BITCOIN

aaj123

Scottex99 said:

DannyCarey said:

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/06/macos-includes-bitcoin-whitepaper/

For all mac users out there. ... 😁
I tried this on my machine and sure enough the whitepaper popped up. 

It’s cool that this took so long to get traction and get noticed.

Also saw a funny post about BSVers being in disbelief that Craig Wright wasn’t mentioned anywhere.

Oh, and $30k today, not bad

Notably, 30k is the price that last prevailed before scams and bankruptcies hit the crypto ecosystem, starting with the luna collapse. But ofcourse Bitcoin as an asset is far stronger and anti fragile compared to the ecosystem. But...few understand!

Qyburn

Scottex99 said:

Oh, and $30k today, not bad

Around 50% loss from a year ago? Not bad?

Scottex99

And 2x from the low this year, or 10x from Covid low? Not bad

Qyburn

That's great for people who bought during this year's low (yourself?). Not so good for people already holding the coin and suffering the loss. But I guess without those, there's nothing to fund your gain.

Malthusian

GDB2222 said:

I have some shares in Shell. They have done quite well, and if someone asked me about them I might give some information. If someone said they are a good or bad investment, I’d be moderately interested. I might comment, but probably not.  In short, I’m pretty laid back about Shell. 

Making a profit from Shell doesn't rely solely on convincing other people to invest in Shell.
And people investing in Shell aren't entirely relying on it to move them from the precariat to generational wealth within their working lifetime.

In contrast, this thread about BTC just goes on and on. Why? What can possibly need saying still, after 283 pages of comments?

People are still debating whether a guy came back to life and became Superman 2,000 years after the fact. For similar reasons (replace generational wealth with not having to die).

aaj123

Malthusian said:

Making a profit from Shell doesn't rely solely on convincing other people to invest in Shell.

And people investing in Shell aren't entirely relying on it to move them from the precariat to generational wealth within their working lifetime.

Really? What does making a profit from Shell depend on then? Dividends you say? But on the Ethereum thread, when it was pointed out that ETH too gets yield, then somehow the excuse shifted to stuff about asset needing to be productive and being able to give a reason that excludes both price and yield. Can we make up our mind or w just want to oppose for the sake of it?

And what does your second statement have to do with assessing an investment? Maybe Bitcoin is just seen as having much more upside than Shell. We already acknowledged that once it reaches maturity adoption, we no longer expect it to keep growing exponentially but rather to keep pace with fiat supply.

DannyCarey

Qyburn said:

That's great for people who bought during this year's low (yourself?). Not so good for people already holding the coin and suffering the loss. But I guess without those, there's nothing to fund your gain.

Here's a fun fact for you to think about, if you started to buy a mere £1 of bitcoin every single day since the absolute top, you would be in profit today.

Its interesting that you choose to focus so heavily on the cycle top, rather than zoom out at the bigger picture... 

no doubt you will be back again talking about the next all time high which has seen a drop 

Frequentlyhere

aaj123 said:

As a shareholder,  you don't get supplied tankers of fuel to your home. You as a shareholder can only profit from dividends or price increase. Your 'added value' is just play of language. On what basis do you say something 'adds value' while other things even if they do are 'shuffle of poker chips'? I could just as well say exchange of fiat paper for fossil fuel is exchanging two poker chips. 

I've found a good page here to explain this in detail: (from a site that claims and seems to actually be agnostic about crypto)

snippet: "Productive assets have a huge advantage over unproductive assets: it throws off cash. As long as society doesn’t crumble and go under, productivity gains will make owning productive assets more valuable as time goes by."

That doesn't apply to things like Bitcoin and gold, where your returns are purely dependent on whether someone else will pay more than you later.

Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility of making decent or even spectacular profits, but then you're usually at the whim of picking decent time periods. Whilst it's easy to say Gold keeps up with inflation in the long long term, it's dips and troughs, like Bitcoin, are pretty horrendous.

So maybe Bitcoin will do as well as Gold, but we're only going on 14 years of data here vs thousands of years for Gold, and for much of that time we've been pretending that Bitcoin is just about to burst out of its shell and be used as day-to-day currency. So I think there's some pretty big risks here about that assumption.

Meanwhile, why bother substantively with either when other investments are actually productive and will almost certainly work in any given medium-long term period?  The only reason I can see (why i invest a bit in gold) is that it can boost portfolio returns at weird times. That might be true for Bitcoin too, but I'm still pretty wary about various aspects.

aaj123

According to you, are shares in startups or non blue chips productive assets or not? Many of these do not have cashflows and expectation of them generating cashflows in future are also a kind of speculation.

In what sense do these qualify as investments for you given you cannot claim they will 'certainly work in any medium or long term'?

adindas

Oh Bitcoin haters. Learn the lesson .....There are bitcoin, there is also shitcoin.

Do not just listen to random people on the internet, just because they are vocal and get cheering up by the same group of people. DYOR and make your own decision ...