Bitcoin is funny money

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm not sure why you put "feeling alone" in quotes.  You're not quoting me, and I provided reasons and data for my views.  Are you going to claim the market caps of Visa and Mastercard are feelings?  I compared them to Bitcoin, which is less useful than either credit card.

What is your source for the assumption all crashes must follow a previous "path"?

That is even disproven by your own example: the 2013 crash was deeper than the 2017 crash.  Put another way, the 2017 crash did not follow "2013's path".

Your only data point was in regards to a comparison between the market caps of MasterCard and VISA versus bitcoin, which is an odd comparison considering bitcoin doesn't compete with either of those. Other than that singular data point you presented, the only other evidence for "the top is in" is using past performance in past bubbles to falsely claim such (because if you did compare it to past bubbles then by that measure the top is NOT in).

You're claiming crashes are predictable and must follow "past bubbles"?  You've said this in your earlier post, as well, saying the crash has to follow the "path" of the prior crash.  I pointed out you were wrong with your own data - that 2017 did not follow the "path" of 2013.  So the data you used, shows you're incorrect.  Yet you're still making exact comparisons, saying until we reach the 20x multiple of 2017, Bitcoin can't crash.

That puts you in a foreign country with no food.  I said plane ticket, hotel, dining and shopping.  You can't buy a ticket at the United Airlines counter of the airport - you have to use specific websites.  Similarly, almost no restaurants accept Bitcoin, but almost all accept Visa or Mastercard.  Credit cards are more useful than Bitcoin.

The only reason why I mentioned those services was because you happened to bring it up. Again, bitcoin is not competing with VISA or Mastercard. But there are options out there to pay with bitcoin for certain services. But the payments options for bitcoin still have a long way to go because the payment scaling rails just aren't there just yet.

I completely disagree with the claim Bitcoin isn't competing with Visa and Mastercard.  Why did Bitcoin rally after Elon Musk said Bitcoin could be used to buy Teslas?  Consider which Businesses would advertise they accept Bitcoin ... those same businesses advertise they accept Visa and Mastercard.  They are competitors for how people pay for goods and services.

What percent of Chinese citizens used or know about Chinese yuan?  What percent of U.S. citizens held or know about U.S. dollars?  The answer is a rounding error from 100%, while for Bitcoin it's 6-7%.  Bitcoin also competes with people spending dollars, or saving their money in dollars.

Tell me more about the "bubble" I live in.  What were you saying earlier about saying things based on "feeling alone"?
I'm actually a Nigerian Price who needs 50 Bitcoin to re-claim my throne...

As to the assumption that getting outside America will reveal a lack of "robust financial services", is that how you describe Germany and Switzerland?  China and Japan appear on that list, two of the largest economies in the world.  Most of that list is countries that have financial services - including the largest economies in the world.  It doesn't really prove your point about financial services being lacking.

And also, if I may point out, 2/3rds of Bitcoin is mined in China.  But instead of having the highest use of Bitcoin, only 7% of Chinese in the survey have "used or owned cryptocurrency".  That's an interesting disparity to me.

Huh? My point wasn't about Germany, Switzerland, China, Japan, or the USA. They all have fairly low adoption rates so far as shown in that chart.

Your chart had nothing to do with your point.  You talked about unbanked countries, and then linked to a chart where half the countries were the largest economies in the world.

When are you going to reveal the data you used to decide what bubble I live in?

[lifeanon269]

You're claiming crashes are predictable and must follow "past bubbles"?  You've said this in your earlier post, as well, saying the crash has to follow the "path" of the prior crash.  I pointed out you were wrong with your own data - that 2017 did not follow the "path" of 2013.  So the data you used, shows you're incorrect.  Yet you're still making exact comparisons, saying until we reach the 20x multiple of 2017, Bitcoin can't crash.

Show me (quote me) where I said that crashes will follow past bubbles prior to your post where you compared today's price to past bubbles. I never said anything like that and in fact in my very response to you I said that doing so is a flawed approach. All I did was simply showed how even if one were to make the comparison that you first brought up, you're analysis was wrong.

Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles).

I completely disagree with the claim Bitcoin isn't competing with Visa and Mastercard.  Why did Bitcoin rally after Elon Musk said Bitcoin could be used to buy Teslas?  Consider which Businesses would advertise they accept Bitcoin ... those same businesses advertise they accept Visa and Mastercard.  They are competitors for how people pay for goods and services.

Bitcoin didn't rally because people were suddenly (maybe) going to buy Teslas with bitcoin some day. It rallied because one of the largest auto manufacturers, an S&P500 company, just revealed that they had purchased $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin for their cash reserves. That's a pretty large validation for the market as a store of value.

Your chart had nothing to do with your point.  You talked about unbanked countries, and then linked to a chart where half the countries were the largest economies in the world.

When are you going to reveal the data you used to decide what bubble I live in?

The only reason why the chart included countries like Japan, US, Germany, etc was to show a comparison between those and the other countries where bitcoin usage is sky-rocketing. It's almost like you didn't even read the article that went along with the chart...

It's not even worth arguing with you if you're 1) going to put words in my mouth and 2) not read the articles I linked to and make faulty arguments based on your misinterpretation of a chart within said article.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here's what you said:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

As far as your "top is in" point, it seems like you're basing your point on "feeling alone". Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles). If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here. So far it is moving closer to 2013's path, but again past analysis is pointless.

Here's our paragraphs:  I said `probably also reaching "the top is in"`, and you said "If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here".

Why would you say Bitcoin must follow the same path when it crashes?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think I'll summarize my views, so both lifeanon269 and I can move on.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that can be sent from one account to another.  And I claim nobody sends something of value for nothing - I claim it is used to buy goods and services.  That is the same role credit cards play in peoples lives, so Bitcoin competes with credit cards.

In 2017 I watched the market cap of Bitcoin pass the market cap of one of the credit card companies.  That, combined with a 20x increase in price, looked like a bubble had inflated and was ready to pop.  Bitcoin did go through a correction, which happens every few years.

To me, 2021 looks similar.  History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.  Bitcoin started 2020 at $7200, and is now $56,300 - an increase of 8x.  This time, Bitcoin is more valuable than Visa and Mastercard combined.  If it hits $60,000 you can add PayPal to that list.  Bitcoin is worse than those other companies for buying goods and services.

Last year it become unclear if Bitcoin can diversify a stock and bond portfolio.  Bitcoin peaked before Covid on Feb 13 ($10.4k), a week before the stock market on Feb 20 ($172.43/sh VTI).  It hit a low in mid-day trading Friday, March 13 ($4.1k) about 10 days before the market did on March 23 ($109.49/sh VTI).  You could lose -61% with Bitcoin or -37% in the stock market a week apart.  Bitcoin did not diversify against the crash in March 2020.

Multiple people cite an S&P 500 company endorsing Bitcoin - both times failing to mention the CEO was Elon Musk.  The same Elon Musk who lied about a takeover bid of Tesla, and the SEC got involved.  The same CEO who demanded his workers ignore government restrictions and go to work during a pandemic (the U.S. has had 500k deaths from Covid-19).  The same CEO who tweeted support for retail investors to buy Gamestop, which has lost 90% of it's value since that tweet.  I think we need to separate Elon Musk's business resume (Tesla, SpaceX, ...) from his behavior and antics.  His support of Bitcoin isn't part of his business resume.  When someone mentions "an S&P 500 company supports Bitcoin", keep in mind who they've left out of that comment.

[seattlecyclone]

It doesn't make a good unit of account yet because of its volatility, but there is no long term stability without short term volatility.

Citation needed. How does stability later require volatility now? If you're looking at two assets, one that's pretty stable now and one that's pretty volatile, which one would you expect to be more likely to be stable next year or ten years from now? I wouldn't intuitively guess that it's the currently-volatile one, but I'm happy to see some studies showing otherwise.

However, what it lacks in being a unit of account, it makes up for as a global medium of exchange with no borders, a store of value that cannot be deluted, every unit as fungible as the last, extremely divisible, uniform, portable, growingly acceptable, and infinitely durable.

That's an interesting opinion, but I don't agree that the benefits you lay out exceed the drawback of being unusable for accounting. If it's too volatile to use it as a unit of account, you won't want to hold it for long if you're using it as money (if you're using as an investment it's a different story). You'll buy exactly what you need immediately before you send it to your trading partner, who will in turn want to sell it as soon as they can. Incidentally, for such transactions where the Bitcoin is only used as an intermediary, the BTC to fiat exchange rate is essentially irrelevant. It makes no difference to these people whether their $1,000 briefly turned into 0.02 BTC or 0.000002 BTC or 2,000 BTC before it turned back into €825 on the other side. What matters is the transaction fee, the speed of converting between the two fiat currencies involved, and the volatility risk inherent in the intervening time.

Once you're converting from fiat to Bitcoin to a different fiat again as quickly as possible, why use Bitcoin at all? Why not convert directly from Currency X to Currency Y without using Currency BTC in between? The answer, of course, is that such services invite government regulation on both sides. The main benefit of the decentralized network is that it's beyond the direct control of governments and is therefore useful to facilitate transactions that local governments might not permit. We've already agreed that the decentralization comes with costs that tend to make centralized services cheaper in cases where they can be used. But if the main use of Bitcoin in your country is to make transactions your government doesn't like, and they know it, why would they permit you to exchange it to local currency at all? This is not merely idle speculation. Many countries prohibit the operation of crypto-to-fiat trading exchanges to various degrees. Maybe nobody's stopping you from receiving a payment in BTC, but then what? You're probably going to need to hold that BTC for a while until you can find some way to spend it. That's where the volatility is killer.

What can't be accomplished today under the current fiat system? Global payments.

Every time I've used a Visa card to purchase an item from a foreign merchant (who received payment in their local currency) would seem to disprove this, as would every time I've used my US ATM card when traveling to get cash in the foreign country. The transaction fees I pay to do so have been less than the current fee to record a transaction on Bitcoin's blockchain. These networks do have to comply with government regulations on both sides so I can't exactly use my credit card to pay someone in Cuba. That just gets us back to the problem that if your main selling point is the ability to do illicit transactions with impunity, and your decentralized network is too expensive to use for mundane transactions, you're going to need to convert from one currency to the other at some point, and your government might not want to make that easy for you to do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't have it both ways". It is good for payments, it just has some developments and acceptance to go before it's fully there.

On the one hand you say that it's wrong to criticize Bitcoin for its lack of acceptance among general merchants, because that's just not what it's for and people who make this criticism just don't understand. On the other hand you say that it actually will be useful for this purpose in the future and we need to be patient. Which is it? Does the value of Bitcoin depend on its utility for mundane payments (either now or in the future), or doesn't it?

[lifeanon269]

Citation needed. How does stability later require volatility now?

Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's acclaimed book Antifragile. It is an excerpt from that book.

[lifeanon269]

Here's what you said:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

As far as your "top is in" point, it seems like you're basing your point on "feeling alone". Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles). If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here. So far it is moving closer to 2013's path, but again past analysis is pointless.

Here's our paragraphs:  I said `probably also reaching "the top is in"`, and you said "If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here".

Why would you say Bitcoin must follow the same path when it crashes?

It's like you didn't even read what you quoted. So I bolded it for you. You're using past analysis to claim the top was in. So I figured, "OK, I'll play you're stupid game" and show you that even if you were to play that game, that type of analysis would show that the top is not in, like you claimed. It's pointless arguing with someone who can't even make sense of what they themselves have written.

[JetBlast]

Citation needed. How does stability later require volatility now?

Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's acclaimed book Antifragile. It is an excerpt from that book.

Care to paraphrase for those of us that don't have a copy handy? 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here's what you said:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

As far as your "top is in" point, it seems like you're basing your point on "feeling alone". Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles). If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here. So far it is moving closer to 2013's path, but again past analysis is pointless.

Here's our paragraphs:  I said `probably also reaching "the top is in"`, and you said "If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here".

Why would you say Bitcoin must follow the same path when it crashes?

It's like you didn't even read what you quoted. So I bolded it for you. You're using past analysis to claim the top was in. So I figured, "OK, I'll play you're stupid game" and show you that even if you were to play that game, that type of analysis would show that the top is not in, like you claimed. It's pointless arguing with someone who can't even make sense of what they themselves have written.

Notice how you don't answer a simple, direct question about "the same path".
Following "the same path" is not analysis, it's a claim that crashes follow identical paths.  You are wrong to say crashes follow identical paths, and wrong to claim that's analysis.  You are inventing your own game: crashes do not follow "the same path" to quote you again, while you refuse to explain why "the same path" is followed by a crash, ever.

[lifeanon269]

Notice how you don't answer a simple, direct question about "the same path".
Following "the same path" is not analysis, it's a claim that crashes follow identical paths.  You are wrong to say crashes follow identical paths, and wrong to claim that's analysis.  You are inventing your own game: crashes do not follow "the same path" to quote you again, while you refuse to explain why "the same path" is followed by a crash, ever.

My lord, even when I bold it for you, you still can't understand it. I never made that claim. You did:

"This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price."

You were using past behavior to make claims about what it is going to do in the future. Which, as I responded is a stupid analysis. And now you're trying to make it out like I was the one making the claim. UNREAL. GTFO. I then, in turn, simply took your own analysis (using past behavior to predict future outcomes), to show you how even your own stupid analysis (bitcoin running up 5x means a crash is coming) was completely bogus.

Once I show you how stupid your narrative was, don't try and push it around and play it off like it was me making that claim while ignoring that even my original statement said it was flawed:

Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up)

I told myself I wasn't going to respond, but you just keep digging the hole for yourself deeper. Enjoy the last word.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Notice how you don't answer a simple, direct question about "the same path".
Following "the same path" is not analysis, it's a claim that crashes follow identical paths.  You are wrong to say crashes follow identical paths, and wrong to claim that's analysis.  You are inventing your own game: crashes do not follow "the same path" to quote you again, while you refuse to explain why "the same path" is followed by a crash, ever.

Try saying "you were wrong to claim crashes follow the path of previous crashes".  Try it... see if you ever admit being wrong.  The reason I have to focus on something you said that is so clearly wrong, is that you never admit being wrong in this discussion.

The 2008 crisis didn't follow a previous path.  Nor the dot-com crash.  The 2017 bitcoin crash did not follow the path of the 2013 crash.  Lots of examples, showing you are wrong to suggest crashes follow the same path.

Each reply, you refuse to say "the same path", which I've quoted over and over.  Crashes do not follow "the same path".  But you can't admit you were wrong on even the smallest point, so you argue other areas, and refuse to address it.

You were wrong to say a crash in Bitcoin has to follow "the same path".

[lifeanon269]

You can have the last word as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth. As a moderator of these forums, such actions should be beneath you.

As you originally stated here in your very first comment, you said:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

Take this sentence that you first made (as quoted above):

This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

Is this not using past behavior to attempt to predict future outcomes? Are you not claiming here that future crashes should follow a past crash? Can we not agree that using past behavior to predict future outcomes is a faulty method of prediction as I stated in my direct reply, not once, but twice (bolded below):

As far as your "top is in" point, it seems like you're basing your point on "feeling alone". Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles). If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here. So far it is moving closer to 2013's path, but again past analysis is pointless.

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017). That was the only point I was making. Never once did I ever claim that crashes must follow the same path as previous crashes. Not once did I ever make that claim and the fact you won't quote me where I personally made that claim is extremely telling. Put simply, you are putting words in my mouth and saying I made claims that I never made. In fact, as I just showed above, I made the exact opposite claim by saying that using past behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed approach.

As for me admitting I am wrong, there is no need for me to admit I am wrong about a claim that I never made. But there are plenty of times that I have admitted being wrong both in this thread and many others in this forum.

I stand corrected

I don't mind being wrong. I don't mind other people having the last word in any given debate. But I'm not going to let someone make false claims about something I said, even if that person is a moderator. Maybe english is a second language for you, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I certainly don't know any second language myself, so I fully understand the language barrier if that's coming in play here. But if it is you just plainly ignoring what is visibly written in this chat in clear-as-day English with as much chronologically correct breakdown and quotations being used as possible by myself to help you comprehend what was stated, then I don't know what else I can do. If you do understand what was stated and yet are simply trying to put words in my mouth, then shame on you.

Feel free to have the last word, but if you're going to say that I claimed things I never claimed, then I will correct you on that.

[effigy98]

Square invests 5% of balance sheet today in FUNNY MONEY. Stupid companies!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

You can have the last word as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth. As a moderator of these forums, such actions should be beneath you.

You can complain to the site moderators if you think my posts as moderator are a problem for me doing my job.

If I quoted you with something you didn't say, show me where I did that.  Show me where I put words in your mouth.

As you originally stated here in your very first comment, you said:

This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

Is this not using past behavior to attempt to predict future outcomes? Are you not claiming here that future crashes should follow a past crash? Can we not agree that using past behavior to predict future outcomes is a faulty method of prediction as I stated in my direct reply, not once, but twice (bolded below):

I am literally not claiming "future crashes should follow a past path", but am instead claiming "similar conditions" can create a higher probability.

If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here.

This is an exact quote, not words I put in your mouth.  I disagree that future crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".  When I mention "similar conditions", you compare to exact paths from prior crashes.  You cannot refute "similar conditions" by claiming crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

And again, I said "similar conditions", not "follow the same path" as you claimed above.  I have repeatedly criticized your claim that crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path", because I believe crashes do not follow the same exact path.


There is a saying that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.  So I can look at "similar conditions" to see if current events rhyme with past events.  You are claiming the only use of historical data is an exact match, that future crashes must "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".  History doesn't repeat - but again, that does not exclude the possibility that it has similar conditions, that it rhymes.

[lifeanon269]

If I quoted you with something you didn't say, show me where I did that.  Show me where I put words in your mouth.

I will show you where you continue to repeatedly do so by using partial quotes around my words and then repeatedly filling in the rest with your words instead of mine.

I am literally not claiming "future crashes should follow a past path", but am instead claiming "similar conditions" can create a higher probability.

You provided only one example of a condition you consider similar (a 5x move). A condition I refuted with 2 examples that directly counter your claim.

If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here.

This is an exact quote, not words I put in your mouth.  I disagree that future crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".  When I mention "similar conditions", you compare to exact paths from prior crashes.  You cannot refute "similar conditions" by claiming crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".

This is the crux of the problem right here. And I believe it is a reading comprehension problem of yours. You're making a claim that I said bitcoin "must" follow a certain path, and yet what you just quoted me as saying doesn't have the word "must" in there anywhere. This is where you are putting words in my mouth. You are partially quoting me using your own quotes around my words and then filling in the rest with your own words that I did not say. In fact, as you can see, I used the word "if" there.

if - conjunction
\ ˈif , əf \
Definition of if:
a: in the event that
b: allowing that
c: on condition that

I am simply providing two examples that directly refute your claim that a 5x move is a condition that signals a crash is imminent. That was your original statement. You only provided the one condition as an example of your "similar conditions". So I simply provided two examples that disprove your claim. I NEVER said that it "must" follow those paths as you repeatedly claim I said and you repeatedly fail to quote me as saying.

You have yet to provide a single example of where a 5x move is a condition right before another crash you saw and I had provided 2 examples that counter that claim (as I showed, both 2013 and 2017 prices moved beyond a mere 5x move). Furthermore, as I quoted myself repeatedly saying numerous times in my original response, using past price behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed method of analysis (and yet you continue to say I am claiming otherwise). The only condition you provided in your analysis was a 5x price move and simply using price as an indicator is flawed approach. If you'd like to elaborate on additional conditions you feel are prevalent that would signal a crash, then have at it. But so far you have not done so, and so therefore here in this thread you're simply using past price moves to predict future ones. A claim you repeatedly said I made, and yet here you are the one making such a claim without any additional evidence to back it up...

I am sorry if you got called out on your bullshit, but that isn't my problem and you can't put words in my mouth ("must") to make it my problem. Yet you keep digging yourself a bigger hole here.

And again, I said "similar conditions", not "follow the same path" as you claimed above.  I have repeatedly criticized your claim that crashes must either "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path", because I believe crashes do not follow the same exact path.

As I said above, the only condition that you provided in your post was a 5x price move and you directly referred to such condition in your post ("those conditions"). If there are other conditions in which you feel bitcoin's price is headed for a crash, then you have yet to provide them. I also provided two examples which show a 5x price move is not indicative of an imminent crash. Also, as I bolded in the above quote, you again are claiming that I said the price "must" follow a certain path and you have yet to quote me where I said that. I said "IF" it does, then that is how large of a move it would be from today's price. Thus, that directly refutes your claim that because bitcoin moved 5x to where it is now, then that indicates a crash is coming. But, again, I said numerous times, using past price behaviors alone is a faulty method. But so far that is the only condition you've provided in your analysis this entire time and, even then, you have yet to provide any examples yourself.

There is a saying that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.  So I can look at "similar conditions" to see if current events rhyme with past events.  You are claiming the only use of historical data is an exact match, that future crashes must "follows 2013's path" or "follows 2017's path".  History doesn't repeat - but again, that does not exclude the possibility that it has similar conditions, that it rhymes.

Again and for the last time, I never said that and you continue to fail to quote me where I said the bolded statement above. I never used the word "must" in my statements, I used the word "if". And the statement was only made to refute your claim that a 5x move is indicative of a crash. Never did I say that the "only use of historical data is an exact match". So now you're doubling down on claiming I said things I never said. At this point, it is a failure of reading comprehension on your part and I'll chalk it up to that as I don't care to argue about something you fail to comprehend. Anyone reading this can easily understand the things that we've said. Words mean things and yet you continue to put a different word in my mouth ("must") that you repeatedly claim I said and yet doesn't appear in my original post at all. You can't just substitute in different words than what someone said that mean two completely different things (if and must). No where did I imply that the price must follow any given historical price trend. No where.

-----
TLDR:

You said bitcoin's current 5x move is indicative of a past condition you saw right before a crash. (but didn't provide any examples).

I said, OK I'll play that stupid game. So I simply said that if bitcoin were to follow either of these two past price moves, then it would be much larger than just a 5x move. So how can you possibly say that a 5x price move is a historical condition indicative of a crash? I provided two conditions on which that is not true and you have not provided any.

You then proceeded to claim that I am saying bitcoin must follow those same paths while failing to quote me as saying such.
-----

This is a failure of reading comprehension on your part and the fact that you continue to double down on it to claim I said things I never said is just sad.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

As I said above, the only condition that you provided in your post was a 5x price move and you directly referred to such condition in your post ("those conditions"). If there are other conditions in which you feel bitcoin's price is headed for a crash, then you have yet to provide them.

You are misquoting me again, here.  I did not post the part you put in quotes, so you are putting words in my mouth: quoted words that I never said.

[celerystalks]

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

As I said above, the only condition that you provided in your post was a 5x price move and you directly referred to such condition in your post ("those conditions"). If there are other conditions in which you feel bitcoin's price is headed for a crash, then you have yet to provide them.

You are misquoting me again, here.  I did not post the part you put in quotes, so you are putting words in my mouth: quoted words that I never said.

@MustacheAndaHalf don’t bother. He’s doing this on purpose.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I am simply providing two examples that directly refute your claim that a 5x move is a condition that signals a crash is imminent. That was your original statement. You only provided the one condition as an example of your "similar conditions". So I simply provided two examples that disprove your claim. I NEVER said that it "must" follow those paths as you repeatedly claim I said and you repeatedly fail to quote me as saying.

You have yet to provide a single example of where a 5x move is a condition right before another crash you saw and I had provided 2 examples that counter that claim (as I showed, both 2013 and 2017 prices moved beyond a mere 5x move). Furthermore, as I quoted myself repeatedly saying numerous times in my original response, using past price behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed method of analysis (and yet you continue to say I am claiming otherwise).

Which is it?  Do your "2 examples" counter my claim because they are factual?  Or is "using past price behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed method of analysis"?  You're trying to have it both ways.

[lifeanon269]

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

I apologize for the slight misquote. I rescind my quotes on that statement. It was not a direct quote you said and I should not have used quotes there. However, my statement still remains even without the quotes. The only condition you provided in your original statement was a price condition (a 5x move). Here is your entire statement directly quoted:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

As I said above, the only condition that you provided in your post was a 5x price move and you directly referred to such condition in your post ("those conditions"). If there are other conditions in which you feel bitcoin's price is headed for a crash, then you have yet to provide them.

You are misquoting me again, here.  I did not post the part you put in quotes, so you are putting words in my mouth: quoted words that I never said.

Again, I apologize for leaving out the words "are similar" in my quote to you. I've been rehashing the same thing over with you many times, so it was a quick reference I made and I shouldn't have used quotes there. My point still remains and is unchanged by this correction though. The actual statement was "those are similar conditions", which is still a reference to "those [...] conditions" that you mentioned in your previous statement: "This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year." (see below):

This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

The fact that you didn't address anything that I said in my post and instead questioned those two things that don't in any way change the argument I was making is completely telling of the leg you have to stand on here. You have not responded to any of the things I addressed in my post.

[lifeanon269]

I am simply providing two examples that directly refute your claim that a 5x move is a condition that signals a crash is imminent. That was your original statement. You only provided the one condition as an example of your "similar conditions". So I simply provided two examples that disprove your claim. I NEVER said that it "must" follow those paths as you repeatedly claim I said and you repeatedly fail to quote me as saying.

You have yet to provide a single example of where a 5x move is a condition right before another crash you saw and I had provided 2 examples that counter that claim (as I showed, both 2013 and 2017 prices moved beyond a mere 5x move). Furthermore, as I quoted myself repeatedly saying numerous times in my original response, using past price behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed method of analysis (and yet you continue to say I am claiming otherwise).

Which is it?  Do your "2 examples" counter my claim because they are factual?  Or is "using past price behavior to predict future outcomes is a flawed method of analysis"?  You're trying to have it both ways.

I am not having it both ways. YOU brought up past price behavior by referencing a past 5x price move!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha. Did you not read the TLDR summary I posted? You were the first one to bring up past price behaviors by referencing (a still yet uncited) 5x move that preceded a crash. I was merely bringing up two past moves that were counter to your claim. I'm not having it both ways, you are and it is hilarious how much you're in denial now.

[lifeanon269]

Here is MustacheAndaHalf's line of thinking:

This past year, gold went up 2% in one year. Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in gold's price.

Me:

Wait, first off, we shouldn't be using past price behaviors to predict future outcomes, such analysis is faulty. But even if you were to do that, gold has gone up much more than just 2% in the past (see examples I have provided), so I don't think you can make the claim you are making here.

MustacheAndaHalf:

How dare you claim that gold's price "must" move based on past price paths!! You can't have it both ways!! You can't counter my claim with facts while at the same time claiming that my analysis on price behavior is faulty!!!



....WTF world are you living in that the above makes any sense to you....hahahahaha!!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

I apologize for the slight misquote. I rescind my quotes on that statement. It was not a direct quote you said and I should not have used quotes there.

I needed to narrow the focus to get any admission like this from you.  Since it's hard to get an admission of wrongdoing from you, I'm only putting forth the clearest cases. 

Unfortunately, your very next post seems to make that apology ring hollow, as you immediately put words in my mouth after apologizing for doing so.

Here is MustacheAndaHalf's line of thinking:

This past year, gold went up 2% in one year. Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in gold's price.
...
MustacheAndaHalf:

How dare you claim that gold's price "must" move based on past price paths!! You can't have it both ways!! You can't counter my claim with facts while at the same time claiming that my analysis on price behavior is faulty!!!

You complain about others putting words in your mouth, then apologize when I show clear examples of you doing it.  And immediately after, you're doing it again.

[lifeanon269]

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

I apologize for the slight misquote. I rescind my quotes on that statement. It was not a direct quote you said and I should not have used quotes there.

I needed to narrow the focus to get any admission like this from you.  Since it's hard to get an admission of wrongdoing from you, I'm only putting forth the clearest cases. 

Unfortunately, your very next post seems to make that apology ring hollow, as you immediately put words in my mouth after apologizing for doing so.

Here is MustacheAndaHalf's line of thinking:

This past year, gold went up 2% in one year. Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in gold's price.
...
MustacheAndaHalf:

How dare you claim that gold's price "must" move based on past price paths!! You can't have it both ways!! You can't counter my claim with facts while at the same time claiming that my analysis on price behavior is faulty!!!

You complain about others putting words in your mouth, then apologize when I show clear examples of you doing it.  And immediately after, you're doing it again.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I didn't "quote" you there for saying those things literally (the only word I quoted was "must" as that was a repeated false claim you made about my statements). I am explaining the situation here and why the statement about bitcoin you made is incorrect. You continue to ignore this and have yet to address it. You have also yet to apologize for misquoting me several times as I have apologized to you. If my analogy about gold (that's what it is, an analogy) is incorrect in anyway, then feel free to explain yourself. Because you have yet to do so. I tried to make the analogy as concise as possible using gold as a particular subject substitute. In fact, the first statement is word-for-word, minus the substitution of "gold".

You claim that it is difficult to admit any wrongdoing from me (even though I've done so several times in this very thread), and yet you have not addressed or admitted to a single one of your faults and have now moved on completely as they've been disregarded.

[lifeanon269]

Here is MustacheAndaHalf's line of thinking:

This past year, gold went up 2% in one year. Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in gold's price.

Me:

Wait, first off, we shouldn't be using past price behaviors to predict future outcomes, such analysis is faulty. But even if you were to do that, gold has gone up much more than just 2% in the past (see examples I have provided), so I don't think you can make the claim you are making here.

MustacheAndaHalf:

How dare you claim that gold's price "must" move based on past price paths!! You can't have it both ways!! You can't counter my claim with facts while at the same time claiming that my analysis on price behavior is faulty!!!



....WTF world are you living in that the above makes any sense to you....hahahahaha!!

I stand by my recollection of this very conversation, which is why I don't need to apologize for it. If rather than arguing semantics or demanding apologies, you'd like to address anything that you feel you recollect differently, then feel free. But given your original statement below, I am not sure where you can pivot your argument to differently than how I've described in my above analogy:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

And you've yet to provide examples as I have with both 2013 and 2017 which counter your point completely about a 5x move being indicative of anything one way or the other. When making a claim about "those are similar conditions", the only conditions you provided in that paragraph are conditions about price (and you fail to provide any specific evidence). Do you not agree with that claim that the only condition you provided was on price? It is pretty clear as day in plain English. This is why I stand by my analogy.

You've also not rescinded your false claim you made claiming I said that past crashes "must" follow 2013 or 2017's path. Again, I never said that. And yet you continue to ignore it...

[effigy98]

MicroStrategy now has 4.5 billion funny monies.
Dubai’s IBC Group has committed to over 4.8 billion funny monies.
Bank of New York "buffet stock" Melon has committed to handle custody and trading of funny money
Blackrock is dabbling in funny money
Yellen says funny money is slow and unreliable... feds computer systems go down today and banking system cannot move money around.

[lifeanon269]

Yellen says funny money is slow and unreliable... feds computer systems go down today and banking system cannot move money around.

I got a chuckle out of this one today. Literally all of the Fed's services were down today. Account services, central bank, Check21, check adjustments, FedACH, FedCash, FedWire, National Settlement...meanwhile bitcoin is still chugging away producing blocks...

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Here you claim that even though I'm not using quote marks, that "put words in my mouth".

Your chart had nothing to do with your point.  You talked about unbanked countries, and then linked to a chart where half the countries were the largest economies in the world.

When are you going to reveal the data you used to decide what bubble I live in?

It's not even worth arguing with you if you're 1) going to put words in my mouth and 2) not read the articles I linked to and make faulty arguments based on your misinterpretation of a chart within said article.

And here, you claim without quotes, it's not putting words in your mouth:

You complain about others putting words in your mouth, then apologize when I show clear examples of you doing it.  And immediately after, you're doing it again.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I didn't "quote" you there for saying those things literally (the only word I quoted was "must" as that was a repeated false claim you made about my statements)

First you claim I'm putting words in your mouth, when I don't use quotes.  Then you claim you're not putting words in my mouth, because you didn't use quotes.  Again, you're trying to have it both ways.

[DaKini]

We germans have a funny word for the discussion, which also went into englisch: Kindergarden

Back to topic:

MicroStrategy now has 4.5 billion funny monies.
Dubai’s IBC Group has committed to over 4.8 billion funny monies.
Bank of New York "buffet stock" Melon has committed to handle custody and trading of funny money
Blackrock is dabbling in funny money
Yellen says funny money is slow and unreliable... feds computer systems go down today and banking system cannot move money around.

I really have no idea where this is all headed towards. I tought that BTC was already at insane heighs when it was 350, at which point i really had sold if i had bought at 5 or so, when i first heard of it.
There is really alot of FOMO in the marked, and even people which have no clue in investing are talking bitcoins; which suggests to me "the end is near".
There were early Pump&Dump schemes and alot of robbery with BTC which was one of the main reasons i stayed out (and wrote that into my IPS).
We have regulated exchanges here (Börse Stuttgart) where you can go into BTC. But isn't it too late alreay?

[lifeanon269]

Here you claim that even though I'm not using quote marks, that "put words in my mouth".

Your chart had nothing to do with your point.  You talked about unbanked countries, and then linked to a chart where half the countries were the largest economies in the world.

When are you going to reveal the data you used to decide what bubble I live in?

It's not even worth arguing with you if you're 1) going to put words in my mouth and 2) not read the articles I linked to and make faulty arguments based on your misinterpretation of a chart within said article.

And here, you claim without quotes, it's not putting words in your mouth:

You complain about others putting words in your mouth, then apologize when I show clear examples of you doing it.  And immediately after, you're doing it again.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I didn't "quote" you there for saying those things literally (the only word I quoted was "must" as that was a repeated false claim you made about my statements)

First you claim I'm putting words in your mouth, when I don't use quotes.  Then you claim you're not putting words in my mouth, because you didn't use quotes.  Again, you're trying to have it both ways.

You were the one that cared about the literalness/semantics about the usage of quotes (""). I never complained about where quotation marks were and weren't used by you. I only at times demanded you quote my posts when I felt that you were making false claims about what I actually said. I cared more about the actual meaning and substance of the statements you were accusing me of making. You said I claimed that past crashes must follow the same path (again, I never said that). I apologize if my use of quotation marks are not always 100% accurate, that's why I usually tend to lean toward quoting the posts themselves more to avoid that mistake. In the future I will avoid using quotation marks all together and simply quote posts instead. However, I am very good about making sure the content I am posting about is accurate and that is what truly matters here. If rather than arguing semantics, you actually care to have a debate on meaning, then I'm all for it.

Here is MustacheAndaHalf's line of thinking:

This past year, gold went up 2% in one year. Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in gold's price.

Me:

Wait, first off, we shouldn't be using past price behaviors to predict future outcomes, such analysis is faulty. But even if you were to do that, gold has gone up much more than just 2% in the past (see examples I have provided), so I don't think you can make the claim you are making here.

MustacheAndaHalf:

How dare you claim that gold's price "must" move based on past price paths!! You can't have it both ways!! You can't counter my claim with facts while at the same time claiming that my analysis on price behavior is faulty!!!

I stand by my above recollection of our conversation based on the below posts:

It's probably also reaching "the top is in"... not for all time, but for now.  Bitcoin goes through crashes every few years, and now seems like higher potential for a crash.  Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of about 800 billion, while Bitcoin is more valuable than both combined. This past year, Bitcoin ran up 5x in one year.  Those are similar conditions I saw right before another crash in Bitcoin's value price.

As far as your "top is in" point, it seems like you're basing your point on "feeling alone". Even just going on past behavior (which obviously is a flawed approach but that you brought up), it is no where near where the previous bubbles popped (2013 and 2017 bubbles). If it follows 2013's path, then we're still more than a 10x move away from the top from here and if it follows 2017's path then we're still a 4x move away from the top from here. So far it is moving closer to 2013's path, but again past analysis is pointless.

I'm not sure why you put "feeling alone" in quotes.  You're not quoting me, and I provided reasons and data for my views.  Are you going to claim the market caps of Visa and Mastercard are feelings?  I compared them to Bitcoin, which is less useful than either credit card.

What is your source for the assumption all crashes must follow a previous "path"?

That is even disproven by your own example: the 2013 crash was deeper than the 2017 crash.  Put another way, the 2017 crash did not follow "2013's path".

I'm not sure why you put "feeling alone" in quotes.  You're not quoting me, and I provided reasons and data for my views.  Are you going to claim the market caps of Visa and Mastercard are feelings?  I compared them to Bitcoin, which is less useful than either credit card.

What is your source for the assumption all crashes must follow a previous "path"?

That is even disproven by your own example: the 2013 crash was deeper than the 2017 crash.  Put another way, the 2017 crash did not follow "2013's path".

Your only data point was in regards to a comparison between the market caps of MasterCard and VISA versus bitcoin, which is an odd comparison considering bitcoin doesn't compete with either of those. Other than that singular data point you presented, the only other evidence for "the top is in" is using past performance in past bubbles to falsely claim such (because if you did compare it to past bubbles then by that measure the top is NOT in).

You're claiming crashes are predictable and must follow "past bubbles"?  You've said this in your earlier post, as well, saying the crash has to follow the "path" of the prior crash.  I pointed out you were wrong with your own data - that 2017 did not follow the "path" of 2013.  So the data you used, shows you're incorrect.  Yet you're still making exact comparisons, saying until we reach the 20x multiple of 2017, Bitcoin can't crash.

If you feel that somehow that doesn't match up (with or without quotation marks), then feel free to make some corrections and discuss. You continue to ignore my posts and instead choose to argue semantics rather than the actual conversation being had simply because you got called out on your BS assessment.

Since you seem to be avoiding the substance of the debate, to get past this, let's answer some questions:

Do you agree that your assessment that you posted at February 19, 2021, 09:22:25 AM was simply based on bitcoin's current price based on its historical price and that you didn't refer to any other condition outside of that paragraph? There was nothing else in that paragraph that was anything other than a condition on bitcoin's price history. Do you agree that using price history on its own is a faulty metric for future price predictions? Do you agree that bitcoin's moves in the past in both 2013 and 2017 were much larger moves than just a 5x move?

Do you agree that I never claimed that crashes must follow the same path as past price crashes?

If you can't agree to answer those questions, then I'm not sure you're posting in good faith when you continue to ignore my posts and instead choose to argue semantics. It is a waste of both our time, frankly. If you would like to raise some questions you'd like clarified by myself as well just so we can move on, I'd be glad to do so. But having you ignore my posts and respond with meaningless semantic and frivolous accusations that don't have anything to do with the actual debate we were having is pointless. If you can't answer those questions, then I'm done responding to you.

[DaKini]

You two might also discuss this privately via forums message.

In my opinion it would be very interesting to continue the previous discussion about Bitcoin.

[ChpBstrd]

You two might also discuss this privately via forums message.

In my opinion it would be very interesting to continue the previous discussion about Bitcoin.

I visited Germany about 15 years ago. My impression was "wow, these people are all so nice and civilized!"
You have proven yourself @DaKini
Now what the hell are you doing on the internet? :))

[lifeanon269]

You two might also discuss this privately via forums message.

In my opinion it would be very interesting to continue the previous discussion about Bitcoin.

That was my intention of my previous post. To steer the discussion back to bitcoin.

I don't really care to discuss things privately with individuals, as people are usually pretty cemented in their ideology one way or the other, so there is no convincing to be had. If you're not going to convince someone, then the debate is pointless unless there is a wider audience than just that one person. As I've said before in this thread:

My posts aren't here to convince you really, but as I said more to help those who do wish to learn something new that are reading this thread to hopefully spur some curiosity and help them on their path to learning

I've written about bitcoin quite a lot in this thread and others and my goal isn't to convince anyone to buy bitcoin, but more just to help people understand better what it is and what it isn't. The person I'm debating with is rarely the one I'm aimed at convincing. It is more to help dispel myths or misinformation so that as others are reading, they can maybe pick up new information they didn't know before and be better armed for when they see that misinformation again. If there is misinformation posted, then that doesn't do anyone any bit of good.

If you are someone who is interested in what I wrote and learning more, then these two posts are good starting points:

...

...

[celerystalks]

You two might also discuss this privately via forums message.

In my opinion it would be very interesting to continue the previous discussion about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is funny money.

[lutorm]

Man wouldn't it have been hilarious if I'd kept the bitcoins I mined when I played with it for a few weeks back in 2010 -- it would have been like 10% of my NW.

I agree with what others are saying that as a means of exchange, that's a failure. A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

What we're seeing is speculation, which can happen with anything. Doesn't mean it has any inherent value. Might just as well be baseball cards.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I didn't "quote" you there for saying those things literally (the only word I quoted was "must" as that was a repeated false claim you made about my statements)

Here you care about quotes...

You were the one that cared about the literalness/semantics about the usage of quotes (""). I never complained about where quotation marks were and weren't used by you.

... here you claim the quotes don't matter.

It's difficult to debate someone who keeps moving the goalposts.  You assume what I would think on a topic I didn't bring up (gold), which is putting words in my mouth.  Then you claim it's not, because you didn't use quotes.  And then you claim not using quotes doesn't matter.

I assume you're doing this to avoid admitting when you're wrong.  That's why my posts are so focused on inconsistent comments you've made.  Can you avoid making inconsistent comments?

[lifeanon269]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I didn't "quote" you there for saying those things literally (the only word I quoted was "must" as that was a repeated false claim you made about my statements)

Here you care about quotes...

That's not me caring about quotes. That was in response to you here (see quoted post below). Maybe you should take things in context rather than partial posting what I've said out of context. Even though it doesn't change the crux of the argument I was making, you were arguing here about the slight misuse of quotation marks, which I apologized for and avoided in the future. I quoted you as saying "those conditions" when instead you said "those are similar conditions"...like seriously dude, come on. If that's your argument response and while ignoring that actual argument being had, that's pretty sad. Derp:

So in review, you claimed that future market behaviors should follow the same path as past behaviors. So my rebuttal was that (as seen above), such methods of predictions are faulty, but even if you were to use such methods of predictions as you had first chosen to do, you were still wrong in your own analysis. Your analysis being that a "5x move means a pending crash for bitcoin" (which obviously is factually incorrect as I showed with 2013 and 2017).

When you start a sentence with "Your analysis" and then quotes, that's putting words in my mouth.  I never said the quoted section that begins with "5x ...".

You quoted something I did not say - you put words in my mouth, and haven't responded to this.

As I said above, the only condition that you provided in your post was a 5x price move and you directly referred to such condition in your post ("those conditions"). If there are other conditions in which you feel bitcoin's price is headed for a crash, then you have yet to provide them.

You are misquoting me again, here.  I did not post the part you put in quotes, so you are putting words in my mouth: quoted words that I never said.

And again you continue to ignore the actual debate and questions at hand while further derailing the actual thread. Great mod work.

It's difficult to debate someone who keeps moving the goalposts.  You assume what I would think on a topic I didn't bring up (gold), which is putting words in my mouth.  Then you claim it's not, because you didn't use quotes.  And then you claim not using quotes doesn't matter.

I assume you're doing this to avoid admitting when you're wrong.  That's why my posts are so focused on inconsistent comments you've made.  Can you avoid making inconsistent comments?

I'm not assuming what you think about gold. It was an analogy and has nothing to do with what you think about gold. Do you know what an analogy is? Admit I'm wrong about what now? That you continue to derail a thread, make false claims, misrepresent what I've said numerous times, and not once admit you're wrong about something that is actually on topic to the thread that you continue to avoid in all of your posts? Ya...OK...

[lifeanon269]

A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

Do you realize that almost all the technology goods we purchase today are deflationary goods and yet people still line up outside of stores day #1 to get the latest and greatest technology even though if they waited just a year or two they could get that same technology for half the price? That is quite the deflationary force and yet consumerism is a hell of a drug to override it. People still love to buy things and not to mention people still need food, clothing, shelter, etc that they would continue to purchase regardless. So I'd say that argument has been proven to not be true in reality. There are more forces in the economy that determine the price of goods other than just whether or not the currency is deflationary or inflationary.

[GuitarStv]

A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

Do you realize that almost all the technology goods we purchase today are deflationary goods and yet people still line up outside of stores day #1 to get the latest and greatest technology even though if they waited just a year or two they could get that same technology for half the price? That is quite the deflationary force and yet consumerism is a hell of a drug to override it. People still love to buy things and not to mention people still need food, clothing, shelter, etc that they would continue to purchase regardless. So I'd say that argument has been proven to not be true in reality. There are more forces in the economy that determine the price of goods other than just whether or not the currency is deflationary or inflationary.

It doesn't really make sense to compare 'deflationary value' of a good with real utility that a person wants to use immediately (like electronics) with something that is without practical value (like bitcoin) that is held only as an 'investment'.

[lifeanon269]

A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

Do you realize that almost all the technology goods we purchase today are deflationary goods and yet people still line up outside of stores day #1 to get the latest and greatest technology even though if they waited just a year or two they could get that same technology for half the price? That is quite the deflationary force and yet consumerism is a hell of a drug to override it. People still love to buy things and not to mention people still need food, clothing, shelter, etc that they would continue to purchase regardless. So I'd say that argument has been proven to not be true in reality. There are more forces in the economy that determine the price of goods other than just whether or not the currency is deflationary or inflationary.

It doesn't really make sense to compare 'deflationary value' of a good with real utility that a person wants to use immediately (like electronics) with something that is without practical value (like bitcoin) that is held only as an 'investment'.

I wasn't referring to bitcoin. The statement was about a deflationary currency in general.

[Telecaster]

A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

Do you realize that almost all the technology goods we purchase today are deflationary goods and yet people still line up outside of stores day #1 to get the latest and greatest technology even though if they waited just a year or two they could get that same technology for half the price? That is quite the deflationary force and yet consumerism is a hell of a drug to override it. People still love to buy things and not to mention people still need food, clothing, shelter, etc that they would continue to purchase regardless. So I'd say that argument has been proven to not be true in reality.  There are more forces in the economy that determine the price of goods other than just whether or not the currency is deflationary or inflationary.

The part in bold is a non-sequitur.    The very definition of inflation or deflation is if price of goods (and services) is rising or falling.  The primary measure of inflation is the Consumer Price Index, which the measure of prices of a basket of goods and services.  Of course, it is possible that prices in some sectors are going up while prices in another sector are going down at the same time.  But If prices overall are going up there is inflation.  If prices overall are going down there is deflation.  That's the definition.  The definition doesn't care why prices are going up or down, just if they are. 

@lutorm's comment was spot on.   We don't have to speculate how consumers behave in deflationary periods because we know from history what happens.  The Great Depression is a notable example.   Another problem with deflation besides reduction in consumer demand, is that companies have fixed expenses like mortgages and wages.  If the price for their product is going down, then they have to cut fixed expenses which usually means cutting labor.  Again, we do not have to speculate about this.  This is 100% what happens in a deflationary environment. 

[lifeanon269]

A deflationary currency doesn't work, why should I spend anything if I can wait and buy it tomorrow for less?

Do you realize that almost all the technology goods we purchase today are deflationary goods and yet people still line up outside of stores day #1 to get the latest and greatest technology even though if they waited just a year or two they could get that same technology for half the price? That is quite the deflationary force and yet consumerism is a hell of a drug to override it. People still love to buy things and not to mention people still need food, clothing, shelter, etc that they would continue to purchase regardless. So I'd say that argument has been proven to not be true in reality.  There are more forces in the economy that determine the price of goods other than just whether or not the currency is deflationary or inflationary.

The part in bold is a non-sequitur.    The very definition of inflation or deflation is if price of goods (and services) is rising or falling.  The primary measure of inflation is the Consumer Price Index, which the measure of prices of a basket of goods and services.  Of course, it is possible that prices in some sectors are going up while prices in another sector are going down at the same time.  But If prices overall are going up there is inflation.  If prices overall are going down there is deflation.  That's the definition.  The definition doesn't care why prices are going up or down, just if they are. 

@lutorm's comment was spot on.   We don't have to speculate how consumers behave in deflationary periods because we know from history what happens.  The Great Depression is a notable example.   Another problem with deflation besides reduction in consumer demand, is that companies have fixed expenses like mortgages and wages.  If the price for their product is going down, then they have to cut fixed expenses which usually means cutting labor.  Again, we do not have to speculate about this.  This is 100% what happens in a deflationary environment.

The comment is not spot on though and my comment was not a non-sequiter. As you said, inflation/deflation is not a static nor global measure across the entire economy. Some goods rise in costs for various reasons and some goods lower in costs for various reasons. His comment about a deflationary currency not working because of consumer behavior is not an accurate statement nor does it have any precedent in history to fall back on since we've operated on deflationary currencies for almost our entire history throughout periods of both economic booms and busts. You're confusing periods of 'economic deflation' with a deflationary currency itself (which is what was being discussed here). A deflationary currency itself does not lead to a deflationary economy, because as I mentioned there are more forces in the economy than just whether or not the currency supply is being inflated or deflated. The price of goods depends on much more than just the supply of currency in the economy.

Also, a deflationary economy doesn't necessarily result in a bad or stagnant economy (see 19th century). Your reference to the great depression as an example of deflation, was not caused by the fact that a deflationary currency was used but that monetary policy with deflationary effects exacerbated. What started as an ordinary recession and market crash, turned into a great depression due to poor monetary policy shrinking the money supply and further debt deflation taking place. The is a great deal of consensus that the Fed should not have gone to such extremes with its shrinking of the money supply at the time. But don't mistake poor monetary policy with the fact that deflationary currencies do or don't work given that almost our entire historical precedent is that they do. Furthermore, we've had deflationary economic cycles while at the same time having an inflationary money supply (see Great Recession). Which again refutes your claim while further showing that the economy's status depends on much more than just the currency supply.

[ChpBstrd]

To restate the interesting point.... A currency with built-in deflationary characteristics cannot work because it would always be to one's advantage to trade using an inflationary currency and to hoard the deflationary currency. To be more concrete, if I save 50% of my pay and spend the other 50% (in any currency), it would make sense to save in the deflationary currency and buy groceries, pay rent, and get my cavities filled using the inflationary currency. This is what literally everyone who holds crypto is doing now. They get paid in dollars, convert their savings to crypto, and cover expenses in dollars.

As a result, there is nothing offered for sale in the deflationary currency because there is no demand, and no transactions occur except exchanges with the inflationary currency. The deflationary currency becomes useless as a means of transaction and only functions as a store of value. Thus the deflationary currency fails to meet the definition of a currency and starts to meet the definition of a collectible.

Collectibles such as antiques, PMs, and art hold their value as long as other people maintain a willingness to pay. Generational factors can play a role here, and some things go in and out of favor. Will millennials collect antique cars from the 1960s-70s or antique metal toys from the early 20th century like boomers did? Will today's sneaker heads follow the path of the Benie Baby craze of the 1990s, or will unworn Air Jordans be a good 20 year investment? Good luck guessing. If one could only guess the value of gold one year from now, the options market would reward them with a 100% return. Crypto is an even more obscure collectible.

[lifeanon269]

To restate the interesting point.... A currency with built-in deflationary characteristics cannot work because it would always be to one's advantage to trade using an inflationary currency and to hoard the deflationary currency. To be more concrete, if I save 50% of my pay and spend the other 50% (in any currency), it would make sense to save in the deflationary currency and buy groceries, pay rent, and get my cavities filled using the inflationary currency. This is what literally everyone who holds crypto is doing now. They get paid in dollars, convert their savings to crypto, and cover expenses in dollars.

As a result, there is nothing offered for sale in the deflationary currency because there is no demand, and no transactions occur except exchanges with the inflationary currency. The deflationary currency becomes useless as a means of transaction and only functions as a store of value. Thus the deflationary currency fails to meet the definition of a currency and starts to meet the definition of a collectible.

Collectibles such as antiques, PMs, and art hold their value as long as other people maintain a willingness to pay. Generational factors can play a role here, and some things go in and out of favor. Will millennials collect antique cars from the 1960s-70s or antique metal toys from the early 20th century like boomers did? Will today's sneaker heads follow the path of the Benie Baby craze of the 1990s, or will unworn Air Jordans be a good 20 year investment? Good luck guessing. If one could only guess the value of gold one year from now, the options market would reward them with a 100% return. Crypto is an even more obscure collectible.

Again, the discussion was not about bitcoin and it seems like you're unable to unframe your mind from the perspective of bitcoin in this conversation. No one is talking about the characteristics of a future deflationary currency who's market cap is under a trillion dollars and thus still susceptible to large volatility. To further prove this point, bitcoin's price increases don't have anything to do with currency deflation because of the fact that it isn't actually deflationary at the moment:

https://charts.bitcoin.com/btc/chart/inflation#5ma4

It's price increase and volatility merely come from the fact that it has no supply elasticity and it's market size is peanuts compared with the overall economy. There is so much more money on the outside that can flow into bitcoin relative to its own market size, so of course you're going to have wild price swings. This has nothing to do with currency inflation/deflation though since, at the moment, bitcoin is not a deflationary currency (yet).

To state again, there is a difference between inflationary/deflationary currency supply (what was being discussed) and inflation/deflation in the price of goods. Currency competition for use as a medium of exchange has little to do with this conversation either. If I were being paid in a deflationary currency that I felt was going to increase in value in the future, why would I transfer out of that currency to an inflationary currency just temporarily simply to perform an everyday transaction? The choice I use for a medium of exchange has much more to do with friction and cost/ease of use than it does with currency competition and inflationary/deflationary supply aspects.

[Telecaster]

To further prove this point, bitcoin's price increases don't have anything to do with currency deflation because of the fact that it isn't actually deflationary at the moment:

https://charts.bitcoin.com/btc/chart/inflation#5ma4

Now you are just trolling. 

[lifeanon269]

To further prove this point, bitcoin's price increases don't have anything to do with currency deflation because of the fact that it isn't actually deflationary at the moment:

https://charts.bitcoin.com/btc/chart/inflation#5ma4

Now you are just trolling.

It is a fact. Do you dispute this? Perhaps you're just not understanding the difference between inflationary/deflationary supply of money versus inflation/deflation in the price of goods (such as what CPI attempts to measure)?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

And again you continue to ignore the actual debate and questions at hand while further derailing the actual thread. Great mod work.

Notice how you complain "ignore the actual debate", and then make a comment "Great mod work".  Is that insult sticking to the debate?  You want others to stick to the debate while you type things unrelated to it.

As to "mod work", replying to you is not "mod work".  So your insult is also a nonsense claim.

[DaKini]

To restate the interesting point.... A currency with built-in deflationary characteristics cannot work because it would always be to one's advantage to trade using an inflationary currency and to hoard the deflationary currency. To be more concrete, if I save 50% of my pay and spend the other 50% (in any currency), it would make sense to save in the deflationary currency and buy groceries, pay rent, and get my cavities filled using the inflationary currency. This is what literally everyone who holds crypto is doing now. They get paid in dollars, convert their savings to crypto, and cover expenses in dollars.

Combined that with the lack of supply inelasticity: isn’t this a nearly surefire environment for the long time frame chart go up in steps, but  always settle at a higher value than the step before; following some form of degressional path in the big picture?
In other words (I’m not a native speaker, please forgive): wouldn’t that mean that the btc/fiat pairs would need to always rise, but with decreasing gains possible (there will always be a fool paying more than you did, but the difference will get smaller and smaller over time); in essence making it a good idea to buy now and hodl till i need it or the gains are so marginally it isn’t worth it anymore?

[ChpBstrd]

To restate the interesting point.... A currency with built-in deflationary characteristics cannot work because it would always be to one's advantage to trade using an inflationary currency and to hoard the deflationary currency. To be more concrete, if I save 50% of my pay and spend the other 50% (in any currency), it would make sense to save in the deflationary currency and buy groceries, pay rent, and get my cavities filled using the inflationary currency. This is what literally everyone who holds crypto is doing now. They get paid in dollars, convert their savings to crypto, and cover expenses in dollars.

Combined that with the lack of supply inelasticity: isn’t this a nearly surefire environment for the long time frame chart go up in steps, but  always settle at a higher value than the step before; following some form of degressional path in the big picture?
In other words (I’m not a native speaker, please forgive): wouldn’t that mean that the btc/fiat pairs would need to always rise, but with decreasing gains possible (there will always be a fool paying more than you did, but the difference will get smaller and smaller over time); in essence making it a good idea to buy now and hodl till i need it or the gains are so marginally it isn’t worth it anymore?

I think it is more likely cryptocurrencies take the path of other collectibles, and never do become functioning currencies. The price of collectibles does not rise forever even though their supply is constrained. At some point, there are not enough people willing to trade $100 million for an Andy Warhol painting or $50,000 for a baseball card, and so the price stagnates or goes down.

[onecoolcat]

To restate the interesting point.... A currency with built-in deflationary characteristics cannot work because it would always be to one's advantage to trade using an inflationary currency and to hoard the deflationary currency. To be more concrete, if I save 50% of my pay and spend the other 50% (in any currency), it would make sense to save in the deflationary currency and buy groceries, pay rent, and get my cavities filled using the inflationary currency. This is what literally everyone who holds crypto is doing now. They get paid in dollars, convert their savings to crypto, and cover expenses in dollars.

Combined that with the lack of supply inelasticity: isn’t this a nearly surefire environment for the long time frame chart go up in steps, but  always settle at a higher value than the step before; following some form of degressional path in the big picture?
In other words (I’m not a native speaker, please forgive): wouldn’t that mean that the btc/fiat pairs would need to always rise, but with decreasing gains possible (there will always be a fool paying more than you did, but the difference will get smaller and smaller over time); in essence making it a good idea to buy now and hodl till i need it or the gains are so marginally it isn’t worth it anymore?

I think it is more likely cryptocurrencies take the path of other collectibles, and never do become functioning currencies. The price of collectibles does not rise forever even though their supply is constrained. At some point, there are not enough people willing to trade $100 million for an Andy Warhol painting or $50,000 for a baseball card, and so the price stagnates or goes down.

That is the dumbest analogy I ever heard.

[celerystalks]

No here is the dumbest analogy!

Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.