Bitcoin CRASH: Cryptocurrency PLUMMETS 60 per cent in MONTH as market continues to tumble

[Eaglerino]

8 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

I was just saying that by his definition of gambling, the stock market is technically gambling, though I do agree it does take more effort to do well in the stock market

They kind of are gambling, you spend money then that money disappears and you're given some arbitrary worth that the part of whatever company you bought will still be worth some kind of money in the future. I mean there's laws preventing a company from dipping too far in a single day before they have to close trading so at least it's not going to be a Bitcoin or actual gambling risk, but everyone knows investing is a risk

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

I was just saying that by his definition of gambling, the stock market is technically gambling, though I do agree it does take more effort to do well in the stock market

 

by his definition, probably, but by most metrics not really.

 

22 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

They kind of are gambling, you spend money then that money disappears and you're given some arbitrary worth that the part of whatever company you bought will still be worth some kind of money in the future. I mean there's laws preventing a company from dipping too far in a single day before they have to close trading so at least it's not going to be a Bitcoin or actual gambling risk, but everyone knows investing is a risk

It's not arbitrary though,  each share you by has a defined value and it's value is effected by the market (this is what gives it a predictable nature and less of a risk).  It is a reasoned system. Arbitrary would be a random or un-reasoned value attributed in an unrelated way.

[AdmiralKird]

The stock market is what you make of it. The average dollar put into it, if its spread out over a decent size of companies doubles in value every seven years or so. There are hundreds of years of data on various equity markets proving it as a reliable form of investment over time, or people wouldn't place significant amounts of their retirement in it. That's not really gambling. But if you pick just one company to place everything in that you think is going to revolutionize the... cookie market, because they make knock-off Oreos but put the filling on the outside... well... yeah that's gambling.

Anyway, bitcoin doesn't appear to have a discernible beta (its propensity to rise and fall with the New York Stock Exchange). There are some studies online trying to figure bitcoin's beta out, but their conclusions are that there isn't any correlation... which... is very weird, you'd think there would be at least some.

[Bananasplit_00]

Not sure if I really like this or hate it, my mined btc are becoming pretty useless 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, AdmiralKyrd said:

The stock market is what you make of it. The average dollar put into it, if its spread out over a decent size of companies doubles in value every seven years or so. There are hundreds of years of data on various equity markets proving it as a reliable form of investment over time, or people wouldn't place significant amounts of their retirement in it. That's not really gambling. But if you pick just one company to place everything in that you think is going to revolutionize the... cookie market, because they make knock-off Oreos but put the filling on the outside... well... yeah that's gambling.

 

So basically if you don't know what your doing it may as well be gambling.

 

Quote

Anyway, bitcoin doesn't appear to have a discernible beta (its propensity to rise and fall with the New York Stock Exchange). There are some studies online trying to figure bitcoin's beta out, but their conclusions are that there isn't any correlation... which... is very weird, you'd think there would be at least some.

If there is no correlation between the stock market and CC value, and the reports that companies are buying bitcoin as an insurance policy to pay off ransomware attacks are true, then that would make sense.  It's value is primarily not related to investment growth but to laterally related outside factors.

 

EDIT: for those that like to read into my posts, this is merely postulation, as has been established BTC is too young to draw any tangible data from.

[RyomaSJibenG]

i just hope all those cards are in healthy conditions, who knows the moment we start using it broke....

[Master Disaster]

Isn't this more the bubble bursting than the market crashing?

 

BTC hasn't fallen to far below where it was at before the mass craze started, this is essentially just the part timers losing interest/confidence and dumping everything to get out ergo allowing for the market to return to normality.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

if you had spent 1000 on bitcoin in 2011, you would be up a at least 1000%.

Lol you're funny, the reason ram shortages are a thing is not because people are buying 20 GPUs, it's because phones started using the same ram as PCs.

not really

[Master Disaster]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

not really

Yes really. Every mid or higher tier phone manufactured in the last 2 years has used the exact same LPDDR4 RAM as any PC would use.

 

Combine that with the explosion of eMMC in portable devices adding more work load to memory manufacturing fabs and you've got a perfect storm of demand hugely outstripping supply.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Isn't this more the bubble bursting than the market crashing?

 

BTC hasn't fallen to far below where it was at before the mass craze started, this is essentially just the part timers losing interest/confidence and dumping everything to get out ergo allowing for the market to return to normality.

I don't think so. As far as I know there is no defined value for a bubble, it's just strong growth beyond reasonable or market/intrinsic value.  And given no body knows what the intrinsic value actually is then how do we know if it even was a bubble.

 

I'm guessing given enough economists have called it a bubble and said it's going to crash that we have seen it at it's highest and likely will never get that high again, but we don't know where it's going to settle.

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think so. As far as I know there is no defined value for a bubble, it's just strong growth beyond reasonable or market/intrinsic value.  And given no body knows what the intrinsic value actually is then how do we know if it even was a bubble.

 

I'm guessing given enough economists have called it a bubble and said it's going to crash that we have seen it at it's highest and likely will never get that high again, but we don't know where it's going to settle.

I always thought the term bubble was applied to any new fad that people invest in to try and get rich quick. I'm not sure if a defined value is even important, I thought it was more if people who wouldn't normally invest are doing so because everyone else is doing it.

 

I'm not sure if that's correct or not though.

 

Edit

 

I googled it and found this

Quote

What is a 'Bubble'

A bubble is an economic cycle characterized by rapid escalation of asset prices followed by a contraction. It is created by a surge in asset prices unwarranted by the fundamentals of the asset and driven by exuberant market behavior. When no more investors are willing to buy at the elevated price, a massive selloff occurs, causing the bubble to deflate.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

I always thought the term bubble was applied to any new fad that people invest in to try and get rich quick. I'm not sure if a defined value is even important, I thought it was more if people who wouldn't normally invest are doing so because everyone else is doing it.

 

I'm not sure if that's correct or not though.

Might have to do some googling, I am pretty sure it's just strong growth in anything beyond its market or intrinsic value. like the dotcom bubble.  websites and new startups were valued higher than the market could sustain.  That is why they say all bubbles burst. 

 

I am happy to be corrected on this though. 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Might have to do some googling, I am pretty sure it's just strong growth in anything beyond its market or intrinsic value. like the dotcom bubble.  websites and new startups were valued higher than the market could sustain.  That is why they say all bubbles burst. 

 

I am happy to be corrected on this though. 

Well it seems like I was partially correct and so were you

 

Quote

What is a 'Bubble'

A bubble is an economic cycle characterized by rapid escalation of asset prices followed by a contraction. It is created by a surge in asset prices unwarranted by the fundamentals of the asset and driven by exuberant market behavior. When no more investors are willing to buy at the elevated price, a massive selloff occurs, causing the bubble to deflate.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Well it seems like I was partially correct

 

 

Close enough for jazz.

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

and I'm just here buying ripple while they're dirt cheap

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

and I'm just here buying ripple while they're dirt cheap

Raspberry?

[Sakkura]

46 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Yes really. Every mid or higher tier phone manufactured in the last 2 years has used the exact same LPDDR4 RAM as any PC would use.

 

Combine that with the explosion of eMMC in portable devices adding more work load to memory manufacturing fabs and you've got a perfect storm of demand hugely outstripping supply.

LPDDR4 doesn't take any more fab space than LPDDR3 did. The switch in memory types for phones is largely irrelevant to the ongoing DRAM short supply situation.

 

It's more about the increasing memory capacity per phone.

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

LPDDR4 doesn't take any more fab space than LPDDR3 did. The switch in memory types for phones is largely irrelevant to the ongoing DRAM short supply situation.

 

It's more about the increasing memory capacity per phone.

It's not about fab space, it's about demand outstripping supply.

 

When only 3 fabs are producing RAM and every tech company on the planet is looking to buy the product it's impossible to keep up.

 

As for ram amounts increasing, I'd argue that has no impact at all. Fabs are producing larger units for DDR4, 2GB of DDR3 was 2 x 1GB while 4GB of DDR4 is 2 x 2GB so theres no increase in the amount of modules needed to bump the memory at all.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

If I commit my life to study and meditation, will I at some point know what people mean by "the market correcting itself"? Or will the secret always remain obscure to the uninitiated?  

 

4 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

Well, technically you can only make educated guesses in the stock market, so by your definition, investing in stocks is just gambling 

If stock-picking and/or looking for short term returns, yes, it is.

With diversified portfolios and long horizons it's still uncertain, but not really gamble (not knowing exactly how much you'll earn isn't the same as not knowing whether you'll win or lose).

 

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Might have to do some googling, I am pretty sure it's just strong growth in anything beyond its market or intrinsic value. like the dotcom bubble.  websites and new startups were valued higher than the market could sustain.  That is why they say all bubbles burst. 

 

I am happy to be corrected on this though. 

 

You are quite correct. A "bubble" in any episode in which the price of the asset subject to the bubble is "above its fundamental" value. As you can imagine, many, if not all bubbles are never 100% agreed on by analysts because it's often difficult to measure the "fundamental value" of the asset in question. Moreover, there is no limit to how many bubbles the same asset can be subject to: there can be one in the entire human history or a sequence of bubbles bursting one after the other in rapid succession. Whenever a bubble bursts, the asset's price returns to its fundamental. Since a rational bubble has a stochastic duration¹, the size of the "burst" can be anything from a few percentage points to a large crash, depending on how fast the "bubbly" growth was and how long it lasted. If the price never got too far of the fundamental, it will be barely noticeable, whereas if the gap was big then the fall will look large.

 

Spoiler

http://www.nber.org/papers/w0945

 

¹Bubbles are "rational" if people don't pay above-fundamental prices for no reason, but because they expect further price increases. The price increase is self-fulfilling, so rational agents fully aware of the existence of a bubble are not wrong to assume there will be a price increase. But if the price increase is deterministic, then the bubble never bursts, and the expected increase would be part of the fundamental value. However, if there is a probability of investors shifting from one equilibrium to another -from self-fulfilling price increases to self-fulfilling stagnation-, then in expected terms it may still be rational to participate in the bubble, but at some unknown point in the future the price will return to the fundamental and the last to bet on the bubble will experience a loss. Importantly, bubbles are supported by expected gains, so it is enough for a decelaration or a flattening of the price to burst it - if it's not going up, then it will go down.

[Kukielka]

Well, I guess I just bought some more!

[lobster_zoidberg]

8 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Due to NK and Trumps USA

The stock market is at all time highs thanks to Trump - then one little drop "oh trumps ruined the stockmarket"

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Yes really. Every mid or higher tier phone manufactured in the last 2 years has used the exact same LPDDR4 RAM as any PC would use.

 

Combine that with the explosion of eMMC in portable devices adding more work load to memory manufacturing fabs and you've got a perfect storm of demand hugely outstripping supply.

The shortage has been around for a lot longer than 2 years boss.

[Sakkura]

29 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

It's not about fab space, it's about demand outstripping supply.

 

When only 3 fabs are producing RAM and every tech company on the planet is looking to buy the product it's impossible to keep up.

 

As for ram amounts increasing, I'd argue that has no impact at all. Fabs are producing larger units for DDR4, 2GB of DDR3 was 2 x 1GB while 4GB of DDR4 is 2 x 2GB so theres no increase in the amount of modules needed to bump the memory at all.

Switching from LPDDR3 to LPDDR4 does not increase demand.

 

The capacity per module does go up over time, but not directly tied to the memory type; you could make high-capacity LPDDR3 (or even LPDDR2), there's just no point in doing so. Likewise, over time they shrink the process node to increase bit output, but that also is not really tied to the memory type.

[RagnarokDel]

54 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

LPDDR4 doesn't take any more fab space than LPDDR3 did. The switch in memory types for phones is largely irrelevant to the ongoing DRAM short supply situation.

 

It's more about the increasing memory capacity per phone.

semantics

[Unimportant]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The only people who fear government regulation of CC are the ones that don't understand how economics work.   

Or perhaps the ones who *really* understand economics and know government meddling and government fiat money are the true source of the endless crises ?

 

The fear comes from the fact that governments view crypto as competition to their bottomless well of fiat money printer ink and the power that comes with that, and won't attempt honest regulation but will "regulate" the sector to death.