Bitcoin hits $17K as bubble fears mount | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin hits $17K as bubble fears mount

bbc.co.uk

39 pointstooba78 comments

Macro-economist here.

I can’t wait for this bubble to burst so some non-noxious (inflationistic, fractional-reserve-banking enabling) second- or third-generation cryptocurrency to supplant it and harness the blockchain in a less naive manner.

• Something I wrote about the macroeconomic flaws of bitcoin (posted previously, zero comments): https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-pr...

• An analysis of the rising amplitude and quickening frequency of oscillations in valuation, leading to a projection of peak value and crash time: https://mynabla.com/2017/11/30/bubble-trouble-exploring-an-l...

• A financially dignified and macroeconomically sophisticated proposed cryptocurrency (not affiliated): http://www.getbasecoin.com/

Not to dump on the libertarian dreams of Bitcoin - but isn't a massive popping bubble the expected response to a naturally deflationary, non-government-controlled currency?

I have to assume that for any cryptocurrency to become practically useable for trade it would need to be government-backed for price stability (and to keep the proceeds from heroin and arms sales from running it up to $17k USD).

>inflationistic, fractional-reserve-banking enabling

The entire point of bitcoin is lack of trust in the financial system and a trust in math. With bitcoin nobody can take it, nobody can dictate what your company is allowed to sell, by holding your access to the financial network hostage; nobody can force you to pay for their schemes by coin clipping or inflation and nobody can hide counter-party risk in fractional reserve-banking. Your money is either there or outright stolen, not messed with by Wall Street cronies.

Bitcoin exists because the current system is untrustworthy. what you are proposing is making Bitcoin less trustworthy.

You as many other technologists write knowingly of currencies and economies and how they should/could function as if of mechanics flying submarines. Your assumptions are all wrong.

My assumptions are that I can save money by not using them, that one should not take on a debt burden that one cannot pay back and that pumping billions of phantom money into the world will result in bubbles.

Look I know, the average economist disagree with me. But the ideas (other than no inflation, which is more a moral thing than a thing of economics) are not mine - they belong to Hayek and to some degree Milton Friedman. Friedman got a nobel prize in economics; Hayek was the opponent of Keynes, and despite a bit less than a century after the disagreement we haven't gotten rid of cyclic boom and bust.

I believe economies are significantly simpler than economists believe - and macro economists have an atrocious record of predicting the future.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree about first principles. It just leaves me a bit nonplussed, as if I came to you and started to preach to you about how a computer processor contains sentient elves. I could probably make some workable predictions from that statement, but by overestimating the inherent autonomy of a deterministic processor I'd also make some statements you would hold to be ludicrous. To each his own domain, I cannot really attack your assumptions, just what you derive from them; of your principles and beliefs I can only provide commentary, and on the topic I shall be as succinct as I can.

To wit, the “phantom money” you mention seems to allude to allude to a contrast to non-phantom money, supposedly some kind of “real stuff” that meets your intuition of being a unilateral asset.

National debt for a country that can issue bonds denominated in currency it itself controls is not at all comparable to the debt accrued by the private household or firm. Through varying levels of inflation, that debt-load becomes more manageable over time, a process I am sure you are aware of and conversant with. Insofar as it is a debt repayable mostly to the citizens and institutions of the nation itself, denominated in a currency that the sovereign government controls, it is hardly ever going to be unplayable. Nor will there be wholesale plunder of savings through hyper-inflation or other means... it's usually a measured process.

And the debt provides a place for savers to safely park their excess liquidity. If they did not have the national debt to fund, they would go on the hunt for other, riskier assets to use as interest-bearing vehicles, and they'd bid down the price of risky financial assets and achieve lower expected returns as a result.

Macroeconomics is surprisingly adept at unravelling how capital flows flux through a body politic. We tend to explain retroactively. Now people are putting themselves out there making fairly crisp, and as-yet un-falsified predictions of a crash on the way... we'll see if I was right or wrong to be convinced by their argument.

I'm hoping you can answer this given your credentials (it looks like an essay but it's really just a few questions):

I always learned in Macroeconomics that a slightly inflationary currency is ideal under most circumstances. I understand why you wouldn't want high inflation, but the argument against deflation was that it caused a cycle where people delay purchases so they get more, decreasing aggregate demand, further decreasing economic output, possibly resulting in even worse deflation than before.

What I don't understand is, why does it matter if the currency itself is inflationary if we have deflationary assets we can purchase with that currency? I can already purchase gold and Bitcoin and shares in companies etc. with my cash so rather than just letting it sit in my account, I can just buy those instead. Sure my money gets sent to someone who previously did own those, but there's also the case where I simply increase the total market cap of what I bought by exactly as much as I spent (not really possible on an individual level mostly, but in aggregate). The net effect of the second scenario is the same: my money didn't go towards purchasing anything productive and is instead parked in something deflationary. Sure someone is left "holding the bag" so to speak, but since all of these assets are deflationary, the holders of the cash are incentivized to continue shuffling the money back into deflationary assets.

The US effectively left the gold standard in 1933, and I'm having a hard time finding economic data from before then, but I know both the US and global economy grew massively in size and on a per capita level from 1776 to 1933, and I remember reading that the USD was deflationary for a period of at least 100 years (maybe more). Was the economic growth during the dollar's deflationary period simply in spite of the widespread use of deflationary currency, and how so?

Finally, what makes a debt-backed currency good? One of the problems I have with it is that if increases in the money supply only come from more debt, it drives policy encouraging people and businesses to enter debt. Obviously debt is just a monetary tool that is neither inherently good nor evil, but debt can exist under a non debt-backed currency too, so the net effect to me seems to be creating debt solely to force people to give banks most of the money supply (so it can be relended and expand and grow the economy, yadda yadda). Why is this good for the economy as a whole, and not just bankers? I feel like the actual purpose of this is to stop people from pulling all of their money from banks whenever they feel like it; that is, it removes any incentive to keep your money out of the banking system.

Actually one more thing, the way the Fed issues money only directly to member banks irks me because there can really only be a finite number of member banks. Because every dollar must flow through these banks when the debt creating it is issued from the fed and again when it is collected, and these banks are obviously only taking money when they know they can lend it out at better rates, this creates a rentier relationship for the entire economy where all money creation and destruction MUST come through these member banks and everyone else essentially gets taxed for the privilege of borrowing from them.

Why is this (lending to member banks) better than simply growing the money supply by printing money and giving it directly to citizens? They would still take the money and spend it around, and if the money were inflationary, it would end up in banks who could lend it out anyway. So it seems the net effect would be about the same, absent the rentier banks lending directly from the Fed, except the Fed would no longer need to decrease the money supply by simply not reissuing debt. Is it that important for the economy that we have the ability to decrease the money supply? Moreover, why can't we simply do both?

1. How come deflationary assets do not decrease aggregate demand the way deflationary currency does?

2. Why was there so much economic growth from ~1700-1900 if all of that currency was deflationary? Was the growth simply in spite of deflation, and would have been much greater otherwise?

3. Is the main benefit of debt-backed currency that a central bank has direct control over the money supply's creation and contraction?

4. Do debt-backed currency's comparative benefits (which are at least ability to directly decrease the money supply) outweigh the benefits of expanding the money supply by issuing money directly to citizens (e.g. more consumer spending, higher velocity of money, essentially not needing to "rent" every dollar from banks)? What about a hybrid model?

I’m not really sure I understand your primary question. The scenario I seem to understand you posit as a backdrop to your question is logically inconsistent: having some deflationary assets is not equivalent to having a deflationary baseline (currency). You must remove the option of escaping inflation by holding riskless cash, otherwise everybody will exert the choice to avoid (risk-adjusted inflation).

Regarding your other questions, I strongly recommend Where Does Money Come From? as providing a solid, albeit somewhat polemic, introduction to how the fiat currency/fractional reserve currency system works in general (and the GBP in particular). Spoiler alert: there is general agreement that topologically it would be more robust if the central bank interacted more directly with non-bank entities, but regulatory capture by incumbents and practical considerations places a damper upon this.

EDIT: ah, noticed you have re-numbered your questions, boarding a plane right now, will get back to you.

Sorry I keep deleting things and editing them, I'm trying to be precise in how I word things.

Given a deflationary currency X and an inflationary currency Y trading at AX = Y, why would I not prefer to hold all currency as X and only exchange back to Y exactly when I want to purchase something valued in Y?

I understand that a gold-backed currency wouldn't be stable compared to a US-backed currency. However, gold is only unstable insofar as it is tied to the USD; conversely, the USD would not be stable compared to a gold backed currency. My impression is that fiat currency is a local optimum, in the sense that any reason (as an individual) to continue using USD instead of gold is due to network effects. If the network effects were even between the two currencies, unless I owned a bank, there wouldn't seem to be a reason to hold the USD.

I know about the fiat/fractional system at (what I think is) a decent enough level, sorry if I wrote something that suggested otherwise. I didn't know that economists actually thought exclusively interacting with central banks was not desirable, though.

Liquidity. You can rely on anybody to want fungible money but not to want the particular stock you own, much less your spare apartment. The alternative, of course, is what is known as ”financial repression” whereby a state forced its citizens to operate almost exclusively on national financial assets.

As regards to the various network topologies, it gets pretty ornery: forcing all banks to transact through a central bank, that acts as the guarantor, would eliminate counterparty risk. Allowing everybody to transact amongst themselves instead means you cannot keep track of who has what and so you cannot rely on ”netting” out debts and credits. The various systems available worldwide represent a kind of path-dependent compromise that favours the incumbent actors.

People predicting bubbles are ridiculous. You're wrong every single day until you're inevitably "right" because volatile assets rebalance. Just stick to EMH and stop.

You are kind of right, but I have quoted a source that makes a very clear prediction: maximum exchange rate between 25,000 and 45,000 USD/BTY, crash period between 24 December and 8 January. That is fairly tight and falsifiable. Ball’s in your court.

Bitcoin is a massive ponzi-scheme and it will crash imminently. Or, you know, it isn't and it won't.

It's really interesting to me to follow on the side-lines of crypto as the price it's exchanging at moves up. In the last week I've had non-techies mention how they were buying Bitcoin (ostensibly to make fast, easy money).

What intrigues me most is that amid the hysteria, a lot of posters on reddit and elsewhere seem to be of the belief that everyone can get rich on Bitcoin - and that if everyone buys in the price won't crash. Moreso, most of the people I'm seeing discuss it don't seem to have any knowledge of similar financial events from the past (e.g. the dotcom bubble, tulip mania).

I'm not going to begrudge anyone that's made money from Bitcoin, nor am I going to judge anyone else for putting money in at this stage (anecdotally, the chatter I'm hearing in work from non-techies points to an ample supply of greater fools), but I think it should raise alarm bells that financial literacy is so low in the general populace that in most cases people are making these decisions with so little information to hand of what they're buying (I think it's fair to believe at this point that most of the buyers at this level aren't familiar with what the blockchain is as a concept - they just see rising valuations).

What we're seeing isn't the utility of Bitcoin going up, we're seeing what happens when supply meets demand. The total number of Bitcoins that can ever be mined is fixed, but I think the real reason the price is going up is that the current rate of mining can't sustain the rate at which people want to get into crypto. But what change in utility is driving the increase in demand? Right now Bitcoin isn't good at (and no amount of revisionism will change this) it's original purpose of being currency, which is literally Bitcoin's only utility other than the fact that there are a limited number of them. So it's actually less useful now than in the past... meaning the increase in demand is in spite of that change, leading me to believe it's all due to more people wanting crypto.

I feel the same way as you, I think a lot of people who don't know anything about crypto are making rash decisions and it's setting off alarm bells in my head too. I don't even know why people are buying Bitcoin over most alts because to me Bitcoin has so much less utility compared to what BCH, ETH, Monero. Not that Bitcoin is worthless, it's just that it seems like people are only buying it because it has the name "Bitcoin". That's why I think it's going to crash.

I think most of this can be explained by thinking of Bitcoin not as digital dollars, but as digital gold (a perpetually limited, deflationary value store that is immune to central-bank meddling).

A lot of us in tech are really excited about crypto, but the economic realities mean it's very likely that for any particular token to be treated seriously as a currency it would need central bank support - which is anathema to Bitcoin's stated purpose.

Yes, I am aware of that. I'm not confusing crypto with Bitcoin, actually I'm bullish about crypto in general.

I'm saying that Bitcoin the currency is like pewter or lead compared to BCH or ETHC. That's why it's not gold. It's like a version of gold that's heavier and more useless than some other perpetually limited, deflationary value store.

In fact I think I'm going to start calling Bitcoin "digital lead" because it's so hard to move it around.

Digital lead. I like it.

We ICO on Monday!

"but the economic realities mean it's very likely that for any particular token to be treated seriously as a currency it would need central bank support"

I keep hearing this, but I'm not convinced. I think currently, BTC is digital gold instead of digital money more because of technical issues rather than because it isn't backed by a central bank. What would be the missing piece that a central bank would bring? Price stability?

Of course, if they knew this was still early stage technology that does not even work as it is meant to be working and that a bunch of new developments are research level discoveries that take years to finetune, they would never put in that much money.

Bitcoin being the oldest, 2 years ago had some serious implementation troubles, today it shows scaling issues due to popularity rise. All other coins have identical issues that aren't visible because they aren't popular.

> "it should raise alarm bells that financial literacy is so low..."

This. Even though I'm a bitcoin proponent, I get very concerned when I hear acquaintances talking about investing in Bitcoin while not being aware of much safer diversified investments like Vanguard index funds.

This. I tried to explain how index funds were safer (and what they were) and I got told "the stock market is a casino run by the banks".

People believe what they want to believe.

> massive ponzi-scheme

Existing investors are making profit through financial transactions, so it's not a Ponzi.

A Ponzi requires newcomers to contribute funds to the scheme without any exchange of assets.

> Existing investors are making profit through financial transactions

Is this true? Are people exchanging bitcoin for anything other than fiat currency? (Outside of a few marginal use cases, are people actually bartering with bitcoin in real trade?)

Why would bitcoin mempool be oversaturated year after year at Christmas time if not for the people buying stuff?

There could be a bunch of reasons. Primarily I would think transaction volume would peak as people move to-and-from fiat currencies to spend money at Christmas. It would explain likewise traffic without necessarily having Bitcoin be directly used in the purchasing, which seems much more likely.

Same story every time. At 1$ it was a bubble, at 30$ it was a bubble, at 100$, at 1000$, etc. I wonder what needs to happen for the "bubble" people to say - alright, this is not a bubble anymore, I was wrong. Or it will always be a bubble for them?

If you create deflationary currency you get bubles again and again.

i guess if the value stabilize and people use it as a real currency, then people will stop saying bubble, but now even Steam has stopped accepting BTC

Bitcoin isn't a currency, it's a commodity (akin to digital gold). It can't be naturally deflationary and used to facilitate day-to-day trade because, by design (and with all else being equal), you're better holding on to the bitcoin than spending it.

Fiat currencies are the opposite - inflation encourages spending because the money slowly trends towards being worthless if you don't spend or invest.

It was a bubble at 1000$ and it did burst (to some degree).

The pops before then ($30, $266) were much steeper in percent

Fyi

It seems like the bitcoin craze also attracts significant traction for underwhelming journalism.

Bitcoin journalism sucks because if a journalist knew enough about Bitcoin to write well about it, they'd be qualified for a better job than being a journalist writing about Bitcoin.

All these threads and articles are the same, there's no new information just a new price.

I like to follow a long with the Cryptocurrency, I've got a couple million in Bitcoin right now, and I'm hoping for a big 'crash' to weed out the Wallstreet types and focus again ons some good old-fashioned development.

It's hard to experiment when there's billions riding on it and I feel that we're not done experimenting yet.

Anybody else remember the good old 2011 days of a small community and enthousiasts? I miss those days.

> Anybody else remember the good old 2011 days of a small community and enthousiasts?

I do. It was fun. There was a real sense of community. Where you'd ask advice on IRC on some mining setup, and people would gladly help you tune some settings on your build-in GPU. When, after a full day of mining, I was like "meh, this'll make at most one BTC per day, no way that I'm going to let my computer blast the whole night just for one Bitcoin. Where you knew nicknames and trusted people (and their advice, software, scripts based on "knowing them from IRC")

One thing I've noticed when moving more into the Eth community (I'm developing solidity stuff now) is that Eth is both a friendlier, more helpful community, and feels like a more closed set.

Btc feels all about in-fighting these days. No matter what reddit you visit, there is fighting, not heated debates, but actual, real hate. Eth feels more as a whole group. We -vs- them kinda thing. As opposed to the Bitcoin us-vs-us.

> I've got a couple million in Bitcoin right now

Something about this makes me intrinsically dislike you, and I can't for the life of me figure out what the reason is.

(kidding! "Health to enjoy it!" as my father-in-law would say.)

I guess it is fair to assume that the bitcoin has become a extra-money sponge that absorbs the extra money floating in the market right now. When there will be less and less "free or cheap money floating" people want to get their money back from the investments they made and this is the exact point where the burst occurs. It would be no problem if the decrease is happening at the same speed as the one of the initial increase, but due to human emotion, the decrease is happening orders of magnitude faster than the increase. At that point, the money will magically disappear.

It's a natural process that balances the value of the money available in the market.

One interesting point to note here is that the value of the entire bitcoin monetary mass is about 0.25 trillion dollars. That's something like 1% of the whole US national debt.

A recent September 2017 blog[1] estimated electricity mining costs to be ~$19k. (I don't know if bitcoin community has adjusted the hashing difficulty since September 2017 to maintain the 10-minute block rate.)

Are there realistic scenarios where the sustained value of bitcoin exceeds the mining costs?

What was the mining cost of 1 BTC in May 2010 when the famous request for 2 pizzas[2] for 10000 bitcoins was made?

[1] https://grisha.org/blog/2017/09/28/electricity-cost-of-1-bit...

[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0

The difficulty of mining adjusts every 2 weeks so that data is certainly outdated.

Who cares? In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that this bubble pops?

I know there are some people out there who'll have invested everything they have in BTC, which will suck for them. However, I'd wager for most people it's still just a fun way to make some spare cash, given that it's actually really difficult to use cryptos on much IRL.

We've got a bit more work to do before cryptos start being useful mainstream money, rather than just a volatile investment opportunity. The underlying ideas in blockchain are brilliant, genius even. Journalists should focus more on the interesting potential of this technology, and less on how much 1BTC costs today.

> Who cares? In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that this bubble pops?

Well, I, for one, am not touching it until it crashed because I believe (!) it is currently overvalued. (Tho not sure I'd go with BTC as it stands.) What I also don't like is the impact of cryptocurrency on Co2.

What use is a currency when you can't use it? The most stable currencies in the world are able to be used world-wide.

Betting everything you got on one horse is inherently ignorant btw. Spreading makes sense unless you're sure you're making the right bet (which you can't be). Heck, spreading is the m.i. for VC, including YC. If you burn yourself because you don't spread enough then I don't feel sorry for you.

> The underlying ideas in blockchain are brilliant, genius even.

Yeah, totally genius. All these people using only hot wallets, exchanges getting hacked, 101 ICOs being ponzi schemes, all these people using Bitcoin wallet on their desktop machine which also runs Mirai and what, or un(der)patched Android phone. Its a recipe for disaster. There's a reason why the general population runs their router behind a firewall or NAT, there's a reason why the general population uses experts such as banks to protect their money. Its because they lack the expertise to do it themselves. My argument is that Joe Sixpack doesn't have the expertise to run his own Bitcoin wallet. Even though it might seem very "American way" that he would, does that mean he should?

They're fueling the speculation because they are probably invested as well.

And now that options contracts are taking off for bitcoin, the folks with put contracts are banking on a crash.

Do you mean futures? Where are options being offered?

The market price is pointless to look at, it's driven by people/groups with no understanding or interest in the technology, who are just looking for easy money.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero and others are absolutely incredible pieces of tech. E.g. the EVM is essentially a new paradigm in computing which has never been seen before.

To draw a parallel in history, would you rather have been an investor in Apple when the iPod was launched, or on the engineering team that built the iPod itself?

We can spend all our time discussing the price and gambling on the perception of value OR we can actually get our heads down and build something completely new and cutting edge. I know what I prefer to do.

For those unaware of the recent news (briefly mentioned in this article) which is driving the prices crazy the past couple of weeks, it's because the two biggest derivate exchanges form Chicago are launching Bitcoin Futures soon. CBOE launching this Sunday on Dec 10th 6pm EST. CME launching on the 18th [1].

10th would be a very interesting day for traders. I am no expert at all but from what I can tell, this will make it easier for big institutions to short the Bitcoin (all transactions happening off the blockchain though). There are specualtions that prices are going up just before the launch and might take a dive with the shorting after. BUT if there's anything that've learned trading BTC on the side: anything can happen, it's got a mind of its own :)

Either way, I think this is good news for the long run as it legitimizes BTC (There are rumors of Nasdaq and other exchanges globally getting in soon as well next year). If you thought 2017 was fun, wait till you see what 2018 has in store for cryptos.

[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/cboe-announces-it-will-launc...

> "wait till you see what 2018 has in store for cryptos."

The ability to short might actually bring some stablity to the price (as shorters will produce sell orders when they think others are mistakenly buying too much, and will likewise produce buy orders on the falls).

I agree. More stability for Bitcoin but a general uptrend as the adoption increases.

As for the other top cryptos, Bitcoin being legitimized and going mainstream would translate to way more money moving into the space. I'm quite bullish on a few good projects like Ethereum, Litecoin, Neo, etc.

"as bubble fears mount"... seriously? I'm pretty sure bitcoin always felt like a bubble even when it was trading at less than a dollar.

I do not claim to understand the value creating mechanisms of a cryptocurrency vs. a "traditional" currency.

But without a central trust, the thing that guarantee the value of bitcoin is the network effect, right ?

In that case the usage may show the characteristics of a MMO or a social network.

Keep calling it a bubble and it becomes a bubble. This whole thing is entirely psychological. How can we be sure journalists aren't somehow shorting bitcoin on the side while writing these articles? They have a huge influence on the collective unconsciousness.

It really is entirely psychological. Based on the two main theories of stock investing: fundamental value and castles-in-the-air speculation, with Bitcoins, it's hard to gauge its real value as it may be argued that it doesn't actually have one. Being an asset that does not produce any profit, it's hard to put a number against it. So therefore the price is driven by demand and by what the mass wants it to be worth and by what it hopes to be worth in the future.

Speculators coming in the Bitcoin ecosystem now are willing to spend a lot of money on it because they know that there will be someone else that is willing to spend even more money on it. It's all driven by mass psychology, exactly like many of the previous bubbles in the history of stock markets: tulip bulb craze, dotcom shares, Japanese land value and so on.

The only thing is... it's very hard to predict the randomness of mass psychology. Everybody wants to get rich.. and everybody wants the price to go up and up... but when they start to sell in order to cash in, the price will drop and if a lot of people do it at the same time, panic will set in and then it will crash seriously. You may argue that the whole thing behaves a bit like a ponzi scheme (with the main difference that there is actually something happening underneath the whole speculation-investing-money aspect, which is, IMHO, the very elegant blockchain technology)

My understanding - and I could be utterly wrong about this - is that the reverse is true. Bubbles generally don't have non-stop headlines stating that they are in a bubble, which is what contributes to the run-up.

If anything, headlines declaring Bitcoin a bubble should have a negative affect on valuations as it puts man-on-the-street buyers off withdrawing savings or equity to buy it.

Is there any data on the average transaction size when converting between BTC and USD? The price might be $17k per coin, but if people are transacting in $100 amounts for fractions of coins, that's kind of sustainable whether the BTC price is $1 or $100,000.

Do we really need to hear about Bitcoin's price changing multiple times every day?

Oh yeah but it sharply dropped right ? 14,927.78 -11.45%

OK, Now it's a bubble.

To the moon, boys. To the moon.

To infinity... And beyond.

This is insane - is there any "expert" speculation out there on when this will all collapse? Before or after the new year...?

If someone gives you an exact date, how would you know if they are telling the truth? Nobody knows the future.

It can all collapse to $1K in a month or keep going to $50K. And if someone actually knew, they would stand to make huge money and would keep their mouth shut.

if we all knew that everyone would pull out earlier and it would collapse sooner.

You can sort of estimate it. It comes down to cash flow - if people are trying to invest more cash into bitcoin than they are taking out it'll go up. When people are trying to cash out more than is going in it will fall. At the moment there are a huge number of people seeing the headlines and thinking I should get in on this who have not yet so there's a while to go. The closet to this I can recall was the dot com bubble and I'd say this feels like 98 or 99 so I'd give it a year or two. BTC $100k here we come!

When information enters the market that would justify a decrease

Me, I'm an expert. It'll be around 2pm EST, January 9th 2018.

Rule #1 of cryptocurrencies, trust nobody.

And this works with traditional currencies as well :)

that's rule number 3.

1. HODL 2. BUY DIP

Reddit appears to be leaking.

>on when this will all collapse?

2 hours ago

The modern day equivalent of The Tulip Mania where one specific type of tulip could be traded for a house? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

There never was a Tulip Mania https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...

Can you grow a bitcoin in your garden?

Some will say you can mine it…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com