If you have any money on the exchanges now is the time to get out.
If you have any money on the exchanges now is the time to get out.
But for whom? What how much is that utility really worth? And what kind of utility? That is what keeps shifting and what all the pro-contra propaganda is about.
In fact the bitcoin could even have negative utility, where getting someone stuck holding bitcoin is good for someone else.
Imagine that ... not just that bitcoin goes to zero, but could go into negative even!
1. Mine a bunch of new hashes.
2. Fake liquidity by selling to yourself - bonus points if you make it appear that the price is rising by selling/buying for more $.
3. When naive folks shout "it's raising to the moon!" and buy the crap - drop all what you have from the step one.
4. Profit - Lambo is yours!
144 mil on an ICO off the bat is not ridiculous? Whatever its technical merits are, if Polkadot skyrocketed more than other altcoins (10x in 15 months) the reason was probably due to the cult of personality around Gavin Wood. If you're "a co-founder of Ethereum" in a crypto boom, you're probably riding the wave at the top.
Just saying that Polkadot actually works, true it could be super centralised that way I’m not sure about it’s history. But the Kusama / Polkadot combo has delivered, its not a memecoin with no utility.
And of course there’s always Tezos, which has imo the only organic NFT market out there.
People mistakenly believe that the two option you have are valuable or zero. Instead it is a scale from positive to negative value.
For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value.
Working with and spending effort on a coin that goes to zero is a loss of productivity and opportunity of not doing something useful. Again the real cost is non-zero.
I'll bite. So basically, owner would have to pay more than they would get to sell their Bitcoin? I'm sure nobody would do that, so the price is effectively capped at zero and can't go lower.
Lol this is beyond absurd.
Bitcoin has a cost, as well. The undercover economist might tell you that it fails to charge for an externality, namely its climate impact.
It's entirely possible that, were that exernality priced in, the cost to operate bitcoin might exceed the value it provides relative to other providers, which would give it net negative value.
In the case where the costs are larger than the value produced, but are not paid by the bitcoin system (external, you might say), then it would still have net negative value, but continue to operate.
Normally I would have sympathy but if you post on HN then I have trouble taking it seriously that you can’t figure this out. How could it possibly be any more obvious?
I'm sorry but you lost me here. If I stall my BTC's in a wallet on an exchange, they remain BTC's?
Also I have a feeling that you're not getting my point. It is the selling/buying of BTC's for USD at the BTC exchanges that determines the official BTC/USD rate. Sure you can also exchange them for something else (if the exchange lets you), but this will not affect the BTC/USD rate.
So if on an your exchange you're unable to withdraw your BTC's, you can't sell them, which means you're unable to affect the BTC/USD rate: I.E. BTC price will not go down.
There is a huge subset of bitcoin TrueBelievers™ who regularly buy bitcoin with their local fiat with no intent of ever selling it back for fiat, but instead wait and invest elsewhere in expanding the network of people and institutions who will accept it directly for goods and services, e.g. El Salvador.
Most of these people are ready for a very long winter and a longer game on the order of decades.
If everyone kept their own wallets, bitcoins value would tank to pre-2017 numbers.
The point is, I never need to buy fiat (what you call withdrawing)
And where are you that most counterparties accept BTC? El Salvador?
No, last week was the time to get out. By the time everyone knows it's time to get out, it's already to late.