Except for Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre...)...
What does that sentence even mean? To me this is right up there with "I'll create a GUI interface with Visual Basic and see if I can track an IP address."
For one thing, there is no solution to the Byzantine generals problem, this has been proven mathematically.
Cryptocurrencies sidestep it by saying "whoever is the luckiest (aka 'owns more GPUs') gets to decide the truth".
Traditional banks handle the problem by not having Byzantine generals: there is one and only one trusted authority who is compelled by law to keep clean and clear books. If a bank has a Byzantine problem that needs solving, they've already done something illegal.
>Squeamish from the start about pursuing profits in one of the darker corners of finance, established firms this year slowed their already halting efforts to make a business out of Bitcoin mania.
So they were slow from the start, and are slowing their already slow efforts.
>“The market had unrealistic expectations that Goldman or any of its peers could suddenly start a Bitcoin trading business,” said Daniel H. Gallancy, chief executive officer of New York-based SolidX Partners, which hopes to launch a Bitcoin ETF in the U.S. "That was top-of-the-market-hype thinking."
So the market (not banks or other insiders) had unrealistic expectations of traditional institutions.
>With regulators offering little clear guidance on how they will classify the broad universe of tokens—as commodities, securities or something else—banks and investment firms are treading cautiously.
Banks continue to wait for regulations and guidance before committing fully.
I remember when the price started to increase I didn't think 4,000 would hold. 2500 seemed like the correct price. The fact that it hasn't fallen below that amount means there are more investors.
Personally I was using it to purchase goods before the runup and the slowness and increased fees made me move to another form of payment. I'm considering going back now that the price[is dropping
How did you arrive at the 2500 figure? Is there some sort of fundamental analysis that could be done, or was it all technical?
See: bandwagon shirt-losers of 2017
Bitcoin was the largest, fastest, most successful transfer of institutional wealth into private hands we've ever seen.
All the while, the marketeers screaming "buy buy buy" were selling their btc on exchanges at insane rates.
If you're just some guy mining, nobody thinks you're the problem.
Those using bitcoin for payments saw a utility not provided by other solutions.
Those investing are a different class of users. Most purchased after hearing get rich stories.
People in boiler room operations pumping up bogus pharmaceuticals --- for example --- aren't themselves drug researchers and can, of course, tell themselves that they worked not on a scam, but on a product that didn't in the end worked out and simply turned out to be a bad investment.
We have no trouble calling penny stock pushers dialing for dollars exactly what they are, but when it comes to "cryptocurrency", we're all supposed to keep our mouths shut. That makes no sense to me. What's scary is, the instinct in a lot of places will be to take the analogy and unwind the other side of it --- maybe we should reconsider the morality of the boiler room operations! Maybe they're doing a service after all! Caveat emptor, after all!
Please note the ample use of quotes on my part.
Almost no one as few will take btc and that number is shrinking.
>Those investing are a different class of users. Most purchased after hearing get rich stories.
Pretty much everyone who owns btc.
The stock market is people trading ownership stakes in corporations with actual value under a regulatory regime that implements proper safeguards.