Are cryptocurrencies the future? Why haven't you bought

File: chrome_2017-05-20_21-02-13.png (897KB, 580x803px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 580x803px

I recently sold 10 BTC for $2500 each to to put in a mutual fund.

>>60737844
no, they're a bubble

cryptos are a meme
bound to pop eventually

>>60737926
Pathetic

>>60737844
I was mining LTC in 2013 and made like $300 after all the conversions
it's just a ponzi scheme and a meme

>>60737844
currently hodling 150 bucks worth of ether

>>60737965
What's so pathetic about that, i acquired a whole bunch of coins back in 2009 that i forgot about for years.
It's not like i would actually buy any now.

File: well4.png (224KB, 718x540px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 718x540px

For small transactions on the internet? Definitely. For serious finance? Not by a long shot. For same reason we're not using gold standard anymore.

Eventually, exchanges start doing fractional banking (like mtgox did), and you end up with 1929 bank run - the real gold in the vaults won't match the amount of paper gold on the order book.

"Why deposits, we can just decentralize exchanges blablabla" yeah, like people were trying to do that for 5 years now, nothing came out of it. Because for that to work, you'd need to move *everything* to blockchain. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

It is possible to design cryptocurrency matching elastic money supply (effectively IOUs), but it would lose "get rich quick" ponzi property which drives Bitcoin speculative value in the first place. You'd need some sort of other backing than that (governments? social networks?).

>>60737844
The fact that posts like these are popping up in normie forums and social networks is a sign of the bubble pop.

>>60738126
>For small transactions on the internet? Definitely.
Currently, a bitcoin transaction takes up from several hours to several days to pull off and costs more than a credit card transaction, so it's completely unusable for small transactions on the internet.

>>60738245
Confirms on next block for me, every time. Just pay the market fee (200k sat), cheap nigger.

>>60738245
he could have meant $100 of weed by small

Crypto currency was supposed to be like poker chips, you take your cash, buy your chips, do some borderline illegal stuff with them, then cash them back out.

They were not meant to be investments, but jut a means of exchange for drugs on the internet and other similar shit. It should not matter if a bitcoin is 10 dollars or 5000dollars. Just that someone will take it and mail you drugs and that you both agree on the exchange rate.

it's investing in them that's a bubble and meme

they have their use though

>>60738365
200k sat is like $5 in transaction fee for a "small" transaction, how is it supposed to compete with credit cards and paypal?

>>60737844
They're not the future because they're not scalable. BTC does what, 7 transactions/second? This is laughable. They're not the future because the traditional system already does everything they do better. So why would you use them?

>>60738400
>it's investing in them that's a bubble and meme

Unfortunately the ponzi structure openly invites "investment" (seriously, niggers, its called speculation. investments actually do have non-meta fundamentals).

>>60738245
>>60738375

The Bitcoin TX cost is a minor technical detail, it can be stretched in either direction as a tradeoff vs blockchain size.

However indeed "small" transactions doesn't mean "micro" transactions. Small as in small purchases, $100 to $1000.

>>60738043

you'd make more money holding on to the BTC than putting them in a fucking mutual fund.
Even fucking low-cost index funds would've been a better investment. mutual funds are for suckers

>>60738409
>200k sat is like $5 in transaction fee for a "small" transaction, how is it supposed to compete with credit cards and paypal?

Because you can't by weed and oxycontin off the darknet with mastercard or paypal

>>60738446
>So why would you use them?
to purchase illegal items from the darknet markets

>>60738488
Didn't they start using Monero on darknet

>>60738488
There are completely legit things you can buy, yet paypal shrugs. Camwhores, for example. I have no idea why paypal discriminates this noble profession.

>>60738453
>Unfortunately the ponzi structure openly invites "investment" (seriously, niggers, its called speculation. investments actually do have non-meta fundamentals).

The problem is it costs so much in electricity to mine a bitcoin now

that's part of where the "value" comes from, were the cost of power not an issue i doubt there would be such a stupid bubble

>>60738488
So it's not "small transactions on the internet", it's actually "illegal transactions on the Internet".

>>60738519
exactly

>>60738515
The cart doesn't push the horse. Mining always follows the market, never the opposite. There's simply no co-relation you can draw with price and jumps in hash rate - hash rate *always* follows the price.

>>60738542
How could bitcoin keep going if it cost $1000 in electricity to mine a $100 bitcoin?

>>60738556

The cart (hashrate) goes almost as fast as the horse (price).

It always costs $1000 in electricity and hardware to mine $1000 worth of bitcoin (plus a razor thin margin for people to bother mining).

Look, mining activity follows demand for the token, not demand for the mining. The horse and cart are connected, right, but the connection is one-way. The cart got brakes, but can't got faster than the horse goes.

It actually doesn't matter what provides scarcity to match demand - PoS or proofs of erasure work equally well for this (but not as good for byzantine generals problem).

>>60738637
If the costs to the people mining the bitcoins in power were not so high, don't you think the price of the bitcoins would go down

If I want to buy drugs on the internet and it's costing the guy who makes the currency I use to buy the internet drugs an arm an a leg in electricity that means if I want my drugs I am going to have to pay a premium based on nothing but how much power the guy has to use to make a bitcoin.

As a drug buyer I get utility out of this and am willing to pay for the service but all things being equal they could have made more bitcoins mineable with less computational power could they not have?

>>60737844
Stop trying to sell your bitcoins to use before it crashs

just accept all your magic internet money will disappear and you will be poor

the chinese will ruin it for sure

>>60739145
Actually, yeah.
One of the former big bitcoin devs are like "most of our currency is horded up by some chinese, distorting the market"

>>60737844
It is the future. It's just not the current ones. Theres a lot to evolve in cryptocurrencies and they cant evolve, there can only be new evolved ones.