BITCOIN

eskbanker

Scottex99 said:

HansOndabush said:

That's because Bitcoin is a speculative asset, not an investment.

What's the difference?

You're putting money in to make more money. Whether you steadily grow 5% per year or do +300% one month and -200% the next, there's no difference to me, other than personal risk appetite.

Anyone considering anything that could lose more than 100% has a pretty racy attitude to risk!

User232002

HansOndabush said:

A speculative asset has some of the following attributes:

High volatility, difficult to put a value on, little history, used for short term gains(losses), may be unregulated, no protection for investor

An investment has some of the following attributes:

Produces income, produces something people want i.e. goods and services, a fair value can be estimated based on income and/or earnings, used for long term appreciation (or loss), is generally traded on recognised and regulated exchanges.

I expect there are other differences; that's just off the top of my head, But if you haven't yet learned a speculation from an investment then you shouldn't be putting money into anything except a savings account.

This is your definition of value, but it is not the only definition of value. The internet doesn't produce income or a good or a service; pretty valuable though. I've pointed it out before that you seem to have a bias for the tangible over the intangible. Thats fine, but it isn't the way the world is moving.

thegentleway said:

You don't really want to talk about them though, you just want to tell people to do their own research. That's fine but a true enthusiast, who was genuinely excited at the prospect of these life changing projects, would revel at the opportunity to discuss them and their potential. It's obviously because you're too cool and not because you don't actually have a deep enough understanding to be able to explain it in layman's terms.

Its been explained in laymans terms. I've posted ad nauseam about all of the common rubbish in this thread; you just still don't get it. When you're still talking about intrinsic value, ponzis and environmental concerns like this:

thegentleway said:

Bitcoin just sits there and you're hoping someone will buy it from you for silly money despite the environmental concerns.
We can sidetrack and talk about crypto projects if you want. They do very little. Despite all the hype and amusing jargon to make it sound technical, it's mostly unsubstanciated claims with no actual working novel system. 

It just tells us that there's no point bothering with you. These concerns were all addressed in 2017 (and earlier in many cases) when they *might* have actually been relevant. Honestly, on some level, I believe Bitcoin is a general intelligence test. 

In other news, the concerted FUD that has come out in the last few days has been hilarious. "China bans Bitcoin" is the headline - and then you realise that actually they just reiterated something they said in 2017 about ICO's. I also just helped a friend in China buy Bitcoin with WeChat, so definitely 'banned' then. 

[Deleted User]

Bitcoin halved.
Don’t worry though, “you haven’t lost anything until you sell.”
Good luck with that.

thegentleway

darren232002 said:

thegentleway said:

You don't really want to talk about them though, you just want to tell people to do their own research. That's fine but a true enthusiast, who was genuinely excited at the prospect of these life changing projects, would revel at the opportunity to discuss them and their potential. It's obviously because you're too cool and not because you don't actually have a deep enough understanding to be able to explain it in layman's terms.

Its been explained in laymans terms. I've posted ad nauseam about all of the common rubbish in this thread; you just still don't get it. When you're still talking about intrinsic value, ponzis and environmental concerns like this:

thegentleway said:

Bitcoin just sits there and you're hoping someone will buy it from you for silly money despite the environmental concerns.
We can sidetrack and talk about crypto projects if you want. They do very little. Despite all the hype and amusing jargon to make it sound technical, it's mostly unsubstanciated claims with no actual working novel system. 

It just tells us that there's no point bothering with you. These concerns were all addressed in 2017 (and earlier in many cases) when they *might* have actually been relevant. Honestly, on some level, I believe Bitcoin is a general intelligence test.

To be fair some of the anti crypto comments from the haters/trolls don't deserve much response but that's not an excuse to brush everything to the side instead of adding any substance.
Intrisic value: I agree it's not necessarily an issue (e.g. dollar bills don't have intrisic value but work as money). Someone asked what's the difference between investing in shares and bitcoin. Bitcoin just sits there whilst companies produce goods and services. You seem to have confused intrinsic value with generating cash/value.

Ponzis: Don't think I've brought this up, if I did it would be just to highlight that there are a disproportinate number of scams and ponzi schemes so it's important to be careful. There are also scams and ponzis elsewhere. Like intrisic value, I agree, it's not a deal breaker for investing.

Environmental concerns: you can play smoke and mirrors with claims about renewable energy but that does not address the ridiculous amount of energy usage wastage. Bitcoin uses an obscene amount of energy. Obviously it's easier to say I just don't get it and call me stupid. However, that says a lot more about you than it does about my general intelligence.

Malthusian

HansOndabush said:

New Bitcoin Pizza company won't accept bitcoin as payment; ha ha what a joke this thing is:

https://www.businessinsider.in/cryptocurrency/news/crypto-investor-anthony-pompliano-launches-a-bitcoin-themed-pizza-service-in-the-us-that-wont-accept-the-digital-asset-as-payment/articleshow/82766763.cms

Of course he doesn't. Nobody who owns Bitcoin would be daft enough to pay for pizza in Bitcoin.

Why would anyone give away their Bitcoin for a pizza instead of hodling it while it goes to the moon? Especially when there are still schmucks who will give you pizza if you offload some worthless fiat currency to them?

Do you want to be like that guy back in 2010 who handed over 10,000 BTC for a couple of pizzas?

Outside the odd publicity stunt, people only hand over Bitcoins for goods and services if it's undesirable to do it with fiat (i.e. they're illegal). Pizzas don't qualify.

As it always needs to be said: attaching a Bitcoin -> fiat processor to your checkout software and letting someone pay a third party to convert their Bitcoins into fiat before you get paid in fiat != accepting Bitcoins.

Atlas234

Malthusian said:

HansOndabush said:

New Bitcoin Pizza company won't accept bitcoin as payment; ha ha what a joke this thing is:

https://www.businessinsider.in/cryptocurrency/news/crypto-investor-anthony-pompliano-launches-a-bitcoin-themed-pizza-service-in-the-us-that-wont-accept-the-digital-asset-as-payment/articleshow/82766763.cms

Of course he doesn't. Nobody who owns Bitcoin would be daft enough to pay for pizza in Bitcoin.

Why would anyone give away their Bitcoin for a pizza instead of hodling it while it goes to the moon? Especially when there are still schmucks who will give you pizza if you offload some worthless fiat currency to them?

Do you want to be like that guy back in 2010 who handed over 10,000 BTC for a couple of pizzas?

Outside the odd publicity stunt, people only hand over Bitcoins for goods and services if it's undesirable to do it with fiat (i.e. they're illegal). Pizzas don't qualify.

As it always needs to be said: attaching a Bitcoin -> fiat processor to your checkout software and letting someone pay a third party to convert their Bitcoins into fiat before you get paid in fiat != accepting Bitcoins.

You strike me as someone who is very bitter that they missed out on bitcoin back when it was cheap.
I mean its hard to decipher sometimes... between all the 'bro' 'moon' 'mewn' comments and claims of illegal activity you like to sprinkle across all of your posts, but you certainly give off that impression. 

P1

https://tenor.com/view/dog-gif-7827513
Max pain and annoyance for a lot of recent market participants would be a slow price recovery.  This is why you dollar cost average over time!  One of the biggest daily moves ever.  Nearly as severe as the Corona March crash falling 10.5k to 4k in a month!  This did happen in 2017.  Went from 6k to 2.9k in 2 weeks in early Sept 2017.  This current top was 14th April.  65k to a very brief touch of 30k in a month.   All these crashes (not including the current one) did not revisit the bottom.  Certainly not safe and out of the woods here, but if this is the end of the bull market then its been very different from all prior bull markets.  RR is not too bad here, but you need an exit plan here if you're a buyer. Most long term holders will be meh

HansOndabush

Malthusian said:

HansOndabush said:

New Bitcoin Pizza company won't accept bitcoin as payment; ha ha what a joke this thing is:

https://www.businessinsider.in/cryptocurrency/news/crypto-investor-anthony-pompliano-launches-a-bitcoin-themed-pizza-service-in-the-us-that-wont-accept-the-digital-asset-as-payment/articleshow/82766763.cms

Of course he doesn't. Nobody who owns Bitcoin would be daft enough to pay for pizza in Bitcoin.

Why would anyone give away their Bitcoin for a pizza instead of hodling it while it goes to the moon? 

Why would anyone start a 'Bitcoin pizza company' that won't accept Bitcoin for payment? Like saying he'd rather take dollars. Hardly an endorsement for Bitcoin. Just the sort of nonsense that is typical of the crypto crowd.
As for going to the moon, I think a further drop to $20k is likely.

Malthusian

For anyone who is bored of the circular Bitcoin debate, I highly recommend this hilarious Grauniad article about Kate Moss auctioning a non-fungible broken.

The hilarious bit is not that Kate Moss is cashing in on the dying embers of the NFT fad - good on her for raising some money for charity.

The hilarious bit is the Guardian's chin-stroking, too-woke-for-words idea that the small number of women whose NFTs catch the imagination and go for large sums are striking a blow for feminism.

In April the model Emily Ratajkowski announced she was auctioning an NFT of herself standing in front of an image by the photographer Richard Prince. “The digital terrain should be a place where women can share their likeness as they choose, controlling the usage of their image and receiving whatever potential capital attached,” she tweeted. “Instead, the internet has more frequently served as a space where others exploit and distribute images of women’s bodies without their consent and for another’s profit.”

She said she wanted to use the new medium of NFTs to set a precedent for women and ownership online through a blockchain – a set of digital contracts – that “allows women to have ongoing authority over their image and to receive rightful compensation for its usage and distribution”.

Others such as Zoë Roth, the woman in the disaster girl meme, and Laina Morris, behind the Overly Attached Girlfriend meme, sold their photos as an NFT for $500,000 and $411,000 respectively, gaining ownership back of an image that was shared by millions.

“Images in the public domain are owned by everyone by definition,” said Amit Katwala, the senior editor of Wired UK. “NFTs are attaching the notion of ownership to something that can’t really be owned – you don’t own the image itself but you own the right to call yourself the owner of that image.”

As attractive as the idea is that Roth and Morris are taking back control for women everywhere, rather than simply getting a very nice windfall thanks to some good timing and a good dose of luck, there are a few teensy problems with it.

1) Everyone is just as able to make new "Overly Attached Girlfriend" memes as they were before Morris cashed in. Although she created the YouTube video it came from and she therefore retains the copyright, i.e. the actual thing that says what other people can do with the image, there are fair use exemptions for parody. And any copyright claim would be seriously weakened by the fact she hasn't made any attempt to stop previous copies. Anyway, the NFT changed nothing on that front.

2) Even if Morris' NFT did carry some sort of control over her image, she's, um, sold it. So far from "having ongoing authority", she's handed whatever ongoing authority the NFT carried (zero) to some dude in Dubai.

"You don’t own the image itself but you own the right to call yourself the owner of that image." Genius. Best not to overthink it, this is the kind of mad stuff that people say and do when a party is coming to an end.

Atlas234 said:

You strike me as someone who is very bitter that they missed out on bitcoin back when it was cheap.

I don't consider not relieving a bagholder of their money to be "missing out", but if it makes you feel better to believe that then crack on.
Did you have anything interesting to contribute, e.g. a reason why somebody would hand over Bitcoins for pizza when they're going to rocket in value?

thegentleway

When did we “evolve” from indigent apes to hoarding humans obsessed with ownership?