BITCOIN

uk1

And if it is as it seems, 10 people “like” a scammer.  Odd.  

User232002

fwor said:

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...

Do you believe that there is some rule that means that something can't be both good for the world and a good investment? Seems a terribly pessimistic place to live.

HHarry said:

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?  

 

Bitcoin is money, it is not currency. I have repeated that several times. I would suggest you take a block of gold in to your local Starbucks and try to buy a coffee and then ruminate on your experience.

HCIMbtw said:

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.

Steelmanning. When I started posting here, I felt compelled to argue that Bitcoin could scale as a currency and that it could be used via radio signals in the event of a total societal collapse like Gold could be. I now realise that both of those points are wrong as well as being irrelevant. 

We should engage in debate to find the strong and weak points of an argument, not to convince the other side. You come to a conclusion based on a dispassionate analysis of the facts.

bugbyte_2 said:

Volatility: As darren picked out deviation, the following is factually correct: Number of days bitcoin swung more than two deviations from its average:

2017  23
2018  21
2019  18
2020  10
2021  19

 As you can see, 2021's figure is 9 days more than 2020, therefore volitivity on this measure has gone up year on year. Interesting to see what 2022 will look like but I bet it is more than 23 days, probably already.

Haha. Really? In response to me saying you have no idea of statistics you come back with this data?

You realise that choosing 2 SDs is an arbitrary measure right? Can you articulate on the reason why you chose 2 rather than 1 or 3 or 1.65? Unless of course, the reason is that it helped to prove the point that you wanted to actually make. This kind of cherry picking of arbitrary boundaries on data to get a desired result is the hallmark of people that haven't actually studied statistics at any level of detail; its inbuilt bias trying to appear as if it is impartial. There are an infinite number of choices you can make as to where you set the boundary, and thus people will set it where the data looks good for them. Not to mention that much of the moves in 2021 were upward moves - I assume people aren't too worried about upward volatility....

Can you answer this next question honestly please; What is the highest level of Statistics you have studied? Because I have a hunch that my last post was right on the money and that you actually have no background here whatsoever and you just googled something to support your argument. And then I found this on Bloomberg. Absolute clownworld....

bugbyte_2 said:

Energy use: In darren's response to my concern on energy use, he never once addressed the issue, but wrote several paragraphs on how ESG investing is a scam and something about carbon offsets and airlines. The weight of words in the response gives the impression of knowledge, but actually says nothing at all.

As this is a common occurrence, can I add 'mis-direction' and 'excessive word count' to your list?

 I admit I do find the methods used to gain credence here fascinating.

I've literally spoken at length about Bitcoins energy use in the past. Perhaps you should try reading some of my long posts...

It incentivises the building out of renewable energy grids because it is sensitive to energy price and it can act as a buyer of last resort. Its renewable usage is far higher than almost all countries and large companies - and, if you had watched the video I posted, this is actual renewable usage and not simply buying carbon offsets (which don't work). Texas has a burgeoning mining industry that is symbiotic with the energy grid it operates in; increase hashrate during the day and decrease it when the energy use is needed elsewhere -  everyone in the area benefits from the development of the grid due to cheaper and more renewable energy.

Zola.

https://twitter.com/thekryptopro/status/1535176519324037121

User232002

Frequentlyhere said:

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.

Maybe to the outcome I believe in there has to be a very distinct path, but I also think there are a lot of paths that lead to something like it even if it doesn't completely nail it.

For example, if the government was to seriously look at alternatives other than debase the currency or inflict mass carnage you might suggest something like replacing the currency with another fiat currency. This has happened before in many inflationary collapses - the forint replaced the pengo. But if you do this, you probably have to explain why you are doing it to the populace and when you do that, you turn peoples minds to the currency situation. This forces them to evaluate the situation and sure, they might decide to stay on the fiat boat, but I doubt many educated and wealthy people would be sitting pretty uncomfortably at that point.

So there was a different option to the two I presented, but it ends in the same outcome. 

Frequentlyhere said:

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.

What do you think the way out is? US Govt revenue is ~$4T. Their interest repayments on the $30T of debt they have, given that we've had record low rates for a decade, represent 10% of their revenue. If you raise rates, pretty quickly you run out of money to run even the absolute basic necessities of government. You wouldn't be able to pay pensions, run a military (this is an issue due to the unemployment it would create) or pay for your state functions like Education & Health. 

Debase the currency and inflate the debt away (whilst pretending you care about it to appease the populace of course) is the only option I can see as being viable. 

Frequentlyhere said:

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.

Anytime in the next two decades. We average a crisis once every 10 years and each time the stimulus/QE/printing gets an order of magnitude higher. I don't think we survive one more to be honest.

I think the number of people that own crypto is far higher than you think. Its not a fringe group of libertarians anymore. Its penetration amongst younger people is as high as equities. As boomers die off, I think that wealth gets transferred in to crypto anyway simply due to how these generational dynamics play out. Again, even without currency collapse I think BTC does very well in the future due to this.

Frequentlyhere said:

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?

There are plenty of very legitimate exchanges out there nowadays. The days of Mt. Gox are long gone. Legislation for crypto is being put forward right now by pro-Bitcoin senators and governors in the US. Bitcoin futures have traded on the CME for 5 years now, and many countries have Bitcoin ETFs. Its already been declared legal tender in a few countries. Its tax exempt in many others. 

I think we are well on the way to achieving this.

Frequentlyhere said:

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.

The 'MySpace' argument... Bitcoin is not the first attempt at a digital currency. Digicash, Hashcash, B-Money. Creating a digital form of scarcity/money was an open academic problem in the 90s and early 00's. Bitcoin was the first that succeeded. And its special because the founder put it out there for everyone at the same time; everyone had equal access and equal information. This is going to be very important when people clamour for 'windfall' taxes of those who were lucky' enough to buy BTC early. 

Yes, already debunked; quantum computing isnt a threat. For one, quantum computers are about 5 orders of magnitude away from being at the necessary level needed to harm the network. Two, if you had one you would make way more money targeting things like Banks/Financial Services and Governments before you attack the BTC network. Three, its way easier to make algorithms harder than it is to design a process to crack them, P v NP-Complete problems, and there are already algorithms in existence that are thought to be quantum secure. The EU published a study on this in 2015 that's a good read. 

Frequentlyhere said:

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.

The standard rational argument is exactly as you say, people should probably hold 1% - 5% of their portfolio in it. Its had exponential growth, its historically been uncorrelated and its good insurance against your other hard assets losing their monetary premium. That's probably a more sedate investing thesis. 

Schiff is actually playing a blinder. Between him and his son they have all bases covered and they are probably making a good amount from engagement farming the whole situation. Keiser is an absolute plonker obviously. However, whilst Saylor went a little bit off the rails in the middle of the bull he has since come back to being a lot more rational and deliberated with his thoughts. I thought this was a pretty good interview because of the clear emphasis he is putting on the long term timeline (10 years out). Thats pretty rare amongst CEOs of large companies and I think speaks to the point I make about Bitcoiners having high time preference rather than short term thinking.

https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1537929523966070787?s=20&t=ktI83QUKEXaBtA8SjaudjA

User232002

benwhistler said:

First they try to establish credibility. This usually involves emphasising their intelligence and success. Darren claims to have a mathematical background, makes vague comments about how he was exposed to Bitcoin due to his previous work (implying some kind of sophisticated appreciation of the technology from an insider's perspective), claims to have invested in Bitcoin at an opportune time, implies he has substantial wealth, suggests he has an advanced understanding of statistics, and so on. Some of this might be true or it might all be made up (the statistics thing on the last page was particularly unconvincing given the slightly odd reference to using MATLAB for basic regression analysis) but it doesn't really matter, it's all about reeling people in with the appearance of being highly educated and successful.

On the issue of credibility - does it actually matter who I am or if what I say about my past is true? Lets imagine I am a in-patient in a mental ward with access to a Bloomberg terminal... If you can't counter the arguments I'm making with actual facts then what does that say about the strength of your argument? If a flat-earther showed up here, you wouldn't attack them as a person - you'd attack their arguments.

I was exposed to Bitcoin because I had to regularly transfer money across international borders and every time I did that I had to phone my bank because they would block the transaction and let it linger for days. My (UK) bank used to have a 24/7 phone line and I would regularly be on the phone to them in the small hours of the morning confirming my transactions. I recently made a transfer and had to phone them and spend 30 minutes on the phone assuring them that it was me placing the transaction, despite having used 5 pieces of information to sign in and use my 2FA/RSA Key to actually send it in the first place! 

I started posting on here in January 2021 and was pretty consistent that I bought my Bitcoin in April/May 2020 after the pandemic/QE began. This account is 9 years old - Do you think I'm going to come on here and lie about that when I could have just as easily told you that I bought all my Bitcoin in 2013 or earlier?

I'm fairly certain you can tell from my posts that I have clearly studied Mathematics at degree level. Thats not something you can really make up... I've yet to see someone point out that my use of Mathematics was incorrect or wrong here. Malthusian tried, but pretty quickly backed down when it was obvious that I had actually studied quantum mechanics (3rd Year Undergraduate level if you wish to know) rather than being a LARPer like him.

benwhistler said:

Of course in the real world, nobody knows what the "end state" of Bitcoin will be and the evidence that's been posted to justify these claims is lacking. For instance, he's claimed on multiple occasions that volatility in Bitcoin "is decreasing over time and will continue to do so". Yet he attempted to evidence this on the last page and actually just pasted some simple charts that fall far short of proving what he's saying. The first is just the standard deviation of daily returns which he then described by saying "it seems pretty clear that a moving average of this line would be trending down over time". That isn't sophisticated statistical analysis, it's just eyeballing a simple chart. Modelling Bitcoin's future volatility in the long-term is practically impossible and if Darren were capable of doing this he would be best served by publishing it in a leading academic journal rather than spending hours upon hours arguing with people on the MSE forum.

Jesus. Are you seriously arguing that the charts posted on the previous page dont show that Bitcoin volatility is decreasing? Is it your assertion that, were we to go and get the raw data and fit a trendline to it, that the gradient would be positive? I think you're arguing that black is white.

Look, obviously what I posted isn't 'proof' in the academic sense. But its blindingly obvious from looking at the graph that if you went and did that, thats the result you would get. I'm not going to spend hours sourcing, cleaning and then analysing the raw data to make a point on an internet forum thats abundantly clear. I don't have to run a regression line on the S&P500 to know that YTD the market has been going down; its obvious from the chart. "Modelling future volatility is practically impossible" - lol, what? 

This kind of academic circle jerking logic is exactly why I hate academia. I'm not interested in defining the 7 different types of inflation and specifying which one I'm referring to at all times when I use the term. I mean, there are plenty of PhDs at the Fed that could probably do that, but theres a reason we are in this mess in the first place....

benwhistler said:

The point in all this isn't to make robust, evidenced arguments, it's just about having the appearance of credibility and convincing people (especially inexperienced investors) that there's some time-limited opportunity to put money into Bitcoin and get once in a lifetime returns. 

So why do people act this way with Bitcoin? For some people it's because they're just trying to pump up something they're already invested in. 

I would be incredibly surprised if this thread has directly led to anything greater than $1M being put in to Bitcoin. Bitcoin trades tens of billions of $$$ every day. The idea that I'm here promoting Bitcoin to 'pump my bags' is absolutely stupid.

benwhistler said:

The point in all this isn't to make robust, evidenced arguments, it's just about having the appearance of credibility and convincing people (especially inexperienced investors) that there's some time-limited opportunity to put money into Bitcoin and get once in a lifetime returns. If you actually go through everything he's posted on here it's like an exercise in throwing spaghetti at a wall, where he appears to know not only how Bitcoin will develop but also how the entire world economy and global society will look decades from now. The reality of investing is that we don't have a clue what's going to happen next week, far less decades from now. 

Can you actually point to a single robust, evidenced argument in your previous post? All you've done is make a load of observations and allude that there must be something amiss because all of these observations are, in your view, 'weird.' That's lovely, but its not evidence. Your post is suspiciously devoid of numerical data.

benwhistler said:

Third, those who promote Bitcoin tend to relentlessly attack anyone who doubts their claims. Darren again is pretty par for the course in this - everyone who says anything remotely nuanced gets hit with a 3,000 word diatribe that it would take them all day to respond to. In no sense is this a normal way to discuss investing. I invest in a number of things including some single stocks and it would never enter my mind to come on here and argue for hours on end about my investment strategy. It's just fundamentally weird to do this unless you're explicitly trying to promote something.

Right, so there is a word count limit now is there on forums? Investing thoughts are only valid if its under, what, 288 characters? Should we all just move over to twitter?

Forums are made for long form discussion, not glib soundbites. I realise you just want to talk to newbies who have inherited money and trot out some cliche soundbites like 'past returns aren't indicative of future returns' to make yourselves feel superior and not have your view on 'intrinsic value' actually questioned or challenged. 

Grenage said:

Adyinvestment said:

Am I the only one who thinks it a little weird that a brand new poster writes such a long winded first post with every one of the paragraphs dedicated to discrediting one specific poster?

I also immediately assumed it was another member with a new account.

Imagine being conscious of credibility so much that you start an alt account just to attack someone. That's a good laugh.

Type_45

Watched a clip of Logan Paul's podcast recently (he's a young, American 'vloger' and "influencer"). 

He was talking about people he knows who have "everything" in crypto...

Zola.

A lot of people will no doubt lose their shirt if the capitulation continues and they need that cash in the immediate future. More fool them for going all in. 

bugbyte_2

darren232002 said:

bugbyte_2 said:

Volatility: As darren picked out deviation, the following is factually correct: Number of days bitcoin swung more than two deviations from its average:

2017  23
2018  21
2019  18
2020  10
2021  19

 As you can see, 2021's figure is 9 days more than 2020, therefore volitivity on this measure has gone up year on year. Interesting to see what 2022 will look like but I bet it is more than 23 days, probably already.

Haha. Really? In response to me saying you have no idea of statistics you come back with this data?

You realise that choosing 2 SDs is an arbitrary measure right? Can you articulate on the reason why you chose 2 rather than 1 or 3 or 1.65? Unless of course, the reason is that it helped to prove the point that you wanted to actually make. This kind of cherry picking of arbitrary boundaries on data to get a desired result is the hallmark of people that haven't actually studied statistics at any level of detail; its inbuilt bias trying to appear as if it is impartial. There are an infinite number of choices you can make as to where you set the boundary, and thus people will set it where the data looks good for them. Not to mention that much of the moves in 2021 were upward moves - I assume people aren't too worried about upward volatility....

Can you answer this next question honestly please; What is the highest level of Statistics you have studied? Because I have a hunch that my last post was right on the money and that you actually have no background here whatsoever and you just googled something to support your argument. And then I found this on Bloomberg. Absolute clownworld....

And with those three paragraphs you prove everything the new poster wrote. You do realise your stats were cherry picked as well? Of course you do. Strange how you don't address any other measure of volatility, but I guess we know why. Energy use? What about the 70% that is not claimed to be from renewables? I guess 70% is not a big percentage in BTC world.

As regards my background, it is completely irrelevant, but I do have a Masters in Autism Spectrum Condition so I can spot single issue obsession a mile off.

Type_45

The thing I never understood was the NFTs. People paying money for pixelated animal pictures etc.

One guy on the Logan Paul podcast I mentioned above admitted he paid more than $700,000 for such a thing "at the top of the market".

Grenage

Type_45 said:

The thing I never understood was the NFTs. People paying money for pixelated animal pictures etc.

One guy on the Logan Paul podcast I mentioned above admitted he paid more than $700,000 for such a thing "at the top of the market".

FOMO and the abandonment of reason.