pull down to refresh

Of course this long read ("Can Trump make bitcoin useful?") has to throw "Trump" in the title (for SEO reasons, I'm sure), but the piece and feature itself is worth my (and our?) attention nonetheless!
Also, bitcoin on the FT front page?! Is this the "...then we win" stage??
The price of bitcoin is currently trading around its highest point since the token was created in 2009 — but a close look at the 16 years since founder Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first coins shows a history of soaring prices typically followed by steep crashes.
What was really cool about looking FT's bitcoin's price history—always is; you notice things you hadn't noticed before—is how unbelievably calm BTC/USD was in 2015: just shogging along in the $200s, doing nothing much. For 2016, too: chilling at 400, then jump and another round of chill at 600-700.

"It’s clear that the backing of US officials has been good for the price of bitcoin."

Last year, the top US securities regulator approved the launch of regulated funds holding the cryptocurrency, paving the way for pension funds, endowments and other large money managers to plough money into the token.
Also, stockpile/reserve stuff (obviously...#877076, #850724)
A reserve asset is typically a critical resource that can be used in times of crisis. The US currently has an emergency petroleum reserve which it can use to protect against oil supply shocks, for example, while many countries have gold reserves.

I spoke too soon; we're not winning yet

Naturally, the FT found some retard professor at some no-name university:
“It’s a very strange idea,” says Hilary Allen, professor at the American University Washington College of Law. “We need something that isn’t going to be inflated away, something hard and real in reserve. What’s ridiculous is that nothing could be less hard or real than bitcoin,” she adds.
If she spent more than five minutes studying it, I'm sure she would find that both those claims are the inverse of the truth (#760879).
What I found really nice in the piece is the volatility graphics... vol of BTC/USD really hasn't come down with maturity, instead hovering around the same levels for 3-4 years.
My then-AIER colleague Max Gulker wrote about this five years ago, and much wailing aside, nothing much has changed. Will BTC never grow up?
Volatility is a problem, but not because humans have a god-given right/natural need for morning and afternoon coffee to have "the same price": (but because long-term contracting + debt burdens become wa-cky!)
Its historically wild volatility is the first problem — we need coffees to be the same price in the morning as in the afternoon, for example, which requires currencies to be stable so users can trust their value.

not sure the graphics are going to work well in a non-paywalled version, but here we are: https://archive.md/j8XX0
27 sats \ 1 reply \ @IamSINGLE 5h
Generally people only see volatility in Bitcoin and no volatility in fiat. But they can see other commodities, assets and stocks are volatile too. Bitcoin is more volatile (yeah if we think 1 sat = some price in a state run shit), but it's so because they can't control Bitcoin. Whatever they can control, they control the volatility first.
reply
Don't think that's quite right.
Qualitatively but not quantitatively, perhaps.
Bitcoin, per the chart above, is just so much worse than anything else in that one respect
reply
I don't think the volatility is too bad for people to price things in sats, especially with the high likelihood of rising value over time. For most people's purposes, if things had been priced in sats at 1ksat/$ over the past few months, they wouldn't have noticed a difference.
reply
True but we've had a weird stability recently, precisely around 1k. While not uncommon to have such episodes now and again, that's truly not what BTC does seen with a little bit of perspective.
Your example people basically just "got lucky"
reply
As you pointed out, it's not that unusual to have long periods of stability. I've also seen breakdowns of how the vast majority of price movement has occurred in very short periods of time.
I don't think people are so price sensitive that these normal daily fluctuations would be a problem, even if they persisted. Then, every so often, major price changes would have to be made. That's an issue for long duration contracts, but it's fine for day to day expenditures.