Bitcoin price history chart since 2009 5yearcharts

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN
Bitcoin Table of contents expand: 1. What is Bitcoin? 2. Understanding Bitcoin 3. How Bitcoin Works 4. What's a Bitcoin Worth? 5. How Bitcoin Began 6. Who Invented Bitcoin? 7. Before Satoshi 8. Why Is Satoshi Anonymous? 9. The Suspects 10. Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven? 11. Receiving Bitcoins As Payment 12. Working For Bitcoins 13. Bitcoin From Interest Payments 14. Bitcoins From Gambling 15. Investing in Bitcoins 16. Risks of Bitcoin Investing 17. Bitcoin Regulatory Risk 18. Security Risk of Bitcoins 19. Insurance Risk 20. Risk of Bitcoin Fraud 21. Market Risk 22. Bitcoin's Tax Risk What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a digital currency created in January 2009. It follows the ideas set out in a white paper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity is yet to be verified. Bitcoin offers the promise of lower transaction fees than traditional online payment mechanisms and is operated by a decentralized authority, unlike government-issued currencies.
There are no physical bitcoins, only balances kept on a public ledger in the cloud, that – along with all Bitcoin transactions – is verified by a massive amount of computing power. Bitcoins are not issued or backed by any banks or governments, nor are individual bitcoins valuable as a commodity. Despite it not being legal tender, Bitcoin charts high on popularity, and has triggered the launch of other virtual currencies collectively referred to as Altcoins.
Understanding Bitcoin Bitcoin is a type of cryptocurrency: Balances are kept using public and private "keys," which are long strings of numbers and letters linked through the mathematical encryption algorithm that was used to create them. The public key (comparable to a bank account number) serves as the address which is published to the world and to which others may send bitcoins. The private key (comparable to an ATM PIN) is meant to be a guarded secret and only used to authorize Bitcoin transmissions. Style notes: According to the official Bitcoin Foundation, the word "Bitcoin" is capitalized in the context of referring to the entity or concept, whereas "bitcoin" is written in the lower case when referring to a quantity of the currency (e.g. "I traded 20 bitcoin") or the units themselves. The plural form can be either "bitcoin" or "bitcoins."
How Bitcoin Works Bitcoin is one of the first digital currencies to use peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments. The independent individuals and companies who own the governing computing power and participate in the Bitcoin network, also known as "miners," are motivated by rewards (the release of new bitcoin) and transaction fees paid in bitcoin. These miners can be thought of as the decentralized authority enforcing the credibility of the Bitcoin network. New bitcoin is being released to the miners at a fixed, but periodically declining rate, such that the total supply of bitcoins approaches 21 million. One bitcoin is divisible to eight decimal places (100 millionths of one bitcoin), and this smallest unit is referred to as a Satoshi. If necessary, and if the participating miners accept the change, Bitcoin could eventually be made divisible to even more decimal places. Bitcoin mining is the process through which bitcoins are released to come into circulation. Basically, it involves solving a computationally difficult puzzle to discover a new block, which is added to the blockchain and receiving a reward in the form of a few bitcoins. The block reward was 50 new bitcoins in 2009; it decreases every four years. As more and more bitcoins are created, the difficulty of the mining process – that is, the amount of computing power involved – increases. The mining difficulty began at 1.0 with Bitcoin's debut back in 2009; at the end of the year, it was only 1.18. As of February 2019, the mining difficulty is over 6.06 billion. Once, an ordinary desktop computer sufficed for the mining process; now, to combat the difficulty level, miners must use faster hardware like Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC), more advanced processing units like Graphic Processing Units (GPUs), etc.
What's a Bitcoin Worth? In 2017 alone, the price of Bitcoin rose from a little under $1,000 at the beginning of the year to close to $19,000, ending the year more than 1,400% higher. Bitcoin's price is also quite dependent on the size of its mining network since the larger the network is, the more difficult – and thus more costly – it is to produce new bitcoins. As a result, the price of bitcoin has to increase as its cost of production also rises. The Bitcoin mining network's aggregate power has more than tripled over the past twelve months.
How Bitcoin Began
Aug. 18, 2008: The domain name bitcoin.org is registered. Today, at least, this domain is "WhoisGuard Protected," meaning the identity of the person who registered it is not public information.
Oct. 31, 2008: Someone using the name Satoshi Nakamoto makes an announcement on The Cryptography Mailing list at metzdowd.com: "I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. The paper is available at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf." This link leads to the now-famous white paper published on bitcoin.org entitled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." This paper would become the Magna Carta for how Bitcoin operates today.
Jan. 3, 2009: The first Bitcoin block is mined, Block 0. This is also known as the "genesis block" and contains the text: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks," perhaps as proof that the block was mined on or after that date, and perhaps also as relevant political commentary.
Jan. 8, 2009: The first version of the Bitcoin software is announced on The Cryptography Mailing list.
Jan. 9, 2009: Block 1 is mined, and Bitcoin mining commences in earnest.
Who Invented Bitcoin?
No one knows. Not conclusively, at any rate. Satoshi Nakamoto is the name associated with the person or group of people who released the original Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and worked on the original Bitcoin software that was released in 2009. The Bitcoin protocol requires users to enter a birthday upon signup, and we know that an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto registered and put down April 5 as a birth date. And that's about it.
Before Satoshi
Though it is tempting to believe the media's spin that Satoshi Nakamoto is a solitary, quixotic genius who created Bitcoin out of thin air, such innovations do not happen in a vacuum. All major scientific discoveries, no matter how original-seeming, were built on previously existing research. There are precursors to Bitcoin: Adam Back’s Hashcash, invented in 1997, and subsequently Wei Dai’s b-money, Nick Szabo’s bit gold and Hal Finney’s Reusable Proof of Work. The Bitcoin white paper itself cites Hashcash and b-money, as well as various other works spanning several research fields.
Why Is Satoshi Anonymous?
There are two primary motivations for keeping Bitcoin's inventor keeping his or her or their identity secret. One is privacy. As Bitcoin has gained in popularity – becoming something of a worldwide phenomenon – Satoshi Nakamoto would likely garner a lot of attention from the media and from governments.
The other reason is safety. Looking at 2009 alone, 32,489 blocks were mined; at the then-reward rate of 50 BTC per block, the total payout in 2009 was 1,624,500 BTC, which at today’s prices is over $900 million. One may conclude that only Satoshi and perhaps a few other people were mining through 2009 and that they possess a majority of that $900 million worth of BTC. Someone in possession of that much BTC could become a target of criminals, especially since bitcoins are less like stocks and more like cash, where the private keys needed to authorize spending could be printed out and literally kept under a mattress. While it's likely the inventor of Bitcoin would take precautions to make any extortion-induced transfers traceable, remaining anonymous is a good way for Satoshi to limit exposure.
The Suspects
Numerous people have been suggested as possible Satoshi Nakamoto by major media outlets. Oct. 10, 2011, The New Yorker published an article speculating that Nakamoto might be Irish cryptography student Michael Clear or economic sociologist Vili Lehdonvirta. A day later, Fast Company suggested that Nakamoto could be a group of three people – Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry – who together appear on a patent related to secure communications that were filed two months before bitcoin.org was registered. A Vice article published in May 2013 added more suspects to the list, including Gavin Andresen, the Bitcoin project’s lead developer; Jed McCaleb, co-founder of now-defunct Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox; and famed Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.
In December 2013, Techcrunch published an interview with researcher Skye Grey who claimed textual analysis of published writings shows a link between Satoshi and bit-gold creator Nick Szabo. And perhaps most famously, in March 2014, Newsweek ran a cover article claiming that Satoshi is actually an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto – a 64-year-old Japanese-American engineer living in California. The list of suspects is long, and all the individuals deny being Satoshi.
Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven?
It would seem even early collaborators on the project don’t have verifiable proof of Satoshi’s identity. To reveal conclusively who Satoshi Nakamoto is, a definitive link would need to be made between his/her activity with Bitcoin and his/her identity. That could come in the form of linking the party behind the domain registration of bitcoin.org, email and forum accounts used by Satoshi Nakamoto, or ownership of some portion of the earliest mined bitcoins. Even though the bitcoins Satoshi likely possesses are traceable on the blockchain, it seems he/she has yet to cash them out in a way that reveals his/her identity. If Satoshi were to move his/her bitcoins to an exchange today, this might attract attention, but it seems unlikely that a well-funded and successful exchange would betray a customer's privacy.
Receiving Bitcoins As Payment
Bitcoins can be accepted as a means of payment for products sold or services provided. If you have a brick and mortar store, just display a sign saying “Bitcoin Accepted Here” and many of your customers may well take you up on it; the transactions can be handled with the requisite hardware terminal or wallet address through QR codes and touch screen apps. An online business can easily accept bitcoins by just adding this payment option to the others it offers, like credit cards, PayPal, etc. Online payments will require a Bitcoin merchant tool (an external processor like Coinbase or BitPay).
Working For Bitcoins
Those who are self-employed can get paid for a job in bitcoins. There are several websites/job boards which are dedicated to the digital currency:
Work For Bitcoin brings together work seekers and prospective employers through its websiteCoinality features jobs – freelance, part-time and full-time – that offer payment in bitcoins, as well as Dogecoin and LitecoinJobs4Bitcoins, part of reddit.comBitGigs
Bitcoin From Interest Payments
Another interesting way (literally) to earn bitcoins is by lending them out and being repaid in the currency. Lending can take three forms – direct lending to someone you know; through a website which facilitates peer-to-peer transactions, pairing borrowers and lenders; or depositing bitcoins in a virtual bank that offers a certain interest rate for Bitcoin accounts. Some such sites are Bitbond, BitLendingClub, and BTCjam. Obviously, you should do due diligence on any third-party site.
Bitcoins From Gambling
It’s possible to play at casinos that cater to Bitcoin aficionados, with options like online lotteries, jackpots, spread betting, and other games. Of course, the pros and cons and risks that apply to any sort of gambling and betting endeavors are in force here too.
Investing in Bitcoins
There are many Bitcoin supporters who believe that digital currency is the future. Those who endorse it are of the view that it facilitates a much faster, no-fee payment system for transactions across the globe. Although it is not itself any backed by any government or central bank, bitcoin can be exchanged for traditional currencies; in fact, its exchange rate against the dollar attracts potential investors and traders interested in currency plays. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for the growth of digital currencies like Bitcoin is that they can act as an alternative to national fiat money and traditional commodities like gold.
In March 2014, the IRS stated that all virtual currencies, including bitcoins, would be taxed as property rather than currency. Gains or losses from bitcoins held as capital will be realized as capital gains or losses, while bitcoins held as inventory will incur ordinary gains or losses.
Like any other asset, the principle of buying low and selling high applies to bitcoins. The most popular way of amassing the currency is through buying on a Bitcoin exchange, but there are many other ways to earn and own bitcoins. Here are a few options which Bitcoin enthusiasts can explore.
Risks of Bitcoin Investing
Though Bitcoin was not designed as a normal equity investment (no shares have been issued), some speculative investors were drawn to the digital money after it appreciated rapidly in May 2011 and again in November 2013. Thus, many people purchase bitcoin for its investment value rather than as a medium of exchange.
However, their lack of guaranteed value and digital nature means the purchase and use of bitcoins carries several inherent risks. Many investor alerts have been issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and other agencies.
The concept of a virtual currency is still novel and, compared to traditional investments, Bitcoin doesn't have much of a long-term track record or history of credibility to back it. With their increasing use, bitcoins are becoming less experimental every day, of course; still, after eight years, they (like all digital currencies) remain in a development phase, still evolving. "It is pretty much the highest-risk, highest-return investment that you can possibly make,” says Barry Silbert, CEO of Digital Currency Group, which builds and invests in Bitcoin and blockchain companies.
Bitcoin Regulatory Risk
Investing money into Bitcoin in any of its many guises is not for the risk-averse. Bitcoins are a rival to government currency and may be used for black market transactions, money laundering, illegal activities or tax evasion. As a result, governments may seek to regulate, restrict or ban the use and sale of bitcoins, and some already have. Others are coming up with various rules. For example, in 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services finalized regulations that would require companies dealing with the buy, sell, transfer or storage of bitcoins to record the identity of customers, have a compliance officer and maintain capital reserves. The transactions worth $10,000 or more will have to be recorded and reported.
Although more agencies will follow suit, issuing rules and guidelines, the lack of uniform regulations about bitcoins (and other virtual currency) raises questions over their longevity, liquidity, and universality.
Security Risk of Bitcoins
Bitcoin exchanges are entirely digital and, as with any virtual system, are at risk from hackers, malware and operational glitches. If a thief gains access to a Bitcoin owner's computer hard drive and steals his private encryption key, he could transfer the stolen Bitcoins to another account. (Users can prevent this only if bitcoins are stored on a computer which is not connected to the internet, or else by choosing to use a paper wallet – printing out the Bitcoin private keys and addresses, and not keeping them on a computer at all.) Hackers can also target Bitcoin exchanges, gaining access to thousands of accounts and digital wallets where bitcoins are stored. One especially notorious hacking incident took place in 2014, when Mt. Gox, a Bitcoin exchange in Japan, was forced to close down after millions of dollars worth of bitcoins were stolen.
This is particularly problematic once you remember that all Bitcoin transactions are permanent and irreversible. It's like dealing with cash: Any transaction carried out with bitcoins can only be reversed if the person who has received them refunds them. There is no third party or a payment processor, as in the case of a debit or credit card – hence, no source of protection or appeal if there is a problem.
Insurance Risk
Some investments are insured through the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Normal bank accounts are insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to a certain amount depending on the jurisdiction. Bitcoin exchanges and Bitcoin accounts are not insured by any type of federal or government program.
Risk of Bitcoin Fraud
While Bitcoin uses private key encryption to verify owners and register transactions, fraudsters and scammers may attempt to sell false bitcoins. For instance, in July 2013, the SEC brought legal action against an operator of a Bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme.
Market Risk
Like with any investment, Bitcoin values can fluctuate. Indeed, the value of the currency has seen wild swings in price over its short existence. Subject to high volume buying and selling on exchanges, it has a high sensitivity to “news." According to the CFPB, the price of bitcoins fell by 61% in a single day in 2013, while the one-day price drop in 2014 has been as big as 80%.
If fewer people begin to accept Bitcoin as a currency, these digital units may lose value and could become worthless. There is already plenty of competition, and though Bitcoin has a huge lead over the other 100-odd digital currencies that have sprung up, thanks to its brand recognition and venture capital money, a technological break-through in the form of a better virtual coin is always a threat.
Bitcoin's Tax Risk
As bitcoin is ineligible to be included in any tax-advantaged retirement accounts, there are no good, legal options to shield investments from taxation.
SPONSORED
Start with ¥3000 trading bonus
Trade forex and CFDs on stock indices, commodities, metals and energies with alicensed and regulated broker. For all clients who open their first real account, XM offers a¥3000 trading bonus to test the XM products and services without any initial deposit needed. Learn more about how you can trade from your PC and Mac, or from a variety of mobile devices.
Compare Investment Accounts
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
Satoshi
The satoshi is the smallest unit of the bitcoin cryptocurrency. It is named after Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the protocol used in block chains and the bitcoin cryptocurrency.
Chartalism Chartalism is a non-mainstream theory of money that emphasizes the impact of government policies and activities on the value of money.
Satoshi Nakamoto The name used by the unknown creator of the protocol used in the bitcoin cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto is closely-associated with blockchain technology.
Bitcoin Mining, Explained Breaking down everything you need to know about Bitcoin Mining, from Blockchain and Block Rewards to Proof-of-Work and Mining Pools.
Understanding Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited is a proposed upgrade to Bitcoin Core that allows larger block sizes. The upgrade is designed to improve transaction speed through scale.
Blockchain Explained
A guide to help you understand what blockchain is and how it can be used by industries. You've probably encountered a definition like this: “blockchain is a distributed, decentralized, public ledger." But blockchain is easier to understand than it sounds.
Top 6 Books to Learn About Bitcoin About UsAdvertiseContactPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseCareers Investopedia is part of the Dotdash publishing family.The Balance Lifewire TripSavvy The Spruceand more
By Satoshi Nakamoto
Read it once, go read other crypto stuff, read it again… keep doing this until the whole document makes sense. It’ll take a while, but you’ll get there. This is the original whitepaper introducing and explaining Bitcoin, and there’s really nothing better out there to understand on the subject.
“What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party

submitted by adrian_morrison to BlockchainNews [link] [comments]

Moon Math Update: Noob DCA Strategy -- Second Edition -- Vol. 8

https://www.moonmath.win
The noob DCA strategy is ongoing. Continue making your regularly scheduled, affordable, and responsible purchases using disposable income that you can afford to lose.
We have completed 83 days in the noob DCA and there are 158 days left for you to establish your first full position in Bitcoin.

Stability Confirmation

Low comments...
Quiet sub...
Weekly BBands still tightening...
Time to review the stability projections from June. This week marks 7 weeks since the stability projection was established. 7 weeks is the minimum period of time I had established to identify a historically stable period. This chart shows that we've managed to hold the price within a range that's consistent with past periods of stability.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/gZ3lgMZf/
We've also decisively broken out from the 2014 crash pattern.
Fuschia and lime projections look like the best match. Those projections also make it look like we're on track for a shorter period of stability... but both of those patterns maintained stability for 9 and 11 weeks, which appears to be a moderately long period of stability. If the pattern holds then we should see weekly bbands continue to contract.
Green and black projections are also compelling.

Log Projections

https://www.moonmath.win
The Moon Math site added two new projections to the homepage and improved the way the range is set on graphs so you can see the whole projection for all the bands. Projections extend out to 2021 now, too. Really, it's one projection with one chart zoomed in substantially closer. THey're presented as a sort of alternative view of azop 's original rainbow charts... which are still tracking at ~ 0.3 % CDPR daily.
A while ago I published a tradingview script that recreates the center yellow line here:
https://www.tradingview.com/script/GoAfLP25-Log-Projection-Orig/
I threw out some additional scripts that are related to this chart, too:
I haven't been able to figure out how to make projections like this using pinescript on TV. If anyone has a technique, I'd love to get my hands on that.
The log calculation originated here in 2014
You can check today's value for the yellow line by going here
The width of the bands on the log chart is determined using the same method that the exponential chart uses. It looks a little wonky, but I didn't want to spend time working out a more accurate calculation only to land on a nearly identical chart.
Good hunting.

Previous posts in this series

submitted by jarederaj to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

US Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses – by Michael Hudson • 23 July 2019

https://outline.com/VM2DEM • 5,400 Words •
Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control of their oil and financial sectors or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade agreements with European, Asian and other countries.
This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and import quotas illegal under WTO rules on “national security” grounds, claiming that the United States can do whatever it wants as the world’s “exceptional” nation. U.S. officials explain that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after 1991. (“You didn’t get it in writing,” was the U.S. response to the verbal agreements that were made.)
Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments, central bank and foreign diplomacy.
The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset. In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least war-damaged and held by far most of the world’s monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity with each other.
But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S. hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more dangerous military confrontation.
Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial, trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists. Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances from Europe to Asia.
We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other countries to “freeze in the dark” if they do not follow U.S. leadership.
To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change opens up that country’s oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors.
U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.”[1]
The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings, central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with which the United States is at economic or outright military war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how “the degeneration of the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.”[2] That is the trajectory on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank fraud crisis.
Those whose job it was to forecast events … were not ready for the depth of the crisis and turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it – were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world’s largest economies.
Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result, there was no avoiding a global crisis.[3]
That crisis is what is now causing today’s break in global trade and payments.
Warfare on many fronts, with Dollarization being the main arena
Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected. U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia and sponsored “color revolutions” from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and Israeli expansionism.
The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s Arbenz regime.
U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator. Claiming to promote “democracy,” U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American, and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign agriculture or industry as an “undemocratic” attack on “free markets,” meaning markets controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and banks.
A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today’s wave fleeing ISIS, Al Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the United States.
Dollarization as the vehicle for U.S. nationalism
The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world’s central banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world’s central bank reserves to settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S. rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official foreign debt.
The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold’s role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances.
The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya’s Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation’s international reserves on gold. His liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries.
Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S. Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S. Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens.
Trump is forcing other countries to create an alternative to the Dollar Standard
The fact that Donald Trump’s economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like.
There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1st century BC. It stripped its provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out. The U.S. economy is similar to Rome’s: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home.
What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America’s free global ride – is that Trump’s simplistic aim of lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to make U.S. exports more price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar’s exchange rate, he is demanding that China’s central bank and those of other countries stop supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.
This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far above those of other economics.
Trump’s infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force, making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now, because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology.
The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding, from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies.
Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military production. On the industrial front, it threatens to disrupt China and other mixed economies by imposing trade and financial sanctions.
The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country to be the world’s essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit.
To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar, and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1 lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy.
As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump’s accusation of China and other countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency’s dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency’s value rise would threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit the United States.
Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar’s declining value. The U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own floating tariffs against U.S. goods.
Trade dependency as an aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID
The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S. diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military force.
Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. “front” institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it “win.” U.S. trade policy through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors.[4] The financing is mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The resulting commercial and financial “interdependency” has led to a situation in which a sudden interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S. economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as “promoting growth and development.”
U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This ignores the fact that solving the domestic “budget problem” by taxing local revenue still faces the “transfer problem” of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF’s “stabilization” programs actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice.
IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short U.S. financial leash.
U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S. aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors.
chart hudson
There are alternatives, on many fronts
Militarily, today’s leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France’s example under Charles de Gaulle and withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly all democratic countries. (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and North Korea are exceptions.)
The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new profitable production.
Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S. exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control.
In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United States “has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new cases.”[5] In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks is “fair” trade.
An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming “national security” exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified “freedom gas” from the United States.
In the realm of development lending, China’s bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S. Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy.
To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create its own monetary system.
The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats.
Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today’s neoliberal doctrine counts financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to “real output” (GDP), but deems public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public infrastructure and other assets in the public domain.
Just as the “capacity to pay” principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today’s ability to pay debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF’s neoliberal principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other foreign creditors will impose global poverty.
The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. “exceptionalist” refusal to join any international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power requires an international court and its sponsoring organization.
Summary
The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin America in the 1950s. Today’s ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s.
Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected.
The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today’s warfare is fundamentally changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today’s world can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet’s Chile), but cannot occupy. It is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East.
U.S. ideologues view their nation’s coercive military expansion and political subversion and neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival.
The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier class and its clients, their debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs, money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg’s recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today’s world is between socialism and barbarism.
Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019.
Notes
[1] Billy Bambrough, “Bitcoin Threatens To ‘Take Power’ From The U.S. Federal Reserve,” Forbes, May 15, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/05/15/a-u-s-congressman-is-so-scared-of-bitcoin-and-crypto-he-wants-it-banned/#36b2700b6405.
[2] Vladimir Putin, keynote address to the Economic Forum, June 5-6 2019. Putin went on to warn of “a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown.” This fragmenting of the global economic space “is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”
[3] Address to St Petersburg International Economic Forum’s Plenary Session, St Petersburg, Kremlin.ru, June 5, 2009, from Johnson’s Russia List, June 8, 2009, #8,
[4] https://www.rt.com/business/464013-china-russia-cryptocurrency-dollar-dethrone/ . Already in the late 1950s the Forgash Plan proposed a World Bank for Economic Acceleration. Designed by Terence McCarthy and sponsored by Florida Senator Morris Forgash, the bank would have been a more truly development-oriented institution to guide foreign development to create balanced economies self-sufficient in food and other essentials. The proposal was opposed by U.S. interests on the ground that countries pursuing land reform tended to be anti-American. More to the point, they would have avoided trade and financial dependency on U.S. suppliers and banks, and hence on U.S. trade and financial sanctions to prevent them from following policies at odds with U.S. diplomatic demands.
[5] Don Weinland, “WTO rules against US in tariff dispute with China,” Financial Times, July 17, 2019.
https://xenagoguevicene.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/u-s-economic-warfare-and-likely-foreign-defenses-by-michael-hudson-%e2%80%a2-23-july-2019/
submitted by finnagains to conspiracy [link] [comments]

How the Bitcoin price was changing

How the Bitcoin price was changing
Nowadays, the Bitcoin currency rate perhaps is the most unpredictable thing. All predictions about how BTC price will increase or drop are in some way similar to the weather forecasts. No one can tell what will happen to the coin tomorrow. One of the most important factors that experts rely on is the history of the currency rate over the whole period of BTC existence with its dynamics. It is essential to know what was happening to the coin as this allows you to understand what can happen to it in the future.

2009

The first digital currency – Bitcoin – came to the world on January 9, 2009. In the same month, the creator of Bitcoin mined the first block and he also made the first financial operation in the BTC system.
At the beginning of its history, the Bitcoin price was ridiculously low. The first exchange of BTC to US dollars was made in the summer of 2009 when Martti Malmi received 5.02 USD for his 5050 Bitcoins.
The first official Bitcoin exchange rate to the fiat dollar was established on October 9, 2009. At that time, for 1 dollar you could buy 1 309.03 BTC. Many people now regret that they missed the opportunity to buy Bitcoin for pennies.

2010

In 2010, events in the cryptocurrency market began to develop more intensively. The Bitcoin Market exchange was opened in February 2010, where it was possible to sell the digital coin. In May of this year, the most well-known deal with Bitcoin had happened. The programmer Laszlo Hanyecz bought 2 pizzas for 10,000 BTC. It was the first purchase using cryptocurrency in the real world. He posted a request on the crypto forum saying that he wanted to buy two pizzas. In exchange for that, he offered 10K Bitcoins that back then cost about 40 dollars. And there was a person who agreed to have this deal – it was the 19 years old Jeremy Sturdivant. Jeremy didn’t become a millionaire since then as he spent his coins to travel across the USA.

As for Laszlo, he doesn’t regret about the lost millions. He was mining coins for his pleasure at that time and spent them to different non-significant things.

The two pizzas bought by Laszlo
In July of 2010, BTC price raised to 0.08 dollars. Then in November, the price went up for 50 percent. In general, 2010 was an excellent period for strengthening the position of Bitcoin. The digital currency was almost able to reach the point of one dollar.

2011

BTC overcame the point of 1 dollar only in February of 2011. By early June, the price had grown to 10 dollars. This was a small victory for Bitcoin. Another maximum was set at the point of $31.91. In the middle of June 2011, there was a sharp drop in price: from 31.91 again to 10 dollars.

The year 2011 was full of negative events. One of them happened on June 13, when a user’s electronic wallet was first hacked and 25 thousand coins were stolen from there. In a few days, some geeks hacked MtFox exchange where they got data of sixty thousand users. These events negatively affected the Bitcoin rate. It became clear that in the future the price of digital currency will be determined taking into consideration any events that occur in the market.

2012

In 2012, the exchange rate was ranging from 8 to 12 dollars per 1 BTC. This period was also rich in significant events. One of them is that Bitcoin Central bank began its work. This bank received a license and was even recognized by European regulators.

2013

February 22, 2013, was the day when Bitcoin began to grow again. The price reached the mark of $30. Another increase occurred at the end of January – $31.9. The upward trend continued. March 22 rate was 74.9 dollars per BTC.

On the first day of April, the price went up to $100 and within another nine days, the BTC price grew to 266 dollars. But the growth did not last long. By October it was $109. The possible reason for that is the arrest of an anonymous trading platform Silk Road.

Since November 2013, the price of Bitcoin began to grow anew. By the end of the month, the price exceeded all expectations and raised up to $1,200 per coin. The reason for overcoming the $1,000 point was the BTC support by Zynga game creator. Experts also noted another event that could affect the growth: one of the higher education institutions in Cyprus started accepting the Bitcoin as payment for tuition.

But by the end of the first week of December, the price was 1,000 dollars. In the middle of December 2013, the BTC price dropped to 600 dollars because the China Central Bank prohibited the country’s financial institutions to maintain operations with cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin price chart in November, 2013

2014

During the year 2014, there happened rather a significant amount of events that had an impact on the Bitcoin volatility. In the first days of January, 1 BTC was equal to 770 dollars. In February it was 700 dollars. Summer 2014 slightly strengthened the reputation of the cryptocurrency.

Many experts think that it was 2014 when BTC strengthened its position in the market, in spite of the fact that Bitcoin price was low – by the end of the year it settled in at around 310 dollars. In 2014 investors began to consider Bitcoin as a potential investment as Bitcoin price predictions seemed quite attractive.

2015

At the beginning of 2015, the BTC price started rising: with 177 dollars in January to 281 dollars to March. The number of people who were trading Bitcoin increased – there were about 160,000 people was buying and selling BTC on exchanges by August 2015. In one period of 2015 the Bitcoin price grew up to 500 dollars, but to the end of 2015, it dropped to about 350 USD.

2016

In 2016, Japan declared Bitcoin as a currency and allowed to use it to pay for goods and services. South Africa was the next who did the same. In April 2016, BTC rate went up and reached $454 per coin. By the end of May, 1 BTC was already worth $600. The reason for the price increase might be the growth of the number of transactions in the Chinese market. The highest price in 2016 was in December – $950 for one Bitcoin.

2017

The year of 2017 was an incredible period in respect of BTC price. It started with $1,000 for 1 coin. Already in June, it was $2,600. By the beginning of September, the price jumped to $5,000 per 1 BTC. On December 17, the Bitcoin price achieved a record and was over 20,000 US dollars.

How did this happen? Here are some reasons that experts point due to the growth of Bitcoin price:

  • In 2017 social media broadcasted a lot of information about Bitcoin and the blockchain system;
  • China resumed cashout of bitcoins from the Chinese cryptocurrency exchanges;
  • In December 2017, the United States officially allowed trading futures for Bitcoin;
  • The number of companies and people who were buying BTC increased as they considered Bitcoin the profitable investment and etc.

However, later in December, the price plummeted from 20 000 dollars to 12 000 dollars. Experts had different reasons including that one of the first cryptocurrency creators sold out all his digital savings and called such investments too risky.

2018

During the first 4 months of 2018, the price of BTC dropped below 7,000 USD. These negative dynamics were quite logical because the rise is always followed by the fall. For the first time since October 2017, the Bitcoin price fell below 6,000 dollars. On November 25, the price of Bitcoin fell even lower – $3,676 per 1 BTC. By mid-December, the bitcoin rate fell by almost 80% to its yearly rate, the price was $3,200.

Nowadays

What can we expect in 2019? What Bitcoin price predictions do crypto experts have? People hope that 2019 will bring new opportunities for Bitcoin and also other cryptocurrencies. Some investors and crypto enthusiasts predict that the BTC price will grow to 40 – 50,000 USD by the end of 2019. One of them, John McAfee, is assured that the price will rise to 1 million dollars by the end of 2020. He even had a bet that he posted in his Twitter saying that he would eat his “love muscle” if his BTC price prediction will not come true.

There may be a number of factors that can influence the BTC price in 2019. They are:

  • Nasdaq, the world’s second largest exchange plans to launch futures for Bitcoin;
  • Coming out of the first crypto-ETP in the world;
  • and many other unpredictable factors that can change the price of Bitcoin.

As it was said before, Bitcoin price predictions are almost like the weather forecast – you never know what price it will have tomorrow. If you think about investing in BTC or any other cryptocurrency you should follow its rate at present time but never forget to compare it to the past. But please, don’t bet to eat any of your body parts 🙂

Feel free to follow our updates and news on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram and BitcoinTalk. Read what the customers say about SimpleSwap on Trustpilot. Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have via [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

KIN's App Ecosystem

KIN could have the added function of acting like rewards tokens to engage users the same way Burger King in Russia used Waves. The network effect will determine how high the price will go. Instead of developers monetizing with paid apps or Averts this would be an in-app purchase with user able to own some of the value they put in or maybe even parallel to Ads. As a developer, I would agree to charge less for items in exchange for a healthier ecosystem and higher level of user engagement and spending that couldn't be achieved before. Maybe users are willing to watch more rewarded Ads if they get a little credit.
This new concept within marketshare competition would take notes out of the Micro Economics textbook charts and allow developers to voluntarily move from monopoly to a perfect competition. Okay, but why would a developer want to suddenly have a surplus or waste? Wouldn't they make more money just taking a full dollar and paying the app store their fee? No, not really because the demand allocation between apps exists in direct correlation to which model is used and when one is capable of lower price or higher value, the instance of perfect competition will always attract more of the demand. Legacy systems can't offer the same rewards. In most of these textbook examples it's 100% of the demand for being a penny over and of course there's then duopoly models and so on and so forth, but let's just say providing the extra benefit is a statistically significant advantage and many developers may be forced to offer something like KIN in a few years. The gameplay economics becomes a part of the currency model (or vice versa) and more closely resembles the economic engagement between users of a society.Isn't this the experience game and app simulations are really trying to offer players?
According to Virtual Currency Law in the United States, "a May 9, 2014 meeting of the Federal Advisory Council and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Bitcoin was deemed to "not present a threat to economic activity by disrupting traditional channels of commerce" but rather a potential "boon". Its global transmissibility opens new markets to merchants and service providers" and "capital flows from the developed to the developing world should increase". In its 2009 Report to Congress, the U.S. Treasury claimed that the dollar will continue to be a major reserve currency "as long as the United States maintains sound macroeconomic policies and deep, liquid, and open financial markets".
The global app economy will be worth $6.3 trillion by 2021 and it provides a lot of benefits, so I'm not really trying to be XRP or replace fiat in my games or apps and think that might first require slicing a piece of this pie using KIN in app and building the trust that it can exist without funding terror and or scaring the Jesus out of bankers and regulators
submitted by SantaAnaStudio to KinFoundation [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin and Tulip Mania are two vastly different, and entirely unrelated, phenomena: a comprehensive analysis

I keep seeing all these comparisons of Bitcoin to tulip mania, such as in this extremely inaccurate chart Convoy investments recently published. It’s a bunch of bullshit. Bitcoin is about as far from 17th century tulip bulbs as you can get so I’m gonna debunk this claim right now. Here are the facts —
  1. This chart only goes back to 3 years before the “bubble peak.” If they’re talking about now being the peak, it would start at 2014. Bitcoin was founded in 2009 & experienced its first “bubble” if you will, in 2013.
  2. Bubbles do not typically burst and then come back. Tulip bulb prices crashed once and it was over. That’s why this chart conveniently left out the pre-2014 era.
  3. This chart puts the value of bitcoin in 2014, using its Y axis label “multiple of starting price” at next to 0. Bitcoin started at less than a dollar. Its value in 2014 was in the hundreds of dollars.
  4. It is not known exactly how long tulip mania lasted as there is no data available from February of 1637 to the beginning of may. Low estimates for its duration fall around 3 months. At the highest estimate, it may have lasted 6 months (Source) Convoy’s chart incorrectly depicts the tulip boom as almost a full year long.
Bitcoin on the other hand, has been around for 8 years. In Jan 2018 it’ll be 9.
Let’s disregard this for a sec, lets play devils advocate and look only at bitcoin’s latest increase which began around March 2017 (Source) It consistently began hitting ATHs back in March of this year, and gained even more traction later on from June-July. So, disregarding everything else Bitcoin’s current meteoric rise has already lasted approx 9 months, which is longer than the rise, peak and collapse of tulip bulbs altogether.
Let me point out here that Convoy got the dates for tulip mania wrong as well! it lasted from late 1636- early 1637, not 1619-1622.
  1. Tulips are not scarce. People can plant tulips and collect bulbs all they want. Bitcoin is inherently scarce. 21 million bitcoins - and only 21 million - can ever be made. That’s it.
  2. Tulips are irrelevant. Investors invested in them regardless of what they were, to make a quick buck. They could have been daisies or pigeons or lumps of rock. This brings us to:
  3. Tulip prices were doomed to crash from the start because they had no intrinsic value. Investments were made in them ONLY because investors thought the price was going to go up, and that was it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has intrinsic value as a currency and as a technology. People think the price will go up, yes; this part can be labeled speculative and it does add fuel to the spaceship. However, the difference is that there are real solid reasons for its price increase.
An asset price cannot increase forever based on speculation alone, but if the asset has inherent value, then its price sure can continue to increase.
If we look at the Apple stock chart from 1980 to 2012, we can see a pattern that’s actually quite similar to Bitcoin’s rise. Was Apple a bubble? Did it burst? No and no.
But Michael Dell once made fun of Apple for “trying to be a company”.
And nobody knows who Michael Dell is anymore.
Bitcoin is not Tulip Mania.
That is all.
Edit: thanks joecoin for linking me to a compelling article from Smithsonian Mag. This source makes a very convincing argument that tulip mania never actually happened. I figured I should point this out, because the facts are all important to me. That being said, the concept of tulip mania remains, and there are people who try likening it to bitcoin as if the two are any more similar than apples and oranges. Those people are wrong. :)
submitted by On_Too_Much_Adderall to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How the Bitcoin price was changing

How the Bitcoin price was changing
Nowadays, the Bitcoin currency rate perhaps is the most unpredictable thing. All predictions about how BTC price will increase or drop are in some way similar to the weather forecasts. No one can tell what will happen to the coin tomorrow. One of the most important factors that experts rely on is the history of the currency rate over the whole period of BTC existence with its dynamics. It is essential to know what was happening to the coin as this allows you to understand what can happen to it in the future.

2009

The first digital currency – Bitcoin – came to the world on January 9, 2009. In the same month, the creator of Bitcoin mined the first block and he also made the first financial operation in the BTC system.

At the beginning of its history, the Bitcoin price was ridiculously low. The first exchange of BTC to US dollars was made in the summer of 2009 when Martti Malmi received 5.02 USD for his 5050 Bitcoins.

The first official Bitcoin exchange rate to the fiat dollar was established on October 9, 2009. At that time, for 1 dollar you could buy 1 309.03 BTC. Many people now regret that they missed the opportunity to buy Bitcoin for pennies.

2010

In 2010, events in the cryptocurrency market began to develop more intensively. The Bitcoin Market exchange was opened in February 2010, where it was possible to sell the digital coin. In May of this year, the most well-known deal with Bitcoin had happened. The programmer Laszlo Hanyecz bought 2 pizzas for 10,000 BTC. It was the first purchase using cryptocurrency in the real world. He posted a request on the crypto forum saying that he wanted to buy two pizzas. In exchange for that, he offered 10K Bitcoins that back then cost about 40 dollars. And there was a person who agreed to have this deal – it was the 19 years old Jeremy Sturdivant. Jeremy didn’t become a millionaire since then as he spent his coins to travel across the USA.

As for Laszlo, he doesn’t regret about the lost millions. He was mining coins for his pleasure at that time and spent them to different non-significant things.

The two pizzas bought by Laszlo
In July of 2010, BTC price raised to 0.08 dollars. Then in November, the price went up for 50 percent. In general, 2010 was an excellent period for strengthening the position of Bitcoin. The digital currency was almost able to reach the point of one dollar.

2011

BTC overcame the point of 1 dollar only in February of 2011. By early June, the price had grown to 10 dollars. This was a small victory for Bitcoin. Another maximum was set at the point of $31.91. In the middle of June 2011, there was a sharp drop in price: from 31.91 again to 10 dollars.

The year 2011 was full of negative events. One of them happened on June 13, when a user’s electronic wallet was first hacked and 25 thousand coins were stolen from there. In a few days, some geeks hacked MtFox exchange where they got data of sixty thousand users. These events negatively affected the Bitcoin rate. It became clear that in the future the price of digital currency will be determined taking into consideration any events that occur in the market.

2012

In 2012, the exchange rate was ranging from 8 to 12 dollars per 1 BTC. This period was also rich in significant events. One of them is that Bitcoin Central bank began its work. This bank received a license and was even recognized by European regulators.

2013

February 22, 2013, was the day when Bitcoin began to grow again. The price reached the mark of $30. Another increase occurred at the end of January – $31.9. The upward trend continued. March 22 rate was 74.9 dollars per BTC.
On the first day of April, the price went up to $100 and within another nine days, the BTC price grew to 266 dollars. But the growth did not last long. By October it was $109. The possible reason for that is the arrest of an anonymous trading platform Silk Road.
Since November 2013, the price of Bitcoin began to grow anew. By the end of the month, the price exceeded all expectations and raised up to $1,200 per coin. The reason for overcoming the $1,000 point was the BTC support by Zynga game creator. Experts also noted another event that could affect the growth: one of the higher education institutions in Cyprus started accepting the Bitcoin as payment for tuition.
But by the end of the first week of December, the price was 1,000 dollars. In the middle of December 2013, the BTC price dropped to 600 dollars because the China Central Bank prohibited the country’s financial institutions to maintain operations with cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin price chart in November, 2013

2014

During the year 2014, there happened rather a significant amount of events that had an impact on the Bitcoin volatility. In the first days of January, 1 BTC was equal to 770 dollars. In February it was 700 dollars. Summer 2014 slightly strengthened the reputation of the cryptocurrency.

Many experts think that it was 2014 when BTC strengthened its position in the market, in spite of the fact that Bitcoin price was low – by the end of the year it settled in at around 310 dollars. In 2014 investors began to consider Bitcoin as a potential investment as Bitcoin price predictions seemed quite attractive.

2015

At the beginning of 2015, the BTC price started rising: with 177 dollars in January to 281 dollars to March. The number of people who were trading Bitcoin increased – there were about 160,000 people was buying and selling BTC on exchanges by August 2015. In one period of 2015 the Bitcoin price grew up to 500 dollars, but to the end of 2015, it dropped to about 350 USD.

2016

In 2016, Japan declared Bitcoin as a currency and allowed to use it to pay for goods and services. South Africa was the next who did the same. In April 2016, BTC rate went up and reached $454 per coin. By the end of May, 1 BTC was already worth $600. The reason for the price increase might be the growth of the number of transactions in the Chinese market. The highest price in 2016 was in December – $950 for one Bitcoin.

2017

The year of 2017 was an incredible period in respect of BTC price. It started with $1,000 for 1 coin. Already in June, it was $2,600. By the beginning of September, the price jumped to $5,000 per 1 BTC. On December 17, the Bitcoin price achieved a record and was over 20,000 US dollars.

How did this happen? Here are some reasons that experts point due to the growth of Bitcoin price:
  • In 2017 social media broadcasted a lot of information about Bitcoin and the blockchain system;
  • China resumed cashout of bitcoins from the Chinese cryptocurrency exchanges;
  • In December 2017, the United States officially allowed trading futures for Bitcoin;
  • The number of companies and people who were buying BTC increased as they considered Bitcoin the profitable investment and etc.

However, later in December, the price plummeted from 20 000 dollars to 12 000 dollars. Experts had different reasons including that one of the first cryptocurrency creators sold out all his digital savings and called such investments too risky.

2018

During the first 4 months of 2018, the price of BTC dropped below 7,000 USD. These negative dynamics were quite logical because the rise is always followed by the fall. For the first time since October 2017, the Bitcoin price fell below 6,000 dollars. On November 25, the price of Bitcoin fell even lower – $3,676 per 1 BTC. By mid-December, the bitcoin rate fell by almost 80% to its yearly rate, the price was $3,200.

Nowadays

What can we expect in 2019? What Bitcoin price predictions do crypto experts have? People hope that 2019 will bring new opportunities for Bitcoin and also other cryptocurrencies. Some investors and crypto enthusiasts predict that the BTC price will grow to 40 – 50,000 USD by the end of 2019. One of them, John McAfee, is assured that the price will rise to 1 million dollars by the end of 2020. He even had a bet that he posted in his Twitter saying that he would eat his “love muscle” if his BTC price prediction will not come true.

There may be a number of factors that can influence the BTC price in 2019. They are:
  • Nasdaq, the world’s second largest exchange plans to launch futures for Bitcoin;
  • Coming out of the first crypto-ETP in the world;
  • and many other unpredictable factors that can change the price of Bitcoin.

As it was said before, Bitcoin price predictions are almost like the weather forecast – you never know what price it will have tomorrow. If you think about investing in BTC or any other cryptocurrency you should follow its rate at present time but never forget to compare it to the past. But please, don’t bet to eat any of your body parts 🙂

Feel free to follow our updates and news on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram and BitcoinTalk.Read what the customers say about SimpleSwap on Trustpilot.Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have via [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to CryptoNews [link] [comments]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

How the Bitcoin price was changing

How the Bitcoin price was changing
Nowadays, the Bitcoin currency rate perhaps is the most unpredictable thing. All predictions about how BTC price will increase or drop are in some way similar to the weather forecasts. No one can tell what will happen to the coin tomorrow. One of the most important factors that experts rely on is the history of the currency rate over the whole period of BTC existence with its dynamics. It is essential to know what was happening to the coin as this allows you to understand what can happen to it in the future.

2009

The first digital currency – Bitcoin – came to the world on January 9, 2009. In the same month, the creator of Bitcoin mined the first block and he also made the first financial operation in the BTC system.

At the beginning of its history, the Bitcoin price was ridiculously low. The first exchange of BTC to US dollars was made in the summer of 2009 when Martti Malmi received 5.02 USD for his 5050 Bitcoins.

The first official Bitcoin exchange rate to the fiat dollar was established on October 9, 2009. At that time, for 1 dollar you could buy 1 309.03 BTC. Many people now regret that they missed the opportunity to buy Bitcoin for pennies.

2010

In 2010, events in the cryptocurrency market began to develop more intensively. The Bitcoin Market exchange was opened in February 2010, where it was possible to sell the digital coin. In May of this year, the most well-known deal with Bitcoin had happened. The programmer Laszlo Hanyecz bought 2 pizzas for 10,000 BTC. It was the first purchase using cryptocurrency in the real world. He posted a request on the crypto forum saying that he wanted to buy two pizzas. In exchange for that, he offered 10K Bitcoins that back then cost about 40 dollars. And there was a person who agreed to have this deal – it was the 19 years old Jeremy Sturdivant. Jeremy didn’t become a millionaire since then as he spent his coins to travel across the USA.

As for Laszlo, he doesn’t regret about the lost millions. He was mining coins for his pleasure at that time and spent them to different non-significant things.

The two pizzas bought by Laszlo
In July of 2010, BTC price raised to 0.08 dollars. Then in November, the price went up for 50 percent. In general, 2010 was an excellent period for strengthening the position of Bitcoin. The digital currency was almost able to reach the point of one dollar.

2011

BTC overcame the point of 1 dollar only in February of 2011. By early June, the price had grown to 10 dollars. This was a small victory for Bitcoin. Another maximum was set at the point of $31.91. In the middle of June 2011, there was a sharp drop in price: from 31.91 again to 10 dollars.

The year 2011 was full of negative events. One of them happened on June 13, when a user’s electronic wallet was first hacked and 25 thousand coins were stolen from there. In a few days, some geeks hacked MtFox exchange where they got data of sixty thousand users. These events negatively affected the Bitcoin rate. It became clear that in the future the price of digital currency will be determined taking into consideration any events that occur in the market.

2012

In 2012, the exchange rate was ranging from 8 to 12 dollars per 1 BTC. This period was also rich in significant events. One of them is that Bitcoin Central bank began its work. This bank received a license and was even recognized by European regulators.

2013

February 22, 2013, was the day when Bitcoin began to grow again. The price reached the mark of $30. Another increase occurred at the end of January – $31.9. The upward trend continued. March 22 rate was 74.9 dollars per BTC.

On the first day of April, the price went up to $100 and within another nine days, the BTC price grew to 266 dollars. But the growth did not last long. By October it was $109. The possible reason for that is the arrest of an anonymous trading platform Silk Road.

Since November 2013, the price of Bitcoin began to grow anew. By the end of the month, the price exceeded all expectations and raised up to $1,200 per coin. The reason for overcoming the $1,000 point was the BTC support by Zynga game creator. Experts also noted another event that could affect the growth: one of the higher education institutions in Cyprus started accepting the Bitcoin as payment for tuition.

But by the end of the first week of December, the price was 1,000 dollars. In the middle of December 2013, the BTC price dropped to 600 dollars because the China Central Bank prohibited the country’s financial institutions to maintain operations with cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin price chart in November, 2013

2014

During the year 2014, there happened rather a significant amount of events that had an impact on the Bitcoin volatility. In the first days of January, 1 BTC was equal to 770 dollars. In February it was 700 dollars. Summer 2014 slightly strengthened the reputation of the cryptocurrency.

Many experts think that it was 2014 when BTC strengthened its position in the market, in spite of the fact that Bitcoin price was low – by the end of the year it settled in at around 310 dollars. In 2014 investors began to consider Bitcoin as a potential investment as Bitcoin price predictions seemed quite attractive.

2015

At the beginning of 2015, the BTC price started rising: with 177 dollars in January to 281 dollars to March. The number of people who were trading Bitcoin increased – there were about 160,000 people was buying and selling BTC on exchanges by August 2015. In one period of 2015 the Bitcoin price grew up to 500 dollars, but to the end of 2015, it dropped to about 350 USD.

2016

In 2016, Japan declared Bitcoin as a currency and allowed to use it to pay for goods and services. South Africa was the next who did the same. In April 2016, BTC rate went up and reached $454 per coin. By the end of May, 1 BTC was already worth $600. The reason for the price increase might be the growth of the number of transactions in the Chinese market. The highest price in 2016 was in December – $950 for one Bitcoin.

2017

The year of 2017 was an incredible period in respect of BTC price. It started with $1,000 for 1 coin. Already in June, it was $2,600. By the beginning of September, the price jumped to $5,000 per 1 BTC. On December 17, the Bitcoin price achieved a record and was over 20,000 US dollars.

How did this happen? Here are some reasons that experts point due to the growth of Bitcoin price:

  • In 2017 social media broadcasted a lot of information about Bitcoin and the blockchain system;
  • China resumed cashout of bitcoins from the Chinese cryptocurrency exchanges;
  • In December 2017, the United States officially allowed trading futures for Bitcoin;
  • The number of companies and people who were buying BTC increased as they considered Bitcoin the profitable investment and etc.
However, later in December, the price plummeted from 20 000 dollars to 12 000 dollars. Experts had different reasons including that one of the first cryptocurrency creators sold out all his digital savings and called such investments too risky.

2018

During the first 4 months of 2018, the price of BTC dropped below 7,000 USD. These negative dynamics were quite logical because the rise is always followed by the fall. For the first time since October 2017, the Bitcoin price fell below 6,000 dollars. On November 25, the price of Bitcoin fell even lower – $3,676 per 1 BTC. By mid-December, the bitcoin rate fell by almost 80% to its yearly rate, the price was $3,200.

Nowadays

What can we expect in 2019? What Bitcoin price predictions do crypto experts have? People hope that 2019 will bring new opportunities for Bitcoin and also other cryptocurrencies. Some investors and crypto enthusiasts predict that the BTC price will grow to 40 – 50,000 USD by the end of 2019. One of them, John McAfee, is assured that the price will rise to 1 million dollars by the end of 2020. He even had a bet that he posted in his Twitter saying that he would eat his “love muscle” if his BTC price prediction will not come true.

There may be a number of factors that can influence the BTC price in 2019. They are:

  • Nasdaq, the world’s second largest exchange plans to launch futures for Bitcoin;
  • Coming out of the first crypto-ETP in the world;
  • and many other unpredictable factors that can change the price of Bitcoin.
As it was said before, Bitcoin price predictions are almost like the weather forecast – you never know what price it will have tomorrow. If you think about investing in BTC or any other cryptocurrency you should follow its rate at present time but never forget to compare it to the past. But please, don’t bet to eat any of your body parts 🙂

Feel free to follow our updates and news on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram and BitcoinTalk.
Read what the customers say about SimpleSwap on Trustpilot.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have via [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to u/SimpleSwapExchange [link] [comments]

How the Bitcoin price was changing

How the Bitcoin price was changing
Nowadays, the Bitcoin currency rate perhaps is the most unpredictable thing. All predictions about how BTC price will increase or drop are in some way similar to the weather forecasts. No one can tell what will happen to the coin tomorrow. One of the most important factors that experts rely on is the history of the currency rate over the whole period of BTC existence with its dynamics. It is essential to know what was happening to the coin as this allows you to understand what can happen to it in the future.

2009

The first digital currency – Bitcoin – came to the world on January 9, 2009. In the same month, the creator of Bitcoin mined the first block and he also made the first financial operation in the BTC system.

At the beginning of its history, the Bitcoin price was ridiculously low. The first exchange of BTC to US dollars was made in the summer of 2009 when Martti Malmi received 5.02 USD for his 5050 Bitcoins.

The first official Bitcoin exchange rate to the fiat dollar was established on October 9, 2009. At that time, for 1 dollar you could buy 1 309.03 BTC. Many people now regret that they missed the opportunity to buy Bitcoin for pennies.

2010

In 2010, events in the cryptocurrency market began to develop more intensively. The Bitcoin Market exchange was opened in February 2010, where it was possible to sell the digital coin. In May of this year, the most well-known deal with Bitcoin had happened. The programmer Laszlo Hanyecz bought 2 pizzas for 10,000 BTC. It was the first purchase using cryptocurrency in the real world. He posted a request on the crypto forum saying that he wanted to buy two pizzas. In exchange for that, he offered 10K Bitcoins that back then cost about 40 dollars. And there was a person who agreed to have this deal – it was the 19 years old Jeremy Sturdivant. Jeremy didn’t become a millionaire since then as he spent his coins to travel across the USA.

As for Laszlo, he doesn’t regret about the lost millions. He was mining coins for his pleasure at that time and spent them to different non-significant things.

The two pizzas bought by Laszlo
In July of 2010, BTC price raised to 0.08 dollars. Then in November, the price went up for 50 percent. In general, 2010 was an excellent period for strengthening the position of Bitcoin. The digital currency was almost able to reach the point of one dollar.

2011

BTC overcame the point of 1 dollar only in February of 2011. By early June, the price had grown to 10 dollars. This was a small victory for Bitcoin. Another maximum was set at the point of $31.91. In the middle of June 2011, there was a sharp drop in price: from 31.91 again to 10 dollars.

The year 2011 was full of negative events. One of them happened on June 13, when a user’s electronic wallet was first hacked and 25 thousand coins were stolen from there. In a few days, some geeks hacked MtFox exchange where they got data of sixty thousand users. These events negatively affected the Bitcoin rate. It became clear that in the future the price of digital currency will be determined taking into consideration any events that occur in the market.

2012

In 2012, the exchange rate was ranging from 8 to 12 dollars per 1 BTC. This period was also rich in significant events. One of them is that Bitcoin Central bank began its work. This bank received a license and was even recognized by European regulators.

2013

February 22, 2013, was the day when Bitcoin began to grow again. The price reached the mark of $30. Another increase occurred at the end of January – $31.9. The upward trend continued. March 22 rate was 74.9 dollars per BTC.

On the first day of April, the price went up to $100 and within another nine days, the BTC price grew to 266 dollars. But the growth did not last long. By October it was $109. The possible reason for that is the arrest of an anonymous trading platform Silk Road.

Since November 2013, the price of Bitcoin began to grow anew. By the end of the month, the price exceeded all expectations and raised up to $1,200 per coin. The reason for overcoming the $1,000 point was the BTC support by Zynga game creator. Experts also noted another event that could affect the growth: one of the higher education institutions in Cyprus started accepting the Bitcoin as payment for tuition.

But by the end of the first week of December, the price was 1,000 dollars. In the middle of December 2013, the BTC price dropped to 600 dollars because the China Central Bank prohibited the country’s financial institutions to maintain operations with cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin price chart in November, 2013

2014

During the year 2014, there happened rather a significant amount of events that had an impact on the Bitcoin volatility. In the first days of January, 1 BTC was equal to 770 dollars. In February it was 700 dollars. Summer 2014 slightly strengthened the reputation of the cryptocurrency.

Many experts think that it was 2014 when BTC strengthened its position in the market, in spite of the fact that Bitcoin price was low – by the end of the year it settled in at around 310 dollars. In 2014 investors began to consider Bitcoin as a potential investment as Bitcoin price predictions seemed quite attractive.

2015

At the beginning of 2015, the BTC price started rising: with 177 dollars in January to 281 dollars to March. The number of people who were trading Bitcoin increased – there were about 160,000 people was buying and selling BTC on exchanges by August 2015. In one period of 2015 the Bitcoin price grew up to 500 dollars, but to the end of 2015, it dropped to about 350 USD.

2016

In 2016, Japan declared Bitcoin as a currency and allowed to use it to pay for goods and services. South Africa was the next who did the same. In April 2016, BTC rate went up and reached $454 per coin. By the end of May, 1 BTC was already worth $600. The reason for the price increase might be the growth of the number of transactions in the Chinese market. The highest price in 2016 was in December – $950 for one Bitcoin.

2017

The year of 2017 was an incredible period in respect of BTC price. It started with $1,000 for 1 coin. Already in June, it was $2,600. By the beginning of September, the price jumped to $5,000 per 1 BTC. On December 17, the Bitcoin price achieved a record and was over 20,000 US dollars.

How did this happen? Here are some reasons that experts point due to the growth of Bitcoin price:

  • In 2017 social media broadcasted a lot of information about Bitcoin and the blockchain system;
  • China resumed cashout of bitcoins from the Chinese cryptocurrency exchanges;
  • In December 2017, the United States officially allowed trading futures for Bitcoin;
  • The number of companies and people who were buying BTC increased as they considered Bitcoin the profitable investment and etc.
However, later in December, the price plummeted from 20 000 dollars to 12 000 dollars. Experts had different reasons including that one of the first cryptocurrency creators sold out all his digital savings and called such investments too risky.

2018

During the first 4 months of 2018, the price of BTC dropped below 7,000 USD. These negative dynamics were quite logical because the rise is always followed by the fall. For the first time since October 2017, the Bitcoin price fell below 6,000 dollars. On November 25, the price of Bitcoin fell even lower – $3,676 per 1 BTC. By mid-December, the bitcoin rate fell by almost 80% to its yearly rate, the price was $3,200.

Nowadays

What can we expect in 2019? What Bitcoin price predictions do crypto experts have? People hope that 2019 will bring new opportunities for Bitcoin and also other cryptocurrencies. Some investors and crypto enthusiasts predict that the BTC price will grow to 40 – 50,000 USD by the end of 2019. One of them, John McAfee, is assured that the price will rise to 1 million dollars by the end of 2020. He even had a bet that he posted in his Twitter saying that he would eat his “love muscle” if his BTC price prediction will not come true.

There may be a number of factors that can influence the BTC price in 2019. They are:

  • Nasdaq, the world’s second largest exchange plans to launch futures for Bitcoin;
  • Coming out of the first crypto-ETP in the world;
  • and many other unpredictable factors that can change the price of Bitcoin.
As it was said before, Bitcoin price predictions are almost like the weather forecast – you never know what price it will have tomorrow. If you think about investing in BTC or any other cryptocurrency you should follow its rate at present time but never forget to compare it to the past. But please, don’t bet to eat any of your body parts 🙂

Feel free to follow our updates and news on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram and BitcoinTalk.
Read what the customers say about SimpleSwap on Trustpilot.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have via [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency: lives or dies? Part 1. Bubbles as a scarecrow for newcomers

Cryptocurrency: lives or dies? Part 1. Bubbles as a scarecrow for newcomers
Cryptocurrency: lives or dies? Part 1. Bubbles as a scarecrow for newcomers
The cryptomania 2017 was colossal. Although cryptocurrencies have existed since 2009, many people found out about them just in 2017, against the backdrop of the outstanding growth in rates and a clear sense of revolution. Many newcomers thought that the rates would grow forever. They were ready to buy digital currencies at any price considering any declines to be local, and growth to be global.
But 2018 brought an unpleasant surprise: the market suddenly began to break down. In the first quarter, many people hoped that this was only a “correction,” but the collapse continued. If early in 2018, Bitcoin (BTC) carried a record price of $20,000, then by September it had fallen in price to $6,300, that is, threefold. And the “heroic” ethereum (ETH), which almost surpassed BTC in terms of capitalization in Summer 2017, had fallen fivefold: from $1,300 to $250.

https://preview.redd.it/4gxrjt5imw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=caae30b6e06f61a8d7dd33e86344f58d22c30162
In autumn, the market froze. It seemed that the bottom was reached and the restoration would begin soon. However, November brought another surprise: the rates dropped again. For example, BTC fell in price from $6,000 to $ 4,000. This happened so suddenly that it looked like an evident conspiracy of the major players, so-called “whales”. Autumn investors, following the earlier ones, suffered losses. Many of them completely become disillusioned with the crypto-market, having decided that it is entirely in the grasp to manipulators: such a “market” resembles MMM where quotes are randomly set by puppeteers.
In Winter, the market froze again, while in Spring a long-promised growth began. In March it continued to ascend carefully, and in April it continued to ascend unexpectedly sharply and symmetrically to the drop in November. In both cases, the BTC rate changed by $800 just for an hour, but in November it was a drop, while in April it was a rise. In both cases, there was no kickback: on the contrary, the movement went on. Optimists rushed to buy cryptocurrencies, but the most population smelt a rat. If not only drops but also rises occur "in a snap", is this not the best proof of pulling the strings?

https://preview.redd.it/4dvc478jmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ff55dff60910cef6a0d5dda8a2057151f4f2cbb
So do we believe in true market recovery now? Perhaps this is another trick? Is it worth investing in cryptocurrencies or is it better to forget them like a nightmare? Is the market entirely in the hands of puppeteers or does it have objective laws? We will try to understand this in more detail.
How did it get started: bitcoin and its bubble 2013
The first world’s cryptocurrency was Bitcoin (BTC). It appeared in 2009 and firstly it was known only to specialists in cryptography, as well as to particularly advanced free market activists. But soon it attracted the close attention of investors demonstrating in 2010-2013 a tremendous growth of 4 orders: from $ 0.1 to $ 1000. In other words, the average exchange rate grew by a factor of 10 per year (!!!)

https://preview.redd.it/2be0puujmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14420f8e457edee778f560c976f3369c805a286d
In 2013, this BTC’s success gained worldwide fame. However, as often happens, the shock popularization was no in favor of the asset rate: reaching a record mark of $1,200 in December 2013, BTC began to fall in price. Towards the end of 2014, its rate rolled back to $250, following which it remained relatively stable in 2015. A significant part of the growth in 2013 turned out to be a bubble. However, after blowing off the bubble, the BTC rate still remained significantly higher than it was early in 2013 (especially, in all previous years).

https://preview.redd.it/uowotkqkmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b6b95fdb832ba59acf2746aa2e37af96df1a231
How it continued: altcoins and general market bubble 2017
The new growth of the BTC rate began in 2016, and became especially explosive in 2017. At the same time, altcoins, new cryptocurrencies, “alternative” BTC - ethereum (ETH), lightcoin (LTC), emercoin (EMC), and many others asserted themselves in a massive way. If until 2016 they stayed in the deep background of the market flagship, then in 2017 their total capitalization for some time exceeded the capitalization of BTC. In Summer 2017 there was a moment when the ETH acting alone nearly advanced the BTC.

https://preview.redd.it/e55s3hilmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b838ef697269c7746949eb2012882455ee8fe305
By the end of 2017, BTC had risen in price to $20,000, while the total capitalization of the cryptocurrency market reached a huge amount of $800 bln (higher than capitalization of any global corporation). But this turned out to be yet another bubble: throughout 2018, just as in 2014, the rate of BTC and other currencies was falling). By the end of the year, the market capitalization decreased to $130 billion.
What can be shown by the comparison of two bubbles
Financial bubbles constitute an unpleasant phenomenon, and yet a logical one. By studying their dynamics it is possible to reveal a lot of interesting things about the nature of the new assets. If we look attentively at the figures, it is possible to note: the bubbles of 2013-2014 and 2017-2018 have much in common.
⦁ In both cases, the rate of bitcoin has dropped approximately five-fold. Market capitalization in the second case has dropped approximately 6-fold.
⦁ In both cases, a general decline lasted about a year, followed by a quiet period.
⦁ In both cases, "after bubbles" the rates have been fixed at the levels that are considerably higher than the levels "before bubbles". For example, at the end of 2014, BTC was much more expensive than at the end of 2012, while in late 2018 it was much more expensive than in late 2016.
DECLINE IN 5.3
DECLINE IN 4.8

https://preview.redd.it/kvcy8nxmmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23dfa2bba06896babfba777d4ef16f9667c6f099
This simple comparison shows: the scale of the 2018 cryptocurrency crash is exaggerated. The bubble has developed according to the same scenario, as it happened last time, and seriously frightened only the novices.
Judging by the charts, the cryptocurrency market is more alive than dead. Moreover, it quite well follows the standard laws of financial bubbles’ development, and its multi-year trend is clearly positive. For the credibility one can recall, for example, the chart of the oil prices in the 2000s. As we can see here there is also a bubble and decline, but after that – recovery to the values, which are much higher than before the bubble. That’s what happens when the assets are really valuable (not just a short-lived hype), and this is exactly what we have been observing in case of cryptocurrency market.

https://preview.redd.it/2todpslnmw031.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9da51f9b71f36dffb5b1af8152bb949286fb10c5
With a high degree of probability, right now cryptocurrency investments are of particular interest. The upward movement looks quite reasonable, and why it has happened so abruptly, is there some catch behind it, and what are the fundamental reasons that contributed to the upward trend – we will discuss all these questions next time
Analytical department, Trident company, Victor Argonov, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.
Source:
http://trident-germes.com/category/article/
submitted by TridentGermes to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Long Term 2015 Bitcoin Price Prediction Bitcoin Price History Chart 2009 - 2018 #BitcoinPriceHistoryChart bitcoin historical price action is pure art 2x speed Bitcoin historical price chart and price today in dollar (USD) live CRAZY BITCOIN CHART PREDICTS A 3 YEAR BULLRUN from NOW!!!

Bitcoin history for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Bitcoin price chart since 2009 to 2019. The historical data and rates of BTC ... Bitcoin wurde 2009 noch auf keiner Börse gehandelt. Sein erster aufgezeichneter Preis war 2010. Technisch gesehen war Bitcoin 2009 im ersten Jahr seines Bestehens 0$ wert! Wie viel war 1 Bitcoin 2010 wert? Bitcoins Preis hat 2010 kein einziges Mal 1$ überschritten! Sein höchster Kurs für das Jahr lag bei gerade mal 0,39$! Was bestimmt den Kurs des Bitcoins? Der Kurs vom Bitcoin wird an der ... Bitcoin Price (BTC). Price chart, trade volume, market cap, and more. Discover new cryptocurrencies to add to your portfolio. Skip to content. Prices. Products. Company. Earn crypto. Get $171+ Sign in. Get started. Price charts Bitcoin price. Bitcoin price (BTC) Add to Watchlist $ 13,070.01 +0.56%. 1h. 24h. 1w. 1m. 1y. all. $0.0000 January 1 12:00 AM. 10:56 AM 3:06 PM 7:17 PM 11:27 PM 3:38 AM ... Bitcoin Price. bitcoinprice.org provides fast loading real time bitcoin price charts and historical bitcoin charts with advanced technical indicators and chart drawing tools. Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin. Bitcoins are traded in many different exchanges around the world and exchanged for many different national currencies as well as other ... Der Bitcoin - Euro Chart zeigt die Entwicklung des Bitcoin - Euro in grafischer Form und erlaubt somit einen schnellen Überblick über Kursverlauf, Höchst- und Tiefststände.

[index] [36053] [36786] [22765] [9840] [40559] [45548] [40168] [20106] [43304] [6178]

Long Term 2015 Bitcoin Price Prediction

This is a replay of the Bitcoin price between 2011 and 2019. -Bitcoin was created 2009 -Bitcoin price reaches $0.1 for the first time 10/10/2010 -Bitcoin pri... Graphical visualisation of the Bitcoin Github repository from 2009 to 2018. The tools used are Gource, Git, ffmpeg and Perl. My scripts : https://github.com/... Incredible BITCOIN Price Movement 2009 to 2017 ..what will be his next step...? More Information https://www.cryptooos.com/ Buy Bitcoin(Lambo) here https://c... -----Join Our Private Trading Community----- https://introtocryptos.ca Long Term 2015 Bitcoin Price Prediction - take a look at the long term price chart compared to the number of transactions per ... This video shows bitcoin historical price in dollar (USD) in a chart from 2014 up until the current bitcoin price. The bitcoin price history shows how volatile bitcoin is, but also that there is ...

#