I noticed that with each day BTC dominance is lower and lower. This is incredible but psychological barrier of 100K$ is so huge. No one wants to buy at that price so everyone go for alts. Interesting thing will happend after it will crush that barrier maybe at 105K$. I guess for some time it will suck entire alt market like a black hole and after this we have true alt season

E

Is this group a bitcoin cash sub masquerading as a bitcoin sub? Seems that the large majority of the posts are about Bitcoin cash or other shit coins.

Inspired by other discussion on this sub. My question, for serious responders:

BTC folks claim it must be a store of value first, then later it can become a medium of exchange.

They claim that BCH is trying to go about it the wrong way, by wanting to start as a medium of exchange.

So, what is stopping BTC from becoming useful as a medium of exchange, like BCH?

Isn't BTC already a store of value, so now it's high time to move on to becoming a medium of exchange?

In 2017, Steam answered this question (for themselves, and at that time) by saying "high fees and volatility in the value of Bitcoin".

For those interested in the longer version:

In the past few months we've seen an increase in the volatility in the value of Bitcoin and a significant increase in the fees to process transactions on the Bitcoin network. For example, transaction fees that are charged to the customer by the Bitcoin network have skyrocketed this year, topping out at close to $20 a transaction last week (compared to roughly $0.20 when we initially enabled Bitcoin). Unfortunately, Valve has no control over the amount of the fee. These fees result in unreasonably high costs for purchasing games when paying with Bitcoin. The high transaction fees cause even greater problems when the value of Bitcoin itself drops dramatically.

Historically, the value of Bitcoin has been volatile, but the degree of volatility has become extreme in the last few months, losing as much as 25% in value over a period of days. This creates a problem for customers trying to purchase games with Bitcoin. When checking out on Steam, a customer will transfer x amount of Bitcoin for the cost of the game, plus y amount of Bitcoin to cover the transaction fee charged by the Bitcoin network. The value of Bitcoin is only guaranteed for a certain period of time so if the transaction doesn’t complete within that window of time, then the amount of Bitcoin needed to cover the transaction can change. The amount it can change has been increasing recently to a point where it can be significantly different.

The normal resolution for this is to either refund the original payment to the user, or ask the user to transfer additional funds to cover the remaining balance. In both these cases, the user is hit with the Bitcoin network transaction fee again. This year, we’ve seen increasing number of customers get into this state. With the transaction fee being so high right now, it is not feasible to refund or ask the customer to transfer the missing balance (which itself runs the risk of underpayment again, depending on how much the value of Bitcoin changes while the Bitcoin network processes the additional transfer).

At this point, it has become untenable to support Bitcoin as a payment option. We may re-evaluate whether Bitcoin makes sense for us and for the Steam community at a later date.

I'll keep this simple: They can only get an IOU.

Anything else would not be economical.

A real economy is a BCH.

To the downvote brigade:

You can fool all the people part of the time, or you can fool some people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time.

It’s fairly clear that someone is manipulating the crypto markets to swing it. Even Bitcoin which was said to not easily be manipulated.

I’m out. Enjoy the rug pull. I’ll see you again at 53k

Newbie here I’m curious where I can learn more about BCH and what’s to stop price manipulation and the price of BCH going to $10,000+ based on speculation with wild swings that encourages people to just sit on it as an asset instead of using it as intended?

"Introduced" to the public on Reddit by disposable proxy low karma new account Current-Injury-5447 on r/AMA thread:

https://np.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1h2h07v/i_am_satoshi_nakamotos_bodyguard_the_creator_of/

Caught my attention via this post in r/btc here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/1h2mr8j/thoughts/

As I noted in that thread, the AMA post was [removed] by r/AMA moderators after comments doubting the story started multiplying.

This was the reason displayed on the post:

Your post was removed because it is most likely or is a fake story. If this is incorrect, you can message the mods through modmail to get the post approved.

The post seems to since have been restored, without a public comment by the mods that I could find.

Why am I making this long post? Because the AMA contained an announcement of a further release of info around Xmas. They will keep pushing something. Real Satoshi if alive would not publish some new tech under the Satoshi identity without real signature proof, if he wanted to take a stance against all existing blockchain tech.

Let's have a brief look at the AMA narrative:

This one's story one ticks all the Tony Stark patriotic boxes.

Lone inventor, genius, disappointed with all of crypto but still working on the thing which should replace it all.

Disagrees with original Satoshi on:

• open source needed
• blockchain is no longer the answer, but some yet unreleased miracle tech which isn't going to be open source
• "Changing the block size made sense on the technical level but would kill public confidence in the network once the public understood anything could be changed" - the second portion of this btw is a long time Core narrative

Further

• claims that SN left a signed Twitter message which hasn't been seen by many, but when challenged to link to it, refuses to do so
• grants that "the Satoshi 'email' during the block wars that tipped things in favor of small blocks wasn’t me" - as if we didn't know it was fake from the incomplete email headers
• claims BCH made an "ethically poor choice" in allegedly "doubling the supply to legacy wallets and transactions instead of creating a new genesis block and new supply" - doesn't discuss how a new supply would be problematic because disenfranchises existing holders instead of acting like a share split
• claims "one faction lost the block size wars" and big blockers should've "accepted that decision and let it go" -- while there was no clear "decision" when BCH split - and a permissionless blockchain cannot be stopped once it is going. If anything the market is still weighing the outcome today and will continue to do so in the future...
• "Bitcoin cash created a market cap that they weren’t entitled to by using the existing blockchain which is ethically questionable" - seems more like a Max Keiser narrative. Bitcoin is permissionless, long term holders were dissatisfied with the non-scaling (obvious sabotage at that point), and it would be ethically questionable not to fight the takeover by what the random anon account claims to be in line with the historical records of "Hijacking Bitcoin".
• "They should have made a new product and a new genesis block with a completely different name" -- we are to believe that this Satoshi sat on the sidelines and could post a signed message to Twitter but couldn't put forth his opinion on the fork prior to it or immediately after it happened, or get in touch with the big blockers to let him know how he felt about it. /s
• "The quest for monetary gain and power goes against everything I stand for." - this is another common BTC maxi / Core narrative against Bitcoin Cash, that it was done out of some ulterior and dirty motive to profit. People should really read "Hijacking Bitcoin" instead of believing these tales.

When invited to publish cryptographic proof, either via the old Twitter message (probably non-existent or a feint from some other key not conclusively linked to SN) or to post a new signed message with some believable credentials on r/btc or elsewhere, the proxy account pulls a Craig Wright like response:

You, and everyone else will likely find a way to say an original cryptographic signature is somehow “not real”

If there were the real SN behind this, they wouldn't put out such a lame excuse.

Claims we have a Christmas day whitepaper release to look forward to, about the new non-blockchain miracle tech.

So watch out. Fake shit probably incoming.

"Do not trust, verify." Keep asking for proof, keep asking hard questions.

This has all the markings of a new anti-"crypto", but here's-my-proprietary-new-financial system campaign.

You know who would like to see that happen.

Those whose real incentive is 180 degrees from working peer to peer electronic cash that is out there today.

Those who have been pouring billions into fighting it on every front.

Hope everyone can stand together, for a decentralized, open financial system based on sound electronic cash, and against deception.

What is the consensus on the best cold storage wallet?

And additional, VERY, important question:

Is it possible that someone with ill intent, say a company, could install/add some sort of software/thing to the actual cold storage before it is sent out to me, in a way that they could hack and retrieve all BTC / ETH, through a switch? Or through activating whatever they installed? As you may notice, not the most familiar atm, but i am hopeful you get the direction I’m coming from with the question.

Hope it is okay to talk about this here. I think it is relevant because it shows that market cap isn't everything.

Anyway, I was investigating old POW coins and discovered a coin with huge discrepancy between market cap and liquidity. Usually when liquidity dries up, price and market cap plummets.

Mooncoin has around 230 Billion with a market cap of $222 million. Yet it only has two exchanges. Coingecko doesn't even list it. CMC shows next to nothing about it.

The first exchange is Finexbox which is a scam exchange. Even that only has just over $60 liquidity on sells before zero price is reached.

The second exchange is Cointopay with a total sell depth of just under 94 Dogecoin or about $40.

This is it. You could own 1% of all the Mooncoin (supposedly worth $2.22 million), but would be unable to get more than $100 selling any portion of it.

I have seen much healthier coins with market caps under a $million.

I find this situation fascinating and would appreciate any observations on this coin or similar POW coins (I have zero interest in tokens) that are in a similar situation.

What will we see for the 2025 high? And why?

View Poll

Once BTC reaches $100K, it is likely to drop by 20% for a couple of weeks before doubling in price.