Find Out Why Institutions Will Flood the Bitcoin Market
As originally written via CoinLive: (improved reading experience) Back in 2017, the blockchain industry experienced an unprecedented interest which ended in what is often referred in financial terms as “irrational exuberance”, with a large portion of the rally led by retail-type investors flooding the market to ultimately chase prices at illogically hefty levels based on the infancy stage of the technological advancements and its implementations. That rise was too fast too quick and eventually, in early January 2018, the bubble-like move came to an abrupt end. The question now is, what will it take for another sustainable bull run to materialize? At CoinLive, we will inspect the key missing pieces of the puzzle. In this article, we will investigate the ever-growing list of evidence that shows why a new type of investors, the institutional ones, looks set to enter the market in mass. The two critical impediments for the ‘smart money’ to have been on the sidelines are clearly identifiable. Firstly, it has to do with custodianship, in other words, having formal mechanisms that allow the safe storage of the asset. Secondly, the regulation around the crypto market must be clarified with clearer guidance. When it comes to the first missing piece of custodianship, the NY Times recently helped shed a light on where we are headed. The influential newspaper reported that ICE (Intercontinental Exchange), which is the parent company behind the NY Stock Exchange (NYSE), is working confidentially in the implementation of swap contracts for banks and large investors that will be settled with the physical delivery of Bitcoin. For ICE to even consider this idea it means that the problem of legal custodianship is being worked out so that the backing and security of Bitcoins by the NYSE will be in place. This will open the floodgates to a whole new market, where the King of cryptos and other digital assets down the road become available to a much wider and more influential customer base. We are certainly at a stage where institutions have recognized that Bitcoin is “too big to ignore”. What’s also important is that by using a swap contract, the trading of Bitcoins will be oversight under the existing regulatory framework of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, hence less regulatory uncertainty. As a reminder, the CFTC is headed by J. Christopher Giancarlo, who is a proclaimed pro-blockchain endorser after his popular appearance in front of a U.S. Senate hearing on blockchain technology last February, where he famously said: “We owe it to this generation to respect their interest in this new technology.” Moreover, earlier this year, Boston-based State Street, the world’s second-largest custody bank with around £24tn in assets under custody and administration, came out to announce that safeguarding clients' digital assets could be a service they are looking to provide a solution in the near future. If confirmed, it would represent a major move as it sets a precedent as the first global bank to provide custodianship services for crypto-related investments. While Bitcoin is not serving its initially intended purpose as a widely used method of payments (for now), it has found another appeal as a store of value that is uncorrelated to any other asset class, hence it has an exceptional use as a hedging strategy for multi-billion dollar portfolios to help reduce the overall volatility. Other stories strengthening the notion of institutional capital set to come into the cryptoverse include the news that Goldman Sachs will be trading futures contracts linked to Bitcoin’s price as an initial step, only to gradually transition into a more direct trading of buying and selling actual Bitcoins. Find our recent article where we explain why Goldman Sachs trading Bitcoin is such a big deal. Even the chief executive of Nasdaq, Adena Friedman, recently said considerations were being given to set up a virtual-currency exchange should the needed regulatory framework be resolved. Additionally, we have seen a growing trend of senior-level executives at institutional firms flocking off the safety of their well-established positions to venture into blockchain-related jobs. We include a few articles with evidence below: Goldman Sachs Executives are Moving to Cryptocurrency Hedge Funds Mike Novogratz Makes Goldman VP the COO of His Crypto Company Coinbase Hires Ex-Barclays Director to Expand Its Institutional Client Base Commonwealth Bank CFO to Lead Block.one as President and COO The migration in job positions from traditional financial markets into blockchain comes as no surprise and quite frankly, it appears to be a logical and rational step to be taken, especially in light of the new revenue streams the blockchain sector has to offer. Proof of that is the fact that Binance, a crypto exchange with around 200 employees and less than 1 year of operations has overcome Deutsche Bank, which has more than 100,000 employees and over 150 years of history, in total profits. What this communicates is that the opportunities to grow an institution’s revenue stream is formidable once they decide to integrate cryptocurrencies into their business models. Another piece of the puzzle, even if occurring behind closed doors, is the consideration to launch a Bitcoin ETF. Back in April, it was reported that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has put back on the table two Bitcoin ETF proposals, according to public documents. The agency is under formal proceedings to approve a rule change that would allow NYSE Arca to list two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) proposed by fund provider ProShares. The introduction of an ETF would make Bitcoin available to a much wider share of market participants, with the ability to directly buy the asset at the click of a button, essentially simplifying the current complexity that involves having to deal with all the cumbersome steps currently in place. More evidence of the emergence of institutions playing a more dominant role in the blockchain industry is the unprecedented interest to amass Bitcoins in the OTC (Over the Counter Market). We perceive this trend as directly linked store Bitcoin as a store of value. This article by Bloomberg should give you a taste of what's happening behind the scenes: The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10 Billion of Bitcoin in Bunkers. As ConLive recently tweeted: "Our network of Insiders telling us between 5000-10.000 BTC are being sold every week OTC by Chinese BTC miners to Israeli buyers - Wall Street type - as they look to accumulate a big hand in BTC. “ !(https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/868/content_2018-05-15_0957.png) Lastly, one of the most critical missing piece is the subject of global regulations. Back in March, Mark Carney, the head of Bank of England and the chief of the Financial Stability Board of G20 stated that “crypto-assets do not pose risks to global financial stability at this time.” That caused a temporary relief in the crypto sphere as the risk of a regulatory backlash was removed for the time being until July, the month when more clarity will be provided. The chair of the Argentina Central Bank, Federico Sturzenegger, on his role of sitting the G20 summit, said that members showed a unifying view on the need of cryptocurrencies to be supported by a more sound regulatory framework. The policy-maker, however, made it clear that they first need to examine the cryptocurrencies universe to gather the necessary data before proposing regulations. “In July we have to offer very concrete, very specific recommendations on, not ‘what do we regulate?’ but ‘what is the data we need?” Sturzenegger said. To sum up, the improvements in custodianship solutions, along with more clarity by the G20 committee, which is set to provide less uncertainty for institutional investors’ involvement, is a recipe for a renewed bull wave, this time of institutional capital, to shake up the crypto space. At CoinLive, we will not venture into the timing, as that is quite irresponsible trying to pretend we have a "crystal ball" to determine when moves will occur. We just simply look at the big picture and try to connect the dots by first breaking down the latest developments to then draw some conclusions. Never forget, markets should always be approached as a numbers' game, and while nothing is certain, we just attempt to envision and inform on scenarios with the highest likelihood.
“Bitcoin enables certain uses that are very unique. I think it offers possibilities that no other currency allows. For example the ability to spend a coin that only occurs when two separate parties agree to spend the coin; with a third party that couldn’t run away with the coin itself.” – Pieter Wui (66 points, 14 comments)
I know, it’s not fair. But since we are all suffering because of what is going on and people’s kids are sitting around in cages, I’m not gonna feel that bad if the South suffers with us. They can bear the burden of their shit decisions.
That's why the Republicans will make sure the US famers don't even notice. They're bring back a depression-era program to subsidize the farmers hurt during the trade war. This should hold over the rural republican voters until the midterm or even the presidential election. They'll just use tax dollars to pay for farmers being hurt by the trade war as long as they keep voting republican.
You are arguing semantics. If I demand your money (for prection, of course), and that is backed by the threat of violence, that's stealing. You don't want to call taxes stealing, because the entity doing the stealing also writes the law that defines what is legally theft. (Note: I think taxes for thepublic good and the threat of punishment for failure to pay are both necessary... But let's not try and pretend it's not stealing.)
That’s so silly. You get a return on your investment in the government. Some people get a shittier return than others, sure. But everyone benefits from the programs that taxes provide. Calling it stealing is silly.
You have a very optimistic view on government. 51% of the population votes in people to then take away everything some other subset of the population has. This isn't stealing? (Note: this has happened in multiple counties, and this article is talking about a WAY waterered down version of this)
Everything? That’s a bit hyperbolic wouldn’t you say? If people don’t participate in voting is that somehow the other people’s fault? I understand government is inefficient, I don’t like the way all of it is spent for sure. But that doesn’t make taxes stealing.
Ahh I see what you mean. I see you’ve turned a representative democracy into “stealing other people’s shit” “Shit” costs money. Government provides services. If you don’t want to live in a state that provides government services there are a few available to move to. Isn’t that a lot of the right-wing’s arguments? Don’t like how things are done: move. There are checks and balances for a reason. Nobody’s coming for more than your fair share. You may disagree on what your fair share is, so I suggest voting. It’s never going to be 0, and above 0 isn’t stealing.
and how that is simply not what was intended by founding fathers/constitution. Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority...
Cue routine response that the nation was supposed to be a union of coequal, sovereign states, not a republic where we collectively choose our leaders. So in that model a rural state with 1% of the population of CA would be equal in power to CA. There is no way rural states are going to willingly give up the disproportionate power they have. They're going to take any effort to have their votes count the same as other citizens as them being disenfranchised.
Hyperbole aside the Legislative system is designed to specifically give disproportionate power to states with smaller populations. Tyranny of the majority is a real concern when we think about political balance of power.
1: Promise farmers and coal miners that you are their president and will fight for them. 2: Start a trade war that directly damages the farmers and coal miners 3: Use tax dollars to subsidize your inability to make any meaningful policy to fulfill your promise to the farmers and coal miners. 4: Get millions of votes from farmers and coal miners. This is the world we live in.
Sure, but the current issue has more to do with the parts the Constitution left unaddressed rather than vice versa. Also, a tyranny of the minority can be overcome or contained, tyranny of the majority is rather absolute.
nd how that is simply not what was intended by founding fathers/constitution.
What? That was the exact intention of the founding fathers, that even little states the rest of the country considers backwater would be able to have a say: that's literally the point of the electoral college.
It's not only that though, the Senate cuts down on the power of Gerrymandering. You can't cut up a state so that it's Senate representation is wildly unlike it's demographic. However the problem with that is then you get crazy things like North Dakota having the same representation as California in the Senate. I think the real problem is the fact that Democracy is too much work for most people who live in the modern world. "Government of the People" requires The People to do the actual work of governing, and in our case they have totally abandoned their duties.
You are equating having your vote count the same as mine as living under a tyranny. There is no system where rural states don't have disproportionate power that wouldn't count as a tyranny to them. Rural states aren't worried about balance of power, rather they're worried about preserving their disproportionate power. "Balance" for them is not between the citizens of our country (that they count as 'tyranny') but between states, as if they are sovereign and independent coequal entities. A model under which a state with 1% the population of CA would still have equal sway over the laws of the nation. You didn't rebut anything I said, merely reiterate it.
> You are equating having your vote count the same as mine as living under a tyranny. There is no system where rural states don't have disproportionate power that wouldn't count as a tyranny to them. Rural states aren't worried about balance of power, rather they're worried about preserving their disproportionate power. Rural states have disproportionate power by design. Which is a good thing. For a long time this country was under the tyranny of the majority, so the concern over minority power is very real. The issue here isn't that minority groups shouldn't be have disproportionate political power, but rather that the majority cannot effectively wield theirs. This is due to technology and lack of campaign finance regulations, not because rural states have too much power. > "Balance" for them is not between the citizens of our country (that they count as 'tyranny') but between states, as if they are sovereign and independent coequal entities. A model under which a state with 1% the population of CA would still have equal sway over the laws of the nation. You didn't rebut anything I said, merely reiterate it. I did rebut what you said, you're insinuating that rural states having disproportionate power is a bad thing. It's not, they should fight to keep the current design of the government. That's necessary to prevent large and powerful states from unilaterally dictating the course of the country. That's something that's been in place by design since the inception of this country. You're attributing the current political climate to the wrong cause.
The most significant example of the tyranny of the minority is slavery, which took over two centuries to dismantle and still affects us to this day. The article you linked has less to do with what we are currently discussing and more to do with the concentration of power in the hands of a smaller powerful group of people. That issue applies to all states equally, be they rural or the Californias and Texases of the Union.
I think the key here is that the constitution was written with the 13 colonies in mind. I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that we would end up with 50 states spanning both oceans, so I think we have a far greater disparity than they ever imagined we would.
I'm much less concerned with what the Founding Fathers than with whether something is practical or not. The Founding Fathers designed an excellent system for their time and the philosophy guiding their design was very forward thinking. I don't think that rural states are in the wrong for trying to push their interests nor do I think that the manner in which they do so is insidious. The same tools after all, are available to all states. I think the far bigger issues are the things that the Founders didn't address. I don't think they realized just how much special interests could affect politics. The political class was fairly small at the time and the political system of the first four Presidents pales in complexity when compared to the late 20th and 21st century. I think that there are far too few rules concerning how we elect our leaders and far too few rules concerning money in politics.
No, that was the point of the Senate. The impact slavery had on the electoral college is undeniable -- the south would not accept one-person, one-vote (and obviously wouldn't let blacks vote), and hence the vile 3/5ths compromise and the need for a system other than popular vote for the presidency. And likewise gerrymandering of the House has become a perversion. Layering the impact on the judicial branch by virtue of the appointment process, and we have minority of population being able to control all the branches of government... that is not what was intended. Pick up the July 14 edition of the Economist if you can -- link to most the relevant article below if have subscription or otherwise able to access. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats
Honestly, it’s because Democrats have a hard time describing their position. If they pick up the argument that we can’t pay for these things, Republicans will agree and ask to slash government spending across the board. That hurts Democrats politically (weakening public sector union workforce) and electorally (constituents everywhere have services reduced). This is a downward cycle as the country begins to lose faith in government and the idea that “government is the problem” spreads leading to more cuts in the future. Democrats need to get aggressive and actually play the game by “holding possession.” This means sayin we’d be happy to provide subsidies for hurting farmers, but first you have to pay for X. That could be healthcare, education, infrastructure, or whatever.
Hey all! GoodShibe here! So, yesterday I started putting this thing together and WOW did you come out in droves to help! Thank you so much for sharing your ideas and memories. And thank you kindly to the mods for stickying that post! In one day we reached 60% completion on a list of top 100 Memories and Achievements of Dogecoin! That's amazing! So many fantastic memories and accomplishments! Which leads me to share some developments. The title of this endeavor is now - unless someone comes up with something better: Such Memories: The First 100 Days of Dogecoin I'm going to be putting this together as a 100-ish paged commemorative book - for free in PDF, probably with some cost as a fancy, printed book (Sold as close to 'at cost' as I can get it -- slipstream- has recommended selling it at a small profit, with profits going toward charities or Dogecoin Foundation for charities, etc - thoughts?). Artists, if you've got Dogecoin-themed artwork you want to see in this, please, put forward some links to hi-res CMYK copies and I'll do my best to fit it in. Also! Let's find the funniest, best Dogecoin-related memes that we have put together so far and include them as well! :D) We're also going to need a cover. Any artists out there care to try their hand at designing a cover for this? We'll put it to the community to vote for the one they like the most, and we'll include the others in the book somewhere :D) If you're an artist who submits to the project, you'll get full credit and promotion for your site inside the book (probably in a credits section at the back). I also want to hear from the community - think up some interesting stories, maybe what got you into Dogecoin. What your fondest memories of Dogecoin are. These first 100 days have been an exciting rollercoaster of adventure... let's make that we never forget all the fun memories we've had together. If you have personal, fun pictures you'd like to share, fun, personal stories you want to see get into the book, then start working on them now, put them into the comments, keep them on hand!. Here's the list that I have right now - in no particular order: MOMENTS/ACHIEVEMENTS:
ummjackson's first 'joke' on Twitter about Dogecoin being 'the next big thing'
The original bitcointalk Dogecoin forum page
The first Dogecoin paperwallet design
Save Dogemas is put together by the community, to help out victims of the hack. (News articles?)
15 Million doge raised by the community to save dogemas
TOTAL: 100/100 Also: I was thinking we might have a pour-one-out for all the Orphans - a page dedicated to all the blocks we lost along the way... thoughts? What have I missed?! Let me know in the comments! It's 8:29AM EST and we're at 53.95% of DOGEs found. Our Global Hashrate is spiking from ~61 to ~98 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is down slightly from ~1024 to ~1014. Lots of fantastic things in store, let's keep this list growing! As always, I appreciate your support! GoodShibe TL;DR: 100/100!!!
with crypto in congress thought i should run? what do you all think? enough to get in?
First, I am a noob, but am hoping to keep this straight forward. I'm a very middle of the road vanilla person who isn't really interested in much but am very passionate about bitcoin and crypto currency. With the US Senate hearings this week I thought we need more pro-crypto folks up in Washington. It looks like the seat for congress is open where I live and I'm considering running. However, I don't really have any other desire for any other platform than to advance crypto currency into the main stream. My question for the community is, is this enough? I"m not a programmer or a developer, I sold dell computers in 2010 when i first heard about bitcoin from an intern and told him i'd rather buy WOW gold as I was eating 1 pop tart packet a day to have money to pay bills lol. Fast forward to 2018 I've watched every video from the Princeton Lecture Series on Crypto, read Andreas's books, convineced friends and family to buy eth and btc, and even started alt trading. My initial thoughts are that as I live in a more rural area that has seen towns rise and fall with both the industrial revolution and railroads that I could utilize this as the main hook for "outsiders" who don't yet get the space. Adopting a similar platform that northern Nevada and Canada have taken to attract miners and overall open the community to the landscape of Crypto. I could utilize this to reduce regulations and increase incentives in my district to then offer the hope that with this, jobs and innovation would ideally result in the future. However I'm just reaching out to the community to see if this platform is really enough and if it is what else I need to brush up on to actually do this and win. Here's looking at ya'll....let me know.
Hello, I summarized what I could find out about Bitcoin for my convenience, thought you might find it useful.
First introduced in 2008, Bitcoin is the first example of a peer-to-peer cryptographic currency. In Bitcoin; • Computers solve randomly created equations, whose difficulty automatically adjusts so that they are solved to the tune of one every ten minutes, regardless of processing power. • Difficulty of these equations is set to adjust every 2016 blocks, or two weeks. So after significant advances in mining technology (Such as Asic miners) up to two weeks of Bitcoins might be mined in a significantly shorter period of time. • Through solving these equations “Blocks” are created, which encode all new transactions, and impart a set number of Bitcoins to the solver. • The number of Bitcoins rewarded per block is set to halve every 210,000 blocks or approximately every four years. • The current Block reward of Bitcoins is 25 Bitcoins, the reward has been halved once so far. The next halving is set to occur in late 2016. • This reward structure means that assuming the value of Bitcoins continues to rise, while the total number of new Bitcoins minted yearly may continue to fall, their value might not. • The total number of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million units, the last of which is expected to be minted in the year 2140 AD. Regarding Bitcoin; • Bitcoins are sub-divisible up to the eighth decimal place, although this limit may easily be removed if the value of Bitcoins rises to the point of requiring it. • This smallest unit (0.00000001 Bitcoins) is currently called a Satoshi, and should cover most needs until valuations of more than a million USD, at which point a Satoshi would be worth 1 us penny. • The number of possible Bitcoin addresses is 2160 as each address is a 160 byte hash of a public key Benefits of Bitcoins; • Bitcoin allows near instant transactions with no required cost, although speeds can be expedited through a reward of approximately 1-5 US cents (0.0001-0.0005 BTC currently) attached to the transaction for the first miner who verifies it. • This is quite useful for merchants as methods of payment such as credit cards or paypal generally have high fees of up to 3%. • Wallets can be generated at will, without need of any form of credentials or verification. • Transactions are unblockable so long as the sending party has access to an internet connection. • Bitcoin Funds do not exist in any specific country (unlike regular money which even when in digital form must exist in some country) but exists on the internet, and hence essentially in all countries at once. • Lack of inflation, Bitcoin is designed to prevent any third party from being able to artificially increase the supply of Bitcoins, although minor predetermined inflation will occur through mining until approximately the year 2140. • Irreversibility of transactions, A Bitcoin transaction confirmed once is essentially irreversible from the sender’s side, reversing transactions before the first confirmation, meanwhile, is possible, but highly difficult, and only useable with goods which are dispatched instantly such as internet downloads. • Ease of movement, Bitcoin is one of the first means of Capital which is essentially perfectly mobile, as owners of Bitcoin can easily transfer funds(in Bitcoin) over any regional/political boundaries. History of Bitcoins; Intro; Bitcoin is currently one of the world’s most volatile currencies, and although the average price of a Bitcoin has been rising continuously when looked at from a yearly point of view, it has several times crashed and lost up to 68 percent of its value over a relatively short period of time. • This is commonly attributed to Bitcoins similarity to both economic bubbles in the seventeenth century, and the advent of the tcp/ip(internet) protocol in the more recent past. • After each bubble the total viability of Bitcoin as a currency grew as more people gained Bitcoins, became aware of Bitcoins, as more businesses started accepting Bitcoins, and as more services grew around Bitcoins. Crashes; • The first crash in Bitcoins value was in June2011 when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 32 USD to a low of 2 USD. • The second crash occurred approximately seven months later in January 2012 when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 7.20 USD to a low of 4.6 USD , eventually settling at around 6.23 USD • The third crash occurred another seven months later in August 2012, when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 15.25 USD to a low of 7.5 USD. • Two mini crashes occurred approximately another seven months later in March 2013, when Bitcoins price twice fell from a high of 49 USD to a low of around 34 USD, Bitcoin ended the month on a high note however at above 90 USD. • The fourth crash occurred a month after these two mini-crashes in April 2013 when Bitcoins Price fell from a high of 266 USD to a low of approximately 54 USD, before settling at a price of around 100 USD around which value it remained until early October 2013 • In early October 2013 the price of Bitcoin once again began to rise, reaching a six month high of approximately 200 USD by the end of the month. Rises in Price continued in November, where the news concerning Bitcoins senate hearing briefly propelled Bitcoins to values of over 1000 usd, before a price correction to approximately 500 USD from where it has since been rising to a current value of approximately 700 USD. Limits/Criticisms of Bitcoin;
• Bitcoin currently has a transaction limit of 7 per second, due a 1mb per block restriction on Block size, created to prevent block chain bloat. This is quite low compared to Visa’s average of 2000 transactions per second. Bitcoin is currently, however, only averaging one transaction per second, and it is expected that the limit will be removed long before the average number of Bitcoin transactions reaches this point.
• Bitcoins relatively unstable value renders it unsuitable for merchants or as a store of value.
• Supporters of Bitcoin claim that this this relative instability of value only exists as Bitcoin is currently in its introductory stage, and that these fluctuations in value will reach usual levels when Bitcoin approaches it’s true valuation.(estimates of this range from 10 thousand USD per Bitcoin to 1 Million USD per Bitcoin) • Supporters also point out that services such as Bitpay allow merchants accept Bitcoin while distancing themselves from its risks, as through these services they link the items price in Bitcoins to the conversion rate between Bitcoin and a chosen currency, and through this get paid in their chosen currency, despite accepting Bitcoin.
• Bitcoins once lost are irretrievable. If a Bitcoin key is lost, or the Bitcoins are sent to an inactive or non-existent address there is no recourse by which to re-obtain those Bitcoins.
• Ease of duplicating the Bitcoin code. Although it is impossible to generate fake Bitcoins, critics point out that there is nothing to stop the generation of new and improved versions of Bitcoin, as has already occurred through coins such as Namecoin, or Peercoin.
• Supporters point out several issues with this • The First school of thought says that Bitcoin has several advantages over altcoins, such as having the greatest amount of services and developers, which form a barrier to success for other crypto currencies. They also point out that Bitcoins great sub-divisibility renders any need for alternate crypto currencies moot, and that if a notable improvement does come out, bitcoin can just build it into their own code.(see colored coins/mastercoin/zerocoin) • The second school of thought claims that although Alternate coins debuted early enough with significant differences from Bitcoin(see Peercoin, Namecoin, Zerocoin, Primecoin) might manage to capture a portion of the crypto coin market, Bitcoins will remain the most prominent Crypto currency for the foreseeable future.
• Governments/Big banks will not allow Bitcoin to succeed.
• Supporters argue against this point on several fronts claiming; • Firstly that although some governments might decide to outlaw Bitcoin, or some Big businesses might try to stop it, Crypto currency is a new technology whose time has come and the most such actions will be able to do is to stall/delay the success of Bitcoin, and in the process lose any business generated by Bitcoin. • Secondly that it would be very difficult to legally stop Bitcoin, as laws outlawing Bitcoin leave several avenues open for lawsuits, and although it might be possible to hinder Bitcoin through inefficient legislation/red tape this would be against a countries best interests, due to potential growth offered by upcoming Bitcoin industries. edit; some formatting issues occured in the last line, the numbers should go 1 2 3 4 5 6... rather than 1 2 1 2 1 2 The dots and explanation only apply the one point(number) above them not both.
Senator hearing on how to tax Bitcoin. Want to hear your thoughts, how can you do it?
So one of my relatives is an tax attorney for the US Senate and there is a relatively small Senate hearing coming up regarding how to ensure people pay their taxes when using Bitcoins. So I want to hear your thoughts to make some recommendation to him, how can you do it? My thoughts: geolocation on both the sender and receiver's side and require merchants to register their wallet addresses? Maybe even geolocation for miners or require them to register their machines and locations in order to make geolocation of transactions possible? How much of a problem is Tor? I imagine that you won't have both sender and receiver using it. The reason for this geolocation is you could implement something along the lines of the FairTax built right into the coin, where every transaction has a small percentage taken by the government? You could still allow transactions to remain anonymous via some kind of mixing, but the government would get it's cut. And I know making taxes easy is unpopular and crypto currencies have so much to offer but you know that if we don't find a solution, the government could shut us down. Senator Joe Manchin is already doing what he can in that regard.
The truth about MtGox will come out and charges will be laid.
Some big banks will reverse their anti-bitcoin stance and will accept accounts denominated in Bitcoin, though only for high value customers like major businesses and such.
Kinda nailed it? Banks certainly are on the doorstep of doing stuff like this, Ukraine etc. and "blockchain" technology certainly is big right now. I may have been a little early though.
Bitpay, Coinbase, Circle or one of the other big, yet reputable Bitcoin processors will get bought out/acquired, signalling that big players are finally moving into Bitcoin adoption in a very serious way.
No dice, seems that these little piggy banks are not ripe enough for acquisition just yet....
Bitlicense, for all it's negative press and dislkie by Bitcoin users, will usher in a surge of new investment in the Bitcoin space. A number of other states and a few other countries will also pass, or be crafting legislation so that Bitcoin commerce has a solid legal framework for companies to operate around. Some will be absurd, but some will not be as bad (none will be glowingly positive though).
Sorry guys, dropped the ball on this one. My prediction is bad, and I should feel bad. Though the sliver lining is that countries and states are definitely building legal frameworks to accommodate Bitcoin, and other cryptos so it wasn't a totally bad prediction, just the bitlicense bit.
The ETF will sit on the tarmac for almost the whole year before it suddenly and unexpectedly gets the green light late in 2015.
sigh... On the upside GBTC is going swimmingly and at least the Winklevii have their Gemini exchange up and going. God knows when their etf is ever going to fly though.
Australia will do nothing about the ATO's ruling on Bitcoin and will remain a backwater for Bitcoin businesses, even though Bitcoin use by Australians will increase....
...The ATO will start pursuing people that conduct business in Bitcoin without declaring tax as tax evaders and will waste money and resources pursuing individuals/businesses that don't disclose Bitcoin commerce or retain the double GST for Bitcoin related sales. Ironically the cause of this this will be the result of their own idiotic rulings in the previous year. The ATO will be left red faced, and some Australian politicians will begin to craft legislation to recategorise Bitcoin as a currency, as it should have been originally.
Ok that didn't quite happen AFAIK there's been no crackdown, but I do remember that senate hearings or meetings were in place to legislate the legality of Bitcoin as a currency. I guess time will tell.
The Usability Front:
Trezor will be accessible and ubiquitous among nearly every major Bitcoin wallet, both desktop, web, and mobile. And a number of other new hardware wallets will have hit the market, though Trezor will still be the stand out must have security item in 2015. Satoshi Labs will also release a more compact and more feature rich hardware wallet towards the end of the year.
Still not there, but the number of other hardware wallets has definitely increased substantially, with even more on the horizon so here's hoping that next year we'll see ubiquitous and universal compatibility among more hardware wallets.
The Core software Front:
Sidechains proof of concept will be in the wild, and the attention will be massive, though there will be lots of arguing among bitcoiners over decentralisation, fork related issues, stability, security, etc. This year will be very much an embryonic year for sidechains where many problems are thrashed out and refinements will occur, in anticipation for a final stable release, though no direct action will be taken to fork so that sidechains will be possible, there will be a massive concentration of effort on sidechain development in 2015.
If only, sidechains was not the star this year, and we all know why too...
Gavin, and the other core developers will announce a desire for a hard fork, which will set a schedule for raising the transaction and max block size limit, as well as other fork related improvements. Others will try to hijack the fork announcement to also get their own pet hard fork changes in and it will take months for the arguing to die down before people become convinced that controversial changes simply aren't going to get into the fork if it happens. Miners will already be positioning for a fork by the time the discussion dies down and most will already be indicating their acceptance, which will be implemented in 2016.
FYI, there was absolutely ZERO noise about the block increase when I made this prediction, so I'm going to say that I nailed the specifics, but I obviously was NOT prepared for monumental clusterfuck shitfest that Blockstream, Core and their little cliquey circle was going to unleash onto the general community. Nor did I anticipate how the miners would reel in horror at what should have been fairly straightforward upgrade that even now, seems quite rational and acceptable. It's obvious now that there was a huge amount of hidden resentment and resistance to any block increase by many devs and other members in the community, so in retrospect the years of stalling makes far more sense now. At the very least I'm just glad their true colors are out in the open for everyone to see, rather than hidden behind excuses, lies, and half truths.
Other likely developments:
Lighthouse and Open Bazaar will make big news as they start to draw away ebay and kickstarter users, but will also make news for all the wrong reasons as the media demonises the platforms as being simply an evolution of the Silk Road.
Another missed opportunity. At least OB is still going strong and hasn't fizzled like some other projects. Keep up the great work Open Bazaar devs!
Western Union and the big CC companies will still pretend that Bitcoin isn't happening, but there will be obvious signs of them repositioning to push back against Bitcoin users.
Nailed it. :) For people that don't agree, all I have to say is this, "blockchain technology" ;).
2015 is finally going to see bail-ins for at least 2 large countries and 3 or more will have entered major recessions this year. One or two countries will hit hyperinflation and their currencies won't be traded by years end. Even in light of this, most people will still not buy Bitcoins and it will still be seen as a geek thing, so many less savy people will still be avoiding Bitcoins for all the wrong reasons.
I guess I far too optimistic :), looks like these dinosaurs still have some fight in them left. Though Europe and the Greek crisis did almost happen, so I only just narrowly missed calling a huge financial catastrophe this year. Doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, just not this year I guess.
And finally, price:
I reckon if most of the thing's I mentioned above come to pass, I wouldn't be surprised at the price rising to $3850 USD at the most extreme, and It will happen in August. But will quickly fall back to $2300 USD by the end of the year.
Goddamnit. Oh well, I guess it's understandable now that the blocksize issue has been completely blown out of proportion and turned the entire ecosystem on it's head.
All in all I think I did pretty damn well considering. I reckon if the move to increase the blocksize had gone according to BIP101, we would have seen a far more positive end of year though. The controversy has almost certainly taken the wind out of the innovation sails so to speak as it's clear in my predictions that I expected things to have moved along far more than it has.
Bitcoin hit new highs on Monday, as the Senate held its first hearing on the controversial virtual currency. The currency topped $700 on the MT Gox exchange, where it is traded, as the Senate ... Bitcoin; US Senate Committee Approves the Blockchain Promotion Act. By. admin - July 12, 2019. 123. 0. Facebook. Twitter. Google+. Pinterest. WhatsApp. The United States Senate committee of commerce, science and transportation approved the Blockchain Promotion Act on Tuesday, tech news outlet CNET reports on July 11. The bill, published by the outlet, moves the U.S. closer to a blockchain ... After the US Senate Pros and Cons on Digital Money — What Do We Do With It? The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly accelerated the digitalization of economies across the globe, opening up discussions on the future of digital financial services and whether our economy should advocate for the financial inclusion of Bitcoin ( BTC ) and other digital assets. The value of the virtual currency Bitcoin soared after a US Senate committee hearing where virtual currencies were described as "legitimate financial services". The US Senate has recently listened to ‘Dr. Doom’ Nouriel Roubini, who’s a well-known cryptocurrency skeptic, and to Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at CoinCenter and well-known cryptocurrency proponent. Dr. Doom Nouriel Roubini kicked off the hearing.
Senate Hearing on Facebook's Proposed Cryptocurrency ...
Andreas M. Antonopoulos educates Senate of Canada about Bitcoin (Oct 8, ENG) - Duration: 1:52:47. ... Senate Hearing on Digital Currencies - Bitcoin - November 18, 2013 - Round 1, Part 1 ... Senate Hearing on Facebook's Proposed Cryptocurrency ... What is Bitcoin Mining? (In Plain English) - Duration: 16:01. 99Bitcoins 515,011 views. 16:01. US Govt tells Facebook: "Libra must stop ... The Bitcoin Group #174 - Senate Hearing - Dow Drops - Coinbase Segwit - Bitcoin meets InfoWars World Crypto Network. Loading... Unsubscribe from World Crypto Network? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working ... In this video, I start talking about how the US senate is having hearings on Digital Currencies. I personally believe this will help push Bitcoin's price along further. What is BitCoin: http ... The Senate Banking Committee, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo testify on capitol hill. The Original ...