BITCOIN

bugbyte_2

@darren

I think you will find I was simply replying to your statements. That is why I included them in my reply, as like it or not you do make some outlandish claims then row back on in the next post when someone points them out.

You called people who advise NS&I 'idiots' in the context of inheriting wealth then rowed back by discounting older people.

You stated you would be better off with BTC than any UK stocks I may have so I showed you some of my UK stocks that out performed BTC. You then rowed back by saying other UK stocks have gone down. Here's an indisputable fact. HSBC FTSE 100 Index fund has risen 18.8% in one year whilst BTC has risen 13.06%. 

You stated a 5% loss is basically the same as a 50% loss and then justify it by picking the lowest price in recent history as if everyone piled in at that point. Why not pick the ATH for your comparison? 

You stated it was bizarre to think the UK would out perform the US when it clearly has done. That's why we reballence.

You keep claiming that the horrendous energy use of Bitcoin is somehow a good thing as if the energy used cannot be used anywhere else, whilst the rest of the world is desperately trying to reduce energy consumption. Well done Iceland, but have a chat with China, Iraq, Qatar, Algeria, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Oman, Kosovo, and very soon Russia.


I am not driven by emotion and have absolutely no problem with people holding anything they want. If my risk analysis of BTC fitted in with my strategy then I would hold some. For me it doesn't as the only thing holding up its price is sentiment - it could go to the moon or equally it could be legislated out of existence. I prefer to make my money elsewhere. The rewards don't stack up for me but they do for Scott and you which is fine by me.

RolandFlagg

Ark Invest released their 2022 Big Ideas report last week.

Lark Davis covers the Crypto side in the video below. Lark is an acquired taste, but does a good job covering it.
He posts a link to it, if you prefer to read it instead of listening to him.

And before anyone starts bashing Ark/Cathie Wood due their funds taking a beating due to the market downturn and rotating, I would just ask you to zoom out 5 years to find that their flagship fund is still outperforming the Nasdaq and is double the S&P 500 and Berkshire Hathaway (I won't even mention the laughable FTSE).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpKSDUjksIA&ab_channel=LarkDavis

User232002

bugbyte_2 said:

@darren

I think you will find I was simply replying to your statements. That is why I included them in my reply, as like it or not you do make some outlandish claims then row back on in the next post when someone points them out.

Nope.

bugbyte_2 said:

@darren

You called people who advise NS&I 'idiots' in the context of inheriting wealth then rowed back by discounting older people.

You: You and Scottie are trying to pump bitcoin on this forum!!!!!
Me: If we were trying to pump BTC, we'd be telling people to buy BTC instead of NS&I in a variety of other threads. 
You: Now you are telling people not to buy NS&I!!!!

The original point had nothing to do with NS&I sir and whether they are or are not a good investment (spoiler, they aren't). The point was that we aren't trying to pump anything. Comprehension test.

bugbyte_2 said:

@darren

You stated you would be better off with BTC than any UK stocks I may have so I showed you some of my UK stocks that out performed BTC. You then rowed back by saying other UK stocks have gone down. Here's an indisputable fact. HSBC FTSE 100 Index fund has risen 18.8% in one year whilst BTC has risen 13.06%. 

You stated a 5% loss is basically the same as a 50% loss and then justify it by picking the lowest price in recent history as if everyone piled in at that point. Why not pick the ATH for your comparison? 

Oh right, so its cool to cherry pick your UK stocks for your comparison, but not so cool to cherry pick an entry point for my comparison. That sounds like a biased game to me.

Secondly, just come off it. Nobody is investing in just the stocks that outperformed BTC, you're buying the index or a basket and you're going to have losers within that basket so picking the absolute outperformers is bias.

Heres another indisputable fact since you love them so much, the FTSE is up 12% in total since 2000. Twenty two damn long years. For eleven percent. Returns for ants. And you think you can make a coherent case that the FTSE has outperformed BTC? Absolutely laughable.

bugbyte_2 said:

You stated a 5% loss is basically the same as a 50% loss and then justify it by picking the lowest price in recent history as if everyone piled in at that point. Why not pick the ATH for your comparison? 

I picked the bottom of both markets, which seemed a fair comparison. But I tell you what, how about you pick a date, any date, and run the comparisons for the last 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years and get back to me with your findings about whats performed better, BTC or equities. I'll wait...

bugbyte_2 said:

You stated it was bizarre to think the UK would out perform the US when it clearly has done. That's why we reballence.

FTSE 100 since 2000: 11%
S&P500 since 2000: 200%

[  ] UK outperforming US

Again, if you want to pick a different date and run a detailed systematic analysis then go ahead. Post your numbers. I'll wait.

bugbyte_2 said:

You keep claiming that the horrendous energy use of Bitcoin is somehow a good thing as if the energy used cannot be used anywhere else, whilst the rest of the world is desperately trying to reduce energy consumption. Well done Iceland, but have a chat with China, Iraq, Qatar, Algeria, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Oman, Kosovo, and very soon Russia.

Please tell me how the hydroelectric power in Canada, the geothermal energy in Iceland and the wind energy in Antarctica 'can be used elsewhere.' Newsflash: Its incredibly difficult to transport energy over large distances without significant loss that makes it unviable.

Interesting list given that currently the majority of Bitcoin mining goes on in.... *drum roll* the USA.

And yes, BTC is using 55% renewable energy. UK around 40, Europe even less. So how about you sort your own house out before coming and attacking the BTC network because it seems to be doing a far better job than most countries right now. Who knew financial incentives could motivate sustained behaviour changes....

bugbyte_2 said:

I am not driven by emotion and have absolutely no problem with people holding anything they want. If my risk analysis of BTC fitted in with my strategy then I would hold some. For me it doesn't as the only thing holding up its price is sentiment - it could go to the moon or equally it could be legislated out of existence. I prefer to make my money elsewhere. The rewards don't stack up for me but they do for Scott and you which is fine by me.

Every fact you throw out there is biased. Every argument you make is convoluted because on a pure numerical reading of the facts BTC is destroying every other investment. Numbers aren't emotional, they don't lie. Go ahead and run the numbers on the comparisons I mentioned and do come back and let us know your findings.

Hell, even if you started from the assumption that BTC is a giant ponzi scheme you should probably still be buying it at this point given that millennials are about to inherit the world and they basically all own crypto.

bugbyte_2

You: You and Scottie are trying to pump bitcoin on this forum!!!!!
 
Eh? I don't think I have accused you of pumping bitcoin. This is however a good example where you write one thing, in this case calling people idiots for not doing whatever you do and end up somewhere completely else.

Michael121

You forgot dividends in both comparisons vs gold and FTSE100, also picked FTSE100 over all share, i wonder why that is.

User232002

bugbyte_2 said:

You: You and Scottie are trying to pump bitcoin on this forum!!!!!
 
Eh? I don't think I have accused you of pumping bitcoin. This is however a good example where you write one thing, in this case calling people idiots for not doing whatever you do and end up somewhere completely else.

Haha. You're correct. It was Hexane who made the original statement. However, you still quoted my reply and waded in, so heres the correction:

Hexane: You and Scottie are trying to pump bitcoin on this forum!!!!!
Me: If we were trying to pump BTC, we'd be telling people to buy BTC instead of NS&I in a variety of other threads. 
You: Now you are telling people not to buy NS&I!!!!

The original point had nothing to do with NS&I sir and whether they are or are not a good investment (spoiler, they aren't). The point was that we aren't trying to pump anything. Comprehension test.

-----------------

I notice you didn't reply to any of the other points I made with some of your indisputable facts. Cat got your tongue? Of course, its quite hard to reason against factual debate when your argument is mainly based on dogma and emotion.

User232002

Michael121 said:

You forgot dividends in both comparisons vs gold and FTSE100, also picked FTSE100 over all share, i wonder why that is.

Hilarious.

FTSE 100 since 2000: 11%
SPY since 2000: 200%
FTSE all Share since 2000: 35%

Oh gosh. Yes, that is a great counter point which is completely terminal to the point I raised. Clearly I was misrepresenting the facts in order to present a biased argument. For gods sake, do you guys even know what intellectual honesty & integrity is? 

Gold is up like 500% or something ridiculous, so even with your compounded dividends you're not outperforming it.

And I need to point out here that I don't think gold is better than the indices or is a better investment. I just think its hilarious when something as moronic as gold can outperform the markets over that period of time, particularly when many would say that the last two decades have been pretty damn awesome economically. It really speaks volumes about the quality of equities.

I wonder at what point do we just accept that the S&P is a ponzi because everybody has been blindly buying the index for the last 3 decades. The stock market is meant to function as an efficient capital allocator, but its been broken for some time. 

RolandFlagg

Super video today from Coin Bureau for experience Crypto investors and Newbies alike.

I do hate the terrible negative thumbnails that Youtubers use, but that is unfortunately due to them working out that negative thumbnails get about 3x the views of positive views. 
But if you look past that, the content in the video is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuAEfdv_BeM&ab_channel=CoinBureau

Oh BTW...over 5 years..

FTSE 100 up 3.86%
BTC up 3,500%

If BTC goes down 5% in a day that is the price you pay for a highly volatile risk asset.
If the FTSE goes down 5% that's your 5 year profits wiped out.....

Aegis

RolandFlagg said:

Oh BTW...over 5 years..

FTSE 100 up 3.86%
BTC up 3,500%

If BTC goes down 5% in a day that is the price you pay for a highly volatile risk asset.
If the FTSE goes down 5% that's your 5 year profits wiped out.....

Assuming someone actually bought just the FTSE 100, their 5-year return would be 26% (using the Vanguard FTSE 100 Acc fund), not 4%.  You are confusing capital return with total return, i.e. ignoring dividends.

Malthusian

Aegis said:

You are confusing capital return with total return, i.e. ignoring dividends.

Yay, I earned another 3% in worthless paper government sheeple tokens. Woo. Go me. Party hat / streamer emoji.

To us dividends matter because compounded real growth over 30-odd years is the difference between being able to retire and being able to comfortably retire. To bros they don't because if their investments earn average 0.25% in dividends over the next month they will still have to put on a cardboard hat in the morning.

Quoting different indices won't bridge the fundamental gap between people who think that the average return of Bitcoin is the return experienced by someone who bought some in 2010, held to the present day and then cashed in, i.e. literally nobody (200%pa or whatever) and the average return across all hodlers (nil).