BITCOIN

RichTips

MeteredOut said:

RichTips said:

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.

Why would additional reporting prompt a reconsideration, just because that reporting is on the back of BTC passing a psychological threshold? There's absolutely no logic in that. I'd certainly not trust the opinion of someone that changes their thinking so readily, just on the back of some media noise (which generally exists to increase clicks/eyeballs, not educate).

Maybe I should have just responded "No, I don't think the buzz this news generates will encourage the detractors here to reconsider their opinions"

But, the fact that you call BTC passing $100K as "news" is telling.

(I think you should collect your misspellings)

The fact that I call BTC passing $100K "news" is telling? Eh? How's that? You serious? What event that has sparked articles from all major and innumerable minor news outlets doesn't objectively qualify as news?

Please dm me my misspellings. I do actually like to learn and will take them on board and try not to repeat them.

Moose1960

Never mind gents, it's already back down to $99k. Dropping like a stone. Plummeting I tells ya. Time for us hodlers to hodl our hands up and admit that we were wrong.

Scottex99

Cus said:

I don't get the significance of the $100k sorry.  Bitcoin is one of an asset class that is 2/3rds the market cap of Apple, but no one I recall made a big deal about that share price going above a $ number.
To me it appears as a speculative asset that has made significant paper profit  compared to some devaluing fiat currency, but I don't see anything more in it than just fiat currency profiting from a zero sum game. I must be too old

Edit: @Pearce7630 has visited MSE once, created this one thread with it's only message, that now has 343 pages.. mysterious 

I hope he comes back one day and reads through the 5000 responses to help facilitate his decision haha. BTC was ~$18k when he asked the question.

It's just an arbitrary round number, it was supposedly never going to $1k, $10k or $100k. The next one will be $1m.

It's speculative for sure and very volatile.

I don't think it's zero sum though, you could argue that about a lot of assets, minus companies creating "value" in their products or gold being nice and shiny.

With major players and large liquidity, plus nation states potentially getting involved, it's not like i'm waiting for John from Wigan to finally buy some so that I can dump on him 

thegentleway

Scottex99 said:

Cus said:

I don't get the significance of the $100k sorry.  Bitcoin is one of an asset class that is 2/3rds the market cap of Apple, but no one I recall made a big deal about that share price going above a $ number.
To me it appears as a speculative asset that has made significant paper profit  compared to some devaluing fiat currency, but I don't see anything more in it than just fiat currency profiting from a zero sum game. I must be too old

Edit: @Pearce7630 has visited MSE once, created this one thread with it's only message, that now has 343 pages.. mysterious 

I don't think it's zero sum though, you could argue that about a lot of assets, minus companies creating "value" in their products or gold being nice and shiny.

This is incorrect. Let's make it as simple as possible:
A stock with one share, I own the share, I receive dividends and therefore "win". I don't need anybody "lose" to make money. Obviously not zero sum.
Now imagine there is only one bitcoin. You own it. The only way you can make money is to sell it to someone else. You "win", they "lose". Obviously zero sum.

Zero sum doesn't make it bad. Poker and chess are zero sum games and they are great. So are futures contracts and options. Plenty of financial instruments are zero sum. Nothing wrong in principle with being zero sum. It's just silly/misguided to claim BTC is anything but zero sum. The supply is fixed and it doesn't produce anything. It's zero sum by definition. There's one cake, if you have a bigger slice then I have less cake.

Scottex99

I get that, and I play a lot of poker. Is it still zero some sum if the platform/casino rakes the cash pots/tournament buy ins and makes profits, pays staff, even pays a dividend if they are a listed company? Genuine question.

And it's been discussed before on here.

I "win" because I make profit. They don't just "lose" instantly because I "won".. They have control over the asset that they bought and may "win" in future.

It's not me saying defensively that it's not zero-sum, as you stated above it probably is. It's the insinuation (not from you) that its some evil enterprise because it's ZS.

 

thegentleway

Interesting question. I’m not really sure. Zero sum is just a mathematical category with some theories for those types of games. I imagine the theories wouldn’t apply very well to that example and therefore would probably not be deemed zero sum.

I agree being zero sum doesn’t make it evil. Nothing inherently wrong with zero sum. It’s a somewhat useful distinction as some people prefer not to invest in those instruments as they are speculative.

It interesting you buy at every price point and don’t try to exploit the volatility, i.e. buy more when it’s going down, take profits when it’s up. I guess my question is what’s the end game strategy? There must be a limit to adoption right. I.e. let’s say everybody that would ever want a bitcoin has bought some. Presumably the price stabilises (both supply and demand are fixed at this point?) so it just becomes store or value/currency? 

Scottex99

Mainly because it's too difficult.

If we knew where the top and bottom of any stocks/crypto or any other asset, we'd be retired billionaires already.

A decent strategy imo for long term holders and noobs alike is, DCA a set amount weekly/monthly, set and forget. Then on top of that when you get the big crashes you go in a bit harder. That's the scary bit when emotion can run high and you make mistakes, plus none of us can predict the future anyway. 

So when I was buying up after the FTX fallout at sub $20k, of course I knew there was risk but I had to try to figure out the risk/reward. Did I know $16k was the bottom? Definitely not. Would I have bought at $12k, $8k, $4k? Yes. Would I have bought at sub $1k? Maybe not, even though my thesis "should" be unchanged.

"You buy bitcoin at the price you deserve" is an answer you'll see.

The supply is fixed so yep as it rises in value, it gets more and more difficult, being a "whole coiner" becomes out of reach for many.

But, markets move fast, I've started to sell to fiat and will try to get out more as it climbs, knowing I'm very very unlikely to sell the top, whenever it comes. 

Very rough numbers would be sell at $90-150k, buy back at $40-60k when crypto winter comes again, easier said than done but you should learn something from each cycle you navigate/survive! 

 

Scottex99

Strategic Reserve incoming? 

The Donald with some bullish chat, in fact lots of bullish talk coming from all over right now 

MSTR > MSFT? 

Saylor does look a bit like he’s running a ponzi but also something that’s never really been done (at this scale) before either, market doesn’t know how to price it 

Adyinvestment

Strategic reserve is starting to actually sound plausible, if you had said that to me a few weeks ago I would have fell off my chair laughing!

Who knows what is going to happen, however Trump is personally invested in crypto and I can only see positive outcomes, even though I think it is immoral of him, however he clearly (and other powerful people also) doesn't care about that!

MeteredOut

With the stock market in such a turmoil, I though I'd check out how BTC was holding up as as store of wealth. Looks like its held up better than the major indices, but not as good as gold. $100K seems quite a way off now (but we know things can move quick).

Do people still think BTC a viable store of wealth as an alternative to gold?

Not seem much mention of crypto from the orange man recently either.