4 ms·

Everytime it's crashed it's recovered to a point where the low is now higher than the last peak. I am fully aware of that and expect if it zooms up again, it pr

Everytime it's crashed it's recovered to a point where the low is now higher than the last peak. I am fully aware of that and expect if it zooms up again, it probably will crash again. I don't deny this. But if when it crashes it ends up higher than the last peak, who cares? I didn't sidestep your issues. I didn't address them directly, but that doesn't mean I didn't address them. They were as valid as they during the last crashes, and proven to not prevent a recovery then, so therefore the same issues do not prevent a recovery now. You weren't providing any reasons that a recovery like it did before, even in the face of all the issues you mentioned. Now you respond with a new reason: > What’s different this time is there are no new bag holders. They all lost their shirts last time around. The price relies on new bag holders because 1800 new BTC are generated by miners and then sold to pay the electricity bills. That’s $2.4 billion dollars per year in sales pressure. The more the price goes up the more the sales pressure goes up. $20K per bitcoin requires $13B in new bag holder money per year. $100K means $65B in new bag holder money per year. By "bag holders" you talk as if it's a big scam. Only it's not. Everything is out in the open for people to see, and no one is lying about what it is. Whether people in the future will choose to invest or not, and whether the industry will continue to grow or not is what determines whether the price will recover. You say there won't be any more of that, due to price pressure from miners, but again, there has always been pressure from miners and that didn't prevent recovery the last 5 times. I grant you the selling pressure from the miners has increased, but the size of the market has also increased as well. Also, due to block reward halving, they do not increase at the same rate. So, even if the selling pressure is too much currently, for the market to grow enough and make up for it, it will eventually reduce so that won't be the case forever. To repeat though, I also am not 100% sure bitcoin will be the dominate cryptocurrency. As I said before, I'm bullish on the cryptocurrency market in general, not just bitcoin.

arcticbull 8y ago
Why would we use as a currency something that swings 90% back and forth every few years? That's an objectively awful currency. Imagine your checking account explodes from time to time, one week you can buy a mansion the next you can't afford rent. That should be QED for why this isn't viable - isn't this what it's supposed to be saving Venezuela from? Whether we call them bag holders or not, there's no guarantee there's another $2.4B/yr to maintain the current price let alone drive it up. It is not intrinsically a scam its just built in a way that explicitly makes it impossible to prevent scams. IMO by the transitive property, it's a scam. Let's say I own a coffee shop. I also know that it's a breeding ground for venomous cobras, but I refuse to let an exterminator in. If someone gets bitten there's no world in which I'm not going to prison. It's not fair to call what I have "just a coffee shop" is it? It's also not an investment, as you're not obtaining a share of ownership in anything. It's like calling Subway sub stamps an investment. They're just tokens I can redeem at Subway, not a 401(k). The market is now smaller than its been in terms of total market cap, in terms of transaction count, in terms of transaction volume, than it's been in 2 years: https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/5y/USD/coinbase?t=b&vu=curr https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/5y/USD/coinbase?t... All the other cryptocurrencies are even less used, less useful, and not even worth talking about, like Dentacoin -- your dental records but on the blockchain for no apparent reason. You know Visa's market cap is "only" $300B? At $100K bitcoin you have to buy, in cash, one whole new Visa every 4.6 years just to maintain the price.
- erulabs 8y ago
  > Why would we use as a currency something that swings 90% back and forth every few years? That's an objectively awful currency. No, that's a subjectively awful currency. > isn't [volatility] what [BitCoin is] supposed to be saving Venezuela from? No, it's supposed to provide an alternative to those subjected to and abused by centralized currencies and/or their government. Bitcoin's creation happened way back when Venezuela was massively wealthy, -before- they did the exact thing cryptocurrency backers feared they would. > Whether we call them bag holders or not, there's no guarantee there's another $2.4B/yr to maintain the current price let alone drive it up. Of course there isn't - I don't believe anyone implied there was? So far, historically, there _has been_ enough to drive the price up. Just zoom out a bit. Even if there is not 2.4B/yr, wouldn't the bag holders be the first to lose? I do not understand your argument here. > IMO by the transitive property, it's a scam. Let's say I own a coffee shop. I also know that it's a breeding ground for venomous cobras, but I refuse to let an exterminator in. If someone gets bitten there's no world in which I'm not going to prison. It's not fair to call what I have "just a coffee shop" is it? I have _no idea_ what you're trying to say here. > It's also not an investment, as you're not obtaining a share of ownership in anything. This is also false. > It's like calling Subway sub stamps an investment Despite your value judgement, Subway sub stamps _are absolutely_ an investment. Maybe not a wise one, but that's my opinion. > The market is now smaller than its been in terms of total market cap, in terms of transaction count, in terms of transaction volume, than it's been in 2 years Yes, 2 years ago was the peak of the hype. This is expected. It's also up over the last 1 year, and up over the last 3 years. Zooming to a particular part of a graph to suit a theory is not a good way to look at the world. > All the other cryptocurrencies are even less used, less useful, and not even worth talking about, like Dentacoin Conjecture and straw-man argument. This is akin to saying "spacejam.com"? Useless! That INTERNET is going NOWHERE! I understand you feel strongly about this, and I understand you will reply as if I am a strong die-hard crypto fan, but I want you to know that I am just a simple internet citizen and your line of argument is unhelpful at best and actively driving people the other direction at worst.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    You can play devils advocate all day long, I always like to challenge my preconceptions. I only care because people's laissez-faire attitude towards crypto is putting real peoples' hard earned money at risk through some fanciful delusion of 'moon soon.' I'd make as strong an argument against Herbalife if people came to its defense. A currency has 3 objective functions: medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. It objectively fails the third test. [1] Re Venezuela: If Bitcoin is to replace the status quo it must show itself to be better than the existing. If it's effectively as good as the Bolivar who cares whether it's their government or a group of self-appointed open source finance champs who are doing it? I thought the goal was to avoid the ends, not the means? Re $2.4B/yr, people who have no understanding of the system put their money in because a group of loud activists (existing "investors") are encouraging them to do so. This is to prop up their own "investments" at the expense of the new money. They are running out of people who are willing to throw down solely because "moon soon" which is what's forcing the price down in spite of all the rampant manipulation. It's unlikely to go anywhere but down due to the high new money requirement for even price maintenance. You don't hear anything bad out of crypto investors mouths because they require $2.4B in new money just to keep their bags afloat. Re the snake den, I'm saying that in re: the idea that it's not a scam just because scams operate on it. It's designed in a way that precludes stopping scams, which makes it de facto complicit / transitively a scam. You may disagree, it's just an optimization to think of it that way. Fine it's an investment, it's a bad one. I'm not making the case that the internet is going nowhere because pets.com is going nowhere. The idea that you're buying into blockchain technology's future by owning bitcoin is like saying you're buying pets.com stock because you want to invest in TCP/IP, and that appears to be the MO for most blockchain investors. Finally, nobody's made a good case yet for a problem blockchain can solve better than any existing solution, whereas TCP/IP, I'd say, solved real problems from day 1. If anything crypto is making the best case I've seen for accredited investor rules. [1] http://money.visualcapitalist.com/infographic-the-properties-of-money/ http://money.visualcapitalist.com/infographic-the-properties...

arcticbull 8y ago

Why would we use as a currency something that swings 90% back and forth every few years? That's an objectively awful currency. Imagine your checking account explodes from time to time, one week you can buy a mansion the next you can't afford rent. That should be QED for why this isn't viable - isn't this what it's supposed to be saving Venezuela from? Whether we call them bag holders or not, there's no guarantee there's another $2.4B/yr to maintain the current price let alone drive it up. It is not intrinsically a scam its just built in a way that explicitly makes it impossible to prevent scams. IMO by the transitive property, it's a scam. Let's say I own a coffee shop. I also know that it's a breeding ground for venomous cobras, but I refuse to let an exterminator in. If someone gets bitten there's no world in which I'm not going to prison. It's not fair to call what I have "just a coffee shop" is it? It's also not an investment, as you're not obtaining a share of ownership in anything. It's like calling Subway sub stamps an investment. They're just tokens I can redeem at Subway, not a 401(k). The market is now smaller than its been in terms of total market cap, in terms of transaction count, in terms of transaction volume, than it's been in 2 years: https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/5y/USD/coinbase?t=b&vu=curr https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/5y/USD/coinbase?t... All the other cryptocurrencies are even less used, less useful, and not even worth talking about, like Dentacoin -- your dental records but on the blockchain for no apparent reason. You know Visa's market cap is "only" $300B? At $100K bitcoin you have to buy, in cash, one whole new Visa every 4.6 years just to maintain the price.

erulabs 8y ago
> Why would we use as a currency something that swings 90% back and forth every few years? That's an objectively awful currency. No, that's a subjectively awful currency. > isn't [volatility] what [BitCoin is] supposed to be saving Venezuela from? No, it's supposed to provide an alternative to those subjected to and abused by centralized currencies and/or their government. Bitcoin's creation happened way back when Venezuela was massively wealthy, -before- they did the exact thing cryptocurrency backers feared they would. > Whether we call them bag holders or not, there's no guarantee there's another $2.4B/yr to maintain the current price let alone drive it up. Of course there isn't - I don't believe anyone implied there was? So far, historically, there _has been_ enough to drive the price up. Just zoom out a bit. Even if there is not 2.4B/yr, wouldn't the bag holders be the first to lose? I do not understand your argument here. > IMO by the transitive property, it's a scam. Let's say I own a coffee shop. I also know that it's a breeding ground for venomous cobras, but I refuse to let an exterminator in. If someone gets bitten there's no world in which I'm not going to prison. It's not fair to call what I have "just a coffee shop" is it? I have _no idea_ what you're trying to say here. > It's also not an investment, as you're not obtaining a share of ownership in anything. This is also false. > It's like calling Subway sub stamps an investment Despite your value judgement, Subway sub stamps _are absolutely_ an investment. Maybe not a wise one, but that's my opinion. > The market is now smaller than its been in terms of total market cap, in terms of transaction count, in terms of transaction volume, than it's been in 2 years Yes, 2 years ago was the peak of the hype. This is expected. It's also up over the last 1 year, and up over the last 3 years. Zooming to a particular part of a graph to suit a theory is not a good way to look at the world. > All the other cryptocurrencies are even less used, less useful, and not even worth talking about, like Dentacoin Conjecture and straw-man argument. This is akin to saying "spacejam.com"? Useless! That INTERNET is going NOWHERE! I understand you feel strongly about this, and I understand you will reply as if I am a strong die-hard crypto fan, but I want you to know that I am just a simple internet citizen and your line of argument is unhelpful at best and actively driving people the other direction at worst.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  You can play devils advocate all day long, I always like to challenge my preconceptions. I only care because people's laissez-faire attitude towards crypto is putting real peoples' hard earned money at risk through some fanciful delusion of 'moon soon.' I'd make as strong an argument against Herbalife if people came to its defense. A currency has 3 objective functions: medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. It objectively fails the third test. [1] Re Venezuela: If Bitcoin is to replace the status quo it must show itself to be better than the existing. If it's effectively as good as the Bolivar who cares whether it's their government or a group of self-appointed open source finance champs who are doing it? I thought the goal was to avoid the ends, not the means? Re $2.4B/yr, people who have no understanding of the system put their money in because a group of loud activists (existing "investors") are encouraging them to do so. This is to prop up their own "investments" at the expense of the new money. They are running out of people who are willing to throw down solely because "moon soon" which is what's forcing the price down in spite of all the rampant manipulation. It's unlikely to go anywhere but down due to the high new money requirement for even price maintenance. You don't hear anything bad out of crypto investors mouths because they require $2.4B in new money just to keep their bags afloat. Re the snake den, I'm saying that in re: the idea that it's not a scam just because scams operate on it. It's designed in a way that precludes stopping scams, which makes it de facto complicit / transitively a scam. You may disagree, it's just an optimization to think of it that way. Fine it's an investment, it's a bad one. I'm not making the case that the internet is going nowhere because pets.com is going nowhere. The idea that you're buying into blockchain technology's future by owning bitcoin is like saying you're buying pets.com stock because you want to invest in TCP/IP, and that appears to be the MO for most blockchain investors. Finally, nobody's made a good case yet for a problem blockchain can solve better than any existing solution, whereas TCP/IP, I'd say, solved real problems from day 1. If anything crypto is making the best case I've seen for accredited investor rules. [1] http://money.visualcapitalist.com/infographic-the-properties-of-money/ http://money.visualcapitalist.com/infographic-the-properties...