BITCOIN

Moose1960

And there's the $100k.

RichTips

I wonder if the buzz this news generates will encourage the detractors here to reconsider their opinions or just entrench themselves further in the position that Bitcoin is just "useless numbers". How big does it need to get, or rather, how much do fiat currencies need to devalue before a programatically secure, finite and non-sovereign exchange asset starts to have merit?

Scottex99

100k tulips haha.

Was just a matter of time, will be interesting how it does H1 next year.

Looks like this pump was linked to new SEC boss being pro-crypto, a new dawn for US crypto firms perhaps...

Congrats to those with bags

RichTips

Scottex99 said:

100k tulips haha.

Was just a matter of time, will be interesting how it does H1 next year.

Looks like this pump was linked to new SEC boss being pro-crypto, a new dawn for US crypto firms perhaps...

Congrats to those with bags

Jerome Powell (the Chair of the Federal Reserve) suggesting Bitcoin is a competitor to gold (and not USD) yesterday also seems to have been optimisitcally interpreted as having granted it greater legitimacy. Here's the quote:
"People use bitcoin as a speculative asset. It's like gold, it's just like gold — only it's digital. People are not using it as a form of payment or a store of value," he said. "It's highly volatile. It's not a competitor for the dollar; it's really a competitor for gold. That's really how I think about it" (Powell, Jerome. New York Times DealBook Summit. 04/12/2024).

MeteredOut

RichTips said:

I wonder if the buzz this news generates will encourage the detractors here to reconsider their opinions or just entrench themselves further in the position that Bitcoin is just "useless numbers". How big does it need to get, or rather, how much do fiat currencies need to devalue before a programatically secure, finite and non-sovereign exchange asset starts to have merit?

Why should something passing what is purely a psychologic level change anyones opinion about something? The underlying thing has not changed.

Likewise, its size does not alter its utility. It either has merit or it does not.

MeteredOut

RichTips said:

Scottex99 said:

100k tulips haha.

Was just a matter of time, will be interesting how it does H1 next year.

Looks like this pump was linked to new SEC boss being pro-crypto, a new dawn for US crypto firms perhaps...

Congrats to those with bags

Jerome Powell (the Chair of the Federal Reserve) suggesting Bitcoin is a competitor to gold (and not USD) yesterday also seems to have been optimisitcally interpreted as having granted it greater legitimacy. Here's the quote:
"People use bitcoin as a speculative asset. It's like gold, it's just like gold — only it's digital. People are not using it as a form of payment or a store of value," he said. "It's highly volatile. It's not a competitor for the dollar; it's really a competitor for gold. That's really how I think about it" (Powell, Jerome. New York Times DealBook Summit. 04/12/2024).

That's not a new opinion. It has been discussed on this thread previously. 

BTC is significantly more volatile that Gold, however.

RichTips

MeteredOut said:

RichTips said:

Scottex99 said:

100k tulips haha.

Was just a matter of time, will be interesting how it does H1 next year.

Looks like this pump was linked to new SEC boss being pro-crypto, a new dawn for US crypto firms perhaps...

Congrats to those with bags

Jerome Powell (the Chair of the Federal Reserve) suggesting Bitcoin is a competitor to gold (and not USD) yesterday also seems to have been optimisitcally interpreted as having granted it greater legitimacy. Here's the quote:
"People use bitcoin as a speculative asset. It's like gold, it's just like gold — only it's digital. People are not using it as a form of payment or a store of value," he said. "It's highly volatile. It's not a competitor for the dollar; it's really a competitor for gold. That's really how I think about it" (Powell, Jerome. New York Times DealBook Summit. 04/12/2024).

That's not a new opinion. It has been discussed on this thread previously. 

BTC is significantly more volatile that Gold, however.

I didn't state it was a new opinion. It's an existing opinion stated yesterday by the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell. Rings a little different than when floated by, say, the bloke down the pub with grease stains on his creased shirt and a distinct smell of petrol on his breath.

RichTips

MeteredOut said:

RichTips said:

I wonder if the buzz this news generates will encourage the detractors here to reconsider their opinions or just entrench themselves further in the position that Bitcoin is just "useless numbers". How big does it need to get, or rather, how much do fiat currencies need to devalue before a programatically secure, finite and non-sovereign exchange asset starts to have merit?

Why should something passing what is purely a psychologic level change anyones opinion about something? The underlying thing has not changed.

Likewise, its size does not alter its utility. It either has merit or it does not.

I didn't state something passing a psychologic(al) level should change anyone('s) opinion about something. I referred to the buzz generated by it, as it will undoubtedly receive reportage in mainstream media and it's this that I pose could prompt a reconsideration. Can you please save me having to correct each of your misinterpretations in individual posts, by the way. Collect your misreadings of mine in one, or maybe just consider the words more carefully so you don't misread them.

User232002

One hundred thousand united states fiat ponzi dollars for one scarce, backed by consensus and energy, Bitcoin. The best thing isn't the money, its being right.

MeteredOut said:

Why should something passing what is purely a psychologic level change anyones opinion about something? The underlying thing has not changed.

I mean, if you've been this incorrect, for this long, why change now right?

MeteredOut said:

Likewise, its size does not alter its utility. It either has merit or it does not.

Wildly incorrect

MeteredOut said:

That's not a new opinion. It has been discussed on this thread previously. 

Yes. But its a bit different when it comes from the chair of the Federal Reserve. The election was won by crypto PACs, the incoming US president was the keynote speaker at the last Bitcoin conference and there is currently a piece of legislation on the table in the US that would mandate the US to sell its gold reserves and buy Bitcoin with the proceeds. 

Victory has been so swift and so total that even I would not have believed this.

RichTips

A brief article in the FT today that seems very reflective of the current discourse in this thread: https://www.ft.com/content/8533f856-57f1-4765-a3dc-d866543092be

Please note that I am aware of an important and telling line regarding the opinion of the writers:
"We stand by every single one of those [sceptical] posts." They have been and remain sceptical of Bitcoin and are still convinced it is a negative-sum game.

The actual image that accompanies it:

I appreciate that they do at least have a sense of humor.