What do you mean that institutions rule the roost?

Yes sub $100 eth is more likely than $10k. I would take that bet too (who said that, can't find it).

Bitcoin has indeed done very well each time it has been tested at the 6k level, it goes without saying the more often it is tested and holds the more it says about what people think it is worth. I can offer some input regarding this. I actually now work for a bitcoin broker in the Netherlands and last month was the biggest drop in seller % and largest increase in buyers. That trend means a lot given that the hype has gone away. The hype will return just like it has done in 6 or 7 cycles previously. I feel very very bullish for BTC in the next few months and am very excited to see what happens. Maybe someone wants to take a friendly bet that BTC will break 10k before Dec 31st with me? We probably keep testing support but I feel pretty good about the worst case scenario being hovering around 6-7k for a while.

I do agree with the state of a lot of coins not reaching their ATH's for a long time, I would also disagree and say that a lot of them will never reach their ATH again, this is of course easy feel this way during such a bear market. The future is very unknown and I have never felt confident about the value of a lot of alts in terms of their dollar value, however, I don't believe that makes their value redundant.

I mean the price of Bitcoin is being manipulated by the institutions in the futures markets. It’s in their interests for the price to go much lower than it is today, so they can buy bitcoin at some stage in the future from panicked sellers.

Bitcoin is being compared to Gold in regards to the proposed ETFs, but in my opinion a large part of the upswing in the gold price was to do with it being a safe haven asset during the financial crisis. Bitcoin is anything but a safe haven asset.

A little contradictory no? Wasn't gold supposed to have been manipulated over the years? I don't deny in the belief that has happened with bitcoin too, I just don't know enough about this sort of behaviour.

What makes gold such a safe haven asset? (I already know the answers, I just want to hear it from you)

What makes Bitcoin anything but a safe haven asset?

New technology poses risks, see recent CVE inflation bug. Highly volatile. Unclear regulatory environment.

Not sure if safe haven refers to censorship resistant or risk on/risk off. Its hard to say BTC is risk off compared to traditional risk off assets like Gold or Government Bonds. I think the run up in price coincides with new asset class emergence combined with factors of; low faith in government and the tech led market boom in recent years.

Trump and Brexit are good examples but also see recent reports on Crypto ownership in Brazil, a country where the establishment is facing a crisis at the moment. Korea has also seen protests against the government and also has high levels of interest in cryptocurrency.

SP500 had a significant top in January that has taken roughly 6 months to consolidate past, the risk on/off narrative could be applied here, but I don't want to overlook the overall market cycle crypto had and its certainly not strongly correlated but I think its worth thinking about.

Does anyone have XRP? I bought a whole chunk (too much!) late 2017 in preference to BTC (though I did buy some BTC, BCH, XLM and ETH too). I sold all my BTC a few days ago and moved it into XRP as figured there might be an XRP bull run, and 'tis going a bit crazy the last three days for sure

+60%-ish_. Just overtaken ETH as 2nd biggest crypto by market cap. Interesting times.

Please dear god dump your xrp here and forget about it. Rank 2 in crypto and enormous volume are a sign off a blowoff top- Price peaked nearly 2.5x since the 18th.

ha, no thanks. I think it'll be somewhere around $3 at EOY, possibly higher. I did offload a few thousand coins at 0.67 though just now, and tried to buy-in a bit lower, but muffed it and ended up with .67 again :p (it's now 0.61, ah well.).

Click to see full-size image.

Change since midnight GMT was +75%  (now down +35%), with 3 day change something like 125%. Nuts.

I edited the forget about it bit out as it seemed a bit much. But please take a bit of profit even if its just to flip for some more xrp. Its a pretty low liquidity coin (hence the enormous pump). Your 3$ target gives it a market cap of over 120bn, which is around the mcap of the top 50 S&P 500 companies. Now i know it got there before but that took 3 years of bull market conditions. I know it feels euphoric right now but 125% in 3 days and you don't want to take anything at all off the table. Esp with the classic crypto top signs as well

1) More volume than BTC on Bitfinex   (Eth bottomed recently when its volume >BTC, EOS topped when its volume >BTC
2) 2nd in mcap rating behind BTC over taking ETH  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/29/ripple-soars-becomes-second-biggest-cryptocurrency-by-market-cap.html
3) Blowoff top with large wick on lower time frames, way above moving averages.

Might be a bit late now and the old adage of Stairs up and Elevator down will struggle to apply with how parabolic it was.

Does anyone have XRP? I bought a whole chunk (too much!) late 2017 in preference to BTC (though I did buy some BTC, BCH, XLM and ETH too). I sold all my BTC a few days ago and moved it into XRP as figured there might be an XRP bull run, and 'tis going a bit crazy the last three days for sure

+60%-ish_. Just overtaken ETH as 2nd biggest crypto by market cap. Interesting times.

Please dear god dump your xrp here. Rank 2 in crypto and enormous volume are a sign off a blowoff top- Price peaked nearly 2.5x since the 18th.

Click to see full-size image.

UKIP candidate economist in Brexit not that bad shocker. Extremely boring to debate economics/results of the decision before it has even happened!

Why don't they include the name of the report? Oh right, because the "report" is actually an article in the May edition of Standpoint.

I do chuckle when one article that is posted on here that criticises the remain campaign/forecasts when literally dozens of articles/opinions/Guardian pieces that are pro remain get posted without a word.

What is wrong with posting a different view on here compared to the endless views that push a pro EU perspective?

The credibility of what the likes of Osborne/BOE said is in tatters. Their tactics were a disgrace and cost remain the vote. An article on that isn’t worthy of a place in a political thread?

It is not an article on that. There is next to no information on a report that hasn't even been published yet.

Also, why do I have to impartially post? I typically try not to post very much here because I do not think people particularly care about my opinion so when I post it tends to be because something bothers me. The most laughable part of this post is that only I replied, then you respond and Woodsey jumps in with a snarky 0 input remark that stinks of bandwagoning. Where are the hoards of remainers jumping in? I actually feel like this forum is reasonably split but obviously Remain get a boost in posts because Tighty is trying to generate posts, and I believe supports Remain.

If you don't see the problem with multiple streams of media publishing the bare bones headline from a report that isn't even publicly released yet, whilst criticizing the exact same thing on the behalf of Remainers then what is the point of this discussion? Do I need to come up with some sort of fancy project name? Project Drear?

https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/07072016_oi_tbtj_sr.pdf

TOO BIG TO JAIL:
INSIDE THE OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S DECISION
NOT TO HOLD WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE

"But before DOJ could announce at the September 11th interagency call
whether its senior leaders had approved AFMLS’s recommendation to prosecute
HSBC, George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the UK’s chief financial
minister, intervened in the HSBC matter by sending a letter to Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke (with a copy transmitted to then-Treasury Secretary
Timothy Geithner) on September 10, 2012, to express the UK’s concerns regarding
U.S. enforcement actions against British banks.21 Chancellor Osborne insinuated
in his letter of September 10th that the U.S. was unfairly targeting UK banks by
seeking settlements that were significantly higher than “comparable” settlements
with U.S. banks.22 Moreover, the Chancellor’s letter warned Chairman Bernanke
and Secretary Geithner that prosecuting a “systemically important financial
institution” such as HSBC “could lead to [financial] contagion” and pose “very
serious implications for financial and economic stability, particularly in Europe and
Asia.”23 "

Too big to fail, too big to jail. Ridiculous.

It also detracts from the more important question regarding the referendum and side taking. I think I agree that the Treasury should not be releasing reports that go one way or another but then we are left with this situation where Media rags run headlines before the "report" is even released publicly.

UKIP candidate economist in Brexit not that bad shocker. Extremely boring to debate economics/results of the decision before it has even happened!

Why don't they include the name of the report? Oh right, because the "report" is actually an article in the May edition of Standpoint.

If someone with giftaid could donate £30 and send me their bank details I will forward the ££

Happy to send first too ofc, just want to get that pesky giftaid.

Can't you just lie? They don't actually check do they?

Not sure tbh, never tried. Seems like a bad gamble

Sorted too!

If someone with giftaid could donate £30 and send me their bank details I will forward the ££

Happy to send first too ofc, just want to get that pesky giftaid.

I don't think you can say that attacks like these are ineffective unless you set a very high bar for measuring effectiveness. The rhetoric prior to the attacks makes me not want them to happen (Trump and Macron especially) but I can't say it bothers me overly - on balance, I think it's more likely that it makes Russia/Syria think twice about their actions rather than serve to escalate things. I guess you pay your money and take your choice on this one.

Not really sure why we go mental based on Chemical weapon use but seem indifferent to the many other ways people are being slaughtered in Syria.

I guess the attacks last year stopped Assad for 9 months. But 9 months isn't that long if the goal is to stop something.

I guess I thought the UN Charter was enshrined in law, I might be wrong. Still a big shout for the regime to do this, they will be terrified if they hit anything Russian.

At what point do you draw a line in the sand? When they use chemical weapons another once, twice on civilians and children?

If they do nothing it gives the Russians and Assad a green light to do it again.

You don’t think Assad will think about the consequences before doing it again? Wouldn’t this potentially save lives in future?

Why did we draw the line here though? They have continued to use chemical weapons after previous retaliation attacks. Incredibly ineffective.

I just got an e-mail from 'stars promoting a new game they are going to be spreading - split holdem - two flops with the possibility of either scooping or splitting the pot.

I can't help but wonder if there will be any difference in how the pot will be raked should the pot be scooped or split.

This could be right up Evilpie's street if there's full rake on split pots.

Not sure if its standard in live o8 games but Stars won't be reducing the rake, they don't in o8.

any updates around? GL!!!!

With horrid cesspit, racialist government producing worst stats since Boer War Jezza gotta be one of the two simpletons right?

The problem is we haven't in my lifetime fought elections based on true things or facts. Milton Friedman realised truth would be a massive problem and modern Conservativism was born. I guess that's the irony, Corbyn is specifically trying to make the discussion about facts, if he does that, he wins.

The simpletons are you and Woodsey, there would be a mention for me but my desire to keep learning keeps me off the list, just. Next time I get suckered in to drunkenly abusing a simpleton, I might have to reconsider and join the list myself.

The real problem is you can't back up your simpleton accusations with any facts, statistics or evidence. Which is your chosen method of proving a point. So the real irony is that you aren't specifically making the discussion about facts like yo hero Corbyn. If you did that you would win. Instead you are reacting to things that are merely said and as previously described I mostly banter. So your emotional reactions and firm conclusions towards banter are exactly the reactions the electorate have to messages 'modern Conservatism' peddle. Because people are people just like you. So Jezza spouting facts means he never actually wins hence he must be one of the simpletons.

Facts:

Wages lower now than 2010
More people in poverty than 2010
More people homeless than 2010
Life expectancy in decline in some parts of UK
More people who are in employment in poverty than 2010
Record numbers using food banks

That really is the tip of the iceberg, the thread is full of facts though, so I don't really understand what you're saying.

Fact: The Tories inherited an economy that was fked because of the financial crisis and how labour dealt with it in the immediate aftermath. You cannot say whether a labour government would have dealt with it better in the longer term. My opinion is labour would have pissed more more away and left us in a worse position that it is now, you will disagree but that is your opinion not fact.

Our opinions obviously aren't facts, what I wrote are facts. My opinion is that running public services in to the ground was a terrible response to the financial crisis. You've just been conned that funding public services is bad for the economy, there's no evidence to support this.

Yes but the ‘facts’ you have presented would have been different under a different govt, my opinion is those ‘facts’ would have been worse under a useless labour govt that usually pisses money away.

I haven’t been conned about anything, we just disagree on the amount of money spent on public services versus reducing the national debt. But you are a civil servant so I understand why you might hold that opinion......

National debt hasn't been reduced but it has flatlined in recent years. Tory Government hasn't had a surplus yet. Largely due to economic conditions ofc but in the facts business

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

Yes I know  

What’s that got to do with I believe  labour would have done a worse job?

I didn't think you knew as you wrote reducing thats all. It seems weird to me to write reducing if you know it is not being reduced. I think its a common misconception due to the word austerity being thrown around.

I thought I'd preempted the snarky, boring reply by mitigating the response by discussing economic conditions. I thought the smiley made it obvious it was bants.

With horrid cesspit, racialist government producing worst stats since Boer War Jezza gotta be one of the two simpletons right?

The problem is we haven't in my lifetime fought elections based on true things or facts. Milton Friedman realised truth would be a massive problem and modern Conservativism was born. I guess that's the irony, Corbyn is specifically trying to make the discussion about facts, if he does that, he wins.

The simpletons are you and Woodsey, there would be a mention for me but my desire to keep learning keeps me off the list, just. Next time I get suckered in to drunkenly abusing a simpleton, I might have to reconsider and join the list myself.

The real problem is you can't back up your simpleton accusations with any facts, statistics or evidence. Which is your chosen method of proving a point. So the real irony is that you aren't specifically making the discussion about facts like yo hero Corbyn. If you did that you would win. Instead you are reacting to things that are merely said and as previously described I mostly banter. So your emotional reactions and firm conclusions towards banter are exactly the reactions the electorate have to messages 'modern Conservatism' peddle. Because people are people just like you. So Jezza spouting facts means he never actually wins hence he must be one of the simpletons.

Facts:

Wages lower now than 2010
More people in poverty than 2010
More people homeless than 2010
Life expectancy in decline in some parts of UK
More people who are in employment in poverty than 2010
Record numbers using food banks

That really is the tip of the iceberg, the thread is full of facts though, so I don't really understand what you're saying.

Fact: The Tories inherited an economy that was fked because of the financial crisis and how labour dealt with it in the immediate aftermath. You cannot say whether a labour government would have dealt with it better in the longer term. My opinion is labour would have pissed more more away and left us in a worse position that it is now, you will disagree but that is your opinion not fact.

Our opinions obviously aren't facts, what I wrote are facts. My opinion is that running public services in to the ground was a terrible response to the financial crisis. You've just been conned that funding public services is bad for the economy, there's no evidence to support this.

Yes but the ‘facts’ you have presented would have been different under a different govt, my opinion is those ‘facts’ would have been worse under a useless labour govt that usually pisses money away.

I haven’t been conned about anything, we just disagree on the amount of money spent on public services versus reducing the national debt. But you are a civil servant so I understand why you might hold that opinion......

National debt hasn't been reduced but it has flatlined in recent years. Tory Government hasn't had a surplus yet. Largely due to economic conditions ofc but in the facts business

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html