4 ms·

>> Putting money into Bitcoin is a rational decision because others are irrational and bidding it up. It all comes down to: investing is great if you buy low a

>> Putting money into Bitcoin is a rational decision because others are irrational and bidding it up. It all comes down to: investing is great if you buy low and sell high. Let's just say this - if you aren't able to imagine the scenario under which your BTC (or any investment) crashes down to near zero, you're just not thinking well enough. I can conjure up a disaster scenario just standing right now in my kitchen, and I don't even own crypto.

BeetleB 6y ago
> I can conjure up a disaster scenario just standing right now in my kitchen, and I don't even own crypto. Even if Bitcoin goes to zero, many who hold BTC when it hits zero will still have made a profit out of it.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  I suppose you mean "because they had sold a bit of it before" - sure. And someone else has bought it off them and will have lost.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > And someone else has bought it off them and will have lost. Not the concern of the one making a profit off of this. Not sure it should be either. That's the role of the regulators.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      I am not making a moral argument. I am talking about the disaster scenario. I guess I agree with your point actually - if someone got to a place where they already got more $USD out of bitcoin than they invested, it's safe to play.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  Yeah, but if BTC goes to zero, it's more relevant to ask "for every 100 investors who ever bought BTC, how many made a net profit and how many made a net loss"?
tchalla 6y ago
You are right, one should conjure up a disaster scenario. So, here’s a question - if you had 100$, what number between 1-100 would you put as investment into Bitcoin? You can’t use any number outside the range provided.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  It's kinda a weird question. If I only had $100, none of it would go into BTC. Personally I am not invested in BTC at all because I have a pretty thorough "short thesis" on it (you can see a bit of it in my comments in this thread.) I wouldn't be opposed to betting some play amounts on it (I'd bet short, however) - same as money that I had "invested" in prediction markets - not investments in the "I am building my wealth this way" kind of sense.
  - tchalla 6y ago
    It was hard question and intentionally so. I allowed you to lie within your boundaries and yet you chose to not answer. You picked zero despite me explicitly stating the only number you could pick was between 1-100$. If you go outside the framework of a thought experiment, to play safe - we can’t move a discussion forward. So pick a number based on the hypothetical scenario you mentioned. That’s the entire point of a thought experiment, to test boundaries.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      Not sure I follow but I am intrigued. OK well given that the least I can bet is $1, I will bet $1.
      - tchalla 6y ago
        Thanks for your answer. Since you chose $1 since it is the least bet, I would like to increase your options. You can now choose any real value between 0.01$ to 100$. You are free to change your answer of $1 to anything you'd like. You do not need to answer the question. The point I'm trying to make is that as an investor you can invest in an asset class even if you can imagine an Armageddon (crash to zero for BTC) scenario. You just have to allocate the right proportion towards the asset incorporate the volatility. Remember, the same scenario could also happen for any investment asset. The lesser the likelihood of the Armageddons the higher the allocation. You can simply reduce your asset allocation to what you perceive as the likelihood of the Armageddon scenario. I can tell you for sure that none of us can predict a scenario with a 100% probability. Given that, an allocation of 1$ or even 0.01-0.99$ is not a bad idea. Oh, as far as BTC getting to zero - I can't imagine how that can happen without every government on the planet banning it [0]. Currently, you have governments in well developed economies consider it as an ordinary tangible asset [1] and even trading them from exchanges (9th largest in Europe) [2]! [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-feds-balance-sheet-the-other-exponential-curve/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-feds-balance-sheet-the-... [1] https://www.winheller.com/en/banking-finance-and-insurance-law/bitcoin-trading/bitcoin-and-tax.html https://www.winheller.com/en/banking-finance-and-insurance-l... [2] https://www.bsdex.de/en/ https://www.bsdex.de/en/
AznHisoka 6y ago
Of course there is a scenario where any investment goes to 0. If you a smart investor you understand the risks as well, and allocate appropriately. Which is why Bitcoin is just 1% of my overall portfolio.

BeetleB 6y ago

> I can conjure up a disaster scenario just standing right now in my kitchen, and I don't even own crypto. Even if Bitcoin goes to zero, many who hold BTC when it hits zero will still have made a profit out of it.

xyzelement 6y ago
I suppose you mean "because they had sold a bit of it before" - sure. And someone else has bought it off them and will have lost.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > And someone else has bought it off them and will have lost. Not the concern of the one making a profit off of this. Not sure it should be either. That's the role of the regulators.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    I am not making a moral argument. I am talking about the disaster scenario. I guess I agree with your point actually - if someone got to a place where they already got more $USD out of bitcoin than they invested, it's safe to play.
nmfisher 6y ago
Yeah, but if BTC goes to zero, it's more relevant to ask "for every 100 investors who ever bought BTC, how many made a net profit and how many made a net loss"?

tchalla 6y ago

You are right, one should conjure up a disaster scenario. So, here’s a question - if you had 100$, what number between 1-100 would you put as investment into Bitcoin? You can’t use any number outside the range provided.

xyzelement 6y ago
It's kinda a weird question. If I only had $100, none of it would go into BTC. Personally I am not invested in BTC at all because I have a pretty thorough "short thesis" on it (you can see a bit of it in my comments in this thread.) I wouldn't be opposed to betting some play amounts on it (I'd bet short, however) - same as money that I had "invested" in prediction markets - not investments in the "I am building my wealth this way" kind of sense.
- tchalla 6y ago
  It was hard question and intentionally so. I allowed you to lie within your boundaries and yet you chose to not answer. You picked zero despite me explicitly stating the only number you could pick was between 1-100$. If you go outside the framework of a thought experiment, to play safe - we can’t move a discussion forward. So pick a number based on the hypothetical scenario you mentioned. That’s the entire point of a thought experiment, to test boundaries.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    Not sure I follow but I am intrigued. OK well given that the least I can bet is $1, I will bet $1.
    - tchalla 6y ago
      Thanks for your answer. Since you chose $1 since it is the least bet, I would like to increase your options. You can now choose any real value between 0.01$ to 100$. You are free to change your answer of $1 to anything you'd like. You do not need to answer the question. The point I'm trying to make is that as an investor you can invest in an asset class even if you can imagine an Armageddon (crash to zero for BTC) scenario. You just have to allocate the right proportion towards the asset incorporate the volatility. Remember, the same scenario could also happen for any investment asset. The lesser the likelihood of the Armageddons the higher the allocation. You can simply reduce your asset allocation to what you perceive as the likelihood of the Armageddon scenario. I can tell you for sure that none of us can predict a scenario with a 100% probability. Given that, an allocation of 1$ or even 0.01-0.99$ is not a bad idea. Oh, as far as BTC getting to zero - I can't imagine how that can happen without every government on the planet banning it [0]. Currently, you have governments in well developed economies consider it as an ordinary tangible asset [1] and even trading them from exchanges (9th largest in Europe) [2]! [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-feds-balance-sheet-the-other-exponential-curve/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-feds-balance-sheet-the-... [1] https://www.winheller.com/en/banking-finance-and-insurance-law/bitcoin-trading/bitcoin-and-tax.html https://www.winheller.com/en/banking-finance-and-insurance-l... [2] https://www.bsdex.de/en/ https://www.bsdex.de/en/

AznHisoka 6y ago

Of course there is a scenario where any investment goes to 0. If you a smart investor you understand the risks as well, and allocate appropriately. Which is why Bitcoin is just 1% of my overall portfolio.