BITCOIN

mooneysaver

Yep all that money being printed by the fed is a disaster...

User232002

Have you heard of something called fractional reserve banking good sir?

Cus

Any thoughts on why bitcoin is not currently acting as an inflation hedge?  You could describe its recent price performance as similar to high risk tech stocks.

User232002

What makes you think it isn't acting as an inflation hedge? Inflation hit 7% YoY and BTC is currently sitting 11% higher than where it was 12 months ago. 

That's a slightly tongue in cheek answer though because obviously we've been all around the houses to get here, but bottom line; your time horizon matters when considering inflation. Over the short term other factors will influence the price more than just inflation (like a hawkish Fed, which has also damaged the tech stocks) and I wouldn't expect BTC in its current form to move in step with CPI. 

Yeah, BTCs correlation to the stock market, and growth stocks in particular, is a novel thing given that 2 years ago you could view it as an uncorrelated asset that both diversified and improved returns of an investment portfolio. But it shouldn't really be that much of a surprise given the type of new participants who seemingly view it as just the same as tech but further out on the risk curve. Bit of a bizarre take if you ask me that one, but seems to be doing well for Ruffer who bought $700M at $15k and sold it all in the 50's. I don't think they know what it is yet tbh and I think the correlation eventually breaks but who knows. Maybe its temporary because we are (or were until recently) in brrr world where all correlations go to 1 because all numbers go up.

Parking_Eyerate

darren232002 said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

It frankly says a lot that what concerns you is how long people stay around in order to allow you to prove them incorrect. If being proven right is all that matters to you then I am not surprised if people do disengage.

This is an investment forum. In financial markets, being right is correlated with making money. So yes, being right matters to me.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Yes, I have also said I think it is unlikely to pass and I have said why I think that. Do you have any points to make as to why you think it will pass?

Oh, I don't care one jot either way. The point is not whether it will or won't pass, or who proposed it. The point is that, the fact it is being discussed at all shows the progress that this magic internet money has made over the last decade.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Yes, I said that I could understand why people might get excited if it had been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians. Again, I don’t see why that’s ridiculous. 

For someone currently having a hissy fit over me putting words in your mouth, this is an interesting statement given that I never said that. Its not a ridiculous statement; but it is a pointless one. 

Parking_Eyerate said:

You assume I’ll disappear if that becomes a reality. Well, frankly, I think that’s a very odd thing to say. Why on Earth should you care what threads I comment on and when? Is being proven right so important to you that you need people to bow down before you and beg forgiveness for daring to ever question anything to do with bitcoin? I have no idea what subjects will interest me months/years in the future and I think the fact my interests and future comments, or lack thereof, could exercise you so much is somewhat bizarre. (It’s not lost on me that you have mentioned five-year timescales, to me that’s a very long time to bear grudges against anonymous people on the internet and it doesn’t sound healthy.)

I raised a perfectly salient point that non-Bitcoiners don't argue from a position of intellectual honesty because they consistently move the goalposts of 'success.' You are ranting.

Parking_Eyerate said:

You seem to think that if I don’t return this thread again that someone else will take up a mantle you imagine exists and subsequently make a different point. As if there is a group tag-team or relay or something. Well, honestly, to me you sound paranoid. I have no control or input as to what comments other posters will make months/years in the future. That likely won’t be a surprise to most people but maybe it will be to you. Further, as it happens, following this interaction I am in fact beginning to regret having bothered to comment at all.

Haha, not a different point; the same damn point. Easily disprovable. Just wait like 5 pages and I'm sure someone will say that BTC needs to be closed down because of its carbon footprint, or that its not scarce because theres 10,000 other cryptocurrencies in existence.

Parking_Eyerate said:

You think the bill proposal is a big deal, I think it is a fringe political attention-grab. So we have different opinions, that’s astonishing. Feel free to note that down and add me to a ‘proven wrong‘ list.

I don't think its a big deal. I think its but one addition to a long line of data points that plot a trajectory.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Again, I never said that bitcoin holders were a subset of Q Anon followers but, now that you mention it, I would actually be quite interested in seeing that Venn diagram.

Come now. Lets not plead innocence here. Why pick Q Anon I wonder? You could have chosen from a multitude of asinine subsections of the population; Toyota owners perhaps. You chose Q Anon in an attempt to conflate them with Bitcoiners in order to assert moral superiority. 

Nobody here cares about Q Anon, so just stop with the disinformation.

If being right is all that matters to you then why did you mention people “disappearing so that they could not be proven incorrect”? If you are right you will be right regardless, but your comments and attitude indicate that’s not enough for you - people need to stay around so they can be ‘proven incorrect’.

So you don’t have any points to make about why you think the bill will pass, yet you were triggered enough by my post (in which I discussed why I didn’t think the bill would pass) to engage in this fascinating discussion.

You made a point of saying that was a point I had made. I agreed. So if not ridiculous, why do you think it is a pointless statement? Why did you mention it at all? It might be pointless to you but I was expanding on why I think the current proposal is a fringe political attention-grab and why other proposal circumstances would, in my opinion, be different.

So I’m having a hissy fit and also ranting but you just made a ‘perfectly salient point’ about a population grouping you have invented and termed ‘non-bitcoiners’ even though, to me, it sounds like paranoia about people you have never met. I would say your use of the terms ‘bitcoiners’ and ‘non-bitcoiners’ makes you sound a bit odd and suggests that you stereotype people,  but I don’t want to be accused of having a hissy fit or ranting - I am not sure I can cope with such a high level of insight and debate.

Oh, so now someone will make  “the same damn point” as me in five pages’ time but you aren’t paranoid. Also you aren’t putting words in my mouth despite the “same damn point” being either ‘bitcoin should be closed down because of its carbon footprint’ or ‘the existence of 10000 other cryptocurrencies’, points I’ve never mentioned. Don’t worry though, I see now that you haven’t put words in my mouth and I am just ranting and having a hissy fit.

In your last post you said it was a big deal (“ it being proposed by a senator that a US state make BTC legal tender is a big deal regardless of its prospects….”) now you say it isn’t. That’s interesting.

The reason I mentioned Q Anon is back in my first post on this thread - it is seemingly something the senator in question has praised. I’m actually not trying to assert any kind of moral superiority, I would genuinely be interested to see a Venn diagram of how the groups interact. It could be that the circles would be completely separate - whether or not it’s likely I think that would be an interesting finding in itself.

Scottex99

Cus said:

Any thoughts on why bitcoin is not currently acting as an inflation hedge?  You could describe its recent price performance as similar to high risk tech stocks.

I guess the dream at some point is a true dislocation but we’re not there yet it seems.

Maybe one day the countries/govs/central banks are doing their shenanigans, TradFi is dumping, people are scared, liquidating their positions and pouring money into gold or BTC (better gold).

Thats the sweet spot for BTC to get to a stupidly high fiat number

User232002

Parking_Eyerate said:

Don’t worry though, I see now that you haven’t put words in my mouth and I am just ranting and having a hissy fit.

Glad we agree *thumbs up*

bugbyte_2

Yet here you are, on a Bitcoin thread as a new poster, offering an opinion as to recent developments. The latest in a long line of posters that appear for a short period and disappear before they can be proven incorrect.

Why on earth do you think you have proven anything? 

You hold BTC, and therefore will make *interesting* mental gymnastics to try and show that BTC has underlying value other than sentiment, or that it is a store of wealth that guards against inflation (really? its just dropped 50%), or that it has some mystical real world use or that burning through enough electricity to run a medium sized country for no benefit is good or that if it gets to $100,000 that's somehow impressive, or that it is a hedge against stocks dropping just like Gold, or......

Other people, myself included, do not currently hold BTC but are investors and therefore could be convinced that adding BTC is a sensible move. You do make some valid points but you are a long, long way from convincing me at least on any of the above.

As for disappearing, its fun for a while but really? 179 pages of fun is just too much!

Hexane

darren232002 said:

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are.

Right, but if someone came onto this forum pumping Gamestop by saying something like "Gamestop is going to $200 within the next few months" then they would get pretty short shrift. That's not what this forum is for.

Scottex99 is going to remind us that he doesn't need to pump BTC by mentioning it on this forum because that wouldn't make a blind bit of difference and he's busy working for a crypto company that's grown from 4 people to 404 people in ten minutes and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that he can be called out for pumping BTC like that on this forum just the same as someone pumping Gamestop the exact same way isn't really in the spirit of the forum.

Not that I mind ofc, it's just something fun to talk about the 99th time someone mentions "fundamentals" and "technology" and Venezuela.

darren232002 said:

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD.

Ah, but I have done my DD ... enough to know it's not an investment that suits me.

darren232002 said:

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%.

Bravado and patience are two different things. If I was seriously worried by my ISA portfolio being down less than 5% (gee I guess my fund managers must not be only buying the S&P and the Nasdaq) then that would mean I was invested way, way above my risk tolerance.

Also I have another big slice of cash that needs to go into equities at some point, so a little correction (or even a big correction) makes me happier deciding that point can be now.

As Scott mentioned, he's doing much the same with BTC and feels much the same about the 50% drop in BTC's value since the last peak, so good for him.

darren232002 said:

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Yeah that's probably why the boring people managing my boring pension funds are overweight UK value stocks. Oh well.

Hexane

darren232002 said:

And this is what Bitcoiner's constantly have to deal with, the constant shifting of 'I'll buy when...' 

This is a really telling comment. As a "bitcoiner" you feel that you "have to deal with" people who don't yet own bitcoin, saying that they'll buy bitcoin "when... (something)"

*why* do you "have to" deal with those people?

*why* is it so frustrating for you that people keep inventing these unreasonable hurdles or requirements that they demand happen before they invest in bitcoin?

why is it so urgent for you that people buy bitcoin now, not at some later time?    ... oh!