4 ms·

TBF when he fucked you out of it it was only worth $700 or so (based on another commenter's claim that it increased 70-fold in the intervening time). Most simil

TBF when he fucked you out of it it was only worth $700 or so (based on another commenter's claim that it increased 70-fold in the intervening time). Most similarly situated people could have re-upped that amount of bitcoin back then, but if you chose not to, it's not like Karpeles forced that choice on you. IMO, being mad about the $50k current value of bitcoin that you lost is overstating the harm he did you significantly.

bm1362 9y ago
I understand this point as well, but imagine you got into earlier and tied up your existing capital in that $700. You wouldn't have been able to capture the next 70x.
- oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago
  If someone had only $700 of capital and could not rebalance their investment mix, I feel for them. But I really doubt that's most people.
- pishpash 9y ago
  You also wouldn't be taking the financial risk that led to the 70x (albeit that is forced on you if $700 is all you had), but nevertheless if you take no risk, you reap no rewards, seems fair.
jonnathanson 9y ago
Hypothetical problem... Let's imagine a universe in which milk is a rare commodity, and milkshakes are worth their weight in gold. In this world, right now in 2017, 1 milkshake trades for $100 USD. You have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake. So we each hold the equivalent of $100. I drink your milkshake, effectively stealing $100 from you. Fast forward to the year 2020. Milkshakes are now worth $1,000,000 USD. Have I deprived you of $100, or have I deprived you of $1,000,000? (Note that we can't seem to use retroactive NPV analysis in 2017, since in 2017 we had no way of accurately predicting how milkshakes would be priced in 2020.) On the one hand, I appear to have imposed a severe opportunity cost on you. On the other hand, I haven't taken the world's only milkshake from you. So what I've literally stolen from you in 2017 is the present value of the milkshake, $100. IANAL, and I will confess that I have no idea how a court of law would evaluate this case. But in economic terms, it certainly feels as though I've deprived you of more than $100. So what have I actually taken from you? [EDIT: This post was meant to pose a question. It was not meant as a frank disagreement with the parent post per se. I've cleaned up the wording a bit to try to make it clearer.]
- pishpash 9y ago
  Sure, but the appropriate amount, in my mind would have been $100 plus prevailing interest, not some in-kind distribution. Suppose there is only one milkshake in the world and it got destroyed, how would you ever repay the claim except by converting to currency value?
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    Sure, but the appropriate amount, in my mind would have been $100 plus prevailing interest Bankruptcy laws determine that. Maybe x% a year? Creditors took them to court and at that moment the court takes over. You should have bought more bitcoins at $400 if you believed in it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonnathanson 9y ago
    So essentially we set damages at t0 currency value of the milkshake, plus interest over N years. Seems reasonable. If milkshakes were illiquid, and could only be bought and sold every N years, that would seem to peg damages to asset value instead of currency value. Or am I wrong?
- Shaanie 9y ago
  You stole $100 from me. If the value of milkshakes went down to 0 in 2020, would you say you deprived me of nothing? This is basically like the people talking about the guy who spent thousands of bitcoins on pizza as if he lost shitloads of money by buying that pizza. Of course he didn't.
  - jonnathanson 9y ago
    In the scenario I've presented, I think you're correct. This is because milkshakes are liquid (both literally and figuratively), and because they are replaceable. If we add the condition that milkshakes are not replaceable, does that change the outcome? I'll stfu now if this is derailing things.
pishpash 9y ago
It would also be unfair to assume people would have continued to invest in bitcoin. That's an investment decision, and should not be part of the claim. Imagine if bitcoin had gone to 1/70 instead of 70x, would you still want to be paid back in bitcoins or currency value?
- jfno67 9y ago
  Isn't this the choice you made at filling time when you specified you wanted to be repaid in BTC?

bm1362 9y ago

I understand this point as well, but imagine you got into earlier and tied up your existing capital in that $700. You wouldn't have been able to capture the next 70x.

oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago
If someone had only $700 of capital and could not rebalance their investment mix, I feel for them. But I really doubt that's most people.
pishpash 9y ago
You also wouldn't be taking the financial risk that led to the 70x (albeit that is forced on you if $700 is all you had), but nevertheless if you take no risk, you reap no rewards, seems fair.

jonnathanson 9y ago

Hypothetical problem... Let's imagine a universe in which milk is a rare commodity, and milkshakes are worth their weight in gold. In this world, right now in 2017, 1 milkshake trades for $100 USD. You have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake. So we each hold the equivalent of $100. I drink your milkshake, effectively stealing $100 from you. Fast forward to the year 2020. Milkshakes are now worth $1,000,000 USD. Have I deprived you of $100, or have I deprived you of $1,000,000? (Note that we can't seem to use retroactive NPV analysis in 2017, since in 2017 we had no way of accurately predicting how milkshakes would be priced in 2020.) On the one hand, I appear to have imposed a severe opportunity cost on you. On the other hand, I haven't taken the world's only milkshake from you. So what I've literally stolen from you in 2017 is the present value of the milkshake, $100. IANAL, and I will confess that I have no idea how a court of law would evaluate this case. But in economic terms, it certainly feels as though I've deprived you of more than $100. So what have I actually taken from you? [EDIT: This post was meant to pose a question. It was not meant as a frank disagreement with the parent post per se. I've cleaned up the wording a bit to try to make it clearer.]

pishpash 9y ago
Sure, but the appropriate amount, in my mind would have been $100 plus prevailing interest, not some in-kind distribution. Suppose there is only one milkshake in the world and it got destroyed, how would you ever repay the claim except by converting to currency value?
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Sure, but the appropriate amount, in my mind would have been $100 plus prevailing interest Bankruptcy laws determine that. Maybe x% a year? Creditors took them to court and at that moment the court takes over. You should have bought more bitcoins at $400 if you believed in it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jonnathanson 9y ago
  So essentially we set damages at t0 currency value of the milkshake, plus interest over N years. Seems reasonable. If milkshakes were illiquid, and could only be bought and sold every N years, that would seem to peg damages to asset value instead of currency value. Or am I wrong?
Shaanie 9y ago
You stole $100 from me. If the value of milkshakes went down to 0 in 2020, would you say you deprived me of nothing? This is basically like the people talking about the guy who spent thousands of bitcoins on pizza as if he lost shitloads of money by buying that pizza. Of course he didn't.
- jonnathanson 9y ago
  In the scenario I've presented, I think you're correct. This is because milkshakes are liquid (both literally and figuratively), and because they are replaceable. If we add the condition that milkshakes are not replaceable, does that change the outcome? I'll stfu now if this is derailing things.

pishpash 9y ago

It would also be unfair to assume people would have continued to invest in bitcoin. That's an investment decision, and should not be part of the claim. Imagine if bitcoin had gone to 1/70 instead of 70x, would you still want to be paid back in bitcoins or currency value?

jfno67 9y ago
Isn't this the choice you made at filling time when you specified you wanted to be repaid in BTC?