Author Topic: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation  (Read 73226 times)

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #800 on: January 27, 2022, 01:46:51 PM »
A common component between pyramid and Ponzi schemes is that they pay out returns and then collapse when there are not enough new investors to provide the promised returns.     Bitcoin does not pay returns and does not promise to pay returns.  So right there it cannot be a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, by definition.

What do you call it when I sell my sick Bitcoins and buy rad moon lambos? I'd call that "a return". And where'd that return come from? Whoever bought my bitcoin—a new investor. This is pretty standard definition of "return" https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp

And re: "does not promise to pay returns"... Are you for real? Have you ever talked to a Bitcoiner? Virtually everything they say is about promising huge returns. Any critique otherwise is "FUD". "Noiconers" are "ngmi" and will have to "have fun staying poor" while "diamond hands" "hodl" and bitcoin will "go to the moon". John McAfee (may he rest) predicted in 2017 that Bitcoin would hit $500k by 2020. Then he shortly thereafter upped it, to $1M. Michael Saylor—no stranger to fraud—also constantly recommends people mortgage their homes to buy more bitcoin to make sick gaaaaiinnnnnzzzz. Show me a single prominent Bitcoiner who doesn't promise huge gains.
Another area that doesn't meet the definition is that pyramid and Ponzi scheme is that they both require new investors to pay off older investors.   Bitcoin's price isn't necessarily dependent on new investors.  The original investors can bid the price up or down.   That part doesn't meet the definition either.

This is no different than a literal Ponzi scheme. 2 participants can continue to dump more money in. It'd be a silly thing that'd implode rather quickly, but it *could* be done and still be a Ponzi. Bitcoin is no different—for it to have the huge run-up it's had, it needs more participants. Too few would run out of money too quickly to keep the price inflating and maintain some minimum amount of liquidity.

Another area where the definition breaks down is that pyramid and Ponzi schemes are a type of fraud.   Fraud requires malice.   Let me give you a couple examples:    Lets say the price of Beanie Babies is going through the roof.   I say, truthfully, I've made a lot of money owning Bean Babies.   Would you like to buy one?  You say yes and make the transaction.  The price of Beanie Babies now goes to zero.   Was there any fraud?  No.   I didn't misrepresent anything, and you got the Beanie Baby as promised.  If I sold you a different Bean Baby than the one I promised, that would be fraud, but it wouldn't be a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

Fraud does not require malice. It does require deception, but that can happen due ill-informed good intentions. One of the most popular examples of a Ponzi-scheme is that of Jan Lewan—The Polka King—who began his Ponzi-scheme with honest intentions of paying back his investors, and things quickly spiraled out of control for him, ultimately winding him up in jail. This was 100% fraud, even though he meant well.

Similarly, let's say someone is schilling for Bitcoin and you buy it based on their arguments,  and the price goes down, is that fraud?  The answer is no.   Even if they didn't believe what they are saying the answer is still no.  You got exactly what you thought you were getting.  On top of that though, the Bitcoin proponents here and elsewhere I've talked to seem to be true believers.  They really think Bitcoin is the way of the future.  It is not fraud to hold a certain vision of the future.

This is an interesting point. And this uncovers one interesting facet of cryptocurrencies: decentralized responsibility. Every bitcoin evangelist is, in some small respect, responsible for some fraud, I'd argue. But the brilliance is that there isn't one, wholly responsible and punishable entity. It's, in some respects, legalized fraud until we have better systems to deal with it.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 02:12:50 PM by the_gastropod »

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2890
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #801 on: January 27, 2022, 01:51:57 PM »
Have you talked to Satoshi?  Do you know if this was not invented for that reason. Before Bernie Madoff was convicted no one thought he was deceiving them either.

Madoff was in actual fact deceiving people.   He was taking people's money and claimed to invest it, providing false statements showing high returns.  He created false stock transactions to create a "paper trail" to provide back up for his investment success.  In fact, the money was just kept in a bank account that Madoff would draw from to pay off people making redemptions.  When the redemptions exceeded the account balance the scheme collapsed. 

AFAIK, Satoshi only sold Bitcoin (and I don't actually know if he even sold any).  He never promised or paid returns.  He didn't create false transaction statements.  He didn't manage anyone's money.  The original white paper lays out in detail how Bitcoin works.   

So specifically, what action of his was fraud?  It is hard to argue that making money off an idea (if he even did) is illegal.   




index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #802 on: January 27, 2022, 02:12:12 PM »
It's not a Ponzi scheme or MLM. It is a collectible like gold, beanie babies, and tulip bulbs.

Does it have staying power like gold or is it the new beanie baby craze with less cuddly cuteness?

It's worthless as a currency as long as it is as volatile as it is. Sure people are bartering with it in Venezuela and Nigeria and you can use it to pay for less savory good and services, but who the hell cares? Digital currency has a future - but that digital currency will be issued by governments.

Real currency is backed by guns and power. China and now Russia have banned crypto and the US or EU could end BTC with a signature.     

lifeanon269

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #803 on: January 27, 2022, 02:12:59 PM »
This is no different than a literal Ponzi scheme. 2 participants can continue to dump more money in. It'd be a silly thing that'd implode rather quickly, but it *could* be done and still be a Ponzi. Bitcoin is no different—for it to have the huge run-up it's had, it needs more participants. Too few would run out of money too quickly to keep the price inflating and maintain some minimum amount of liquidity.

This is where your fallacy fails though. You keep saying that bitcoin needs more participants. But that is factually not true as I've stated. A ponzi scheme serves no other purpose other than to enrich its creator (and maybe a few insiders). It will collapse simply because of the fact that it isn't sustainable. The more participants in the system there are, the more newer participants it requires to sustain itself. A ponzi scheme is exponentially more and more unstable and unsustainable. This is why all ponzi scheme eventually fail. This just isn't factually true or analogous to bitcoin whatsoever. Bitcoin can exist at a stable price without any additional new participants required and used within a circular economy. Just because there are new investors each day that own bitcoin is not the determining factor for being a ponzi scheme.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #804 on: January 27, 2022, 02:15:00 PM »
It's not a Ponzi scheme or MLM. It is a collectible like gold, beanie babies, and tulip bulbs.

Does it have staying power like gold or is it the new beanie baby craze with less cuddly cuteness?

It's a collectible that vanishes overnight unless you pay the miners to keep it going.

lifeanon269

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #805 on: January 27, 2022, 02:15:03 PM »
There are multiple examples of pump and dump schemes in this space just because some are lasting longer due to others being hyped up more doesn't mean deception wasn't the plan from the start.

There are absolutely pump and dump schemes in the cryptocurrency space along with a whole host of other fraudulent schemes the industry is ripe with. But this particular discussion was about the claims that bitcoin is a ponzi or pyramind scheme, both of which have very specific definitions that bitcoin most certainly does not meet.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19801
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #806 on: January 27, 2022, 02:15:29 PM »
The crux of this argument depends upon the assumption that some day it will be possible for bitcoin to function as a currency, and that miners will be able to buy the energy they need to do their job with bitcoin (instead of the current state where it's necessary to sell bitcoin and use a currency).

In response to that, I'd argue that some day bitcoin might not require a constant influx of money to go on.  Today though that's not how things operate.  New investors are required in current practice.

My point about the theoretical was to counter the point that bitcoin is a ponzi. The fact that it can, even theoretically, operate on its own as its own economy, proves that it isn't a ponzi scheme. It doesn't matter that it is operating within the confines of our fiat monetary system today (in fact everything currently does). That's irrelevant to the fact that by virtue of being possible it counters the claim that it is a ponzi scheme. It doesn't matter whether bitcoin someday is or isn't the world monetary reserve currency. It doesn't need to be for it to not meet the definition of a ponzi scheme. The fact that it could is enough here.

Just because there are new influxes of new investors today to bitcoin, doesn't mean that alone is the sole criteria of what makes a ponzi scheme a ponzi. There are so many investments today that are receiving new influxes of investors every day. That alone is not the determining factor for what is and isn't a ponzi scheme. Another logical fallacy being made. If a ponzi scheme could exist without an influx of new investors, then it probably would be the fraud scheme it is. This fact seems to be lost on you.

Wouldn't it have seemed possible before he was caught for Bernie Madoff to have paid people back in a legitimate way at some future date too?  Even though a close examination of things would have pointed to probable dishonesty?

It's clearly not possible right now for Bitcoin to operate in the way you're talking about.  Therefore that can't be used as evidence that it's not a pyramid/ponzi scheme at the moment.




I guess I'll conclude with the following question: what makes bitcoin a ponzi scheme in your eyes and not similar to any other commodity or asset out there that is traded in our current monetary system?

I guess it would be how closely bitcoin appears to be following the dictionary definitions of both ponzi and pyramid schemes.


Looks more like tulip mania to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

I find it quite ironic that you've somehow managed to call bitcoin both a ponzi scheme while also comparing it to tulip bulbs (which are in no way a ponzi scheme). So which is it, is it a commodity craze like tulip bulbs or is it a ponzi scheme?? Both things can't be true here.

Or could it be that your line of arguments against bitcoin just happen to be the same tired and lazy arguments being made by people who don't have better arguments?

I originally viewed crypto as a speculative commodity like beanie babies or tulips (as per the 8 year old comment).  It wasn't until boarder mentioned the ponzi/pyramid thing a page or so ago that I really seriously looked into how closely those definitions fit bitcoin.

I'm still undecided which fits better.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #807 on: January 27, 2022, 02:31:13 PM »
This is where your fallacy fails though. You keep saying that bitcoin needs more participants. But that is factually not true as I've stated.
I've responded to this retort. One of the following is true:
1. You disagree that the lion's share of Bitcoin holders are Bitcoin hodlers because they expect to make a positive return
2. Bitcoin needs an ever-increasing number of participants to keep up the expectations of return

Remember: in aggregate, the total sum of returns Bitcoin investors can expect to receive is less than what they put in. (Miners must remove $ from the system to pay electrical bills, upgraded machinery, profit, etc. And exchanges—which virtually everyone uses—also take their cut). There is no value created anywhere, it is strictly a transfer of dollars with a lot of techno babble in between.
A ponzi scheme serves no other purpose other than to enrich its creator (and maybe a few insiders). It will collapse simply because of the fact that it isn't sustainable. The more participants in the system there are, the more newer participants it requires to sustain itself. A ponzi scheme is exponentially more and more unstable and unsustainable. This is why all ponzi scheme eventually fail. This just isn't factually true or analogous to bitcoin whatsoever. Bitcoin can exist at a stable price without any additional new participants required and used within a circular economy. Just because there are new investors each day that own bitcoin is not the determining factor for being a ponzi scheme.

Again, I don't think you've addressed my response. All of this seems to reasonably describe Bitcoin. Madoff's Ponzi lasted longer than Bitcoin has existed. Bitcoin's stability is, no doubt, aided by the massively suspicious stablecoin factory, Tether. Let's see how this plays out over the next couple decades!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 02:35:30 PM by the_gastropod »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #808 on: January 27, 2022, 02:42:12 PM »
The US dollar is a centralized cross between a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme. Disprove that statement.

The US dollar does not require new investors in the dollar to pay off later investors.

All currencies require a buyer and a seller to trade them. If I want to trade my USD for GBP I have to find someone that has GBP but wants USD. I'm not sure how this is different than BTC, ETH, or XMR except that the cryptocurrencies don't have central bankers. Also, I didn't buy my first cryptocurrency for it to appreciate in USD terms. I bought my first cryptocurrency to buy goods from markets that didn't accept USD, just like I might buy a foreign currency.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 02:44:47 PM by PDXTabs »

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2890
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #809 on: January 27, 2022, 02:54:02 PM »
What is your definition of a Ponzi scheme?  Crypto/NFT is the definition of a Ponzi scheme from Wiki.

A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

You stopped reading too soon (emphasis added):

The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.

In the case of Bitcoin, what do investors believe is the legitimate business activity?  They don't.  Everyone knows there is no underlying business.  They just want to own Bitcoin.   

What is the source of funds?  Simply the price.  There is no claim of profits or promise of return.  If the price goes up, you win.  If the price goes down you lose.  Everyone knows that too.

The last one really illustrates why Bitcoin meets no definition of a  Ponzi scheme.  Ponzi schemes collapse when investors can't redeem their promised assets.  With Bitcoin, you own the asset.  You control it.  It is in your wallet or whenever you want it to be.  It might be valueless when you choose to sell, but you had control over it the whole time.   That is literally nothing--at all--like a Ponzi scheme. 

It is really hard to argue that selling something that goes down in value is fraud unless there is deception.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2890
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #810 on: January 27, 2022, 02:57:48 PM »
The US dollar is a centralized cross between a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme. Disprove that statement.

The US dollar does not require new investors in the dollar to pay off later investors.

All currencies require a buyer and a seller to trade them. If I want to trade my USD for GBP I have to find someone that has GBP but wants USD. I'm not sure how this is different than BTC, ETH, or XMR except that the cryptocurrencies don't have central bankers. Also, I didn't buy my first cryptocurrency for it to appreciate in USD terms. I bought my first cryptocurrency to buy goods from markets that didn't accept USD, just like I might buy a foreign currency.

I don't understand what you are saying.  Once you own, BTC you own it.  It is in your control.  It does not require later investors to buy in for you to get your BTC. 

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #811 on: January 27, 2022, 03:16:26 PM »
The US dollar is a centralized cross between a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme. Disprove that statement.

The US dollar does not require new investors in the dollar to pay off later investors.

All currencies require a buyer and a seller to trade them. If I want to trade my USD for GBP I have to find someone that has GBP but wants USD. I'm not sure how this is different than BTC, ETH, or XMR except that the cryptocurrencies don't have central bankers. Also, I didn't buy my first cryptocurrency for it to appreciate in USD terms. I bought my first cryptocurrency to buy goods from markets that didn't accept USD, just like I might buy a foreign currency.

I don't understand what you are saying.  Once you own, BTC you own it.  It is in your control.  It does not require later investors to buy in for you to get your BTC.

I guess that we are in agreement.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #812 on: January 27, 2022, 03:18:22 PM »
All currencies require a buyer and a seller to trade them. If I want to trade my USD for GBP I have to find someone that has GBP but wants USD. I'm not sure how this is different than BTC, ETH, or XMR except that the cryptocurrencies don't have central bankers. Also, I didn't buy my first cryptocurrency for it to appreciate in USD terms. I bought my first cryptocurrency to buy goods from markets that didn't accept USD, just like I might buy a foreign currency.

What legal markets don't accept tender from standard fiat?

Who said that they were legal? But in all seriousness there are goods that PayPal and MasterCard don't want to be a part of even if they are legal. If you are running an international company shipping goods that MasterCard won't let you sell on their network BTC/ETH/XMR is a real option that I have actually seen used.

dreadmoose

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Canada
  • Compounding
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #813 on: January 27, 2022, 03:19:20 PM »
I don't understand what you are saying.  Once you own, BTC you own it.  It is in your control.  It does not require later investors to buy in for you to get your BTC.

I mean, the people Madoff scammed owned the fake transaction receipts he gave them too. But when they went to redeem it and it wasn't worth what they were promised that was probably little solace to them.

For whoever above said more and more people are using it because they have to I would have expected this chart to trend upwards rather than flat or even a down year last year...

Statista BTC Transactions

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19801
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #814 on: January 27, 2022, 03:21:32 PM »
You stopped reading too soon (emphasis added):

The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.

In the case of Bitcoin, what do investors believe is the legitimate business activity?  They don't.  Everyone knows there is no underlying business.  They just want to own Bitcoin.
   
Bitcoin victims believe that profits are coming from currency appreciation (sometimes commodity appreciation when they're smart enough to figure out it's not a currency).  That's why they want to own bitcoin.

What is the source of funds?  Simply the price.  There is no claim of profits or promise of return.  If the price goes up, you win.  If the price goes down you lose.  Everyone knows that too.

Are you arguing that most people investing in Bitcoin do in fact, know that the total value and utility of bitcoin is derived only from new investors pumping cash into the system, and that the system would completely fall apart today if this cash infusion stopped?  That doesn't seem like common knowledge from any of the bitcoin proponents I've talked with.

The last one really illustrates why Bitcoin meets no definition of a  Ponzi scheme.  Ponzi schemes collapse when investors can't redeem their promised assets.  With Bitcoin, you own the asset.  You control it.  It is in your wallet or whenever you want it to be.  It might be valueless when you choose to sell, but you had control over it the whole time.   That is literally nothing--at all--like a Ponzi scheme.

But here's the thing.  You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.  You won't get the miners necessary to record the blockchain without a constant influx of real cash into the system.  That means that you won't even be able to sell when Bitcoin collapses.  You are left with literally nothing --at all-- . . . which is very like a Ponzi scheme.

Crypto and NFTs  . . . is there a better definition of 'non-existent asset'?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #815 on: January 27, 2022, 03:25:00 PM »
You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.

That's true, but it is also true that people were mining before anyone was buying/selling BTC for USD.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #816 on: January 27, 2022, 03:26:35 PM »
You stopped reading too soon (emphasis added):

The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.

Bitcoin may not strictly meet the legal definition of a Ponzi—for what it's worth, neither did Madoff's, whose Ponzi did not guarantee a return. The relevant debate, in my opinion, is whether this is meaningful. Nobody is legally going after Bitcoin miners for operation of a Ponzi scheme. The legal definition isn't particularly relevant when deciding: 1. whether it's a good investment, and 2. roughly how the investment operates. Bitcoin certainly quacks like the fraud that is a Ponzi, in layman's terms. Those rough terms, as we've outlined several times in this thread are roughly:

1. People invest into it because they expect large profits
2. That expectation is sustained by such profits being paid to those who choose to cash out—and are very vocal about this
3. However, there is no external source of revenue for those payoffs
4. Instead, the payoffs come entirely from new investment money
5. Meanwhile, the operators take away a large portion of this money

Features 3,4, and 5 mean that, in aggregate, Bitcoin is a negative-sum game. That is, an average investor can expect to lose money, much like the lottery. Features 1 and 2—while the operators (miners) know about features 3, 4, and 5, and do not warn them of the negative-sum characteristics, makes this a game of fraud. But not only do operators not warn investors, they virtually always predict massive returns, and claim that bitcoins will have very important widespread uses in the future. Just HODL.

In the case of Bitcoin, what do investors believe is the legitimate business activity?  They don't.  Everyone knows there is no underlying business.  They just want to own Bitcoin.   

Why do people want to own Bitcoin? I'd split them into roughly three camps:
1. People who are techno-gold-bugs and really believe in the ideology
2. People who need to work outside the legal realm (buy drugs, transfer money to countries where it's difficult/expensive/illegal)
3. People who are investing with an expectation of return.

I think any reasonable person would agree that the vast majority of Bitcoin holders fall squarely into bucket #3. Would you agree?

People who fall into bucket #3 probably do not have a good understanding of why the price goes up. And that's, in part, by design. There is very much technical and economic obfuscation and plenty of claims about an uncertain future. Is this "business activity" strictly speaking? No. But it is explanation enough to fleece the huge majority of Bitcoin holders.

What is the source of funds?  Simply the price.  There is no claim of profits or promise of return.  If the price goes up, you win.  If the price goes down you lose.  Everyone knows that too.

As I mentioned earlier, even Madoff's Ponzi doesn't meet this rigorous definition. He had no "promise" of returns. Bitcoin and Madoff gave the expectation of returns. That is what's important here.

The last one really illustrates why Bitcoin meets no definition of a  Ponzi scheme.  Ponzi schemes collapse when investors can't redeem their promised assets.  With Bitcoin, you own the asset.  You control it.  It is in your wallet or whenever you want it to be.  It might be valueless when you choose to sell, but you had control over it the whole time.   That is literally nothing--at all--like a Ponzi scheme. 

It is really hard to argue that selling something that goes down in value is fraud unless there is deception.

You seem very interested in debating the attributes historical Ponzis had, and less interested in the characteristics that made them fraudulent investments. Past Ponzis suddenly and permanently crashed because they depended on a (relatively) easily debunked lie. When that lie was exposed, it made the schemes impossible to continue. Bitcoin's lie hides behind lots of techno babble, fear mongering, and fomo. This has, thus far, allowed its price to crater 80%+ and recover, making it unusual among Ponzis, to be sure.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 03:30:15 PM by the_gastropod »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19801
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #817 on: January 27, 2022, 03:28:25 PM »
You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.

That's true, but it is also true that people were mining before anyone was buying/selling BTC for USD.

Yep.  Hobbyists were doing the mining for fun when you didn't even need a high powered graphics card.  But bitcoin was explicitly designed to crush all the inexpensive mining in short order.  Do you really believe that these same miners will step up to spend the energy costs of a small nation without payout when all the big companies doing it now quit?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #818 on: January 27, 2022, 03:32:40 PM »
Why do people want to own Bitcoin? I'd split them into roughly three camps:
1. People who are techno-gold-bugs and really believe in the ideology
2. People who need to work outside the legal realm (buy drugs, transfer money to countries where it's difficult/expensive/illegal)
3. People who are investing with an expectation of return.

I would add 2a: people who live in countries with truly shitty fiat like Venezuela.

Also, I would like to get back to a world where people buy cryptocurrency to buy drugs on the internet, like god intended. You know, a real crypto-currency with emphasis on currency.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #819 on: January 27, 2022, 03:34:21 PM »
You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.

That's true, but it is also true that people were mining before anyone was buying/selling BTC for USD.

Yep.  Hobbyists were doing the mining for fun when you didn't even need a high powered graphics card.  But bitcoin was explicitly designed to crush all the inexpensive mining in short order.  Do you really believe that these same miners will step up to spend the energy costs of a small nation without payout when all the big companies doing it now quit?

Technically speaking, since it is a consensus algorithm, if everyone stops mining can't it be forked to allow for cheap mining again?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19801
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #820 on: January 27, 2022, 03:39:48 PM »
You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.

That's true, but it is also true that people were mining before anyone was buying/selling BTC for USD.

Yep.  Hobbyists were doing the mining for fun when you didn't even need a high powered graphics card.  But bitcoin was explicitly designed to crush all the inexpensive mining in short order.  Do you really believe that these same miners will step up to spend the energy costs of a small nation without payout when all the big companies doing it now quit?

Technically speaking, since it is a consensus algorithm, if everyone stops mining can't it be forked to allow for cheap mining again?

Sure could.

But how are you going to make the mining worth their while without paying for the costs?  Once the scheme is well known, I suspect you'll have far fewer folks signing up for it.  I guess you could massively devalue bitcoin by issuing new coins to miners.  Either way, no victim will get the full amount of their 'investment' back.

I love that the solution to bitcoin's ponzi problem is a central group of . . . let's call them 'bankers' getting together to decide to devalue their 'currency'.  It's delicious.  :P

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5271
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #821 on: January 27, 2022, 03:43:35 PM »
Also, I would like to get back to a world where people buy cryptocurrency to buy drugs on the internet, like god intended. You know, a real crypto-currency with emphasis on currency.

Yes, this was what initially was exciting to me about crypto way back almost a decade ago. Unfortunately BTC is basically the opposite of what you'd want in a currency. I can think of a variety of nerdy ways to try to construct a currency that would keep it stable/very slowly depreciating, minimize energy use, be secure, etc, etc. There would be of course plenty of tradeoffs and room to disagree about details. But BTC doesn't do ANY of those things. It's a real shame the designers let their ideology come first (assuming they actually wanted to create a useful currency, that is).

-W

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #822 on: January 27, 2022, 03:43:46 PM »
Either way, no victim will get the full amount of their 'investment' back.

Hypothetically speaking, how is that different than Peloton stock?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #823 on: January 27, 2022, 03:46:10 PM »
Also, I would like to get back to a world where people buy cryptocurrency to buy drugs on the internet, like god intended. You know, a real crypto-currency with emphasis on currency.

Yes, this was what initially was exciting to me about crypto way back almost a decade ago. Unfortunately BTC is basically the opposite of what you'd want in a currency. I can think of a variety of nerdy ways to try to construct a currency that would keep it stable/very slowly depreciating, minimize energy use, be secure, etc, etc. There would be of course plenty of tradeoffs and room to disagree about details. But BTC doesn't do ANY of those things. It's a real shame the designers let their ideology come first (assuming they actually wanted to create a useful currency, that is).

-W

I think that you are being a little hard on the designers of the first successful cryptocurrency. Gopher is dead and has been replaced with better protocols, that's kind of how technology works. I have $0 in BTC because I think that there are better cryptocurrencies that have replaced it.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5271
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #824 on: January 27, 2022, 03:48:56 PM »
Also, I would like to get back to a world where people buy cryptocurrency to buy drugs on the internet, like god intended. You know, a real crypto-currency with emphasis on currency.

Yes, this was what initially was exciting to me about crypto way back almost a decade ago. Unfortunately BTC is basically the opposite of what you'd want in a currency. I can think of a variety of nerdy ways to try to construct a currency that would keep it stable/very slowly depreciating, minimize energy use, be secure, etc, etc. There would be of course plenty of tradeoffs and room to disagree about details. But BTC doesn't do ANY of those things. It's a real shame the designers let their ideology come first (assuming they actually wanted to create a useful currency, that is).

-W

I think that you are being a little hard on the designers of the first successful cryptocurrency. Gopher is dead and has been replaced with better protocols, that's kind of how technology works. I have $0 in BTC because I think that there are better cryptocurrencies that have replaced it.

Come on, a first year econ student could do a better job. Like a lot of engineers they focused entirely on the problems that interested them and lost sight of the forest for the trees. Or else they wanted to make digital gold and maybe wreck the environment just as much as real gold.

-W

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #825 on: January 27, 2022, 03:51:20 PM »
Come on, a first year econ student could do a better job. Like a lot of engineers they focused entirely on the problems that interested them and lost sight of the forest for the trees. Or else they wanted to make digital gold and maybe wreck the environment just as much as real gold.

-W

I don't think that they were a first year econ student. I think that they were a cryptographer.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2890
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #826 on: January 27, 2022, 03:54:02 PM »
Come on, a first year econ student could do a better job. Like a lot of engineers they focused entirely on the problems that interested them and lost sight of the forest for the trees. Or else they wanted to make digital gold and maybe wreck the environment just as much as real gold.

-W

Exactly.  I mentioned up thread the designers never really thought about how money is or how it works.  So it BTC works like a collectable because the designers thought that's how money works. 

And for the record, producing a collectable is not a Ponzi scheme. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19801
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #827 on: January 27, 2022, 04:12:21 PM »
Come on, a first year econ student could do a better job. Like a lot of engineers they focused entirely on the problems that interested them and lost sight of the forest for the trees. Or else they wanted to make digital gold and maybe wreck the environment just as much as real gold.

-W

Exactly.  I mentioned up thread the designers never really thought about how money is or how it works.  So it BTC works like a collectable because the designers thought that's how money works. 

And for the record, producing a collectable is not a Ponzi scheme. 

There aren't many collectibles I'm aware of where you lose ownership (ability to sell/trade) if you stop paying people to 'mine' it.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2890
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #828 on: January 27, 2022, 04:34:25 PM »
The possibility of a collectible's value going to zero by itself does not meet any definition of a Ponzi scheme.  A Ponzi scheme requires fraud, by definition. 

It would be extremely hard to argue that the knowledge that mining is a component of Bitcoin transactions has been hidden from future buyers.   It is right there in the white paper.   

Question:  If this is a Ponzi scheme, specifically who would you arrest in this case and what would you charge them with? 

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #829 on: January 28, 2022, 03:19:12 AM »
Well, this seems potentially significant: https://www.barrons.com/articles/white-house-executive-action-regulate-cryptos-national-security-51643312454

This comes just days after Putin effectively did the same thing in Russia.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #830 on: January 28, 2022, 05:15:07 AM »
I've got 0.27% of my portfolio in BTC and I'm comfortable with that level of exposure. I view it as pure speculation at this point.

To be clear, I've "invested" only my personal allowance in BTC, none of our investment dollars. I keep all our investments purely in index funds.

DaKini

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
  • Location: Germany, Munich area
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #831 on: January 28, 2022, 10:21:19 AM »
For me (as 20 years experienced IT guy in it security and programmer), this looks really fishy and that’s the reason why i dont hold any crypto.

While the first years it looked pretty nice to me and i wanted to see the vision getting real - at some point i realized that this is a fundamental part of the issue.
That very vision was long time part if the „marketing scheme“, a sellable end-state that has a low probability of ever getting real, while juicy enough to get people on board.
All that blockchain-crypto-fluff is just there to hide the scam. Its an illusion, the perfect fraud - long time it was not clear if it is illegal, and now i come to believe *that* was intentional. It is the perfect robbery where it is designed to be pyramid-like, getting people to freely bring you their money, while legally its hard to fight because obviously its not illegal to sell those tokens.

Cryptos are mocking our free world values and are gaming our system for personal gain. The technological wrapping is just there to disguise the pyramid.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #832 on: January 28, 2022, 04:40:15 PM »
Either way, no victim will get the full amount of their 'investment' back.

Hypothetically speaking, how is that different than Peloton stock?

And overly hyped stock still has some assets and revenue. BTC has neither.

That is no guarantee that as a shareholder you will ever see a dime of the assets or revenue. When a company goes bankrupt (eg, GM) shareholders get nothing. But yea, you technically own a share of a potentially worthless company, just like owning a fraction of a potentially worthless cryptocurrency.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4854
  • Age: 39
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #833 on: January 28, 2022, 04:57:10 PM »
Either way, no victim will get the full amount of their 'investment' back.

Hypothetically speaking, how is that different than Peloton stock?

And overly hyped stock still has some assets and revenue. BTC has neither.

That is no guarantee that as a shareholder you will ever see a dime of the assets or revenue. When a company goes bankrupt (eg, GM) shareholders get nothing. But yea, you technically own a share of a potentially worthless company, just like owning a fraction of a potentially worthless cryptocurrency.
Significantly different levels of "potentially" with regards to "worthless" there. So not "just like".

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #834 on: January 28, 2022, 05:27:04 PM »
It's why we don't recommend buying individual stocks in these parts make the same fucking argument for apple or Google.

Me too! I'm 99% VT. I just don't buy the ponzi-scheme-fraud argument.

Why don't you go play poker every night? You could easily be a billionaire.

Poker is actually really easy to win at against average opponents, but I don't like the ambiance of the places where it is played.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #835 on: January 28, 2022, 05:39:12 PM »
So have fun using your collectibles to buy illegal shit. Clearly proving it doesn't actually have a purpose in society.

Last time you needed to send money to a family member in Vietnam how did you do it? Because I sent ETH.

EDITed to add - I usually just buy my drugs with cash money US dollars.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 05:41:35 PM by PDXTabs »

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #836 on: January 28, 2022, 06:29:28 PM »
Going to be a fun convo when it's hey I just sent you 10k in USD. Well I only got 5usd

Do you actually believe that? Because I'd take that bet. I bet you that in the next 10 years that won't happen. That is, there will not be a single point in time where if I transferred ETH worth $10K USD that after two gas fees and market volatility that $10,000 USD would be reduced to $5 USD within a 24 hour time-frame. If you win I'll give you $240. If I win you can give me 1 ETH.

I almost forgot to add that the very coolest "illegal shit" that you can buy with these "collectibles" is anonymous online internet hosting. In the USA this might not seem like a big deal to you, but if you are a dissident in Myanmar, China, or Iran it opens up opportunities to get information out. Of course, it might be illegal. If liking that is wrong then I don't want to be right.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #837 on: January 28, 2022, 06:36:47 PM »
Going to be a fun convo when it's hey I just sent you 10k in USD. Well I only got 5usd

Do you actually believe that? Because I'd take that bet. I bet you that in the next 10 years that won't happen. That is, there will not be a single point in time where if I transferred ETH worth $10K USD that after two gas fees and market volatility that $10,000 USD would be reduced to $5 USD within a 24 hour time-frame. If you win I'll give you $240. If I win you can give me 1 ETH.

I almost forgot to add that the very coolest "illegal shit" that you can buy with these "collectibles" is anonymous online internet hosting. In the USA this might not seem like a big deal to you, but if you are a dissident in Myanmar, China, or Iran it opens up opportunities to get information out. Of course, it might be illegal. If liking that is wrong then I don't want to be right.

You mean this entirely open source everyone can see every transaction decentralized Blockchain is actually the latest est in espionage tech.

Fuck I'm impressed.

XMR whitepaper.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #838 on: January 28, 2022, 06:52:11 PM »
You mean this entirely open source everyone can see every transaction decentralized Blockchain is actually the latest est in espionage tech.

Fuck I'm impressed.

XMR whitepaper.

Oh yay a white paper

These are great here's a bunch of shit we might do or say we're doing but aren't legally obligated to do but trust us we're doing it.

I have a white paper for ya.

Send boarder42 11million dollars and four sketches of unicorn farts and you can be the first investor and nft creator of unicorn farts. Once we sell a billion unicorn farts you might be rich but if you're not you'll at least he one of the first investors and creators in this new revolutionary idea that makes everyone rich with unicorns farts. If you miss out today. I'll find someone tomorrow this is too good to pass up.

Oh yay sarcasm.

As you just wrote, the implementation is open source and it is a decentralized consensus based algorithm. The whitepaper has been out for eight years. The big risk is that cryptography is hard and sometimes it takes a lot of smart people a long time to notice a flaw. But that algorithms and techniques that they are using aren't new. Just the way that they have chosen to combine them.

Hard pass on the unicorn fart investment until you have a similar whitepaper and open source implementation with a proven track-record.

Blender Bender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #839 on: January 28, 2022, 07:05:40 PM »
Bc the entire thing is bullshit topped with bullshit. You can push as much of it as you want. Everyone pushing crypto owns crypto so congrats on you part in the MLM portion of the enterprise best of luck in your accelerated destruction of earth.

Those crypto bros are such losers that they likely do/will not have children. Thus they don't give a fuck that they contribute to the planet distraction.
Otherwise the grand kids would say: "Grampa, why the planet is destroyed? Grampa did you take part in the biggest scam ever? Why did you do that!"
Grampa : "I was just a greedy bustard, the $ was meant for the family future". "Fuck you grampa!"

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #840 on: January 28, 2022, 07:07:38 PM »
Everyone pushing crypto owns crypto so congrats on you part in the MLM portion of the enterprise best of luck in your accelerated destruction of earth.

You think the tiny number of XMR that I own are hurting the earth more than all the VT? If you are worried about emissions from cryptocurrency mining I strongly suggest that you advocate for a carbon tax. I do.

PS - I mined them to keep my house warm in the winter when I had resistance baseboard heaters. As soon as I moved to a house with gas heat I stopped mining, although come to think of it my 100% green power is cleaner than my natural gas.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #841 on: January 28, 2022, 07:23:43 PM »
Cool you're still a pro crypto person who owns crypto. Which benefits you personally to support crypto since it's a negative sum game. Which makes it part ponzi part MLM. So again I don't give a fuck where you're from who you're sending it to. You are just proving my point so thanks.

What I fail to understand is how that is any different from any other currency? If I have US dollars I want them to be good by some metric of goodness. Same for Turkish Lira. Everyone that owns any currency doesn't want it to go to $0 tomorrow. Or commodities, or oil company stock.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #842 on: January 28, 2022, 07:31:57 PM »
Cool you're still a pro crypto person who owns crypto. Which benefits you personally to support crypto since it's a negative sum game. Which makes it part ponzi part MLM. So again I don't give a fuck where you're from who you're sending it to. You are just proving my point so thanks.

What I fail to understand is how that is any different from any other currency? If I have US dollars I want them to be good by some metric of goodness. Same for Turkish Lira. Everyone that owns any currency doesn't want it to go to $0 tomorrow. Or commodities, or oil company stock.

You need a better understanding of global economics and investing with a statement like this.

Please enlighten me. I extra want to know how oil company stock isn't a negative sum game for the planet. Also maybe while you are at it you can explain to me why trading forex is inherently different than trading crypto.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4326
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #843 on: January 28, 2022, 08:19:11 PM »
Negative sum was in regards to the fact that crypto miners take a cut.

Indeed, just like the MasterCard network or a wire transfer.

Forex and crypto are both not ways to build wealth so thanks for that connection.

So this thread could be titled why not hold a small bit of euros

Uh bc it's fucking dumb unless your in Europe.

I'm not advocating to trade forex or crypto. I'm just questioning all of the extra assertions that you are making. I never claimed that cryptocurrency was the new gold. I'd still like it to be a functional currency.

erjkism

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Age: 32
  • Location: MN
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #844 on: January 28, 2022, 08:21:41 PM »
Everyone pushing crypto owns crypto so congrats on you part in the MLM portion of the enterprise best of luck in your accelerated destruction of earth.

You think the tiny number of XMR that I own are hurting the earth more than all the VT? If you are worried about emissions from cryptocurrency mining I strongly suggest that you advocate for a carbon tax. I do.

PS - I mined them to keep my house warm in the winter when I had resistance baseboard heaters. As soon as I moved to a house with gas heat I stopped mining, although come to think of it my 100% green power is cleaner than my natural gas.

Cool you're still a pro crypto person who owns crypto. Which benefits you personally to support crypto since it's a negative sum game. Which makes it part ponzi part MLM. So again I don't give a fuck where you're from who you're sending it to. You are just proving my point so thanks.

If someone believes cryptocurrency is a good thing of course they are going to add some to their portfolio.

lifeanon269

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #845 on: January 30, 2022, 11:01:46 AM »
For whoever above said more and more people are using it because they have to I would have expected this chart to trend upwards rather than flat or even a down year last year...

Statista BTC Transactions

This chart is not at all an indication of usage. It is just a chart of the total number of on-chain transactions that have taken place. Bitcoin transactions are settlement. Most exchanges over the last year or two have transitioned to batch transactions for their withdrawal activity. This means that when you withdraw from an exchange, they wait until there are many transactions from their customers to then broadcast a transaction on the network. So a single transaction from these institutions is usually the activity of many hundreds or even thousands of people. One bitcoin transaction does not equal one individual's activity, it is a settlement of many.

So because many exchanges have moved to batching over the last year or so, it has made the bitcoin blockchain much more efficient when it comes to block space utilization. Therefore you can't draw conclusions about bitcoin usage using the chart you presented. A much better indication of usage comes from charts like the UTXO set or total value of transactions being posted. Both of these charts shows a continuous rise in number over the years.

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/utxo-count
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd

Furthermore is the usage of the lightning network where all transactions take place off-chain. Due to the privacy features of the network, there is no way to tell how many transactions are currently taking place on the network. However, we do have a few indicators such as the growth in the overall size of the network which has seen tremendous growth over the last couple years. Combined with the fact that anecdotal information from my personal lightning node as well as others have seen a ton of transaction forwarding taking place lately.

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

So yes, more and more activity is taking place with bitcoin and it continues to go up year over year, regardless of what the exchange value is.


Bitcoin victims believe that profits are coming from currency appreciation (sometimes commodity appreciation when they're smart enough to figure out it's not a currency).  That's why they want to own bitcoin.

Are you arguing that most people investing in Bitcoin do in fact, know that the total value and utility of bitcoin is derived only from new investors pumping cash into the system, and that the system would completely fall apart today if this cash infusion stopped?  That doesn't seem like common knowledge from any of the bitcoin proponents I've talked with.

But here's the thing.  You can't use or control a bitcoin if nobody's mining.  You won't get the miners necessary to record the blockchain without a constant influx of real cash into the system.  That means that you won't even be able to sell when Bitcoin collapses.  You are left with literally nothing --at all-- . . . which is very like a Ponzi scheme.

Crypto and NFTs  . . . is there a better definition of 'non-existent asset'?

Again, the system would not completely fall apart today if cash infusion stopped. That is a complete fallacy devoid of any reality. Money has come and gone in bitcoin many times throughout many cycles and the system has not "collapsed" at all. The bitcoin network continues to churn out blocks like it always has despite the many calls of its demise. A ponzi scheme has a specific fraudser(s) involved that is defrauding the many in order to steal their money at their expense. Bitcoin is a completely open and honest system where anyone is free to come and go. Contrary to what you keep claiming, there is no sole beneficiary of said fraud.

Even the early investors have come and gone throughout bitcoin's life. There are countless people who were invested in the early days when it was worth just a few cents or dollars and have since sold their bitcoin to others. One thing that seems lost on you is that for every seller there is a buyer. For every seller in the early days, there must have been a new buyer in the early days. This open and free market just doesn't exist for a ponzi scheme. The idea of an "early investor" in your mind is such a transitory term in reality. For every "early" investor that bought in the early days there was someone who got out early on. That holds true every single day. People have been calling bitcoin a ponzi scheme for years and yet somehow the idea that there is a continuous stream of buyers and sellers together in an open market completely contradicts their claims every single day which makes their ponzi claims all the more ridiculous. What is "early" exactly? A couple years ago people were still calling bitcoin a ponzi scheme and yet every day since then there were buyers coupled with sellers all coming to agreement on the value they see in bitcoin. Every day that those buyers and sellers meet in the open and free marketplace and agree upon a value, they prove the ponzi claimers wrong.

You're also completely wrong on the mining. Bitcoin mining isn't what decides ownership of bitcoin. The blockchain is just a ledger of transactions. I host a bitcoin node that stores this blockchain ledger on it. This ledger database is what determines who owns what. Mining does not do that. Digital signatures is what determines ownership. Mining is transient. In general a block is produced every 10 minutes, but there are periods that go by much longer than 10 minutes and during that time that doesn't mean ownership of bitcoin has ceased. My bitcoin node has no idea who is mining, how many people are mining, how much hashpower is being used, etc. It only knows when a new block is broadcast on the network. We calculate approximately how many miners are mining and the appropriate difficulty level based on how frequently new blocks are seen being broadcast. Theoretically an undetermined amount of time could go by without seeing a new block produced, but that doesn't mean that people suddenly "stop owning bitcoin" as you insinuate because as I said, digital signatures are what determines ownership.

Bitcoin mining is simply to secure the network and confirm transactions. It is an economically incentivized process. So you're going against economic theory if you're claiming that there won't be anyone available to mine and secure the network while there are still participants, regardless of whether there is still new influx of participants. If there are no blocks being produced, but there are people who really want bitcoin transactions to be confirmed, then they'll be willing to pay for it through transaction fees. What you're claiming is that miners will be willing to leave money on the table when it is presented to them and that is an absolutely silly thing to say. Over the next several years as more block reward halvings take place, the price of bitcoin becomes less and less important to these mining incentizes. At some point in the next several years, the majority of the block reward for miners will come from transaction fees which means the price of bitcoin becomes a negligible aspect for these mining incentives and these economics are even truer. At the end of the day, if there are people who want to transact with bitcoin, there will be miners willing to confirm those transactions and the mechanisms built within the bitcoin protocol ensure that (difficulty adjustment, reward halving, block size limits, etc).

That doesn't even touch about the countless ways with which you can now transact with bitcoin without the need for a miner's confirmation (Lightning network, Liquid network, physical bitcoin, off-chain processors, sidechains, etc).

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5271
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #846 on: January 30, 2022, 12:50:54 PM »
I run a business that sells stuff almost exclusively to white 30-50 year olds with college (or graduate) degrees, many of whom are engineers. The stereotype of a BTC person.

I am retired at this point so last year I only processed 240 transactions (2+ years ago it was closer to 500 a year). Exactly zero of those people has EVER so much as offered to pay with BTC. Zero. When casually discussing this with other business owners, their story is the same.

I'm a small sample but I have a hard time believing anyone is doing any actual commerce with BTC. The transactions are presumably 100% exchanging BTC for dollars/fiat or other cryptos, or vise versa. Digital gold.

-W

BeanCounter

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #847 on: January 30, 2022, 01:22:27 PM »


I'm a small sample but I have a hard time believing anyone is doing any actual commerce with BTC. The transactions are presumably 100% exchanging BTC for dollars/fiat or other cryptos, or vise versa. Digital gold.

-W
How or why would you even use it for commerce? With BTC being so volatile wouldn’t the business owner be taking a huge risk that when they go to exchange it into dollars for more product or to pay bills that it would be suddenly worth 30% less?

Blender Bender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #848 on: January 30, 2022, 01:57:04 PM »


I'm a small sample but I have a hard time believing anyone is doing any actual commerce with BTC. The transactions are presumably 100% exchanging BTC for dollars/fiat or other cryptos, or vise versa. Digital gold.

-W
How or why would you even use it for commerce? With BTC being so volatile wouldn’t the business owner be taking a huge risk that when they go to exchange it into dollars for more product or to pay bills that it would be suddenly worth 30% less?

Crypto bros are like a broken record. It has been proven by many, even crypto supporters, that BTC can’t be used widely as a currency. Simple like that.

Blender Bender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #849 on: January 30, 2022, 03:38:16 PM »
OK. Crypto bros. These are the current facts. Please stop repeating false statements.
I do realize that you believe that propaganda would work. Nope, not here in MMM forum.
Do not play Putin's game. A lie repeated 100 times does not make it true.

Quote
Cryptos/blockchain values:

1. As a currency (superior to fiat USD).
Aka utility. There is i think already a wide consensus that this not happening. Almost no-one claims (anymore) in the last year that crypto's feature is utility.

2. As an inflation hedge (against legacy fiat).
Proven recently that it is not true.

3. As AA not correlated to the market.
Proven recently that it is not true.

4. As a store of value?
This item is often mentioned. If something has (intrinsic) value, then why in the last few weeks the value halfed? Is any logical reason why? Nope, just a sentiment. What kind of value it is?
So, this cannot be considered as stored value.

5. As an amazing tech changing our lives.
Blockchain/crypto is already over 10y old, and no (really) useful application was born. Give it another 10y? 

6. Killing the planet for absolutely nothing back.
If e.g. someone invents effective food production that is not killing the planet, but uses a lot if electricity that would be fine with me.