4 ms·

Err no? Like those things mentioned reach >90% probability for crypto over a ten year period vs what? >.0.00009% probability in US regulated entities?

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
You think over 90% of people who bought Bitcoin in 2013 are down on their investment? In reality the most common regret they have is selling their coins when they should have kept them or trading them for newer hype coins that turned out to be vaporware.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  Until it all turns to 0 because coins are dumb.
kristopolous 4y ago
Your numbers are problematic but you put time on the argument, which is different. The claim was that all stores of wealth have those properties. Crypto can suffer them faster but someone's real estate investment from say, the 2013 in Ukraine, 2003 in Syria, 1993 in Kosovo, 1983 in Rhodesia... Such things aren't immune. Heck even without war the rules of who can invest in what can change and your assets can be seized like in Venezuela. It's more common in crypto but these problems are perennial. The primary argument against crypto is that it shows why an open, stable, well structured professional governing state is crucial to the preservation of property rights. It painfully highlights all the problems that happen when you create these assets in a way that's ideologically against statecraft. You can see it as the crypto bros are reinventing government without using the g word as they discover the problems that are solved by regulations from first principles.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > The primary argument against crypto is that it shows why an open, stable, well structured professional governing state is crucial to the preservation of property rights. It painfully highlights all the problems that happen when you create these assets in a way that's ideologically against statecraft. I mean, that was my point. It wasn't meant to be a 'truism', it was meant to illustrate that your investment making money isn't nearly as valuable if that value is lost because of problems that don't exist with other investments. If I put money into a fund and the owner dies I can still get my money through the courts. If a crypto wallet owner dies and has the keys in his head, it is gone forever. Same thing with options for investing. If I have to use a crypto exchange to do my trading, then the chances of losing my assets increases exponentially.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    > it was meant to illustrate that your investment making money isn't nearly as valuable if that value is lost because of problems that don't exist with other investments. Risk vs return is a fundamental proposition of all investments. Bitcoin certainly has higher risk, but the fundamental idea that risky investments need more return to justify them applies everywhere not just bitcoin.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      Yes, but that aspect is completely lost when people make the argument that if you bought bitcoin then on a long time scale you wouldn't have lost money. What are the chances that you would have lost the bitcoin through other means (not price)? This never gets mentioned.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        I mean, if you are holding bitcoin for the long term, i dont see why you would keep it at an exchange/other risky ventures. Bitcoin on a thumb drive kept in a safe deposit box does not go missing.
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        Thumb drives don't hold data forever. Safe deposit boxes are not insured for more than a trivial amount and the contents get lost/removed all the time. Anyway you admitted that it is a riskier investment to hang on to then handwaved it when I said that no one is taking it into account.
        bawolff 4y ago
        > Thumb drives don't hold data forever. Safe deposit boxes are not insured for more than a trivial amount and the contents get lost/removed all the time. This is downright silly. Might as well say if an asteroid hit the earth your money probably isn't safe. > Anyway you admitted that it is a riskier investment to hang on Than what? I admited that all investments have risk, and that like all investments some investments are safer than bitcoin and some are more dangerous. I would say the same thing about literally any investment. Even a savings account has some (miniscule) risk > handwaved it when I said that no one is taking it into account. You haven't presented any evidence that nobody is taking it into account. Obviously some people are and some aren't, but i'm not sure that distinguishes it from most other investments. You could argue that there is a higher porportion of people not taking it appropriately into account with bitcoin relative to say an index etf, which probably is true, but that is a hell of a goal post move from ">90% probability for crypto over a ten year period" to go to zero due to risk of investment being stolen.
bawolff 4y ago
I like absolutely hate bitcoin, but the probability of that happening to a savy investor is pretty low. Definitely not 90%. The probability of an unsavy investor being parted from their money is pretty high in all forms of investment.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

You think over 90% of people who bought Bitcoin in 2013 are down on their investment? In reality the most common regret they have is selling their coins when they should have kept them or trading them for newer hype coins that turned out to be vaporware.

brianwawok 4y ago
Until it all turns to 0 because coins are dumb.

kristopolous 4y ago

Your numbers are problematic but you put time on the argument, which is different. The claim was that all stores of wealth have those properties. Crypto can suffer them faster but someone's real estate investment from say, the 2013 in Ukraine, 2003 in Syria, 1993 in Kosovo, 1983 in Rhodesia... Such things aren't immune. Heck even without war the rules of who can invest in what can change and your assets can be seized like in Venezuela. It's more common in crypto but these problems are perennial. The primary argument against crypto is that it shows why an open, stable, well structured professional governing state is crucial to the preservation of property rights. It painfully highlights all the problems that happen when you create these assets in a way that's ideologically against statecraft. You can see it as the crypto bros are reinventing government without using the g word as they discover the problems that are solved by regulations from first principles.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> The primary argument against crypto is that it shows why an open, stable, well structured professional governing state is crucial to the preservation of property rights. It painfully highlights all the problems that happen when you create these assets in a way that's ideologically against statecraft. I mean, that was my point. It wasn't meant to be a 'truism', it was meant to illustrate that your investment making money isn't nearly as valuable if that value is lost because of problems that don't exist with other investments. If I put money into a fund and the owner dies I can still get my money through the courts. If a crypto wallet owner dies and has the keys in his head, it is gone forever. Same thing with options for investing. If I have to use a crypto exchange to do my trading, then the chances of losing my assets increases exponentially.
- bawolff 4y ago
  > it was meant to illustrate that your investment making money isn't nearly as valuable if that value is lost because of problems that don't exist with other investments. Risk vs return is a fundamental proposition of all investments. Bitcoin certainly has higher risk, but the fundamental idea that risky investments need more return to justify them applies everywhere not just bitcoin.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    Yes, but that aspect is completely lost when people make the argument that if you bought bitcoin then on a long time scale you wouldn't have lost money. What are the chances that you would have lost the bitcoin through other means (not price)? This never gets mentioned.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      I mean, if you are holding bitcoin for the long term, i dont see why you would keep it at an exchange/other risky ventures. Bitcoin on a thumb drive kept in a safe deposit box does not go missing.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        Thumb drives don't hold data forever. Safe deposit boxes are not insured for more than a trivial amount and the contents get lost/removed all the time. Anyway you admitted that it is a riskier investment to hang on to then handwaved it when I said that no one is taking it into account.
        bawolff 4y ago
        > Thumb drives don't hold data forever. Safe deposit boxes are not insured for more than a trivial amount and the contents get lost/removed all the time. This is downright silly. Might as well say if an asteroid hit the earth your money probably isn't safe. > Anyway you admitted that it is a riskier investment to hang on Than what? I admited that all investments have risk, and that like all investments some investments are safer than bitcoin and some are more dangerous. I would say the same thing about literally any investment. Even a savings account has some (miniscule) risk > handwaved it when I said that no one is taking it into account. You haven't presented any evidence that nobody is taking it into account. Obviously some people are and some aren't, but i'm not sure that distinguishes it from most other investments. You could argue that there is a higher porportion of people not taking it appropriately into account with bitcoin relative to say an index etf, which probably is true, but that is a hell of a goal post move from ">90% probability for crypto over a ten year period" to go to zero due to risk of investment being stolen.

bawolff 4y ago

I like absolutely hate bitcoin, but the probability of that happening to a savy investor is pretty low. Definitely not 90%. The probability of an unsavy investor being parted from their money is pretty high in all forms of investment.