Bitcoin Is Now Bigger Than Morgan Stanley

On the back of (unconfirmed) rumors suggesting China may back down from its harsh stance of ICOs and crypto exchanges following this week's National Congress, the price of Bitcoin soared overnight, testing near $5900 before falling back a little this morning.

That has pushed Bitcoin's market cap above $90 billion for the first time, surpassing PayPal, Netflix, and Morgan Stanley...

Goldman Sachs' market cap is looming ($96bn) but JP Morgan's $337 billion market cap is a long way off for now.


FactDog ZorroHedge Fri, 10/13/2017 - 08:54 Permalink

I picked some up in 2011 and 2012.  Forgot about them and the recent media hype has me hunting. Good news-- some of the exchanges I used are still in existence.   The bad news is that over 50% of the BTC purchased have been stolen by the people who ran the exchanges.  :-(  I still have a few hundred but WTF.....Security is very important and we should regulate the exchanges somehow.

In reply to by ZorroHedge

Son of Captain Nemo FactDog Fri, 10/13/2017 - 09:36 Permalink


What you said in that last sentence is the most basic and vital component to ANY "specie" that gets issued.

If you can't set standards for it that are agreed upon by all parties that use it whether it's "weights and measures" of a coin or an electronic "1" and "0" data packet you have a long leash for treachery and getting "fucked hard" in the ass!

I'll say it again to anyone who wants to listen.

If Satoshi is the phantom that is the only one that ensures the integrity of that medium of exchange (still without a store of value backing it) by magically squeezing a hash algorithm out of his gluteus that is your "guarantee" without knowing the systems that mined it and the networks with ip addresses that can be verified it traversed in getting to you, I almost hope it does go to $10,000 by next month!

In reply to by FactDog

chuckymcgee Son of Captain Nemo Fri, 10/13/2017 - 11:10 Permalink

I think you miss the key point of Bitcoin. There is no need to trust anyone else. The security of your transactions isn't dependent on any government, bank or entity. The protection of your transactions is backed purely by mathematics in a way no one can interfere. Your thinking that these transparent, open-source math functions are "magic" is one of simple ignorance. Educate yourself as to how cryptographic signatures function and you'll understand Satoshi and anyone else isn't needed.

In reply to by Son of Captain Nemo

nmewn Enkidu78 Fri, 10/13/2017 - 08:25 Permalink

"Do you know what a ponzi is?" lol...why yes, yes I do. At the basic level, a successful ponzi relies on the "winning holder" not being the "last holder". As far as "relying" on things, BitShit relies on electricity, internet, a device, accounts, the gullible next to last "holders" and a national currency to convert nothing (the BitDigits) into. Are you volunteering to be the "last holder"? ;-)

In reply to by Enkidu78

AlZo nmewn Fri, 10/13/2017 - 08:43 Permalink

While bitcoin does rely on electricity and internet, their temporary abscence is not threatening funds anywhere. Bitcoin does not depend on any particular device and there is no concept of "accounts". Only the service providers around bitcoin use accounts but their use is not necessary. Bitcoin does not rely on the existence of a national currency to convert into.The question of the "last holder" currently matters for national currencies and holders of debts and other assets that are the liability of someone else. Not bitcoin ! If your analyses does not help you to appreciate the incredible preciousness of a write access code to the most secure decentralised ledger in the world, you might realise that preciousness only when most people around you use it and rely on it to store their wealth and transfer it. At that point in time, you might start to get it.

In reply to by nmewn

tmosley nmewn Fri, 10/13/2017 - 08:51 Permalink

No, a ponzi relies on meeting specific fucking conditions to make it a ponzi.By the definition you retards use, EVERYTHING, INCLUDING GOLD AND SILVER are ponzis. If one day no-one wanted any gold or silver, the price would drop to zero and your stupid ass would be the last holder. But that isn't very likely to happen, is it?

In reply to by nmewn

Mr_Potatohead tmosley Fri, 10/13/2017 - 10:07 Permalink

Bingo, we have a winner!  The value of EVERYTHING indeed depends on what somebody is willing to pay in the future.  The best stores of value therefore tend to be things that survive practically anything over long periods of time and which can't be created out of thin air to inflate supply without a real cost comparable to the current price.  Historically, the best stores of value tend to be the things that really wealthy families buy quietly and store securely for very long periods of time.  I might be wrong, but I'd be shocked if many of these families have significant holdings in bitcoin.  Enjoy the bitcoin ride while you can, and be sure to sell before the momentum finally stalls.

In reply to by tmosley

malek tmosley Fri, 10/13/2017 - 11:54 Permalink

A ponzi would hardly work if the playing units could not be created at basically zero cost.

And no, tulipcoins were CREATED at basically zero cost by designing/choosing the mathematical function (that brings the touted "limited supply" with it, which is meaningless as the number of other mathematical functions that can be created at zero cost is practically limitless.)

In reply to by tmosley

eltxamo nmewn Fri, 10/13/2017 - 11:18 Permalink

so far holding bitcoin is better strategy than selling bitcoin. The fact is, that the longer the timespan the less bitcoins are produced per day and the higher the price. now, i'm not saying that there will not be scams that uses the bitcoin name, just this year 4 bitcoin clones, claiming to be bitcoin will be released, with names like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold or bitcoin 2x . up until know all this bitcoin clones had different names like litecoin, peercoin, digitalcoin, swiftcoin, chinacoin and all sort of *coins names that spamed the hell out of the tickers. SO, it's a tought world out there for newbies.

In reply to by nmewn

jvidalm Fri, 10/13/2017 - 07:20 Permalink

Another TULIP Maybe they have a chance to challenge the old monopoly of the Money Makers.But that would be a major battle that would challenge the very foundations of the countries as we havent know them in the last 3 centuries.Without the monopoly of the money, the West wouldn't be so rich as they think they are.Also de Anglo-American Empire would be too hard to hold without free money.

HowardBeale Fri, 10/13/2017 - 07:24 Permalink

Imagine 59 $100 bills in your hand. Count them. Fold the pile and try to put it in your wallet. Set them on the coffee table in resignation. Now imagine picking them up, puttting them in an envelope, licking and sealing the envelope, then writing an address on the envelope which allows it to arrive at the bitcoin exchange. Walk to a U.S. mailbox, open the slot, feel the thickness of the envelope, look to the sky and drop the envelope inside.Good luck sleeping...

abyssinian blargg Fri, 10/13/2017 - 09:21 Permalink

you can always cash out the money you orginally invested... since most people are up betweeen 500-10,000% hahaha not a hard thing to figure out when people have that much gains... I bought ETH at around $12 now near $400, all within few months of this year... all you have to do is sell enough to get your money back and the rest of 500%+ gains are just play money 

In reply to by blargg

HowardBeale abyssinian Fri, 10/13/2017 - 08:13 Permalink

As a mathematician, I've always tended to look at things in terms of the extremes ( zero & infinity); thus, since there is no way to put an appropriate price on something created from thin air other than people's willingness to buy thin air, it seems bitcoin's only limit is that of the largest bank account out there. So one bitcoin is worth the Bezo's fortune? Zuckerberg's? In terms of real things: Is one bitcoin going to be worth all beachfront property from Santa Barbara to San Diego? Bitcoin is not a problem as long as it is just shifting money from one idiot to the next, but when someone (the  usual Wall Street suspects, the banks) figure out how to print dollars to buy/pump bitcoin, then we've got an inflation problem. Buy the entire coast of California with a bitcoin and watch real estate go parabolic. As it is, the prices of homes in my neighborhood have tripled due to the Fed's printing...

In reply to by abyssinian