Bitcoin Spikes To New Record High Over $3500 - Best Week Since Brexit Amid "Netscape Moment"

Bitcoin is now up almost 35% since the August 1st fork, and up over 90% from the mid-July fork-fears panic low. Buying was heavy in the overnight Asian session but surged once again this morning, seemingly after US CPI data disappointed, lifting the price to a new record high of $3547.

As we noted earlier, "The real demand for bitcoin will not be known until a global financial crisis guts confidence in central banks and politicized capital controls. "

 

This is Bitcoin's best week since pre-Brexit anxiety sent the virtual currency surging in June 2016...

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong noted: “Digital currencies are having their ‘Netscape’ moment...The pace of innovation has been accelerating and we are now seeing exciting projects and companies being built on top of digital currencies.”

As CoinTelegraph also notes, recent tension between the US and North Korea has played its part on the global market, rattling some of the major asset classes. However, not being pegged, or controlled by any centralized force, Bitcoin was totally unaffected by the news.

Cryptocurrencies are famous for their volatility, but the non-correlation between the global market slipping and cryptocurrencies mostly staying up shows that these decentralized forms of currency won’t be affected like traditional assets.

Comments

Honey-Badger (not verified) Hernando98 Fri, 08/11/2017 - 13:02 Permalink

Bitcoin will never be a transactional currency, average time for a verified transaction is somewhere between 10-20 minutes. Imagine standing at the shop for 20 minutes waiting for your purchase to be approved!So is it a hedge or an investment?It's not really an investment because there is no inherint value so it is a hedge against banker and government fiat corruption.Now what does this hedge rely on?1. Electricty2. Internet3. Legality (it is not illegal)I think both are here to stay unless of nuclear war, massive solar flare or asteroid impact so you are relatively safe holding them in terms of usage. I don't think governments could make it illegal without major backlash.Is it east to transact in or buy sell?Easy to buy but fucking scary and difficult to sell. You can buy a bitcoin at numerous places even locally through various websites but when it comes time to sell you have to load your coins onto a shady exchange then sell them in lots under $10k and hope your checks show up a couple weeks later.What can the government/ bankers do to control it?ALOT actually.1. If you open and use your wallet the NSA can easily track and link your IPs to your wallets. You can bet your ass they are storing this dat in Utah. They can and will attempt to tax and control this down the road be ready to exit if that happens.2. Futures/Options on bitcoin will totally corrupt any value and the bankers will be able to manipulate it ad infinitum3. They could drop terrorist or money laundering laws on any exchanges operating locally and funds coming from exchanges overseas.If you run through this logically you will see that it is a half decent hedge against banker/government corruption but they have a lot of options to control it and fuck you over royally and it will never be adopted for shopping or transactions. Not to mention that the luciferian bankers that run the show WANT a totally digital currency so I wouldn't be putting more then 5-10% of my portfolio into Bitcoin any more and you are total fcuking idiot!It only has value right now because everyone wants an exit to the banker controlled system, if government and banks step in which they have been trying already then nighty fucking night to your once valuable bitcoins.

In reply to by Hernando98

spacemonkey99 Honey-Badger (not verified) Fri, 08/11/2017 - 13:29 Permalink

Bitcoin isn't anonymous.  So like you mention  taxation is a given eventually.  It's lack of anonymity is a flaw anyone can read up on and hopefully they do?!This Satoshi being the only one anonymous in this whole deal is a little sketchy.  Mr Nakamoto could be CIA and this whole thing is one big really big slush fund.Blockchain currency is amazing though, monero is better tech as it is truly anonymous.Of course bitcoin has a way better name so I am sure it will keep going up along with ones declared income.

In reply to by Honey-Badger (not verified)

Mister Ponzi Honey-Badger (not verified) Fri, 08/11/2017 - 15:29 Permalink

Settlement of a Bitcoin transaction ist several minutes. Settlement of a bank card payment is two to three days. In both cases you won't wait in the shop until settlement is completed.If something doesn't have "inherent value", as you put it, doesn't mean it is not an investment. A painting by Rubens or Velazquez doesn't have inherent value but would have been a pretty good investment. Same with gold.

In reply to by Honey-Badger (not verified)

stitch-rock UndergroundPost Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:35 Permalink

Not understanding ones own fallacies...
now THERE is a show of no reasoning skills.

Tulips to BTC is a "metaphor" that seems to be used in the "understanding" of the
underlying value of the given exemplified 'asset'
for people who can not (or do not want to)
grasp either macro economics
or technological developments, and the implications thereof of
reprogramming social and institutional constructs.
One example of weakness in metaphor:
One cant bypass a remittance payment fee with tulips.

Historical context
is mute to the nature of the metaphor as postulated.

I am sorry you seem to be having such a difficult time rationalizing the world around you.

In reply to by UndergroundPost

tmosley UndergroundPost Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:09 Permalink

Tulips aren't, and never were fungible. That high priced tulip was extremely rare and beautiful, and was purchased by a rich man to decorate his home. Rare and beutiful flowers are still extraordinarily expensive. This does not mean they are in a bubble. https://www.serenataflowers.com/pollennation/7-expensive-flowers-world/… actual analogies are the .com bubble and the railroad bubble.

In reply to by UndergroundPost

Toxicosis Raffie Fri, 08/11/2017 - 14:22 Permalink

Stupid argument and observation!How in the last 2 thousand years plus did people ever exchange their gold and silver devoid of the use of power back then as well.  There was ascertained value given that silver and gold were used for purchases and wealth preservation.  You didn't need electricity, you needed a system of recognized value that people traded on.  Fuck, you think the world never existed before the use of electricity.We would do just fine bartering and trading with gold and silver as a history of recognized money.  Crypto's?  Now there's something a farmer will care less to trade his hard earned labor of eggs, milk and meat for, if the power was out.

In reply to by Raffie

tmosley Toxicosis Fri, 08/11/2017 - 14:51 Permalink

>We would do just fine bartering and trading with gold and silver as a history of recognized money.No, most of the population would starve to death. Your gold and silver won't save you from the cannibal hoards.But luckily, even in crisises much worse than the one the US will go through, the power and internet still didn't go out.

In reply to by Toxicosis

HRClinton Caloot Fri, 08/11/2017 - 15:00 Permalink

No sweat.  The power will be Off only in the US and Canada, when the Norks EMP us.Get to Mexico and beyond, and you still got your Bitcoin. Even though the Mexicans will rob you of your Cash and PM as you transit.To borrow from Tuco: "There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those with gold and those with guns. Those with guns take the gold." (Play riff from theme song)Dude, you need to be less 2-dimensional, and have a Plan for almost every scenario.  Else you're gambling with a poor hand.

In reply to by Caloot

tmosley UndergroundPost Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:48 Permalink

I'm saying that the "max price" everyone always cites is invalid, and that the same day that trade was made, more common tulips were trading at levels orders of magnitude lower, and continued to trade at such levels for a long time, and even to this day.There might, for example, be a bubble in art, or fine wine, but that shit isn't fungible. A painting or a bottle of wine selling for an exorbitant price doesn't mean that EVERY painting or EVERY bottle of wine sold at that price.IE it isn't, and never was a good comparison.As I have said, compare it to the .com bubble, in which there were winners and losers.

In reply to by UndergroundPost

adr stitch-rock Fri, 08/11/2017 - 10:43 Permalink

I don't have to pay for tokens to use the internet. I do have to pay for a company that grants me a line to use it, but they do not control the internet. I also don't make someone rich by purchasing a token that causes every other token to go up in value.You mean the free GPS system?Don't have to pay to get the weather.Wow, so Bitcoin is like a 3D animation program. What about Snow White or Wizard of Oz? The point is the Blockchain may have merit as a technology, but Bitcoin has no value because it is not needed for the Blockchain to be used. Any company can use Blockchain tech to create their own transfer system. Why as a company would I force myself to pay thousands of dollars to access a network that I can create myself using open source tech.

In reply to by stitch-rock

Kafir Goyim adr Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:31 Permalink

Any company can use Blockchain tech to create their own transfer system. Why as a company would I force myself to pay thousands of dollars to access a network that I can create myself using open source tech.

You wouldn't use bitcoin within your own company genius.  Who the hell ever said you would?  Is your level of misunderstanding really that deep?  Bitcoin is to be used between parties that do not trust each other, without the requirement of them trusting a common 3rd party like a bank or creditcard company.

 Bitcoin has no value because it is not needed for the Blockchain to be used.

I see people vomit up this line quite often.  You think it makes you look smart, but it really just makes a stinky, sticky mess on the carpet.We can store data for free in a server, no blockchain required.   Blockchains are a pain in the ass.  They're slow.  They're bulky. They waste energy.  They smell bad.You would only use a blockchain if you had a situation where you could not just put the data into a standard database.  So blockchains are only useful as ledgers shared by non-trusted parties.   If you control the network, (such as a bank, a hospital, a credit card company), you would never be stupid enough to use a blockchain.  You would use a database.But for cases where you don't trust the other members of the network, blockchains are really useful.  But what the people who vomit about "blockchains useful, bitcoin bad" do not understand, is that blockchains can be attacked.  To keep them secure, they must have a feedback loop that ramps up difficulty as computers get faster and better at breaking encryption.  This difficulty ramp feedback loop means that the blockchain custodians (we call them miners) have to expend more and more effort into the task of writing to the blockchain, which they will not do without being rewarded for it.You would never have a blockchain that is in a controlled network where you trust all parties that will make entries into the ledger.  You would use a database for that.  In a non-controlled network where non-trusted entities are expected to write to the ledger, you would use a blockchain, but that blockchain must be protected from attack by increasingly arduous processes that nobody would bother to do if they were not being rewarded for doing them.  Hence blockchain without bitcoin is nonsense.

In reply to by adr

tmosley adr Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:17 Permalink

You don't pay the person who controls Bitcoin to buy bitcoin either. You just buy it from someone who is selling it (there is no such person). Sort of like buying an ISP, or opening your own free bank (as opposed to the currently widespread banks controlled by central banks).>Any company can use Blockchain tech to create their own transfer system.Yes, and any company can launch solar panels into geostationary orbit to create their own source of power. But that is kind of expensive, so most of them just buy it from the power company.

In reply to by adr

TheReplacement adr Fri, 08/11/2017 - 12:38 Permalink

The question is why would anyone want to use your company's blockchain if it is centrally controlled by your company and offers little to no value/profit to us? It is a valuable technology by itself but the winner will, at least for the time being, be the one in which the masses have the most faith.

In reply to by adr

Dirtnapper BaBaBouy Fri, 08/11/2017 - 10:26 Permalink

Yet Asia is accepting it as currency.  If the BRICS plus Japan, Australia are going to use cryptos as money (and countries digitizing their own currency like Singapore and China), does the rest of the world care what some US PM hoarders think?  America is no longer the lead economic dog like we were in the last century.  This century belongs to Asia.

In reply to by BaBaBouy

The Cooler King (not verified) Raffie Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:15 Permalink

@Raffie I respectfully ask that you indulge me here (if you please) for a few moments of your time. The purpose will be to play a simple QUESTION & ANSWER game. Simple questions, simple answers. Pretend it's TWITTER or something, whereby all questions & answers are limited with regards to text. I'll start by asking a question, you answer, then I ask another question, you answer (most will be as easy as a "yes" or "no" reply). In the end, hopefully, readers will get a better insight as to the benefits & potential pitfalls. You & others seem so perfectly confident that you'll win, then, my friend. What do you have to lose by playing the game? I'll start with the first question: To your knowledge, how many bitcoin wallets are in existence at the present moment?  

In reply to by Raffie

The Cooler King (not verified) tmosley Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:48 Permalink

OK Wait, lol, here's the "fork" mosley says there are 15,885,221The guy below says that 'nobody knows' because of some loophole that mosley didn't account for... So, basically, all we can logically say based on the 2 replies is that the actual number falls between mosleys number and the outside hidden parameter (the upper limit - which is 2^160), of the guy below, BadLibertarianRight or wrong? IOW ~ yes or no? I'm trying to keep this Q&A simple & I'm doing my best to try and become 'informed' by you experts (waiting on a 'yes' or 'no' on my above question ~ don't get tired or bored on me now ~ Raffie, you're invited too)

In reply to by tmosley