6 ms·

Author here, I'm actually short BTC as a whole, but that's besides the point of this article.

testerino11111 6y ago
hope your ad revenue covers your losses
ur-whale 6y ago
Thanks for the info, would be curious to know by what practical means you're shorting BTC. Also, it is traditional (and a good self-preservation move), when posting financial opinion - positive or negative - about an asset or instrument to disclose one's position if any. You may want to consider editing your article.
- VHRanger 6y ago
  I got into the short position after writing this article, someone happened to post this and make the front page of HN and now my site is down because WP caching was misconfigured. I'll edit the TLDR box when I physically can
mateuszf 6y ago
> I'm actually short BTC How's that going for you?
- gruez 6y ago
  he also says "...as a whole" so depending on how you interpret this it could be as simple as not holding any bitcoin. eg. if you held stocks in every S&P 500 company except GOOG, then you could probably say you were short google "as a whole".
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > How's that going for you? ;) Two consecutive flash crashes notwithstnading and the fact that we're all really enjoying our view at 30k+, I'd say says its all. I want more so let it dip longer, please!
- VHRanger 6y ago
  Took a bit of action at $23k, and a whole lot more at $29k. We'll see by March or so how it's going for me.
  - SI_Rob 6y ago
    Careful, there's only one story for Bitcoin: "the price goes up" (I hear the kids today have shortened that to "NgU"). This story is very sustainable when Bitcoin's 1% ("decentralized") have been holding coins since $1. You can always count on the market cap being inflated any time this story is endangered, both to make life difficult for critics and trigger a flood of free advertising in the form of low-effort stories by the fintech blogosphere. An unregulated global lotto game camouflaged in slippery futurist memery, with zero accountability by its puppet masters as a primary design feature, may well turn out to be a safer play than, say, TSLA or anything starting with a dollar sign. What this implies for us as a species is probably best left unexamined.
    - vvpan 6y ago
      And you know... markets irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.
    - ur-whale 6y ago
      > This story is very sustainable when Bitcoin's 1% ("decentralized") I don't think you understand what decentralized means. It has nothing to do with how concentrated Bitcoin ownership is. Decentralized means there is no central authority. For example, should the SEC go after Bitcoin, there is no one to sue. Or, if I decide to send 10M USD to someone on the other side of the planet, no one can prevent that from happening. In both scenarios, how much BTC is owned by "whales" is irrelevant.
      - SI_Rob 6y ago
        Decentralization of anything other than leverage over liquidity and thus price, which is what the Bitcoin 1% (more like 0.01%) holds, is nothing more than a misdirection story to furnish prospective Joe 99% Bitcoiners with the illusion that once they switch to BTC, their wealth will be placed outside interference or control by undesirable, presumably centralized forces. When Bitcoiners say decentralized they mean, in fact, that its value (through some gating mechanic like issue or "censorship") is not controlled by a government, as if this is somehow any better than the value of one's wallet being controlled by unknown parties, front running exchange operators or mining cartels. Bitcoin proponents pretend that government centralization of money supply is the only kind of centralization of money that needs fixing, and its mechanisms are thus designed to make an elaborate show of diffusing operational accountability while doing nothing to counteract a pathological concentration of leverage. As a result, it doesn't actually decentralize anything, it instead relocates all of the centralization under obfuscated cover. This in itself isn't a problem, if promoters would upfront about it. But then no decentralization meme would certainly mean no Bitcoin at $30k, and what's the fun in that?
atemerev 6y ago
That explains the attitude! (I work as a consultant, and get most of my income in cryptocurrencies, so I don't see any of these problems as impactful).
chillacy 6y ago
Not brave enough to do that myself, but I respect that you're putting some skin in the game.
yourabstraction 6y ago
This bull market may just be getting started, see the recent OCC news for some very positive legislative action. How much are you willing to bleed to try and make a point. Even if you don't believe in Bitcoin, shorting it at this point in time is complete lunacy. There are far better plays to make with your money.

hope your ad revenue covers your losses

Thanks for the info, would be curious to know by what practical means you're shorting BTC. Also, it is traditional (and a good self-preservation move), when posting financial opinion - positive or negative - about an asset or instrument to disclose one's position if any. You may want to consider editing your article.

VHRanger 6y ago
I got into the short position after writing this article, someone happened to post this and make the front page of HN and now my site is down because WP caching was misconfigured. I'll edit the TLDR box when I physically can

mateuszf 6y ago

> I'm actually short BTC How's that going for you?

gruez 6y ago
he also says "...as a whole" so depending on how you interpret this it could be as simple as not holding any bitcoin. eg. if you held stocks in every S&P 500 company except GOOG, then you could probably say you were short google "as a whole".
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> How's that going for you? ;) Two consecutive flash crashes notwithstnading and the fact that we're all really enjoying our view at 30k+, I'd say says its all. I want more so let it dip longer, please!
VHRanger 6y ago
Took a bit of action at $23k, and a whole lot more at $29k. We'll see by March or so how it's going for me.
- SI_Rob 6y ago
  Careful, there's only one story for Bitcoin: "the price goes up" (I hear the kids today have shortened that to "NgU"). This story is very sustainable when Bitcoin's 1% ("decentralized") have been holding coins since $1. You can always count on the market cap being inflated any time this story is endangered, both to make life difficult for critics and trigger a flood of free advertising in the form of low-effort stories by the fintech blogosphere. An unregulated global lotto game camouflaged in slippery futurist memery, with zero accountability by its puppet masters as a primary design feature, may well turn out to be a safer play than, say, TSLA or anything starting with a dollar sign. What this implies for us as a species is probably best left unexamined.
  - vvpan 6y ago
    And you know... markets irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.
  - ur-whale 6y ago
    > This story is very sustainable when Bitcoin's 1% ("decentralized") I don't think you understand what decentralized means. It has nothing to do with how concentrated Bitcoin ownership is. Decentralized means there is no central authority. For example, should the SEC go after Bitcoin, there is no one to sue. Or, if I decide to send 10M USD to someone on the other side of the planet, no one can prevent that from happening. In both scenarios, how much BTC is owned by "whales" is irrelevant.
    - SI_Rob 6y ago
      Decentralization of anything other than leverage over liquidity and thus price, which is what the Bitcoin 1% (more like 0.01%) holds, is nothing more than a misdirection story to furnish prospective Joe 99% Bitcoiners with the illusion that once they switch to BTC, their wealth will be placed outside interference or control by undesirable, presumably centralized forces. When Bitcoiners say decentralized they mean, in fact, that its value (through some gating mechanic like issue or "censorship") is not controlled by a government, as if this is somehow any better than the value of one's wallet being controlled by unknown parties, front running exchange operators or mining cartels. Bitcoin proponents pretend that government centralization of money supply is the only kind of centralization of money that needs fixing, and its mechanisms are thus designed to make an elaborate show of diffusing operational accountability while doing nothing to counteract a pathological concentration of leverage. As a result, it doesn't actually decentralize anything, it instead relocates all of the centralization under obfuscated cover. This in itself isn't a problem, if promoters would upfront about it. But then no decentralization meme would certainly mean no Bitcoin at $30k, and what's the fun in that?

atemerev 6y ago

That explains the attitude! (I work as a consultant, and get most of my income in cryptocurrencies, so I don't see any of these problems as impactful).

chillacy 6y ago

Not brave enough to do that myself, but I respect that you're putting some skin in the game.

yourabstraction 6y ago

This bull market may just be getting started, see the recent OCC news for some very positive legislative action. How much are you willing to bleed to try and make a point. Even if you don't believe in Bitcoin, shorting it at this point in time is complete lunacy. There are far better plays to make with your money.