3 ms·

I think this is pretty well reasoned. Or, at least, it lays out the assumptions in use pretty well. TLDR: > Given the increased adoption of Bitcoin by major f

I think this is pretty well reasoned. Or, at least, it lays out the assumptions in use pretty well. TLDR: > Given the increased adoption of Bitcoin by major fintech players (Venmo and Cash App) and hedge funds, I think reasonably there is a greater than 5% chance of it succeeding [at becoming a non-sovereign, non-fiat, store-of-value asset]. This not only makes it a positive expected value bet, but one with an asymmetric payoff skew of -1x to 100x. This is akin to purchasing a lottery ticket, that earns you money on average. > If you think that the odds of Bitcoin successfully becoming a non-sovereign, non-fiat, store-of-value asset within the next 10 years is greater than [3% in the bull case and 19% in the bear case], you should invest in Bitcoin. > If you have accepted that Bitcoin’s net expected value is positive for the current price, then you should enter a position. However given that Bitcoin is an extremely speculative asset, then the best way to manage risk is through bet sizing. It should occupy a small proportion of your portfolio (1–5%), and it certainly shouldn’t be bought on margin.

realitysballs 6y ago
I believe Bitcoin is at the mercy of government regulation of energy sources. There is an underlying assumption that those who control energy distribution will continue to sell there electricity to miners. Yes, it makes sense economically but not environmentally and as long as California continues to have record breaking fires every summer and SE Asia gets slowly enveloped by rising ocean and cyclones there is a probability that economic policy will shift to align with environmental issues.
- a5withtrrs 6y ago
  People have been looking at building data centers [1] under water because of the cooling benefits. No reason why rising oceans and cyclones would be a significant hurdle for a well financed operation. Bitcoin operators are already looking at commissioning their own power stations in order to get the juice required. Regulating the available commercial supply is fair and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to limit what people can build and operate on their own land for private use. [1] https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/ https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick...
  - neatze 6y ago
    > it doesn't make sense to limit what people can build and operate on their own land for private use. When your "private use" of an land has direct negative impact to land outside of your ownership, it does make a lot of sense.
    - a5withtrrs 6y ago
      I'm sure there are limits to what you can get approval to build. I'd be surprised to see companies get approval to build personal nuclear reactors for example. But I can imagine there's relatively little difficulty in operating solar or wind farms or other renewables in the right places [1] [1]https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233313/first-self-powered-data-center-opens.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233313/first-self-powe...
      - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
        An extreme outlier here would be the Walt Disney Company, which negotiated the legal authority to construct and operate a nuclear plant in Orlando, Florida. https://grist.org/article/disney-worlds-literal-nuclear-option-explained/ https://grist.org/article/disney-worlds-literal-nuclear-opti...
        a5withtrrs 6y ago
        That's fascinating and the only example I've ever seen of a private company being given permission to own and operate their own private reactor for power generation. Cool!
  - realitysballs 6y ago
    Why should we devote large sums of money for renewable energy and data centers that serve to solve useless hash functions when we can instead just move to a proof-of-stake based crypto and use the money/energy elsewhere. If people are able to see past there monetary gains from Bitcoin I am confident they would agree that while Bitcoin paved the way for mainstream cryptocurrency adoption it is highly-inefficient in a manner that is being easily solved by other cryptocurrencies

realitysballs 6y ago

I believe Bitcoin is at the mercy of government regulation of energy sources. There is an underlying assumption that those who control energy distribution will continue to sell there electricity to miners. Yes, it makes sense economically but not environmentally and as long as California continues to have record breaking fires every summer and SE Asia gets slowly enveloped by rising ocean and cyclones there is a probability that economic policy will shift to align with environmental issues.

a5withtrrs 6y ago
People have been looking at building data centers [1] under water because of the cooling benefits. No reason why rising oceans and cyclones would be a significant hurdle for a well financed operation. Bitcoin operators are already looking at commissioning their own power stations in order to get the juice required. Regulating the available commercial supply is fair and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to limit what people can build and operate on their own land for private use. [1] https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/ https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick...
- neatze 6y ago
  > it doesn't make sense to limit what people can build and operate on their own land for private use. When your "private use" of an land has direct negative impact to land outside of your ownership, it does make a lot of sense.
  - a5withtrrs 6y ago
    I'm sure there are limits to what you can get approval to build. I'd be surprised to see companies get approval to build personal nuclear reactors for example. But I can imagine there's relatively little difficulty in operating solar or wind farms or other renewables in the right places [1] [1]https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233313/first-self-powered-data-center-opens.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233313/first-self-powe...
    - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
      An extreme outlier here would be the Walt Disney Company, which negotiated the legal authority to construct and operate a nuclear plant in Orlando, Florida. https://grist.org/article/disney-worlds-literal-nuclear-option-explained/ https://grist.org/article/disney-worlds-literal-nuclear-opti...
      - a5withtrrs 6y ago
        That's fascinating and the only example I've ever seen of a private company being given permission to own and operate their own private reactor for power generation. Cool!
- realitysballs 6y ago
  Why should we devote large sums of money for renewable energy and data centers that serve to solve useless hash functions when we can instead just move to a proof-of-stake based crypto and use the money/energy elsewhere. If people are able to see past there monetary gains from Bitcoin I am confident they would agree that while Bitcoin paved the way for mainstream cryptocurrency adoption it is highly-inefficient in a manner that is being easily solved by other cryptocurrencies