This ^^^

I think the case can still be made that BTC is a hedge against inflation and money printing and NOT so much a hedge against stocks, etc.

Mike Maloney points out in his latest video how Gold fell with all markets back in 2008, but then decoupled and outperformed stocks through the following few year. Given that this crash and government overreaction seems to already be much worse, it's likely that metals and cryptos will massively benefit once all that newly printed fiat is circulated. I'm not sure what the lag time will be though.

The banned dude has been posting about this decline:

https://busy.org/@anonymint/re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20181115t203603758z

He rebuked Craig Wright:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/craig-isnt-smart-enough-to-have-been-satoshi-and-he-knows-damn-well-that-satoshi-wasn-t-a-person-6d2f1b543576

Yes, well you get credit for distribution! 

I see Shelby responded to you at the bottom of his post:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-heavyd-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-to-usd15k-in-march-usd8-5k-by-june-then-usd30-k-by-q1-2019-20180819t141422240z

Very interesting stuff guys. I see Shelby edited his Steemit post and he now considers two alternative possibilities:

1. Bottoming now with new ATHs in 2019. That was his original idea of a possible repeat of the mid-2013 correction. In this case altcoins would not crater.

2. Down to $4600ish now, followed by either #1 above or his other scenario.

Note he apparently made those edits before @infofront’s tantalizing post in this thread.


He states in the post that the altcoins going to near 0 in 2019 is contingent on the scenario of the bottom not coming until late 2019 or early 2020. In that case, altcoins would continue to decline more than Bitcoin, on every renewed decline of Bitcoin. Altcoins have lost so much ground relative to BTC since the peak in 2017. That would continue if the bottom will not be until more than a year from now.

Whereas, if @infofront’s scenario is the outcome which Shelby also mentioned as the alternative scenario in his post, then altcoins would rise also. Whether altcoins would rise more than BTC and regain their lost ground is not certain. He offered the declining spreads model as a reason they may not, but he also questions that declining spread model as possibly being a backward looking metric.

However, I think he is implying that even if the ATH is coming in 2019 then in that scenario we are not currently in a 2014/15 cryptowinter, and that most altcoins will be a wasteland in the next crypto winter that follows the 2019 ATH. Again refer to @infofront’s excellent and tantalizing chart to visualize that alternative scenario.

This is such an important point!

I fear you're more or less correct. Ayn Rand's philosophy may be an example, no?

I also am not sure we can let women off the hook here. They are absolutely to blame for the way things have gone. They are responsible for choosing the fathers of their children and I'm not willing to let them off that easy. In fact I'd say that women have been extremely sheltered from any scrutiny and it's part of the reason they've become so messed up. There is no ostracism for women being whores these days. In fact it's called "slut shaming" to do so. We need to be very careful that we don't absolve women from blame. With great power, comes great responsibility. Playing white knight and only blaming ourselves (men) only helps promote their destruction. Not saying that is what you're doing, but it's something we really need to be careful of.

We need strong women, but not in this 21st century, "independent woman" bullshit type of way. We need strong women that are capable of fulfilling their roles in the marriage/family equation and not treated like little fragile, princesses. If only women could take pride in their reproductive gift and see how their finite eggs can't just be given out to fucking dirtbag, abusive assholes and liberal voting cucks. sigh. Women have been duped into thinking they have nothing of value to offer if they can't keep up to men physically and intellectually, which is beyond sad and depressing. Both sexes need to start taking pride, full responsibility and recognizing what they are by nature and stop being so fucking scared and manipulated into thinking it's somehow sexist and wrong to acknowledge reality. Maybe women are more susceptible to this sort of manipulation, but then why are 21st century men so fucking pathetic too?

A few thoughts:

The inability to move freely out of cryptos without paying taxes could be argued as beneficial to crytpos and the speculative network effect I think. The case can be made that it's actually giving this industry a huge boost. Trace Mayer talks about the 7 network effect he's identified and speculation being a primary one. If people are unwilling to hold them, then they are effectively not valuing them, thus nobody will accept them for service, etc., etc. Capital gains tax and hopeful speculation about how they will be treated (taxed) in the future incentivizes holding, which boosts value, which boosts acceptance, etc.

This instance with Russia could be the direction that others follow or maybe not. Russia providing an outlet in a legal way (requiring paper trail) does seem smart. The article also says:
13% punishent for not showing paper trail is also not too bad. I really think a lot of people are going to have a tough time proving a paper trail at this point, although I guess it depends on what they require. For instance, a friend of mine was asked by an exchange recently to provide proof of when their BTC was purchased (5 years ago!). Many were bought with cash, and many were bought on an exchange what is now shutdown and there are no records. Is that money permanently trapped in the eco-system? Well I suppose it could be exchanged for crypto-rubles for 13% fee. So again, smart move by Russia maybe. I also think personally that private deals might become more common if this paper trail hassle become too great.

As far as anon-coins being illegal, can you elaborate on why you view this differently than Cryptos in general. What I mean is that Armstrong argues against BTC saying the elites simply won't allow it. You're rebuttal was that they can't shutdown Cryptos without shutting down the Internet (at least I hope I'm not misrepresenting correct me if i'm wrong). However, on the other hand you seem to be saying that Anon-coins will be banned and users jailed and consequently they won't be a viable solution as we'd all hoped.

My thought is that this won't be a closed case for a while. I'd speculate that in fact Anon-coins will be huge. We need to remember that probably the vast majority of "dirty" money out there is likely that which governments and and politicians have had their hands on. Of course what they do is exempt collectively, but many elites individually hold tons of money in offshore accounts and launder it in various ways. I highly doubt that the elites will accept the same transparency that they want to force on the under class. So for that reason they actually need anon-coins and that will be the future of money laundering and their new off-shore bank account. Currently it's a bit of hassle to set up offshore accounts, obtain 2nd passports, etc., but with anon-coins, even the average joe will be able to hide money very cheaply and effectively, so again, I see Cryptos being a huge challenge for the elites who want to say one thing and practice another.

Anybody know when this service is launching? I am in need of financing and really want to try this out!

I cringe when I see somebody ask the question without first defining the term "Capitalism".
 
First, tell us how you define Capitalism because otherwise you will get a hundred answers, none of which may even be addressing the same idea.

I'll answer your questions using what I consider to be the traditional definition, from Dictionary.com

CAPITALISM - "Also called free enterprise, private enterprise. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions"

So the distinction that needs to be made is whether you are referring to a free market system (purely private property) or a mixed socialist economy (where the government intervenes when it sees fit). The essence of Government is being a monopoly on the use of force. In other words, if you don't comply, men with guns will eventually kidnap you and throw you in a cage. When the Government pokes its finger into the natural, voluntary, free movement of individual exchange, it is much the same as stepping on an Ant hill or maybe burning down part of a forest ecosystem. People will simply route around the inefficiency e.g. black markets.

If you define Capitalism as what you see in most Western countries today, than you won't agree with me. For the sake of argument and simplicity though, I think it makes sense to view the Economy as an ecosystem or natural order composed of Billions of actors working independently, yet also cooperatively through free exchange. The saying, "Live and let live" really sums it up well I think. The people that seek to intervene, manipulate and control the economy are extremely arrogant, economic illiterates who probably do not even have their own lives or families sorted out yet, most likely due to their own uncertainties, fears and lack of moral compass, they wish to impose their will on through the power of state legislation instead of leading by example.



There will always be rich and poor. Dominant or weak. Free markets will not create a utopia where everyone is equal, however they will give everyone the best chance.

Government exacerbates the problems you've highlighted because the rich and corrupt simply capture it and use legislation to make themselves richer. It's the collective delusion that state power is legitimate, which gives these sociopaths the opportunity to control us. Why do you think Bill Gates can't just create mandates and expect people to obey? Because he has no coercive authority! Microsoft is nobody, but call yourself a Government and now you have legitimacy in the eyes of the slaves. In fact, Slaves will beg you to increase your power because they believe it's moral and legitimate.

In a free market, entrepreneurs must necessarily provide value to many people in order to become wealthy. They need to persuade you to buy their products. Unrestricted competition keeps their greed in check.

In socialism, government claims they need to forcibly intervene to keep business in check. In other words, people (government) claim that using coercive power is sometimes necessary because the market is inherently flawed. Once you go down the road of excusing violence, you never come back!

So in my opinion, Free Market Capitalism is not flawed, nor is it a "system" that has been imposed. It is simply the natural order or an ecosystem composed of billions of individual actors, exchanging voluntarily. When somebody violates your private property by using physical force or fraud, then they should be punished obviously, but we don't do that by granting a complete and total monopoly on that "justice system" to a government. If we do, then the question is, who will regulate the regulators? Who will investigate the investigators?

Crony Capitalism, Crapitalism or Socialism are the terms I would give to the corrupt systems we currently have in the West. If you want to define Capitalism this way, than I would completely agree with you that it's very flawed.

If you truly believe this, than you clearly don't understand Cryptocurrency.

Anyone else think OP is a fucking idiot? 

Although I don't really want this to happen because it may negatively affect BTC price, I almost hope BTC forks into two competing solutions. One with SegWit /Lightning and one as Bitcoin Unlimited or something along the lines of what Craig Wright is talking about. I simply have no idea what to believe anymore and I'm not sure anyone else know what the best solution is until we see them compete side by side for a number of years.

Well it is true that anyone can fire up a new Shitcoin on a whim, but just because you can easily create a new currency doesn't guarantee it will have value or take market share from Bitcoin.

I think a reasonable analogy would be to ask if creating a new corporation and listing it on a stock exchange would hurt other publicly traded companies. To a certain degree, yes some investors may choose to buy your stock over another stock, but the reason they buy it is because they believe the company is providing value or will provide value in the future.

In the case of Cryptos, they are going to need to be innovative or provide a unique use case in order for people to value them in the long term. Short term we really have no way of knowing outside of pure speculation and we may not know if something has a long term purpose for years. ETH at this point is still pretty much 100% hype and promises. At least BTC has an 8 year history of being a rock solid, immutable store of value.

I would also add that if we had 10,000 alt-coins right now, it's doubtful the other 9000 would have much, if any MCap. There are simply not enough use cases and having 10,000 potential options is just spreading way too thin. Chances are that most of the wealth would remain in the top 100 with everything else just being excessively illiquid.

According to a friend, he sent some ETH and received a specific number of EOS.

You can see their calculation here: https://www.eos.io/instructions

Number of EOS to purchaser = A * (B / C)

A = Number of ETH you contributed
B = Number of EOS allotted to current distribution round
C = Total number of ETH contributed in current distribution round



(Let's just assume ETH is $200 USD for the sake of simplicity and that total ETH contributed for period is 200,000. Actual amount is here: https://etherscan.io/address/0xd0a6E6C54DbC68Db5db3A091B171A77407Ff7ccf)


So for example if I want to contribute 10 ETH ($2000 USD) then we'd go 10 * (200,000,000/200,000). I'd receive 10,000 EOS, which means I'd be paying $.20 USD per EOS


Let's say I buy tomorrow instead and at that point they've raised 400,000 in ETH

So, 10 * (200,000,000 / 400,000) = 5000 EOS , which means at current ETH price I'd be paying $.40 per EOS


I'm not that good at Math.

Can somebody please explain what this means? How do we determine the total number of EOS distributed at any give time relative to the 200,000,000 for this period? They don't say that on the website (yet).

Also, it would seem that every day that goes by, as more ETH are contributed and assuming the price of ETH is the same, then I'd receive less EOS for my ETH? What? Can somebody please make sense of this? Thanks!

ETH will be dead from too many rollbacks, scams, ICOs. ETC will become the more trustworthy token.

Yep I think I'm out too. Page loaded for me finally, then clicked on "Get EOS" and that page won't load. What a joke!

$4 Million in the first 20 min. Talk about hype!

https://ibb.co/drKDq5

Lol so, "let's fork ZCash because we don't like the 20% founders reward... oh wait we need some money to continue development cause who would work for free?"

For fuck sake.

Why not ZClassic? It's like Zen without the unnecessary extras.

As others are saying, don't worry too much about it.

If you were to move out of BTC temporarily though, please for the love of God, do not look at ETH as some sort of safe-haven!

ETH may have value, dont' get me wrong, but it is not a store of value or currency. It's a highly speculative token on a DApps platform, that has already shown it's untrustworthy as fuck. Please read about the DAO incident if you haven't.

On top of that, if you're worried about BTC taking a big hit over scaling fears, how are you not concerned with ETH taking a bit hit since it's gone up 40X in the past few months?

If you're looking to the preserve your wealth in USD terms, the only coin right now worth sitting in for a while would be LTC. Right now it is very stable relatively speaking.