3 ms·

What if they were on the other side of the bull run where it went $3.5k -> $65k? Why only focus on the maximum loss scenario?

by tnel77 4y ago

phs318u 4y ago
That would arguably feel worse for the sender. "I did what?!" No thanks :)
jevgeni 4y ago
Yes, let's focus on the *positive* returns of Enron, you guys.
strangattractor 4y ago
They likely saw the $65K and listened to all the people that said it was going to $100K and never sold - watching it plummet. The "what if" scenario is pretty useless considering the entire point of any currency is to maintain value - which allows the predictable purchase of things creating an efficient market. One of the original arguments for BitCoin was that it would maintain it's value during inflationary periods - clearly something it has not achieved. The justification for BitCoin seems to be a moving target - depending on whatever the perceived problems are - Dr BitCoin's economic cure all.
- tnel77 4y ago
  Would you trust any asset to hold its value if it goes 20x in a short period? I feel like Bitcoin will be less volatile down the road when adoption has picked up. Aka it’s less of a crazy speculative investment and more of an actual currency.
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    The problem is that BitCoin is treated in a speculative manor which is generally not a good thing for currencies. Currencies are also traded but the fluctuations are generally small - when they start to get big (think Argentina) the country has a problem. An please don't say Dr BitCoin's magic elixir will fix all that because it has already demonstrated it can be forked (creating new bitcoin out of nothing) and lose value in an inflationary period. Both things touted as reasons to support it. Currencies serve a purpose - primarily to allow the exchange of goods and services. As far as I know I cannot purchase much of either with BitCoin without first converting to $$$. So it is not really a currency now or likely ever will be.

What if they were on the other side of the bull run where it went $3.5k -> $65k? Why only focus on the maximum loss scenario?

by tnel77 4y ago

What if they were on the other side of the bull run where it went $3.5k -> $65k? Why only focus on the maximum loss scenario?

phs318u 4y ago

That would arguably feel worse for the sender. "I did what?!" No thanks :)

jevgeni 4y ago

Yes, let's focus on the *positive* returns of Enron, you guys.

strangattractor 4y ago

They likely saw the $65K and listened to all the people that said it was going to $100K and never sold - watching it plummet. The "what if" scenario is pretty useless considering the entire point of any currency is to maintain value - which allows the predictable purchase of things creating an efficient market. One of the original arguments for BitCoin was that it would maintain it's value during inflationary periods - clearly something it has not achieved. The justification for BitCoin seems to be a moving target - depending on whatever the perceived problems are - Dr BitCoin's economic cure all.

tnel77 4y ago
Would you trust any asset to hold its value if it goes 20x in a short period? I feel like Bitcoin will be less volatile down the road when adoption has picked up. Aka it’s less of a crazy speculative investment and more of an actual currency.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  The problem is that BitCoin is treated in a speculative manor which is generally not a good thing for currencies. Currencies are also traded but the fluctuations are generally small - when they start to get big (think Argentina) the country has a problem. An please don't say Dr BitCoin's magic elixir will fix all that because it has already demonstrated it can be forked (creating new bitcoin out of nothing) and lose value in an inflationary period. Both things touted as reasons to support it. Currencies serve a purpose - primarily to allow the exchange of goods and services. As far as I know I cannot purchase much of either with BitCoin without first converting to $$$. So it is not really a currency now or likely ever will be.