BITCOIN

User232002

Qyburn said:

That's a completely different story

Please articulate explicitly what about the extract above and the abridged version I originally posted (from memory) make these stories 'completely different.'

Qyburn said:

set a few years earlier than your previous.

On what grounds do you believe October to December of 1918 is substantially different to 'early 1920s'? When you answer this, bear in mind the fact that you immediately jumped to something that happened in 1925 in your response...

Qyburn said:

Although you say it has nothing to do with it, the Krone to Schilling transition clearly contradicts your punchline "nobody will accept the Krone anymore". 

1. Why do you think the war loan had to be converted to shares, as mentioned in the extract above? It was because nobody was willing to trade a foreign currency for it anymore but Austrian shares have to be denominated in Austrian currency.

2. Do you think a state changing its failed currency in to a new one qualifies as somebody 'accepting the currency'?

Qyburn said:

Your extracts above don't actually come from the book. The differences are great enough that I don't think it's just a different translator. 

What on earth are you on about? When Money Dies, Chapter 3. Its trivially easy to confirm that the extracts above do, indeed, come from the book. A quick google search will pull up a full copy of the book, (hint: Penn) but I won't post it for copyright reasons.

I'm still waiting for that apology.... You said the story was made up and that you doubted there was any evidence for it.

Qyburn

darren232002 said:

Qyburn said:

That's a completely different story

Please articulate explicitly what about the extract above and the abridged version I originally posted (from memory) make these stories 'completely different.'

(1) Early 1920s becomes 1918
(2) First story "The bank manager informs her that she can trade her Austrian Krone in for gold, pounds or dollars". Second version "her bank manager advised her earnestly to convert all her money into Swiss francs"
(3) First story "She returns some time later and asks to proceed with the trade." No such reference in the second version."

I don't think any more is needed.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by the book, I was referring to the source cited, "Blockade".  If you read that you will understand the context.

Qyburn

darren232002 said:

2. Do you think a state changing its failed currency in to a new one qualifies as somebody 'accepting the currency'?

Of course it does. They accepted Krone in exchange for Schillings.

User232002

Qyburn said:

(1) Early 1920s becomes 1918

Again, why do you think 13 - 15 months affects this? You were very keen to jump to 1925 in your response...

Qyburn said:

(2) First story "The bank manager informs her that she can trade her Austrian Krone in for gold, pounds or dollars". Second version "her bank manager advised her earnestly to convert all her money into Swiss francs"

Really? You think GBP/USD/Gold is different to CHF in this context?

The rest of the chapter contains references to GBP, USD, Cigars, Potatoes & Piano's btw being used as money.

Qyburn said:

(3) First story "She returns some time later and asks to proceed with the trade." No such reference in the second version."

Do you think it matters whether she realised and then returned to the bank, or realised whilst in the bank when her bank manager laughed at her and told her the Krone was going to zero?

Qyburn said:

I don't think any more is needed.

I posted the original story from memory from a book I read 3 years ago. None of these very minor differences detract from the point of the story and I think anyone reading this exchange will know this. By 'I don't think any more is needed,' you mean "I have no more to give."

Qyburn said:

I think you misunderstand what I mean by the book, I was referring to the source cited, "Blockade".  If you read that you will understand the context.

That's lovely. However, also completely irrelevant.

I said that there was a story in 'When Money Dies,' and you said I had made it up and that it didn't exist. Now you are changing the goalposts about another book.

Had you originally posted that the story wasn't an accurate translation of some original source material, that might be at least in some way defensible. However, you flat out said the story I posted was 'made up,' which has been shown to be complete nonsense. I'd like an apology please.

The relevant extracts in the source book are October 26th, 1918 and December 15th 1918. I have no idea how someone can read the full extracts and think the abridged version is in any way a misrepresentation of what happen. Given that this book was published in the early 1930's, reading complete versions free of charge on Google is trivially easy since the copyright has likely expired in many jurisdictions. Others can go and see for themselves...

Qyburn said:

darren232002 said:

2. Do you think a state changing its failed currency in to a new one qualifies as somebody 'accepting the currency'?

Of course it does. They accepted Krone in exchange for Schillings.

The only reason I asked this is because I wanted you to admit it. Its a pretty indefensible position, but now others can see what you believe to be true and value your contributions accordingly.

IvanOpinion

Now now children, learn to play nicely.

Qyburn

IvanOpinion said:

Now now children, learn to play nicely.

Fair enough. I think the point has been made and anyone who's bothered can quickly research for themselves. Hopefully someone will realise that misquoting a tertiary source "from memory" is a poor way to try to make a point.

Malthusian

I found it very illuminating. In one version of the story Frau Miggens walks into her bank to find that all her fiat currency has been rugpulled ("nobody will accept the Krone anymore"). In the real story she walks into her bank to find that nobody will accept her fiat currency... except to give her a different fiat currency that has a different name and fewer zeroes, which she can then exchange for goods and services as before. 

And also her currency lost 75% of its value against the Swiss franc. No duh, it was Austria in the 1920s. What she could have done to avoid that loss is put that money in gold or industrial shares in the first place, as she belatedly did after the second meeting. (Wouldn't be a great solution in today's era, but in early 20th century Austria you probably had to take what real assets you could get. Bear in mind that her own bank manager advised her to break the law by buying Swiss francs.) What's not clear is why it would have been a better idea for her to find some bros solving mathematical puzzles on an abacus and buy their receipts for the solved puzzles, as per the premise of this thread.

silvercue

Aegis said:

silvercue said:

2024 is gearing up to be a great year for crypto.  FED Dovish, interest rate drops expected, halving, Spot ETFs

Bitcoin up 150% already this year and only just starting to gear up.  My biggest bag, ADA, is up 150% in last 3 months.

On top of the ludicrous APRs I am getting yield farming.   Looking good.

My stock portfolio is up 49% YTD, but dwarfed by my Crypto gains.

Funny to see the crypto bashers still spend all of their time in a thread for a product they are not interested in investing in!   

Someone who bought a winning lottery ticket would be showing gains that dwarf your crypto gains. Doesn't make it a good investment, just means that they got lucky. And in fact, it's a very similar concept, in that both are zero sum games at best, so any gains that one person sees must eventually be offset by losses incurred by someone else (or multiple someone elses).

What a ridiculous analogy.  Winning the lottery is millions to one.  99.99999% or players are losers.  

BTC outperforms gold, SPX, NASDAQ regularly.  It has massively outperformed them over the last 5 years, 10 years....

silvercue

Funny how the Trolls who have no interest in investing in Bitcoin STILL spend more time in the thread than any other.

User232002

Qyburn said:

Fair enough. I think the point has been made and anyone who's bothered can quickly research for themselves. Hopefully someone will realise that misquoting a tertiary source "from memory" is a poor way to try to make a point.

Misquoting was not the not the original criticism. You said it was made up. It isn't.

Malthusian said:

I found it very illuminating. In one version of the story Frau Miggens walks into her bank to find that all her fiat currency has been rugpulled ("nobody will accept the Krone anymore"). In the real story she walks into her bank to find that nobody will accept her fiat currency... except to give her a different fiat currency that has a different name and fewer zeroes, which she can then exchange for goods and services as before. 

Let me break this down for you. There were 6 years between your two sentences.

In 1918, nobody would take her fiat currency anymore.
In 1925, a failed state replaced its made up currency with another made up currency, although by that point it could only buy a fraction of a percent of the goods and services it originally bought in 1918.

Malthusian said:

What's not clear is why it would have been a better idea for her to find some bros solving mathematical puzzles on an abacus and buy their receipts for the solved puzzles, as per the premise of this thread.

The Krone was to CHF / GBP / USD in 1920 what fiat currencies will be to Bitcoin this decade. The truth is that Bitcoin isn't going up, your fiat currency is going down.

----------

I came across a couple of lectures given by John Nash a few months ago on the idea of asymptotically ideal money. Has a lot of the ideas relevant to Bitcoin, including money being a technology, Gold being an approximate solution but not an ideal one and how systems of monies might compete. Would recommend reading to anyone interested, particularly given his background.