans, they managed just fine.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?cafcpolo said:
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.cafcpolo said: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.
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...
0 -
Think here is a good place to buy, at support. My target is 38.5k. If we go the other way it’ll be 31.5k before I try again.0
-
Ah, some actual discussion on a crypto for a change. I have missed this thread outside the football season.kentaddick said:Think here is a good place to buy, at support. My target is 38.5k. If we go the other way it’ll be 31.5k before I try again.
I am looking for 32.5 as a bottom and then bounce back up (hopefully)1 -
Same. Always good to discuss prices etc, maybe might learn something, eh! My plan is to buy here, sell at 38.5k, then short back down.BalladMan said:
Ah, some actual discussion on a crypto for a change. I have missed this thread outside the football season.kentaddick said:Think here is a good place to buy, at support. My target is 38.5k. If we go the other way it’ll be 31.5k before I try again.
I am looking for 32.5 as a bottom and then bounce back up (hopefully)0 -
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?0
-
It’s sideways movement. Neither bear nor bull.cabbles said: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?0
