So much for the anonymity of Bitcoin

[I Shrugged]

I certainly don't know enough about it, but if I had to place a bet, I'd take the other side of those glowing predictions.

[bitcoininthevp]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/22/221 ... te-wallets

Don't say I didn't warn you...

Some things missing from this thread that I think are important:

- Bitcoin was never anonymous. Its pseudonymous since you can see bitcoins being transferred between "addresses"
- The regulation applies only to transactions related to centralized US exchanges-type entities
- The regulation doesn’t say you cannot withdraw to an address you own, simply reporting requirements/KYC for exchanges where you are already KYC'd anyways
- Bitcoin users are still able to transact without any reporting requirements (wrt to this rule) outside of exchanges (other legislation not withstanding)

Im not a fan of these or other regulations, but to make this out as some sort of AH-HAH gotcha is misplaced, as seen by the fact BTC is up $5000 since this news.

For those commenting on the run up/bubble/etc, ... you are not ready for 6 figure bitcoin yet. But I think 2021 is.

[Ugly_Bird]

Who on Earth is buying bitcoin at these prices that's what I want to know.

I do not want to know and I do not care.
Ask the same question sometime next year when they will buy for +100k :-)

[dualstow]

I make a distinction but I'd rather everyone get to share their thoughts in the marketplace of ideas as long as they aren't calling for violence. Otherwise the censorship camel gets his nose under the tent and bad things happen after that.

I should mention that it wasn't about censorship so much as cutting off funding, and they (DailyStormer) most definitely call for violence. (I have visited the site and similar sites personally).

Above, bitcoininthevp points out that bitcoin is pseudoanonymous. I'd like to explore that sometime. First, I should probably reread old threads about bitcoin and Silk Road-type websites, and then reread the new Verge piece and bitcoinandthevp's clarification.

[SomeDude]

I should mention that it wasn't about censorship so much as cutting off funding, and they (DailyStormer) most definitely call for violence. (I have visited the site and similar sites personally).

I had never heard of the Daily Stormer until this year. Not advocating anything said there but i will say this is literally from an article posted today about mandatory vaccines being forced on us:

"I'm totally against violence, as a matter of principle, and anyone who has read this site over the last nearly 8 years knows that this has been a consistent position of mine"

Bitcoin $31k sweet baby Jesus.

[ochotona]

Bitcoin $31k sweet baby Jesus.

The selling program starts at $100k for me

[Ugly_Bird]

Bitcoin $31k sweet baby Jesus.

The selling program starts at $100k for me

I think me too. Though a little tempting to be more greedy. :-)
Most likely there will be further craziness' before it crashes 70-80%

[doodle]

Like it or not, Bitcoin is to some degree holding gold back at this point.

[SomeDude]

Like it or not, Bitcoin is to some degree holding gold back at this point.

Bitcoin's market cap is about $600BN compared to Gold's 10TR.

Some of the bitcoin money would have been used to bid up gold no doubt. Some would have gone to silver, some in stocks, and other places also.

The current buyers who have exploded the market cap by double in a few months are not buying for a safe haven, they buying lotto tickets. They would not be gold buyers.

I think its effect on the gold price is very low. Its not anything like a perfect substitute. Bitcoin compared to gold is not like pepsi vs coke but more like prune juice to coke. Its a drinkable liquid but only a small crossover in the participants.

[ochotona]

I never understood the appeal of prune juice

[SomeDude]

I never understood the appeal of prune juice

Unclog the pipes

[ochotona]

Prune juice is to prunes

as a

Variable annuity indexed to the S&P500 is to the SPY ETF

[bitcoininthevp]

Like it or not, Bitcoin is to some degree holding gold back at this point.

The current buyers who have exploded the market cap by double in a few months are not buying for a safe haven, they buying lotto tickets. They would not be gold buyers.

This is an unsubstantiated claim.

In fact nearly every fund/company/HNWI that has purchased in the last months has publicly extolled the store of value or inflation hedge aspects of bitcoin and cited that as the reason. Perhaps all of these public companies and high profile individuals are completely lying, or perhaps there is value in a digital asset with a limited supply.

This sort of comment seems quite goal-post-moving. Along the lines "But CME would never list BTC futures!", "But no fortune 500 companies would keep their treasury in BTC!", "Youll never see someone like Paul Tudor Jones investing in BTC!", "But those hedge funds are investing billions $$$ in bitcoin for the wrong reasons!" Feels very:

[SomeDude]

Gold went up 2% today, about 200BN in market cap. That's 1/3 of the market cap of bitcoin.

They are very different markets with different participants.

[ochotona]

Historically, BTC and Gold aren't correlated. GBTC and GLD 13% correlation. Remember - things happen in the markets then the news media makes up a story to "explain" what just happened. It's no different here. Gold has been correcting because it needed to. BTC took off because it needed to. The stats say they aren't correlated... it could change, but looking at day-to-day data over a short period of time doesn't prove anything really.