4 ms·

> Like Rai stones, immutability comes from the work and risk, but the value of the object is itself held in the population's mind. This only "works" if everyone

> Like Rai stones, immutability comes from the work and risk, but the value of the object is itself held in the population's mind. This only "works" if everyone agrees it works. If everyone agrees it doesn't work then it doesn't work and isn't worth anything and the risk taken to "make" it is lost. Deep. Very deep. The exact same thing can be said about money. It only works only if people agree it works. When you exchange your work for money, you are taking a risk. When you keep your money in the bank you are taking a risk. What if all of a sudden everyone stops accepting money? I really wish we would stop with the Ponzi scheme non-sense. Nobody believes that there is some sort of economic activity that is sustaining the growth. It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Risky? yes. Speculative? yes. Ponzi? Nope. This Bitcoin - Ponzi scheme association is used to fear-monger and to stop people from ever learning about it (you don’t want to be the sucker that falls for the scheme, do you?)

throwaway34241 5y ago
> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. I think it’s a little bit different depending on the style of investing. For Buffett-style value investing he’s making a bet on the profitability of the company itself and not the future price of the stock (obviously meme stocks work differently). Bitcoins don’t generate profits (by themselves) so their utility depends more on the future market price (which of course isn’t driven by profits either). The traditional investment it seems most similar to is gold, which has value because the supply is limited, it’s relatively easy to store/transport compared to bulkier materials, and there’s lots of liquidity due to others using it for the same purpose. Bitcoin seems to have the same sort of advantages (minus the industrial / jewelry applications, but it’s even easier to store and transact).
- rantwasp 5y ago
  sure. there are nuances. stocks, options, futures, gold, etc all have different trade-offs and risks associated with them. my point was that a case can be made that it’s an investment and the ponzi people need to take a deep breath.
lottin 5y ago
> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Actually, the difference is quite substantial. Stocks are fractional ownership of businesses and businesses create value by transforming inputs into an output that is worth more than the inputs combined. In comparison, bitcoin is a virtual commodity, and commodities (virtual or otherwise) don't produce anything, this is why they're sometimes called non-productive assets. This means bitcoin cannot create wealth. If somebody get rich by investing in bitcoin it must be always at the expense of other bitcoin investors.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  there is a loophole here that I think is worth mentioning. What does getting rich mean? If you compare bitcoin to the USD, its value “increases”. But if you compare bitcoin with bitcoin you have the same amount of bitcoin today you had yesterday. So what really happens is you can buy more goods with the same amount of btc, in time, because of its scarcity. So bitcoin can create wealth in the sense that the quantity of goods you exchange for it increases over time (if people buy into using it that is).
  - lottin 5y ago
    No, you don't get it. Prices are set by the supply and demand, which means the fact that something is scarce doesn't mean absolutely anything in terms of what its price will be in the future. Second, the fact that some asset price has increased doesn't mean wealth has been created. For example, if your house increases in value, this only means that your personal wealth has increased. In fact you personal wealth has increased at the expense of the people who are buying houses at over-inflated prices, while the stock of wealth in the economy remains unchanged. The only way to create wealth is to produce stuff, and bitcoin produces nothing.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      No no no. You don’t get it. You cannot make up your own definition of wealth and go meta (personal wealth vs WEALTH) as soon as the point you’re trying to make no longer works. Something scarce that has any demand at all will see a rocketing price for it. That’s what scarce means. Of course it’s supply and demand and all that jazz but usually scarcity + any kind of demand leads to a high price.
FabHK 5y ago
Not sure what you're saying there. Stocks have "some sort of economic activity" sustaining their value. If you buy them, you will most likely recover your investment and more (via dividends, or equivalently share buy backs), even if there is no "greater fool" that buys them from you. That does not apply to Ponzi schemes or BTC.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  nope. you will certainly not most likely recover your investment. it's a casino in which the informed make money and the suckers lose money. buying a stock does not bring any sort of guarantees you're going to make the money back.
telxos 5y ago
The difference is you buy a stock/security with the expectation of some future cash flow. The value of the stock is an attempt at pricing the future cash flow at a discount rate. BTC has no future cash flow and no expectation of future cash flow, of course everyone knows this. It is an open ponzi scheme that you even kind of understand but you just don't use the language quite right. "Nobody believes that there is some sort of economic activity that is sustaining the growth" You really mean to say that everyone knows it is a security with no payoff. It really has nothing to do with fear mongering. An open ponzi is the best description.

throwaway34241 5y ago

> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. I think it’s a little bit different depending on the style of investing. For Buffett-style value investing he’s making a bet on the profitability of the company itself and not the future price of the stock (obviously meme stocks work differently). Bitcoins don’t generate profits (by themselves) so their utility depends more on the future market price (which of course isn’t driven by profits either). The traditional investment it seems most similar to is gold, which has value because the supply is limited, it’s relatively easy to store/transport compared to bulkier materials, and there’s lots of liquidity due to others using it for the same purpose. Bitcoin seems to have the same sort of advantages (minus the industrial / jewelry applications, but it’s even easier to store and transact).

rantwasp 5y ago
sure. there are nuances. stocks, options, futures, gold, etc all have different trade-offs and risks associated with them. my point was that a case can be made that it’s an investment and the ponzi people need to take a deep breath.

lottin 5y ago

> It’s really no different that buying stocks on an exchange. Actually, the difference is quite substantial. Stocks are fractional ownership of businesses and businesses create value by transforming inputs into an output that is worth more than the inputs combined. In comparison, bitcoin is a virtual commodity, and commodities (virtual or otherwise) don't produce anything, this is why they're sometimes called non-productive assets. This means bitcoin cannot create wealth. If somebody get rich by investing in bitcoin it must be always at the expense of other bitcoin investors.

rantwasp 5y ago
there is a loophole here that I think is worth mentioning. What does getting rich mean? If you compare bitcoin to the USD, its value “increases”. But if you compare bitcoin with bitcoin you have the same amount of bitcoin today you had yesterday. So what really happens is you can buy more goods with the same amount of btc, in time, because of its scarcity. So bitcoin can create wealth in the sense that the quantity of goods you exchange for it increases over time (if people buy into using it that is).
- lottin 5y ago
  No, you don't get it. Prices are set by the supply and demand, which means the fact that something is scarce doesn't mean absolutely anything in terms of what its price will be in the future. Second, the fact that some asset price has increased doesn't mean wealth has been created. For example, if your house increases in value, this only means that your personal wealth has increased. In fact you personal wealth has increased at the expense of the people who are buying houses at over-inflated prices, while the stock of wealth in the economy remains unchanged. The only way to create wealth is to produce stuff, and bitcoin produces nothing.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    No no no. You don’t get it. You cannot make up your own definition of wealth and go meta (personal wealth vs WEALTH) as soon as the point you’re trying to make no longer works. Something scarce that has any demand at all will see a rocketing price for it. That’s what scarce means. Of course it’s supply and demand and all that jazz but usually scarcity + any kind of demand leads to a high price.

FabHK 5y ago

Not sure what you're saying there. Stocks have "some sort of economic activity" sustaining their value. If you buy them, you will most likely recover your investment and more (via dividends, or equivalently share buy backs), even if there is no "greater fool" that buys them from you. That does not apply to Ponzi schemes or BTC.

rantwasp 5y ago
nope. you will certainly not most likely recover your investment. it's a casino in which the informed make money and the suckers lose money. buying a stock does not bring any sort of guarantees you're going to make the money back.

telxos 5y ago

The difference is you buy a stock/security with the expectation of some future cash flow. The value of the stock is an attempt at pricing the future cash flow at a discount rate. BTC has no future cash flow and no expectation of future cash flow, of course everyone knows this. It is an open ponzi scheme that you even kind of understand but you just don't use the language quite right. "Nobody believes that there is some sort of economic activity that is sustaining the growth" You really mean to say that everyone knows it is a security with no payoff. It really has nothing to do with fear mongering. An open ponzi is the best description.