Author Topic: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation  (Read 72719 times)

Juan Ponce de León

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #250 on: October 21, 2021, 08:03:39 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #251 on: October 21, 2021, 08:58:21 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

People who bought yesterday are in the red.  Also, people who short Bitcoin lost money.  Ban Bitcoin.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5257
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #252 on: October 21, 2021, 09:56:34 PM »
Ponzi schemes are a very specific thing, and bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) are not that. You can make a very strong argument for "speculative bubble" (ie, bunch of people bidding the price of something of limited value up with each other) but it's not a ponzi.

Now, the effect when you finally don't have any new investors entering is similar, of course. If there's not new money going in, the upward spiral/returns vanish in both cases.

-W

Rosy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2645
  • Location: Florida
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #253 on: October 21, 2021, 10:01:24 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

People who bought yesterday are in the red.  Also, people who short Bitcoin lost money.  Ban Bitcoin.

People who sold yesterday - red lambo ....:)

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #254 on: October 22, 2021, 03:12:58 AM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #255 on: October 22, 2021, 07:53:00 AM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 07:56:52 AM by GuitarStv »

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4984
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #256 on: October 22, 2021, 09:19:16 AM »
The amount of Bitcoin in every wallet / account is public knowledge.  If they lie about how much Bitcoin is present in one of their accounts, they will be proved wrong within minutes of saying it.

This is not true, though, right? All of these transactions go through Chivo, which is not transparent. It's allowing Bukele to make up wildly ridiculous stats about the success (https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1442624279028408321), like there are more transactions in ES on Chivo than Visa handles worldwide. That seems rather unlikely.

To ChpBstrd's point, much of this is deeply suspicious. A lawyer prosecuted for falsifying a will helped create the company running Chivo Wallet. The notary who attested to the legality of Chivo SA de CV, created with public resources by the Government, was accused of documentary falsification in 2020 [1]. President Bukele’s Chief of Staff, Marta Carolina Recinos de Bernal, is on the US State Department’s Engel List of corrupt officials. She’s also a director of Chivo SA [2].

It really is depressing seeing a bunch of crypto enthusiasts—who claim to be wholly against corruption—cheer on this naked pillaging of some of the most impoverished people on Earth all because "number go up" on their pet Ponzi scheme.

[1] https://www.revistafactum.com/abogada-chivo/
[2] https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/funcionaria-bukele-lista-engel-directora-empresa-detras-chivo/877437/2021/
Oh, no!  You're quite right, thanks for the correction.  I assumed they put accounts on the blockchain.

But they created a new wallet in a matter of months and put everyone's Bitcoin in that system.  Was the launch their first large scale test?

The accounts can't be verified in some hidden system that does not use the blockchain.  The wallets may or may not have Bitcoin in them, since there's no external way to verify it without moving Bitcoin out of the wallets (and paying a fee to get the transfer registered on Bitcoin's blockchain).

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #257 on: October 22, 2021, 10:23:35 AM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #258 on: October 22, 2021, 11:17:57 AM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

Instead of just posing the question, and (I guess?) assuming that it must be more: why don't you look into it, and tell us! (Hot tip: look up these values on your own, not from BITCOIN.ORG or some other crypto website)

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #259 on: October 22, 2021, 11:57:50 AM »
Ponzi schemes are a very specific thing, and bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) are not that. You can make a very strong argument for "speculative bubble" (ie, bunch of people bidding the price of something of limited value up with each other) but it's not a ponzi.

Now, the effect when you finally don't have any new investors entering is similar, of course. If there's not new money going in, the upward spiral/returns vanish in both cases.

-W

If the allegations about Tether are true, how is it different from a Ponzi scheme?

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5257
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #260 on: October 22, 2021, 12:12:45 PM »
Ponzi schemes are a very specific thing, and bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) are not that. You can make a very strong argument for "speculative bubble" (ie, bunch of people bidding the price of something of limited value up with each other) but it's not a ponzi.

Now, the effect when you finally don't have any new investors entering is similar, of course. If there's not new money going in, the upward spiral/returns vanish in both cases.

-W

If the allegations about Tether are true, how is it different from a Ponzi scheme?

I agree that Tether is probably 100% fraud. But that doesn't make the entire bitcoin ecosystem fraudulent, at least in theory.

-W
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 05:20:50 PM by waltworks »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #261 on: October 22, 2021, 12:31:46 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

Instead of just posing the question, and (I guess?) assuming that it must be more: why don't you look into it, and tell us! (Hot tip: look up these values on your own, not from BITCOIN.ORG or some other crypto website)


It's kind of a tricky question to answer.  Bitcoin is a failure as a currency, so it doesn't seem fair to compare it to currencies and banking systems.  It's closest to a store of value like gold, silver, or beanie babies.

As of the publication of this 2018 study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7.epdf?referrer_access_token=4WFhbLVH943fe3mcf8oZANRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NdJEcpPQZqiP9V_5sRM6OFeEt1maRlkYa2rAMRc-x1aVbfFmAZSeIy1BUabgBXZ5z6UQfH0t8xSV-r-npyxYVvgn4cGz5vnYe41OneS4y9iDEq9qg_P_yvZnh3zShMKtDW2Q4oj7ea5KOxnmJf-j_pUXVLuKqBdId1DeooWHyXBGTsaKAeh50jbelu7OUy1zXIkZZVtyhwK389Tt_6m7EusXgJedPs47tRpklbfG1lrE7zSz3Bqp6kqnD7z10SVdY%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com), the worldwide energy costs of gold are equivalent to that of bitcoin.

This is still an apples to oranges comparison though, as the market capitalization of gold is 17x higher than bitcoin (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-vs-gold-debate-reignited-125947770.html) . . . and gold has real world uses (jewelry, electronics, etc.).

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #262 on: October 22, 2021, 01:54:24 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

Instead of just posing the question, and (I guess?) assuming that it must be more: why don't you look into it, and tell us! (Hot tip: look up these values on your own, not from BITCOIN.ORG or some other crypto website)


It's kind of a tricky question to answer.  Bitcoin is a failure as a currency, so it doesn't seem fair to compare it to currencies and banking systems.  It's closest to a store of value like gold, silver, or beanie babies.

As of the publication of this 2018 study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7.epdf?referrer_access_token=4WFhbLVH943fe3mcf8oZANRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NdJEcpPQZqiP9V_5sRM6OFeEt1maRlkYa2rAMRc-x1aVbfFmAZSeIy1BUabgBXZ5z6UQfH0t8xSV-r-npyxYVvgn4cGz5vnYe41OneS4y9iDEq9qg_P_yvZnh3zShMKtDW2Q4oj7ea5KOxnmJf-j_pUXVLuKqBdId1DeooWHyXBGTsaKAeh50jbelu7OUy1zXIkZZVtyhwK389Tt_6m7EusXgJedPs47tRpklbfG1lrE7zSz3Bqp6kqnD7z10SVdY%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com), the worldwide energy costs of gold are equivalent to that of bitcoin.

This is still an apples to oranges comparison though, as the market capitalization of gold is 17x higher than bitcoin (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-vs-gold-debate-reignited-125947770.html) . . . and gold has real world uses (jewelry, electronics, etc.).

I congratulate you on finding what seems to be a fairly well-balanced article ! Most out there seem to be ridiculously skewed one way or the other by the author's obvious agenda.

Apples and oranges ?
I don't think the current market capitalisation is relevant - the figures in the report are based on $ value of production.
I don't think jewellery and electronics are relevant - we're talking about it's use as a store of value.

What is probably more relevant is that the article is based on 2018 prices.

Overall, it seems like a reasonable article though and, at least, gives the energy considerations some perspective.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #263 on: October 22, 2021, 02:15:03 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

Instead of just posing the question, and (I guess?) assuming that it must be more: why don't you look into it, and tell us! (Hot tip: look up these values on your own, not from BITCOIN.ORG or some other crypto website)


It's kind of a tricky question to answer.  Bitcoin is a failure as a currency, so it doesn't seem fair to compare it to currencies and banking systems.  It's closest to a store of value like gold, silver, or beanie babies.

As of the publication of this 2018 study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7.epdf?referrer_access_token=4WFhbLVH943fe3mcf8oZANRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NdJEcpPQZqiP9V_5sRM6OFeEt1maRlkYa2rAMRc-x1aVbfFmAZSeIy1BUabgBXZ5z6UQfH0t8xSV-r-npyxYVvgn4cGz5vnYe41OneS4y9iDEq9qg_P_yvZnh3zShMKtDW2Q4oj7ea5KOxnmJf-j_pUXVLuKqBdId1DeooWHyXBGTsaKAeh50jbelu7OUy1zXIkZZVtyhwK389Tt_6m7EusXgJedPs47tRpklbfG1lrE7zSz3Bqp6kqnD7z10SVdY%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com), the worldwide energy costs of gold are equivalent to that of bitcoin.

This is still an apples to oranges comparison though, as the market capitalization of gold is 17x higher than bitcoin (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-vs-gold-debate-reignited-125947770.html) . . . and gold has real world uses (jewelry, electronics, etc.).

I congratulate you on finding what seems to be a fairly well-balanced article ! Most out there seem to be ridiculously skewed one way or the other by the author's obvious agenda.

Apples and oranges ?
I don't think the current market capitalisation is relevant - the figures in the report are based on $ value of production.
I don't think jewellery and electronics are relevant - we're talking about it's use as a store of value.

What is probably more relevant is that the article is based on 2018 prices.

Overall, it seems like a reasonable article though and, at least, gives the energy considerations some perspective.

It is not irrelevant that it has uses besides a store of value it's actually extremely relevant and why it was prized so much was our natural instincts as humans to be drawn to shiny things like back 8n the day when shiny meant a water source. So it was used in prized jewelry which helped it maintain it's long term store of value then was utilized in electronics. One could assume gold is a store of value only because of our very deep animalistic instincts that made it so prized.

Bitcoin is for all purposes today no more than a collectable and we'll see how long it's prized as that.

Further gold was in fact used as currency for a long time in trade prior to it becoming stock piled bc of the very reasons stated here about why btc isn't a currency and can't be bc we know more today than we did then about how economics work.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 02:17:48 PM by boarder42 »

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2888
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #264 on: October 22, 2021, 02:27:31 PM »
3. I think it's unlikely that Bitcoin would become a global currency in the 22nd century, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that it does. After the last Bitcoin is mined early next century it would become a truly deflationary currency. But economists in the future keep proclaiming that this currency doesn't work, undermining public confidence. So the Bitcoin community might decide to expand the supply above 21 million by restarting mining operations, solving the problem. And yes, they can do this despite its decentralized nature. For example, right now Bitcoin is being upgraded with the Taproot project which includes security and functionality upgrades agreed upon by the community near unanimously. An unpopular modification to the algorithm (such as expanding the supply above 21 million) could cause an uproar and lead to a hard fork into 2 currencies: the original version versus the modified version. In that case there would be 2 competing currencies and economists would get to observe in real-time whether the inflationary version is superior to the deflationary one.

One thing that is missed is that the money supply needs to expand at about the same rate as the economy, not the population.   That was a lesson learned when the US (and other countries) on the gold standard, but that lesson has been forgotten in recent times.  Back in the day, the US was on the gold standard which limited money supply and caused economic problems for some groups, but facilitated trade with England which benefited others.   So there were contentious factions arguing for each side.   William Jennings Bryan's 1900 Cross of Gold Speech is considered an American political classic. 

The Wizard of Oz, which is best known as a children's book, was actually political commentary on monetary policy.   The Yellow Brick Road was the gold standard, the silver slippers (ruby slippers in the movie) were the silver standard.  The wicked witch of the east and west were the big banks and industrialists on the coasts who were screwing the American people (Dorothy).  The scarecrow represented the farmers who were too dumb to avoid the debt trap, the tin man represented the broken down industrial workers who lacked heart to side with the farmers, and the Cowardly lion was the political class who weren't willing to do anything about it.   But as the story progressed,  the scarecrow was actually smart, the tin man had a heart, and the lion turned out to be brave. 

Point is, we already know what living with a deflationary currency is like.  In 1873, the US dropped the bimetallic standard and went to the gold standard.   The resulting deflation caused the Long Depression, which as the name suggests, was the longest depression in US history.   Worse, the country kept sinking back into depression.    The US was in the middle of one of the subsequent recessions in 1900 when L. Frank Baum wrote the book and Bryan made his speech blasting the gold standard.  Getting away from a deflating currency was a central political issue of the day.   We don't need to run the experiment again. 

Rosy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2645
  • Location: Florida
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #265 on: October 22, 2021, 03:42:59 PM »
The amount of Bitcoin in every wallet / account is public knowledge.  If they lie about how much Bitcoin is present in one of their accounts, they will be proved wrong within minutes of saying it.

This is not true, though, right? All of these transactions go through Chivo, which is not transparent. It's allowing Bukele to make up wildly ridiculous stats about the success (https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1442624279028408321), like there are more transactions in ES on Chivo than Visa handles worldwide. That seems rather unlikely.

To ChpBstrd's point, much of this is deeply suspicious. A lawyer prosecuted for falsifying a will helped create the company running Chivo Wallet. The notary who attested to the legality of Chivo SA de CV, created with public resources by the Government, was accused of documentary falsification in 2020 [1]. President Bukele’s Chief of Staff, Marta Carolina Recinos de Bernal, is on the US State Department’s Engel List of corrupt officials. She’s also a director of Chivo SA [2].

It really is depressing seeing a bunch of crypto enthusiasts—who claim to be wholly against corruption—cheer on this naked pillaging of some of the most impoverished people on Earth all because "number go up" on their pet Ponzi scheme.

[1] https://www.revistafactum.com/abogada-chivo/
[2] https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/funcionaria-bukele-lista-engel-directora-empresa-detras-chivo/877437/2021/
Oh, no!  You're quite right, thanks for the correction.  I assumed they put accounts on the blockchain.

But they created a new wallet in a matter of months and put everyone's Bitcoin in that system.  Was the launch their first large scale test?

The accounts can't be verified in some hidden system that does not use the blockchain.  The wallets may or may not have Bitcoin in them, since there's no external way to verify it without moving Bitcoin out of the wallets (and paying a fee to get the transfer registered on Bitcoin's blockchain).

Since Chivo runs on the bitcoin lightning network - why would it not be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain? The transaction itself does not happen on the blockchain but it is recorded on the bitcoin ledger.
Here is the first thing I came across:

Quote
Is Chivo a lightning wallet?
“Just like every other participant on Bitcoin's Lightning Network, Chivo runs a Lightning node. Since Chivo is a custodial wallet, all Lightning payments that Chivo users send to and from other Lightning wallets will transfer liquidity to and from Chivo's node.” ... The Chivo node “ranks 83rd among public Lightning nodes.”Sep 24, 2021

OK, now that I've looked a little deeper. It looks like Chivo bypasses the lightning network unless you specifically choose it under payment option in the Chivo wallet, they do provide the QR code for the lightning option in-app. Chivo seems to be a private network, a proprietary app using lightning. It will make it difficult to discover irregularities if there are any.

Either way, it is a private, closed system rather than open-sourced.
Three months for development was definitely ambitious but all in all, it appears to work well enough at this point. Whether the stats given by Bukele are spot on will be difficult to confirm without full transparency. Since when are government stats the absolute truth? All govts want to look good.

Inferring criminal intent is a big accusation and condemnation. The fact that you can use any bitcoin wallet like Moon (not just Chivo) and that you have the lightning network option right in your Chivo app speaks against it.   
US$ transactions are still the norm and anyone who wants to avoid the volatility of bitcoin can immediately switch from bitcoin to US $.
But hey, for all we know this is a South/Central American Syndicate setting up the scam of the century. There were two Venezuelans and five different companies involved in the app creation. That makes it even more impressive, with hyper coordination and given a deadline of three months.     

El Salvador is under such tight scrutiny at present, their every move is questioned. Not to mention the new loan discussions with the IMF.

After all, they are a sovereign government and if they choose to veer from the 'true path' of bitcoin (enthusiasts who want open source, no privacy, financial transactions) then they can. Maybe they are only concerned about the benefit for their own country.
Maybe they have developed more than we think and are already planning to integrate with other South and Central American countries. 
I still think that is a very gutsy move made more difficult by the lack of tech, pressure from the IMF, poor odds of success, and the realities of a third-world country.

Nothing but a clever criminal bitcoin scam?
Or an opportunist with a vision who wants to build a better country?

Too much rumor, bias, and skewed perspective from all sides, not to mention harsh judgment or idealistic hopium.
Time will tell - gangster or hero? 
t

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #266 on: October 22, 2021, 03:52:14 PM »
Since Chivo runs on the bitcoin lightning network - why would it not be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain? The transaction itself does not happen on the blockchain but it is recorded on the bitcoin ledger.

The purpose of the Lightning network is to perform Bitcoin transactions without the cost, slowness, security, and protection of being recorded in the blockchain ledger.  Only when a payment channel on the lightning network is closed are transactions recorded, and the costs for using the Lightning network climb significantly if this is done often.

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #267 on: October 22, 2021, 04:10:53 PM »
Bitcoin is not a 'zero sum game'.  The market cap has gone from nothing to over a trillion dollars.  Tell me who has lost money on that, you'd have to be really trying.  When Bitcoin hit its latest all time high the other day, there was no reason for anyone on earth to have 'lost money' on bitcoin, unless you managed to trade your way into loss with paper hands.  The average realized price of bitcoin holders is currently ~23k.

This isn’t even really up for debate. Bitcoin, as a matter of fact is a *negative-sum* game. The only way to make money is by new entrants paying you more money for your Bitcoin than you paid when you entered. Miners, meanwhile, suck money out of the system, ensuring that, on average, Bitcoin investors will have a negative expected return. That, thus far, NUMBER GO UP, is not a refutation at all of the claim that it’s a negative-sum-game.

Are we also not counting the millions (billions?) of dollars in wasted environmental damage?  Last I was reading, bitcoin mining is using comperable power to that of the entire country of Poland (178.92 TWh) each year . . . with a carbon footprint equivalent to the entire country of Bangladesh (84.99 Mt CO2) . . . and generating equivalent electronic waste to that of the the entire country of the Netherlands (24.37 kt).
  - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Just because people who buy and sell bitcoin pretend these issues don't exist doesn't mean that there isn't a significant cost associated with them.
There is no question that Bitcoin consumes energy and harms the environment. And, if you completely reject the idea of Bitcoin having any useful purpose then, obviously, you have to conclude it's pure waste. But that doesn't mean it is - that's just your opinion.

If you can imagine that Bitcoin could be a useful store of value, how does it compare to the conventional alternatives ?
What environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, processing, storing and securing the many thousands of tons of gold just stacked up in vaults ?

Instead of just posing the question, and (I guess?) assuming that it must be more: why don't you look into it, and tell us! (Hot tip: look up these values on your own, not from BITCOIN.ORG or some other crypto website)


It's kind of a tricky question to answer.  Bitcoin is a failure as a currency, so it doesn't seem fair to compare it to currencies and banking systems.  It's closest to a store of value like gold, silver, or beanie babies.

As of the publication of this 2018 study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7.epdf?referrer_access_token=4WFhbLVH943fe3mcf8oZANRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NdJEcpPQZqiP9V_5sRM6OFeEt1maRlkYa2rAMRc-x1aVbfFmAZSeIy1BUabgBXZ5z6UQfH0t8xSV-r-npyxYVvgn4cGz5vnYe41OneS4y9iDEq9qg_P_yvZnh3zShMKtDW2Q4oj7ea5KOxnmJf-j_pUXVLuKqBdId1DeooWHyXBGTsaKAeh50jbelu7OUy1zXIkZZVtyhwK389Tt_6m7EusXgJedPs47tRpklbfG1lrE7zSz3Bqp6kqnD7z10SVdY%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com), the worldwide energy costs of gold are equivalent to that of bitcoin.

This is still an apples to oranges comparison though, as the market capitalization of gold is 17x higher than bitcoin (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-vs-gold-debate-reignited-125947770.html) . . . and gold has real world uses (jewelry, electronics, etc.).

I congratulate you on finding what seems to be a fairly well-balanced article ! Most out there seem to be ridiculously skewed one way or the other by the author's obvious agenda.

Apples and oranges ?
I don't think the current market capitalisation is relevant - the figures in the report are based on $ value of production.
I don't think jewellery and electronics are relevant - we're talking about it's use as a store of value.

What is probably more relevant is that the article is based on 2018 prices.

Overall, it seems like a reasonable article though and, at least, gives the energy considerations some perspective.

It is not irrelevant that it has uses besides a store of value it's actually extremely relevant and why it was prized so much was our natural instincts as humans to be drawn to shiny things like back 8n the day when shiny meant a water source. So it was used in prized jewelry which helped it maintain it's long term store of value then was utilized in electronics. One could assume gold is a store of value only because of our very deep animalistic instincts that made it so prized.

Bitcoin is for all purposes today no more than a collectable and we'll see how long it's prized as that.

Further gold was in fact used as currency for a long time in trade prior to it becoming stock piled bc of the very reasons stated here about why btc isn't a currency and can't be bc we know more today than we did then about how economics work.
We've discussed this point before  - the price of gold on the market has very little to do with any intrinsic value in terms of jewellery and electronics - it's as good as irrelevant.
I agree with your history lesson, that's why gold is where it is, but that history is history.

I won't go into the currency thing here - I need to catch up on the recent discussions on that.

Rosy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2645
  • Location: Florida
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #268 on: October 22, 2021, 04:56:45 PM »
Since Chivo runs on the bitcoin lightning network - why would it not be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain? The transaction itself does not happen on the blockchain but it is recorded on the bitcoin ledger.

The purpose of the Lightning network is to perform Bitcoin transactions without the cost, slowness, security, and protection of being recorded in the blockchain ledger.  Only when a payment channel on the lightning network is closed are transactions recorded, and the costs for using the Lightning network climb significantly if this is done often.

Yes, of course, I know that, but the assertion that was made is that Chivo is not on the blockchain at all and the answer from what I found is that it depends. (which is what I outlined below the quote)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #269 on: October 22, 2021, 05:34:31 PM »
Since Chivo runs on the bitcoin lightning network - why would it not be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain? The transaction itself does not happen on the blockchain but it is recorded on the bitcoin ledger.

The purpose of the Lightning network is to perform Bitcoin transactions without the cost, slowness, security, and protection of being recorded in the blockchain ledger.  Only when a payment channel on the lightning network is closed are transactions recorded, and the costs for using the Lightning network climb significantly if this is done often.

Yes, of course, I know that, but the assertion that was made is that Chivo is not on the blockchain at all and the answer from what I found is that it depends. (which is what I outlined below the quote)

It doesn't depend.  Neither the lightning network nor Chivo are on blockchain.  You need to close your lightning payment channel or move your earnings out of Chivo to get your bitcoin recorded in the ledger.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4984
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #270 on: October 22, 2021, 09:23:50 PM »
Since Chivo runs on the bitcoin lightning network - why would it not be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain? The transaction itself does not happen on the blockchain but it is recorded on the bitcoin ledger.

The purpose of the Lightning network is to perform Bitcoin transactions without the cost, slowness, security, and protection of being recorded in the blockchain ledger.  Only when a payment channel on the lightning network is closed are transactions recorded, and the costs for using the Lightning network climb significantly if this is done often.
Yes, of course, I know that, but the assertion that was made is that Chivo is not on the blockchain at all and the answer from what I found is that it depends. (which is what I outlined below the quote)
El Salvador's population is 6.5 million.  What percentage of Bitcoin deposits into accounts of El Salvadorians have happened on Bitcoin's blockchain?

The question isn't about what Chivo could do, it's about transparency of giving Bitcoin to citizens of El Salvador.  If all of those transactions were on the blockchain, they would be visible and fully transparent.  Of course, in the past 30 days, Bitcoin transactions have averaged $3.50 each, which is significant compared to the amount of money being given to each person in El Salvador.

I think the best answer we'll get is if reporters try and reach out to a number of people, and walk them through getting their Bitcoin accounts and seeing what happens.  Then we'll have an idea if people's allegations of having their accounts already claimed is significant or not.

Foolishly aiming towards the thread topic, acceptance by a government - however awkward - does suggest greater acceptance of Bitcoin.  Combined with new Bitcoin futures ETFs, maybe that's an indication to invest a very small percentage in it.

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #271 on: October 23, 2021, 07:53:38 AM »
Returning to the bitcoin is deflationary 'problem' . . .

At what point would that 'problem' become a real problem ?

When/if BTC is widely accepted by retailers ?
When/if BTC is widely used by the general pop. for everyday transactions ?
When/if BTC is widely used by the general pop. to store wealth ?
When/if BTC is locally recognised as legal tender alongside a fiat currency ?
When/if BTC is globally recognised as legal tender alongside fiat currencies ?
When/if BTC starts to replace some fiat currencies ?
When/if BTC replaces all fiat currencies ?
Other ?

It seems to me that BTC would need to be broadly dominant for it's deflationary nature to start negatively impacting national economies in the ways described. But I'm no economist . . .


What about the problems associated with inflationary fiat currencies ? It's far from a perfect solution.
It seems pretty clear that inflation tends to take money from the poor and hand it to the asset-rich.
Are we not concerned about potential hyper-inflation / fiat-devaluation resulting from the rampant money-printing in recent years ?
Inflation can get away from you - runaway inflation causes horrific damage to economies. Inflation is all well and good - until it isn't.
What's the outlook for Joe Average's meagre savings over the next few years ?

BicycleB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
  • Location: Colombia
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #272 on: October 23, 2021, 02:13:04 PM »
3. I think it's unlikely that Bitcoin would become a global currency in the 22nd century, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that it does. After the last Bitcoin is mined early next century it would become a truly deflationary currency. But economists in the future keep proclaiming that this currency doesn't work, undermining public confidence. So the Bitcoin community might decide to expand the supply above 21 million by restarting mining operations, solving the problem. And yes, they can do this despite its decentralized nature. For example, right now Bitcoin is being upgraded with the Taproot project which includes security and functionality upgrades agreed upon by the community near unanimously. An unpopular modification to the algorithm (such as expanding the supply above 21 million) could cause an uproar and lead to a hard fork into 2 currencies: the original version versus the modified version. In that case there would be 2 competing currencies and economists would get to observe in real-time whether the inflationary version is superior to the deflationary one.

One thing that is missed is that the money supply needs to expand at about the same rate as the economy, not the population.   That was a lesson learned when the US (and other countries) on the gold standard, but that lesson has been forgotten in recent times.  Back in the day, the US was on the gold standard which limited money supply and caused economic problems for some groups, but facilitated trade with England which benefited others.   So there were contentious factions arguing for each side.   William Jennings Bryan's 1900 Cross of Gold Speech is considered an American political classic. 

The Wizard of Oz, which is best known as a children's book, was actually political commentary on monetary policy.   The Yellow Brick Road was the gold standard, the silver slippers (ruby slippers in the movie) were the silver standard.  The wicked witch of the east and west were the big banks and industrialists on the coasts who were screwing the American people (Dorothy).  The scarecrow represented the farmers who were too dumb to avoid the debt trap, the tin man represented the broken down industrial workers who lacked heart to side with the farmers, and the Cowardly lion was the political class who weren't willing to do anything about it.   But as the story progressed,  the scarecrow was actually smart, the tin man had a heart, and the lion turned out to be brave. 

Point is, we already know what living with a deflationary currency is like.  In 1873, the US dropped the bimetallic standard and went to the gold standard.   The resulting deflation caused the Long Depression, which as the name suggests, was the longest depression in US history.   Worse, the country kept sinking back into depression.    The US was in the middle of one of the subsequent recessions in 1900 when L. Frank Baum wrote the book and Bryan made his speech blasting the gold standard.  Getting away from a deflating currency was a central political issue of the day.   We don't need to run the experiment again.

Great post, @Telecaster!

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2888
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #273 on: October 24, 2021, 01:18:30 PM »
It seems to me that BTC would need to be broadly dominant for it's deflationary nature to start negatively impacting national economies in the ways described. But I'm no economist . . .

Agree completely.  My claim is that Bitcoin is unsuitable as currency in the first place, so can never become a reserve currency.  Quick anecdote.  The Chivo app had a feature that would freeze the Bitcoin price for one minute to give the user time to complete the transaction.  However, one minute was enough time for users to search exchanges for arbitrage opportunities.  So if one minute is too long for Bitcoin pricing, what if you have a complex product like a dishwasher say where components ordered in advance and wages have to be paid before the product is sold?  How could you possibly calculate your costs or potential profit? 

On the consumer side, lets say I want to buy a car on credit and pay a fix amount of Bitcoin each month.   I will have no idea how much the car will wind up costing or even how expensive my next payment would be. 

Bitcoin proponents say that as Bitcoin becomes more widely adopted as a currency the the price will stabilize.  Two problems with that, first is the chicken and the egg.  It can't become more widely adopted until the prices stabilize and prices can't stabilize until it becomes more widely adopted.   Second problem is that it needs to be really stable.  Like fluctuating no more than a few percent a year.  Unless there is some entity in charge of keeping it stable I don't see how that is even possible.   

Quote
What about the problems associated with inflationary fiat currencies ? It's far from a perfect solution.
It seems pretty clear that inflation tends to take money from the poor and hand it to the asset-rich.
Are we not concerned about potential hyper-inflation / fiat-devaluation resulting from the rampant money-printing in recent years ?
Inflation can get away from you - runaway inflation causes horrific damage to economies. Inflation is all well and good - until it isn't.
What's the outlook for Joe Average's meagre savings over the next few years ?

All fair points.


waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5257
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #274 on: October 24, 2021, 01:31:42 PM »
If bitcoin became really stable over a period of many years, tons of people holding only for gainz would sell it and crash the price, though.

So it's a chicken and egg problem twice - it can't become stable until it's not sexy for speculation, and it will crash if it's not sexy for speculation anymore, hence not being stable.

-W

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #275 on: October 24, 2021, 03:53:27 PM »
If bitcoin became really stable over a period of many years, tons of people holding only for gainz would sell it and crash the price, though.

So it's a chicken and egg problem twice - it can't become stable until it's not sexy for speculation, and it will crash if it's not sexy for speculation anymore, hence not being stable.

-W

Nope.it only goes up

BicycleB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
  • Location: Colombia
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #276 on: October 24, 2021, 04:20:25 PM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2021, 04:47:13 PM by BicycleB »

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #277 on: October 24, 2021, 06:08:09 PM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.


onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #278 on: October 24, 2021, 10:34:55 PM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #279 on: October 25, 2021, 04:28:56 AM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

Not sure where you came up with that thought I'm Fi. I have no resentment about this.

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9850
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #280 on: October 25, 2021, 05:20:58 AM »
The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

How did you read resentment from that post? I don't see it.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4984
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #281 on: October 25, 2021, 06:16:50 AM »
The uncertainty is what keeps BTC rising.  If everyone knew for certain the limits of what Bitcoin will do in the future, there would be certainty in Bitcoin's price.  I think it's the lack of certainty is what makes the price hard to define (which is also like the dot-com bubble, trying to define which websites would flourish on the internet).

I guess the case "for" Bitcoin is as a cheaper means of cross-border transactions.  Maybe subscriptions are handled by "smart contracts", so everyone can see the cost and how to end the subscription.  All speculation - which is what the "for" case has to be, at this point.  Most people don't do anything in Bitcoin in their daily lives.

Most crypto investors are probably relying on the price always going up.  Once you see that for a few years, it's easy to believe rationalizations that will let you participate in the easy money.  The hardest thing for the "pro" camp to consider is that Bitcoin might crash to zero.  If all of BTC's uses are done better elsewhere, why would BTC hold it's value?  There's a chance that happens, which is why I limit my crypto investment to a tiny percentage of net worth.  (But if I was young and in need of a lottery ticket, maybe I'd allocate much more).  While putting money in crypto, keep in mind it might crash and not recover, so diversify.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #282 on: October 25, 2021, 06:36:34 AM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

Rather than resentment, I read a deep philosophical theme here:

If we support the lifestyle of the FIRE movement, do we have a moral obligation to use our voices to speak toward replicable methods of achieving it over time. Because the traditional stock market, index fund route seems replicable over time (roughly a century of data), we feel comfortable growing our movement through investing using this method. And--because of the relatively short time frame and high volatility--we are much less secure in enouraging others to use crypto positions to reach FIRE.

LateStarter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Location: UK
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #283 on: October 25, 2021, 11:40:13 AM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

Rather than resentment, I read a deep philosophical theme here:

If we support the lifestyle of the FIRE movement, do we have a moral obligation to use our voices to speak toward replicable methods of achieving it over time. Because the traditional stock market, index fund route seems replicable over time (roughly a century of data), we feel comfortable growing our movement through investing using this method. And--because of the relatively short time frame and high volatility--we are much less secure in enouraging others to use crypto positions to reach FIRE.

I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

If philosophy is what you're looking for, consider:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #284 on: October 25, 2021, 12:01:38 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #285 on: October 25, 2021, 12:07:42 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

also i've never cited it as a pump and dump spectulative scam.  Beanie babies and tulip bulbs still have value and sell on the open market.

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9850
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #286 on: October 25, 2021, 12:21:55 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #287 on: October 25, 2021, 12:25:28 PM »
Sometimes I think of BTC (and crypto in general) like this:
1. No, won't be currency. Not broadly, not really really.
2. Will have some value over time but current price is probably above that value
3. Probably won't be stable in price but if it does, will take a long time to get there
4. Might end up having store-of-value utility even if prices are unstable

And:
5. Yes, is in a speculative bubble
6. Might be nowhere near the end of the speculative bubble
7. The limit on price might be social, not logical
8. A fair approximation of the upper price limit might be things like:
a. How many dollars are people willing to "invest" (store) in risk assets, minus the valuation of the stock market, during an optimistic period
b. When nearly all, not just some, of markets' speculative energy is in BTC
c. When speculative valuation on crypto is higher than the total value of the stock market
d. When valuation of crypto is larger than the stock market
e. (Some of these overlap) When total valuation of risk "assets" (say, stocks + crypto) is much higher than stocks alone have ever been.

8c, 8d, and 8e may well put the global financial system at risk of a BTC-triggered meltdown. So in a way, I'm rooting for a BTC crash before they happen.

It's hard to measure the items in 8, but my guess that if these thoughts are true, the upper limit on BTC is far higher than today. Like BTC at US$250,000 or $500,000. Maybe $1 million.

There's a part of me that then says "Well, then it's not too late to buy. Take the ride!" Haven't done it though.

Re the thread topic, if the upper limit of valuation is far higher than today, a small % crypto could have a big positive impact on returns - if you can get yourself out before the Last Big Crash. Sometimes I think the way to go is reset rarely, like maybe once a year instead of once a quarter, and set some share-of-risk-market boundaries for when to sell.

The majority of people here supporting this are of the get rich quicker mindset.

Even in a forum with a simple equation for wealth accumulation you have people believing in this thing.

Take rosy for example. Hit a 6 figure number years ahead of schedule. Not by following the logic. But bc they bought a lottery ticket. Built in belief. Not a single person in any crypto thread has articulated it's value.  Other than it goes up. So I don't want to miss it. Austin take rosy. Proclaiming it's value as a currency and yet doesn't understand modern economics or admittedly how currency functions

I'm all about using inventive ways to get richer faster to shorten the timeline. Anyone can look at my history of posts and journals here to see that. But at some point you have to know when to fold em.  And these staunch advocates of a meer collectible can't see past their own greed.

Resentment is not a good look on you.

Rather than resentment, I read a deep philosophical theme here:

If we support the lifestyle of the FIRE movement, do we have a moral obligation to use our voices to speak toward replicable methods of achieving it over time. Because the traditional stock market, index fund route seems replicable over time (roughly a century of data), we feel comfortable growing our movement through investing using this method. And--because of the relatively short time frame and high volatility--we are much less secure in enouraging others to use crypto positions to reach FIRE.

I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

If philosophy is what you're looking for, consider:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

Agreed.  The MMM audience, including myself, tends to be well-informed but rigid in their collective financial views.  We are predisposed to think the best way to obtain FIRE is to earn alot, live below our means, and invest heavily into traditional markets (S&P 500, REITS, Bonds, ect.).  Some people take this "best approach", which unites us, to the extremes and act as though it is the only approach.

Unevitably, when a Mustachian asks about crypto it instantly becomes controversial because some Mustachians explain why they believe it's not a bad idea to invest a small portion of their portfolio into it and other Mustachians attack them for trying to find shortcuts to the long, hard, but well-deserved journey to FIRE.  If you don't see the appeal to crypto that's fine, there is much more that unites us here.  However, you are being insulting when you personally target another Mustachian and dismiss their well-thought out strategy as a get rich quick scheme.  It is mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9341
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #288 on: October 25, 2021, 12:26:05 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

I'm waiting for that too - I'll get on any gravy train that i think has real long term traction.  I think i've proven that here -

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #289 on: October 25, 2021, 12:52:46 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

I'm waiting for that too - I'll get on any gravy train that i think has real long term traction.  I think i've proven that here -

These things have been discussed ad nauseum here.  I am not going to dig it up but there was another thread from earlier in the year where you guitar, and Telecaster dismissed all the arguements for crypto.  Crypto has its pros and cons.  If your sound judgment tells you not to put a little skin in the game then it's best to just stay on the sidelines.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #290 on: October 25, 2021, 12:58:37 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

I'm waiting for that too - I'll get on any gravy train that i think has real long term traction.  I think i've proven that here -

These things have been discussed ad nauseum here. I am not going to dig it up but there was another thread from earlier in the year where you guitar, and Telecaster dismissed all the arguements for crypto.  Crypto has its pros and cons.  If your sound judgment tells you not to put a little skin in the game then it's best to just stay on the sidelines.

The arguments for crypto haven't been dismissed . . . they've been debated and found wanting (repeatedly, and on many fronts).

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9850
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #291 on: October 25, 2021, 01:02:53 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

I'm waiting for that too - I'll get on any gravy train that i think has real long term traction.  I think i've proven that here -

These things have been discussed ad nauseum here.  I am not going to dig it up but there was another thread from earlier in the year where you guitar, and Telecaster dismissed all the arguements for crypto.  Crypto has its pros and cons.  If your sound judgment tells you not to put a little skin in the game then it's best to just stay on the sidelines.

That's not fair at all.

I am actively looking to understand crypto, I've been reading a bunch on it and feel like no matter how much I read, I can't make sense between the two sides.

I very much appreciate seeing arguments from both sides, and have no issue with someone staunchly arguing their point.

There are A LOT of us out there who want to better understand *both* sides.

onecoolcat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SoFla
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #292 on: October 25, 2021, 01:18:18 PM »
I read it as "I have decreed that Bitcoin is nothing but a pump/dump, speculative scam, etc. and anyone that disagrees with me is simply a greedy fool trying to get rich quick, especially dim-witted Rosy."

It's just personal attacks on a group and an individual, ie. a clear contravention of forum rules 2 and 4.

Only you used the phrases "greedy fool" and "dim-witted" in this thread.

A personal attack isn't simply disagreeing with someone's opinion, even if that opinion is strongly held.

Yeah, no personal attack, B42 just holds a very strong opinion, like he does about basically everything.

Agree or disagree with him, that's fine. You can think his opinion is totally ridiculous if you want, and you are totally free to call him out on it, people often do when he gets dogmatic about things. But that wouldn't be considered a personal attack, just as his post singling out what one person has said also isn't a personal attack.

He's heavily criticized ideas, which is entirely fair play. People are totally entitled to criticize his ideas in return, but instead the rebuttals seem to be getting personal, which is kind of ironic.

I say this as someone who is not pro or anti crypto. I have no skin in this game, but what I do observe are reactive, sarcastic, defensive comments from one side more than the other.

That may be just a product of this forum being predominantly anti-crypto, so the crypto folks feel frustrated here. I don't know.

But as someone who is avidly reading along and trying to better understand the two sides and where the truth lies between them, I can say that B42 has been extremely effective in articulating their side of the debate and I keep wishing that someone on the pro-crypto side would really articulately pick apart his arguments in a way that really made sense to me.

However, perhaps this is not the forum to find that.

I'm waiting for that too - I'll get on any gravy train that i think has real long term traction.  I think i've proven that here -

These things have been discussed ad nauseum here.  I am not going to dig it up but there was another thread from earlier in the year where you guitar, and Telecaster dismissed all the arguements for crypto.  Crypto has its pros and cons.  If your sound judgment tells you not to put a little skin in the game then it's best to just stay on the sidelines.

That's not fair at all.

I am actively looking to understand crypto, I've been reading a bunch on it and feel like no matter how much I read, I can't make sense between the two sides.

I very much appreciate seeing arguments from both sides, and have no issue with someone staunchly arguing their point.

There are A LOT of us out there who want to better understand *both* sides.

What do you want to want to know? 

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9850
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #293 on: October 25, 2021, 01:42:35 PM »
What do you want to want to know?

The same thing I've been asking since the beginning of this thread: where does the truth lie between the two sides that tend to be quite extremely opposed?

What I find frustrating is that most pro crypto people argue as if it's just a given that crypto is the best thing ever, and that those who question it are just clueless, ignorant idiots.

This stance is hard to grasp since so many of the arguments from those against crypto sound quite informed and reasonable.

It's frustrating to read.

It doesn't help that I know a few people in the crypto tech world who don't invest in crypto coins themselves and even more who mount a lot of similar arguments as I see here against investing in hugely valued coins like Bitcoin.

I've got one "expert" saying Etherium is the only coin that makes sense to invest in, and yet another saying that despite some hiccups that EOS remains the "Etherium killer", and yet more saying that it's premature to heavily invest in any individual coins, except as pure speculation.

And then I have piles of really angry people on the internet basically calling everyone stupid for not buying Bitcoin.

It's fucking confusing.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2021, 01:46:05 PM by Malcat »

BicycleB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
  • Location: Colombia
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #294 on: October 25, 2021, 03:51:45 PM »
What do you want to want to know?

The same thing I've been asking since the beginning of this thread: where does the truth lie between the two sides that tend to be quite extremely opposed?

What I find frustrating is that most pro crypto people argue as if it's just a given that crypto is the best thing ever, and that those who question it are just clueless, ignorant idiots.

This stance is hard to grasp since so many of the arguments from those against crypto sound quite informed and reasonable.

It's frustrating to read.

It doesn't help that I know a few people in the crypto tech world who don't invest in crypto coins themselves and even more who mount a lot of similar arguments as I see here against investing in hugely valued coins like Bitcoin.

I've got one "expert" saying Etherium is the only coin that makes sense to invest in, and yet another saying that despite some hiccups that EOS remains the "Etherium killer", and yet more saying that it's premature to heavily invest in any individual coins, except as pure speculation.

And then I have piles of really angry people on the internet basically calling everyone stupid for not buying Bitcoin.

It's fucking confusing.

That's a really legitimate quandary! Quite interesting to hear the report of your crypto insiders, too. A key cautionary data point to my ears.

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but - the BTC attitude you see "piles" of seems like a motivated paradigm. A paradigm in that once you see the vision of BTC Shall Rule, everything fits into its gravity. Motivated in that, obviously, the inherent vision of rising wealth depends on acceptance by others at some point; acceptance makes it real, denial threatens the vision. It's only a store of value if people think it is. The feel seems a lot like MLM things that I've seen, except that the downline is replaced by acceptance of the BTC-centric future. And once you're in, breaking out requires a painful shift, so the stakes of denial get even higher, I guess. 

As far as the truth, I wonder too. It seems like kind of a Schrodinger's thing because it's not really determined yet. Yet the general picture seems clear-ish (??). There's something that might be of value, but exactly how and how much is unclear. The something's under feverish and varied development, like early autos (or 1600s tulip bulbs), while being both encouraged and obscured by the fever of excitement about the high financial value now ascribed to one of the early strains (BTC). Most of the what we see is the fever.

Unless people do end up accepting forever that BTC has value. Can't quite sort out the odds.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2021, 04:25:56 PM by BicycleB »

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Age: 1821
  • Location: CO
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #295 on: October 25, 2021, 04:09:31 PM »
Could you all do me a favor? Suppose you were trying to summarize this thread for a CEO. You have to produce 3-4 good points for each side of the debate. Bonus points for using bullets. For example:

Pro Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument

Anti Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument



(I admit I haven't read through this thread. But it's so lengthy it seems like a quick summary might reset the debate and help everyone understand it better.)

Malcat

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9850
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #296 on: October 25, 2021, 04:14:45 PM »
Could you all do me a favor? Suppose you were trying to summarize this thread for a CEO. You have to produce 3-4 good points for each side of the debate. Bonus points for using bullets. For example:

Pro Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument

Anti Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument



(I admit I haven't read through this thread. But it's so lengthy it seems like a quick summary might reset the debate and help everyone understand it better.)

From what I can tell the argument goes like this

Pro
"Something, something fiat, something, something gains, something something Bitcoin is legal currency in El Salvador"

Con

"Something, something crypto is actually useless, something, something, banned in China, something, something, slow and wasteful"

BicycleB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
  • Location: Colombia
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #297 on: October 25, 2021, 04:57:04 PM »
Could you all do me a favor? Suppose you were trying to summarize this thread for a CEO. You have to produce 3-4 good points for each side of the debate. Bonus points for using bullets. For example:

Pro Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument

Anti Crypto
  • a really good argument
  • another really good argument
  • yet a third really good argument



(I admit I haven't read through this thread. But it's so lengthy it seems like a quick summary might reset the debate and help everyone understand it better.)

Can't give you good, I'm here to learn. Common and semi-plausible from one reader's viewpoint:

Pro
1. Novel blockchain technology provides an electronic means of exchange and value storage with decentralized (aka nongovernmental) security, a unique value
2. Has been used to create electronic coins that rise in value at first, due to inherent features in the algorithm, but are limited in total number and thus can provide a store of value that's more reliable than fickle fiat currency. This can provide a useful store of value when governments inevitably inflate their currencies. Digital gold!
3. Realistically, the fact these are not inherently part of the existing financial system has offered a variety of opportunities that derive from avoiding financial regulation. For a while longer, these opportunities will be quite profitable.

Anti
4. The main use of decentralized crypto is evading government. That's of limited value, and as regulation increases, the value will fade away or at least be small. Advocates make bigger claims for it than this but none of them will really work.
5. The creation of individual "coins" uses large and increasing amounts of energy, making crypto destructive to the climate.
6. The original value rise was triggered by the algorithmic tricks from point 2 above, but it's primarily become a speculative bubble with no enduring value underneath - especially because new types of "coins" can be made at will, cheaply. Existing coins are far above any intrinsic value already and the bubble is going to pop.

PS. Argument zero is in the pro bucket. Namely, one day crypto will be fast reliable non-inflationary non-governmental electronic currency, solving the saver's problem that there is no risk free store of value, and until then it thrillingly rises in value. But the counterarguments that it can't do all that at once seem compelling enough that it's hard to count that as a "good" argument - it just looks like the most common.

(leaves to go buy popcorn with credit card)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2021, 05:20:57 PM by BicycleB »

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5257
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #298 on: October 25, 2021, 05:16:05 PM »
I'll give it a shot:

Pro:
-Existing ways of paying for stuff are expensive (ie credit card fees of 3-4%, wire transfer fees to/from foreign countries even higher) and crypto can allow people to pay each other, in theory at least, inexpensively and securely.
-Crypto can allow people to prove ownership of both digital and real-world items, and to create binding contracts without a third party.
-Crypto can prevent governments from debasing the value of fiat currency and causing hyperinflation crises.

Con:
-The leading cryptocurrency (bitcoin) has never succeeding in becoming a method of making payments as it is extremely volatile in value. This volatility, along with it's deflationary nature (fixed/limited supply of coins) make it unusable as a currency and it will never be used to make transactions in any meaningful way. Hence it has no utility and, at best, can function only as "digital gold" (or like a baseball card/collectible) as a store of value. No other cryptocurrencies, even those with better designs, have so far succeeded in becoming commonly used for commerce either.
-There are thousands of other cryptocurrencies, and a low bar to entry. There is nothing stopping national governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies and/or making any extant non-government currencies illegal (something that has already happened). This means that investing in any individual cryptocurrency is, at best, extremely risky as most or even all current versions will likely end up useless and valueless.
-The cryptocurrency world is rife with fraud (some would say it's mostly fraud) and existing values are propped up by orders of magnitude (ie tether) by said fraud.
-Crypto (or at least bitcoin) uses an incredible amount of energy and is an environmental disaster.

Hopefully that helps.

-W

JohnnyZ

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation
« Reply #299 on: October 25, 2021, 06:15:31 PM »
Pro:
-Existing ways of paying for stuff are expensive (ie credit card fees of 3-4%, wire transfer fees to/from foreign countries even higher) and crypto can allow people to pay each other, in theory at least, inexpensively and securely.

 It may be my western privilege speaking, but I've never really understood that argument. I can wire money to any EU country without any fee, and I can use transferwise to send money in many countries with great exchange rates. It seems to me what we need is not a new currency, but a paypal without all the price-gouging.
 On the other hand, apparently you have to be an IT major, who has extensively researched exchanges and possibly bought some hardware, to be able to use bitcoin safely.