3 ms·

I think he means: "there is an intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin that will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of inte

I think he means: "there is an intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin that will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of interest in bitcoin." Bubbles are only identifiable after they have popped.

baddox 13y ago
> Bubbles are only identifiable after they have popped. Then it is reasonable for me to call BS when people identify Bitcoin as a bubble.
- cicero 13y ago
  We already see the "intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin", so what remains to be seen is if it "will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of interest in bitcoin." Since we already have the first half of the bubble phenomenon, it is not unreasonable (or BS) to suspect the second half will follow. Especially since we are seeing lots of bubbles these days. Remember, a bubble doesn't mean something is worthless, but only overvalued, e.g. the housing bubble didn't mean that housing was worthless, but it was overvalued.
- KrisAndrew 13y ago
  Not really. Your role is to tease out the real issue for discussion, rather than shutting down the conversation with demands of testable hypotheses. Offer the other guy a chance to save face or explain himself. Being utterly contrarian is pointless. Here, the next time someone calls bitcoin a bubble, give him this link (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ca06172-bfe9-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html#axzz2nCp5NYvE http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ca06172-bfe9-11de-aed2-00144...) to Soros's Theory of Reflexivity and ask him to provide a hypothesis within the framework Soros provides.
  - baddox 13y ago
    When I said "call BS," I didn't mean literally just saying that, I just meant denying the claim and perhaps asking for a definition of "bubble" or a testable prediction, much like I originally did in this thread.

3 ms·

I think he means: "there is an intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin that will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of inte

by KrisAndrew 13y ago

baddox 13y ago
> Bubbles are only identifiable after they have popped. Then it is reasonable for me to call BS when people identify Bitcoin as a bubble.
- cicero 13y ago
  We already see the "intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin", so what remains to be seen is if it "will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of interest in bitcoin." Since we already have the first half of the bubble phenomenon, it is not unreasonable (or BS) to suspect the second half will follow. Especially since we are seeing lots of bubbles these days. Remember, a bubble doesn't mean something is worthless, but only overvalued, e.g. the housing bubble didn't mean that housing was worthless, but it was overvalued.
- KrisAndrew 13y ago
  Not really. Your role is to tease out the real issue for discussion, rather than shutting down the conversation with demands of testable hypotheses. Offer the other guy a chance to save face or explain himself. Being utterly contrarian is pointless. Here, the next time someone calls bitcoin a bubble, give him this link (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ca06172-bfe9-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html#axzz2nCp5NYvE http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ca06172-bfe9-11de-aed2-00144...) to Soros's Theory of Reflexivity and ask him to provide a hypothesis within the framework Soros provides.
  - baddox 13y ago
    When I said "call BS," I didn't mean literally just saying that, I just meant denying the claim and perhaps asking for a definition of "bubble" or a testable prediction, much like I originally did in this thread.