BITCOIN

bugbyte_2

uk1 said:

Thanks bugbyte_2,

I’m also not on the BTC wagon simply because I’m fortunate not to believe that I need  more in the future than I currently have and I’m even more fortunate to know/believe this and also as a person that does not cope easily with loss -  and not needing to risk  - I avoid it.  I’m in the extreme minority situation of having had my liquidity all in cash and has been for a very long time and the loss against what I might have made is of absolutely no concern to me. 

I know that Darren needs no advocate in me but my contra view is that his standpoint is from a apparently narrow minority view of having what he feels is a cogent fact based reasoning of his position from what has seemed to me from rather aggressive opposition.  Some of the opposition seems rather needlessly nasty to be honest.  It is much easier to be short and pithy and relatively content-free than it is to methodically put forward detailed rebuttal.  He has a very wide contextual view that I find interesting and provocative even if I do not necessarily agree with every conclusion. 

Much of the rebuttal of his rebuttals do seem a content free to me but then what do I know?!  

I think - and you seem to be in the same spirit - that it is possible to disagree and be respectful but it seems not everyone agrees. 

Jeff

Fair points but when every point is rebutted regardless of the strength of the argument it stops being a conversation and descends into a win at all costs. At this point any valid points that are made are lost in a need to attempt to counter every single comment made. As an outsider who does not have a horse in this race but could be convinced, this along with a condescending attitude just drives people the other way.

Some time ago Darren asked what would be needed to be proven wrong, so I replied quite honestly with the hurdles that would need to be overcome for me to find BTC acceptable. What came back was an essay on why my opinion was nil and void which is interesting because if he really did know his stuff he would come back with an understanding of why there are issues and what is being done (if anything) to counteract them. Just look at the systematic dissection of FrequentlyHere's post above - no recognition at all, just complete denial. Take for example:

Frequentlyhere said:

It's not becoming less volatile, it's becoming more.

Again, this is your perception. It is however factually incorrect. Volatility is math, it doesn't care what your perception is.


So am I to believe that standard deviation, beta, et al would show that BTC is stable, and its just my perception it drops and rises by 10's of percent? Note Darren introduced the word 'perception' - not FH - then used it as a negative towards him. This happens a lot.

I am sure the same happens from the other side - Bro's could claim the same thing, hence why this discussion often falls into insults. 

bugbyte_2

In other news BTC is clearly bouncing on top of the $20K psychological floor. If it dips below this it could herald more carnage. 

User232002

bugbyte_2 said:

Some time ago Darren asked what would be needed to be proven wrong, so I replied quite honestly with the hurdles that would need to be overcome for me to find BTC acceptable. What came back was an essay on why my opinion was nil and void which is interesting because if he really did know his stuff he would come back with an understanding of why there are issues and what is being done (if anything) to counteract them. 

Is this the time when you said you would consider Bitcoin a success if you could pay for coffee with it? The general point I made in rebuttal was that this isn't something I want to happen, nor consider likely. Its preposterous to say that you'll consider your son/daughter a success when they appear on Broadway if they have no interest in musical theatre...

Take a block of Gold in to your local Starbucks and see if they will sell you a coffee for it.

bugbyte_2 said:

Frequentlyhere said:

It's not becoming less volatile, it's becoming more.

Again, this is your perception. It is however factually incorrect. Volatility is math, it doesn't care what your perception is.


So am I to believe that standard deviation, beta, et al would show that BTC is stable, and its just my perception it drops and rises by 10's of percent? Note Darren introduced the word 'perception' - not FH - then used it as a negative towards him. This happens a lot.

Of all the things to pick in the previous post, this really isn't the one you should have picked. Do you understand what SD is or have you just heard of the concept? Do you have any experience in building probabilistic models or using regression analysis in things like MATLAB? Any experience in using different probability distributions other than the normal distribution? Have you at least done a basic GCSE or A Level SD calculation from a raw data set and understood where the calculations are coming from, ie. Could you explain why we square the distance from the mean (without looking it up)?

Standard deviation is a calculation and calculations are impartial. You can argue all you want that 2 + 2 = 5, but this doesn't make you correct. I also need to emphasise that the original argument was that Bitcoin volatility was decreasing over time, not that Bitcoin was stable. Here is a chart of Bitcoin volatility over time;



How would you describe the progression of the black line? It seems pretty clear that a moving average of this line would be trending down over time. Your perception is based on your emotions and beliefs, but volatility is a mathematical quantity. Whether you think, feel or have an opinion about it is irrelevant if the number can be patently shown to be decreasing.

Here is option IV and 30 day vol (Gold vol included for context before anyone misunderstands why the line looks like it does)






Do any of these graphs look like they are trending up to you? Not to mention the original assertion was that the current volatility is higher than it has been in the past, yet you can see that the current volatility is some way below historical volatility peaks.

Just for laughs, I left in the Bitcoin price on a couple of the graphs so we can all see how it has been 'crashing' so hard recently...

bugbyte_2 said:

Regarding Darren, I appreciate the effort he puts into his posts and applaud him on his great timing - buying most of his holding at the exact bottom and avoiding buying anywhere near its peak all without a mechanism for discerning fair value - almost unbelievable but I guess law of averages someone must have done it! 

I have never said I bought the bottom and I've been pretty consistent since I started posting here on exactly when I acquired the majority of my position. I also bought BTC at $250 in 2014 and then promptly sold it for basically zero profit. I use these because I think the covid bottoms of both markets provide a good reference point for analysis. 

bugbyte_2 said:

The problem I have with darren's arguments is (s)he makes no compensation for any view other than BTC is going to the glorious uplands, and however sensible a counter argument is made or how uncontroversial that argument is darren still argues against, usually with 'I have posted this 100 times so it must be true and you are an idiot' type statement thrown in. There is no middle ground. 

I'm at a level in my life where I'm not going to tolerate poor thinking or be polite about it. You've literally just attempted to argue that a calculation gives a conclusion completely opposite to the one it actually does. This isn't a 'sensible counter argument' or a valid viewpoint. Its just completely incorrect.

bugbyte_2 said:

Against that backdrop it is quite tempting to just take the micky with some of the more absurd claims such as 'BTC is green, as all energy is made from an Argentina sized chicken poo farm that you cant see on Google Maps because it is top secret' (paraphrasing. See, even if I am trying to write a sensible post it is impossible to because of the absurdity) - BTC has horrendous energy implications, why can't you just own it? 

ESG investors like to believe they are doing the right thing based on a simplistic narrow view of the situation; unfortunately it is rarely correct. Although it feels good, it isn't an actual solution. You might wish to watch these two videos;

https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY

https://youtu.be/euhnX5iprSg 

TL;DR: Carbon offsets/credits are based on faulty accounting. They allow companies to pretend to be good for the environment because they purchase offsets rather than reduce emissions (Airlines at 100% 'renewable energy' lolz). Estimates and co-benefits predicted by carbon reduction programmes don't happen in reality. Ethical investing is bad investing. Its undiversified compared to an index. Game theory means that ulterior motives, however noble, in markets where making money is the primary motivation will put you at a disadvantage.

This kind of flawed thinking is what I see everywhere amongst ESG investors. Its why they hate BTC so much because 'emissions are bad,' without actually looking at how renewable energy is financed and utilised.

bugbyte_2 said:

And his posts are too long.

The exposition of nuance and technical knowledge takes time.

Zola.

Things I admire most in our Darren

- He is a Bitcoiner
- He has relentless energy and patience to answer in detail the same FUD that comes up ad nauseam 

fwor

darren232002 said:

The exposition of nuance and technical knowledge takes time.

And, as you can see, he is also a master of condescension.

Surely Darren232002 blew any credibility that he might have had here by writing this:

darren232002 said:

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

Yes, of course - we all know that the spectacular rise in the price of Bitcoin was nothing to do with people wanting to get rich quick...

HHarry

15th June - “But they also aren't trying to be money either, that category has been won and Bitcoin is the winner.”

17th June - “ Is this the time when you said you would consider Bitcoin a success if you could pay for coffee with it? The general point I made in rebuttal was that this isn't something I want to happen, nor consider likely”

So Bitcoin is the best of the crypto’s at being money, but it isn’t currently and probably won’t be?  

 

HCIMbtw

fwor said:

darren232002 said:

The exposition of nuance and technical knowledge takes time.

And, as you can see, he is also a master of condescension.

Surely Darren232002 blew any credibility that he might have had here by writing this:

darren232002 said:

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

Yes, of course - we all know that the spectacular rise in the price of Bitcoin was nothing to do with people wanting to get rich quick...

I think Darren's contributions are excellent for what its worth, super detailed, considered and backed up. Here is a clearly very educated and intelligent bloke engaging you on every point you make. Incredible, what a fantastic free source of thought provoking knowledge and engagement. 

He also has absolute conviction in his theory. 

So a few people might have their feelings hurt when they try debate with them, and he might make them feel like idiots or be condescending. I think that is the more reason to put real thought and consideration to arguments you make. 

I think the debate is excellent. 

And just to emphasise a point It is ok to be wrong.  To not learn from it is a bit of missed opportunity though.

fwor

I'm sorry to have to disagree, but most of Darren's input is based on the principle of throwing out a mass of information, much of it capable of interpretation in many other ways than the one that suits his narrative, but safe in the knowledge that most people have better things to do with their lives than try to deal with it point by point.

It has now become relatively common to "win" an argument on a forum simply by overwhelming the other side with quantity.

Frequentlyhere

Finally found time to reply. I've rewritten this several times as there's much food for thought, I genuinely mean that, thanks Darren. Responding to each point became too unwieldy to be honest though, so I've cut it down to the bits I'm particularly interested in. 

I suppose the thing that strikes me most is that whilst individually some of the strands of thinking about the hows and whys of BTC becoming a powerful de facto global reserve currency are intriguing and even plausible, what we're left with in the end is almost akin to one of those lines of dominos that fall one onto another to reach a grand conclusion.

 Except instead of a neat pre-prepared line, we just have a big bag of dominos that we're going to toss up into the air, watch them land at random on the floor, and then we hope that they land just so. So that we can push one over and this chain of events gets set off.

Firstly there's the small matter of the current global monetary system collapsing under the weight of its own debt as opposed to anyone finding anything at all that can be done about it and/or the problems that causes within the current parameters available.

To be of use to you or us personally that would also have to happen pretty soon too in global event terms, and as you've acknowledged you've no idea whether it'll be this time or next time (or the time after?).

Then the appeal of bitcoin would have to expand from the hardcore group dramatically: " As people lose faith in central banks, they will turn to something else to have faith in". Well, some people clearly have faith in it, but many others have sold out and the vast majority haven't bought any at all. Most probably couldn't work out how.

One of the biggest issues is that your view of the pristinity of bitcoin is being continually sullied by so many of those who would otherwise have the power to make it more influential. For as long as it remains unregulated, crooks are drawn likes moths to a flame to take advantage of people. The scams are daily, and even if you achieve the goal of separating bitcoin and the rest of crypto in people's minds you still have to somehow separate bitcoin from being held on shady/rug pulled exchanges, or being traded with unstable stablecoins. How is this a breeding ground for faith to be built?

Then there's everything else, the randomness of life. Something better may come along. Perhaps something that delivers your vision almost entirely but just tweaks a few technical problems of bitcoin and for whatever reasons gains popularity, you'd win the argument but have lost almost everything still.  Or the old chestnut which I'm sure you've addressed before here of quantam computing breaking bitcoin? More boringly, the ongoing yet still largely forthcoming regulation of the whole scene could  leave Bitcoin hobbled into a commercial sidetrack or supplanted by a stablecoin that remains unsullied in the public's mind somehow.

Whilst I'm sure you're quite capable of parrying any and each of these points with alternative scenarios individually, it does seem rather a pitch perfect set of circumstances that are required for Bitcoin to end up where you need it to. There are an awful lot of probabilistic elements going on, and that's just the known known elements. To me, you've made a reasonable shout as to why one might hold 1 BTC (or even 2, heck they're on sale!), but it's a bit of push to go putting huge parts of your net wealth in it IMHO.

Again, sorry I haven't addressed each and every point. I will say though, I'll do you a deal. If you don't bring Schiff into this then I won't quote Saylor and Keiser when they're making their cult statements. Frankly, I don't even know much about him, but I think Schiff anyway seems to be only playing on the side of "pay attention to me!" every time i see his nonsense tweets.

Frequentlyhere

Re: this whole thread, I'm relatively late to it, but from the tone of recent pages I'd say it's a shining light of decency and pleasant discussion compared to any other Bitcoin discussion I've read recently.  Yes, there's some childishness, brigading, arrogance and nonsense, but hey - welcome to the internet!