BITCOIN

Malthusian

Deleted_User said: The only reason most people are interested in Bitcoin is that the price spiked and it made hundreds of thousands of people exceptionally rich very quickly, which in turn generated a wave of interest from other people who also wanted to get rich quickly.

Very few people have got exceptionally rich from Bitcoin. When the price first pumped from its Silk Road level in 2017, a typical lucky hodler had a few thousand invested at most. When the price pumped that turned into high five figures, low six figures if they were lucky. Nice to have, but not "retire to the Caribbean" money.

Most bitcoin "fortunes" disappeared on flash new cars and the ICO boom (the 2017 version of the recent NFT fad). (And why wouldn't you buy a flash car when your Bitcoin has just pumped 30x in the space of a year or two and your remaining $40,000 will become a multi-million dollar fortune within the next decade?)

The majority of people who claim today to be early (pre 2017) Bitcoin investors are con artists or mere fantasists. (Example)

darren232002 said: Its not always about you, dear.

No it isn't, but in this case it seemed to be about nobody at all. So I thought I would investigate the cause of your confusion as to why people who aren't here weren't falling over themselves to propose falsifiable predictions that Bitcoin could smash to smithereens on its march to $400,000 and beyond.

People aren't buying Bitcoin to get rich, they are buying it because its a fairer system.

See, this is why we still keep indulging in the same circular arguments for 200 pages. Because it occasionally results in comedy like this.

Naturally someone who believes they are entitled to a much higher wealth bracket and sees no way of getting there other than winning the lottery will consider it "fair" that Bitcoin should make them rich. The rest of the world (who would have to fund those riches) will see it differently.

FCA research and these threads confirm that people in the West (where the unavailability of a stable currency is, unlike in prisons and El Salvador, not an issue) buy Bitcoin for one reason, to get rich quick.

There is nothing "fair" about having your accumulated wealth go up and down at random.

Reaper

darren232002 said:

People aren't buying Bitcoin to get rich, they are buying it because its a fairer system.

This is obviously false. If you don't want to get rich then stablecoins actually go some way to fulfilling the role of a fair, cheap, currency. Unlike Bitcoin which people only buy because it went up in price spectacularly in the past, and people are desperately hoping will do so again. Stablecoins are (almost) currency, Bitcoin is gambling.

Zola.

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/03/09/americas-quiet-default/

Interesting article. 

RolandFlagg

This is Andreas Antonopoulous, one of the foremost experts on Bitcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6kJfvuNqtg&ab_channel=WIREDUK

People who talk about Bitcoin without knowing anything about it, or just look at the price should watch as many of his videos as possible to learn why Bitcoin is so important.

I find it amazing that in 2022 there are some people that still don't get it, but I suppose when electricity was invented some people complained that it was useless because we already had candles.

Same goes for Cars (We already have horse drawn carriages)
Email (We have the postal system)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXIaILHl7Rg&t=230s&ab_channel=aantonop

People don't get it until they do.....unless they never do...but their kids and grandkids will.

RolandFlagg

Bitcoin vs Bulls*it (from 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo&ab_channel=aantonop

HHarry

RolandFlagg said:

I find it amazing that in 2022 there are some people that still don't get it, but I suppose when electricity was invented some people complained that it was useless because we already had candles.



People don't get it until they do.....unless they never do...but their kids and grandkids will.

Ok, so what need or process is Bitcoin improving?  It doesn’t appear to be FIAT, or wealth storage, or finanicial stability for developing nations.

I totally accept your point about electricity, cars & email, but we’re a decade+ in to Bitcoin and many people are struggling to understand it’s purpose.  

 Saying that, in some respect its a pointless argument.  For many Bitcoin will only be a success when it’s shown the longevity of gold or stocks.  And we’ll all be dead by then!

RolandFlagg

HHarry said:

RolandFlagg said:

I find it amazing that in 2022 there are some people that still don't get it, but I suppose when electricity was invented some people complained that it was useless because we already had candles.



People don't get it until they do.....unless they never do...but their kids and grandkids will.

Ok, so what need or process is Bitcoin improving?  It doesn’t appear to be FIAT, or wealth storage, or finanicial stability for developing nations.

I totally accept your point about electricity, cars & email, but we’re a decade+ in to Bitcoin and many people are struggling to understand it’s purpose.  

 Saying that, in some respect its a pointless argument.  For many Bitcoin will only be a success when it’s shown the longevity of gold or stocks.  And we’ll all be dead by then!

https://medium.com/@craigiam/bitcoin-why-the-critics-are-wrong-ec27b053cde7

Aegis

RolandFlagg said:

HHarry said:

RolandFlagg said:

I find it amazing that in 2022 there are some people that still don't get it, but I suppose when electricity was invented some people complained that it was useless because we already had candles.



People don't get it until they do.....unless they never do...but their kids and grandkids will.

Ok, so what need or process is Bitcoin improving?  It doesn’t appear to be FIAT, or wealth storage, or finanicial stability for developing nations.

I totally accept your point about electricity, cars & email, but we’re a decade+ in to Bitcoin and many people are struggling to understand it’s purpose.  

 Saying that, in some respect its a pointless argument.  For many Bitcoin will only be a success when it’s shown the longevity of gold or stocks.  And we’ll all be dead by then!

https://medium.com/@craigiam/bitcoin-why-the-critics-are-wrong-ec27b053cde7

Great, an article that firstly states "nothing I say should be considered investment advice, crypto currencies are very risky investments, and you should only invest money that you would be comfortable losing" before going on to argue that bitcoin is in fact a reasonable investment and that the criticisms, i.e. the risks, are all wrong. 

Looking in turn at the criticisms that article "addresses":

• It is used by criminals and terrorists

Honestly, leading with this seems to be a genuinely poor choice.  I think you should always address the strongest points first, and this is incredibly weak.  In short, it can be immediately dismissed by saying "so what, name a fiat currency that isn't used by criminals and terrorists".  It might be used periodically as a complaint, but the real strength of the claim comes when you argue that bitcoin has no real utility as a currency except for use by criminals and terrorists, which is a vastly different claim and not one I've ever actually seen being made.

• It is not backed by a government

This point is addressed by using a weird dichotomy, asking which you would prefer, a deflationary currency or an inflationary one.  To me, this ignores the crucial aspect of the claim, namely that bitcoin isn't a currency (except in El Salvadore), it's a commodity.  A currency, on the other hand, is linked in some way to the economy of the state which uses it, meaning you can settle debts and pay taxes using that currency (strictly this is the definition for legal tender, but I can generally use Scottish Pounds to do those things even though they are not strictly speaking legal tender - in this case it's a currency with a 1:1 peg to GBP).  The underlying economy of bitcoin is nothing, therefore it is not a currency.

• It is too volatile to be a currency

See above.  In general, I like high volatility investments, but I like to know that the investments have a good underlying value or potential to generate value in future.  Buying a bitcoin now has the exact same underlying value as it will in 10 years (arguably the expectation is that the value per coin should fall slightly because more coins will be in circulation).

• It is a speculative bubble similar to Tulip Mania

This one has the utterly bizarre claim that no-one alive today was also alive in the 1600s.  This is irrelevant as to whether this is an echo of tulip mania.  Instead the author argues that this isn't the same because tulips didn't represent a transformative technology, had a local market and had an unlimited supply.  This isn't accurate, as tulips were indeed transformative at the time, in that new and interesting hybrids were being created specifically for investors, effectively guaranteeing scarcity.  The idea that a local market somehow makes the mania happen doesn't have any form of evidence, it's merely stated and then ignored.  Finally the supply issue is actually a point against the author because it shows that even with an expanding supply it is possible to have an increasing price that far exceeds the fundamentals of the asset in question.

• It has no value

To me this is the only argument needed to deem this an unsuitable investment for me.  The author argues that the following reasons give bitcoin value:

Technology

I don't in any way argue that the underlying technology of bitcoin is interesting, but it has been superseded, is extremely wasteful, and it is not owned by the owners of the coins themselves.  The author cites some examples of people scoffing at now-successful inventions, but doesn't really say why critics are wrong now.

Global currency

I can send GBP anywhere I need to, and I have a card which allows me to spend in local currency.  What this really means is that it's a "currency" which isn't linked to any specific state, which has almost no actual utility to me or the vast majority of users.

Store of value

This is predicated on the coins actually having value and holding that value against a currency.  Again, what the author likely means by this is different to what they say.  I suspect what they mean is that if you have bought in, say, 5 years ago, you would have made a lot of profit.  This isn't the same as something being a store of value, especially if that price rise is the result of a mania.  For example, many of Bernie Madoff's clients would have argued that their investments with him represented a store of value, but in reality he was just running a Ponzi scheme.

The network

The argument here seems to be that it has value because it's popular, and the corollary to that is that if it becomes unpopular we should expect price drops.

Blockchain, not bitcoin

The argument here seems to be that because you can't actually buy into the intellectual property of blockchain, the next best thing is to buy the product which makes use of this.  The issue I have with this is to compare this to, for example, Nintendo and the Switch.  If for some reason I was unable to buy Nintendo shares, then by this logic the rational move would be to buy as many Switches as possible.  I very much disagree with this view, and think it would instead make sense to accept that investment into the intellectual property wasn't possible and to enjoy the product if it was something I enjoyed.  But that doesn't make for a very good soundbite.

HHarry

Aegis said:

• It has no value

To me this is the only argument needed to deem this an unsuitable investment for me.  The author argues that the following reasons give bitcoin value:

Technology

I don't in any way argue that the underlying technology of bitcoin is interesting, but it has been superseded, is extremely wasteful, and it is not owned by the owners of the coins themselves.  The author cites some examples of people scoffing at now-successful inventions, but doesn't really say why critics are wrong now.

Blockchain, not bitcoin

The argument here seems to be that because you can't actually buy into the intellectual property of blockchain, the next best thing is to buy the product which makes use of this.  The issue I have with this is to compare this to, for example, Nintendo and the Switch.  If for some reason I was unable to buy Nintendo shares, then by this logic the rational move would be to buy as many Switches as possible.  I very much disagree with this view, and think it would instead make sense to accept that investment into the intellectual property wasn't possible and to enjoy the product if it was something I enjoyed.  But that doesn't make for a very good soundbite.

 I can see the value in a Blockchhain type technology - a multi point ledger that can’t be fudged by an organisation, government or terrorist.  Let’s hold Land Registry records on such a ledger so that a communist government can’t suddenly claim to have misplaced the records of land ownership.

But as you say owning Bitcoin doesn’t give any rights to the underlying technology.  And with technological advances in the past decade there is undoubtedly a better way of delivering a Blockchain solution anyway.

Zola.

Aegis said:

RolandFlagg said:

HHarry said:

RolandFlagg said:

I find it amazing that in 2022 there are some people that still don't get it, but I suppose when electricity was invented some people complained that it was useless because we already had candles.



People don't get it until they do.....unless they never do...but their kids and grandkids will.

Ok, so what need or process is Bitcoin improving?  It doesn’t appear to be FIAT, or wealth storage, or finanicial stability for developing nations.

I totally accept your point about electricity, cars & email, but we’re a decade+ in to Bitcoin and many people are struggling to understand it’s purpose.  

 Saying that, in some respect its a pointless argument.  For many Bitcoin will only be a success when it’s shown the longevity of gold or stocks.  And we’ll all be dead by then!

https://medium.com/@craigiam/bitcoin-why-the-critics-are-wrong-ec27b053cde7

Great, an article that firstly states "nothing I say should be considered investment advice, crypto currencies are very risky investments, and you should only invest money that you would be comfortable losing" before going on to argue that bitcoin is in fact a reasonable investment and that the criticisms, i.e. the risks, are all wrong. 

Looking in turn at the criticisms that article "addresses":

• It is used by criminals and terrorists

Honestly, leading with this seems to be a genuinely poor choice.  I think you should always address the strongest points first, and this is incredibly weak.  In short, it can be immediately dismissed by saying "so what, name a fiat currency that isn't used by criminals and terrorists".  It might be used periodically as a complaint, but the real strength of the claim comes when you argue that bitcoin has no real utility as a currency except for use by criminals and terrorists, which is a vastly different claim and not one I've ever actually seen being made.

• It is not backed by a government

This point is addressed by using a weird dichotomy, asking which you would prefer, a deflationary currency or an inflationary one.  To me, this ignores the crucial aspect of the claim, namely that bitcoin isn't a currency (except in El Salvadore), it's a commodity.  A currency, on the other hand, is linked in some way to the economy of the state which uses it, meaning you can settle debts and pay taxes using that currency (strictly this is the definition for legal tender, but I can generally use Scottish Pounds to do those things even though they are not strictly speaking legal tender - in this case it's a currency with a 1:1 peg to GBP).  The underlying economy of bitcoin is nothing, therefore it is not a currency.

• It is too volatile to be a currency

See above.  In general, I like high volatility investments, but I like to know that the investments have a good underlying value or potential to generate value in future.  Buying a bitcoin now has the exact same underlying value as it will in 10 years (arguably the expectation is that the value per coin should fall slightly because more coins will be in circulation).

• It is a speculative bubble similar to Tulip Mania

This one has the utterly bizarre claim that no-one alive today was also alive in the 1600s.  This is irrelevant as to whether this is an echo of tulip mania.  Instead the author argues that this isn't the same because tulips didn't represent a transformative technology, had a local market and had an unlimited supply.  This isn't accurate, as tulips were indeed transformative at the time, in that new and interesting hybrids were being created specifically for investors, effectively guaranteeing scarcity.  The idea that a local market somehow makes the mania happen doesn't have any form of evidence, it's merely stated and then ignored.  Finally the supply issue is actually a point against the author because it shows that even with an expanding supply it is possible to have an increasing price that far exceeds the fundamentals of the asset in question.

• It has no value

To me this is the only argument needed to deem this an unsuitable investment for me.  The author argues that the following reasons give bitcoin value:

Technology

I don't in any way argue that the underlying technology of bitcoin is interesting, but it has been superseded, is extremely wasteful, and it is not owned by the owners of the coins themselves.  The author cites some examples of people scoffing at now-successful inventions, but doesn't really say why critics are wrong now.

Global currency

I can send GBP anywhere I need to, and I have a card which allows me to spend in local currency.  What this really means is that it's a "currency" which isn't linked to any specific state, which has almost no actual utility to me or the vast majority of users.

Store of value

This is predicated on the coins actually having value and holding that value against a currency.  Again, what the author likely means by this is different to what they say.  I suspect what they mean is that if you have bought in, say, 5 years ago, you would have made a lot of profit.  This isn't the same as something being a store of value, especially if that price rise is the result of a mania.  For example, many of Bernie Madoff's clients would have argued that their investments with him represented a store of value, but in reality he was just running a Ponzi scheme.

The network

The argument here seems to be that it has value because it's popular, and the corollary to that is that if it becomes unpopular we should expect price drops.

Blockchain, not bitcoin

The argument here seems to be that because you can't actually buy into the intellectual property of blockchain, the next best thing is to buy the product which makes use of this.  The issue I have with this is to compare this to, for example, Nintendo and the Switch.  If for some reason I was unable to buy Nintendo shares, then by this logic the rational move would be to buy as many Switches as possible.  I very much disagree with this view, and think it would instead make sense to accept that investment into the intellectual property wasn't possible and to enjoy the product if it was something I enjoyed.  But that doesn't make for a very good soundbite.

Would you care to inform me which crypto asset or "technology" has superseded Bitcoin?