# "Comparing Bitcoin to Ponzi Schemes is unfair...



## Brendan Burgess

to Ponzi Schemes" 


Search for 
Why bitcoin is worse than a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme​and you will get to the article in the FT. 



_the longstanding sceptical view by many economists and others that what bitcoin really is, in effect, is a Ponzi scheme. Brazilian computer scientist Jorge Stolfi is one voice who has contended this. His view is based on the following observations: Investors buy in the expectation of profits. That expectation is sustained by the profits of those that cash out. But there is no external source for those profits; they come entirely from new investments. And the operators take away a large portion of the money._


----------



## Zenith63

I was heavily involved in cryptocurrencies back in 2014 and there was a strong argument at the time there was more to it than this.  You were seeing the Bitcoin logo showing up on shop windows all around Dublin and I was using it to send money to a few friends.  That seems to have all but fizzled out now and the only time I am involved in conversations about it, they are focused on buying it to make a buck when the price rises.

It's now the norm on personal finance forums to see recommendations like - 10% emergency fund, 10% pension, 70% stock market and 10% into crypto


----------



## DazedInPontoon

I've argued with Stolfi elsewhere online since 2013. He's been militantly anti-bitcoin since then, and 8 years later he's still wrong.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> I've argued with Stolfi elsewhere online since 2013. He's been militantly anti-bitcoin since then, and 8 years later he's still wrong.


Tell the folk who bought a month ago.  They're down 30%, and that's despite everybody talking about inflation, which is hitting multi year highs. Hey, that is -98% p.a.


----------



## tecate

I see Jemima is on her holiers for the Crimbo so they've wheeled in this clown for a guest appearance to continue on with the click-bait/hate . Robert McCauley tells us he doesn't understand bitcoin without telling us he doesn't understand bitcoin. Establishment dinosauric mouthpiece doesn't get it. ...who knew?

Bitcoin is a ponzi apparently and meanwhile, 75% of the entire money supply in the US has been issued in the past 14 years - 40% of it in the last 12 months. Maybe McCauley should ask the FTs Lebanese editor what constitutes a ponzi. Bitcoin is a put option on the fiat ponzi.

A few responses to McCauley's Claim:

Anthony Scaramucci : "Now write about fiat currency. The author fails to recognize that money is just an acceptable global ledger. Bitcoin has perfected that. Not Fiat currency. " 

Alex Gladstein  ( Human Rights Foundation ) : "Sure, Bitcoin is a “negative-sum phenomenon” if you are a fascist or authoritarian".


But sure - let's talk ponzi schemes...


----------



## tecate

Zenith63 said:


> I was heavily involved in cryptocurrencies back in 2014 and there was a strong argument at the time there was more to it than this.


In what capacity? Seems reasonable to me seeing as it has advanced considerably since back then.




Zenith63 said:


> You were seeing the Bitcoin logo showing up on shop windows all around Dublin and I was using it to send money to a few friends.  That seems to have all but fizzled out now and the only time I am involved in conversations about it, they are focused on buying it to make a buck when the price rises.


It was being used on a limited basis  for payments - then transaction fees/times rose which stymied development of that particular use case for a time. More recently, it's made a comeback when it comes to micropayments via Lightning Network - which is seeing growth month on month. It's also been adopted as a sovereign currency in El Salvador and is being used for remittances there and elsewhere. Meanwhile, bitcoin has been establishing itself as a store of value/digital gold/inflation hedge. It's also being used to secure Microsoft's recently developed decentralised digital identity project - along with securing a couple of other blockchains.



Zenith63 said:


> It's now the norm on personal finance forums to see recommendations like - 10% emergency fund, 10% pension, 70% stock market and 10% into crypto


You're so right!...imagine suggesting putting 70% into that casino? You'll find every opinion under the sun on the internet - albeit I've never seen anyone recommend a 10% crypto holding over the course of the last 5 years on AAM.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Tell the folk who bought a month ago.  They're down 30%, and that's despite everybody talking about inflation, which is hitting multi year highs. Hey, that is -98% p.a.


Same old same old. Picking peaks and troughs to meet your narrative.


----------



## newirishman

Somebody hit a nerve apparently. Looking forward to another thread that goes nowhere useful, just as cryptocurrencies.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@Brendan Burgess _Boss _that is a truly damning critique of crypto, that would make even Prof Roubini seem cultist.  Typically we get the usual shoot the messenger comments - Stolfi is a militant anti bitcoiner, Nobel guy got his Fax machine analogy wrong,  Robert McCauley is a "dinosauric mouthpiece" or simply a "fascist" and "authoritarian".  No attempt to address his damning criticisms other than the usual whataboutery of civil war ravaged basket cases.
Your OP did not explain why crypto is *worse *than Ponzi.  Here is the relevant extract,


			
				Robert McCauley in the FT said:
			
		

> At today’s higher bitcoin prices, the hole is growing faster. About 900 new bitcoin a day require most of $45m a day in electricity. Thus, the negative sum in the bitcoin game is in tens of billions of dollars and rising at over a billion dollars per month. If the price of bitcoin collapses to zero, the gains of those who sold would fall short of the losses of holders by this growing sum. *To liken bitcoin to a Ponzi scheme or a pump-and-dump scheme, both basically redistributive, is to flatter the cryptocurrency system*.
> To conclude, an economic analysis of bitcoin must recognise its uniqueness in the *history of manias*. As an object of speculation, bitcoin is unprecedented in the degree to which there is no there there. This post-modern mania features big prices for entries on nobody’s spreadsheet. A zero-coupon perpetual has *arrived not as a joke but as a trillion dollar asset*. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, bitcoin cannot end in a run. In a crash, the holders of bitcoin will collectively have lost what they have paid the miners for their bitcoin. This sum may be not far from the sum originally invested with Madoff, after accounting for inflation. But bitcoin holders will have no one to pursue to recover this sum: it will simply have gone up in smoke, a social loss. The holders of bitcoin would then only wish it had been a Ponzi scheme.


_My emphasis_
He makes a new point to me.  It is about the enormous amounts going down the drain in electricity usage.  This is not the usual somewhat hypocritical eco warrior point but a reflection that when this all ends at zero, unlike Madoff, it will not be a question of a zero sum game but a very expensive negative sum endeavour which has poured billions of dollars worth of energy down the tubes.
The other point McCauley makes is that unlike a wholesome Ponzi scheme where the people defrauded have legal recourse (70% successful in the case of Madoff) when the dust settles on this crypto mania those who have lost up to a trillion dollars at these prices will have absolutely no recourse.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate There is so much wrong with that link to Bitcoin magazine (a bit of  a clue there) but I will start with only one.


			
				Bitcoin magazine said:
			
		

> This process leaves almost none of that newly printed money liquidity to trickle down to those at the bottom that are relying on the dollar


  If none trickles down that it will not be inflationary.  Of course it does not suit a leftist narrative to suggest that there is any of this printing going to ordinary folk.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

There's no message to shoot, just the same old stuff he was saying 5 years ago and has been covered here on threads already. I'm not interested in doing it again.

The holders of the Turkish Lira have no recourse if Erdogan destroys it, and whatever money was spent minting the currency and running the systems that supported it is a sunk cost that is never coming back either. When a monetary system fails those holding the money will lose out. True of fiat or bitcoin or even commodity money like gold though to a lesser degree because it will probably still have some commodity value. So, yes of course holders of bitcoin will lose out if it fails. This is not news.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

That another highly respected academic damns bitcoin is, I suppose, not news though he does it even more convincingly than  Prof Roubini or the various Nobels. 
As Mo Salah says of vaccines he respects the learned doctors, he would no more expect them to be able to tell him when to pass the ball than he would question their learned and professional opinion.  Similar to me on crypto, I respect the professional economists.   Oh I am sure @tecate can wheel out a maverick just as I am sure there are some anti vaccers in the medical profession.

The bit about being worse than Ponzi was a valid and new angle to me, though again it is probably well trodden terrain in cultist circles.


----------



## Lisboa

Zenith63 said:


> It's now the norm on personal finance forums to see recommendations like - 10% emergency fund, 10% pension, 70% stock market and 10% into crypto



I was reading this RTE article earlier, it says _Half a million Irish people already own cryptocurrency._

https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/1221/1268059-bitcoin-bonanza-banker/

Very surprised it's that many.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

It's clearly impossible for 1/2 million Irish people to own crypto since it died in mid-2014


----------



## tecate

newirishman said:


> Looking forward to another thread that goes nowhere useful



Nobody is forcing you to read this thread so you have zero cause for complaint.



newirishman said:


> Just as cryptocurrencies.



The trillion dollar asset in a $2.5 trillion dollar asset class with a growing user base ( currently estimated at 100 million people ) is going nowhere? Okay.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> No attempt to address his damning criticisms other than the usual whataboutery of civil war ravaged basket cases.


No attempt to address something that you agreed bitcoin couldn't be classified as? Just for clarity, I don't recall ever giving an example of wayward monetary policy and currency mismanagement relative to a 'civil war ravaged' country. They're simply countries where your Keynesian economists and central bankers have mismanaged the currency. I did refer to this article which describes the 'bank-run ponzi' that has led to the collapse of the Lebanese pound though. Lebanon hasn't seen civil war for over 30 years.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> He makes a new point to me.  It is about the enormous amounts going down the drain in electricity usage.  This is not the usual somewhat hypocritical eco warrior point but a reflection that when this all ends at zero, unlike Madoff, it will not be a question of a zero sum game but a very expensive negative sum endeavour which has poured billions of dollars worth of energy down the tubes.


There is no major revelation here. You were well aware of the fact that miners provide a service and that they are *rewarded* for providing that service. I've bolded out the word as you have referred to it 22 times in discussing bitcoin mining here over the last few years. The rest is complete nonsense. We've been over this a 1000 times already - earlier this year, you clarified that bitcoin couldn't be a ponzi scheme - so where is there a point in giving oxygen to this bunkum from the lifer from the Bank of Central Banks?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The other point McCauley makes is that unlike a wholesome Ponzi scheme where the people defrauded have legal recourse (70% successful in the case of Madoff) when the dust settles on this crypto mania those who have lost up to a trillion dollars at these prices will have absolutely no recourse.


See above.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate There is so much wrong with that link to Bitcoin magazine (a bit of  a clue there) but I will start with only one.


It's Christmas so here's a clue right back at you - the FT is an old world establishment rag that should be embarrassed at what it's churning out. Beyond bitcoin, there are crypto projects that are going to disintermediate the entire industry that it concerns itself with. Up until recently, it was clear that nobody there had a notion. Pieces like this one suggest that now people are beginning to feel a tad uncomfortable. /clue
Otherwise, the 'much wrong' claim is a bit of a nothing burger given that you can't articulate your criticism beyond this one point ->



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If none trickles down that it will not be inflationary. Of course it does not suit a leftist narrative to suggest that there is any of this printing going to ordinary folk.


You're the first person I've come across that denies the validity of the Cantillon Effect with regard to Quantitative Easing. As regards the 'leftist' comment, not sure why you've reached that conclusion as just as many folks from the right have been subject to this inequitable policy.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That another highly respected academic damns bitcoin is, I suppose, not news though he does it even more convincingly than  Prof Roubini or the various Nobels.
> As Mo Salah says of vaccines he respects the learned doctors, he would no more expect them to be able to tell him when to pass the ball than he would question their learned and professional opinion.  Similar to me on crypto, I respect the professional economists.   Oh I am sure @tecate can wheel out a maverick just as I am sure there are some anti vaccers in the medical profession.


So a bunch of academics whose area of expertise doesn't extend beyond Keynesian economics - an economic model whose flaws bitcoin has been a direct response to - is whom you're depending on? Did I introduce you to Upton Sinclair?:

_"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."_




Duke of Marmalade said:


> The bit about being worse than Ponzi was a valid and new angle to me, though again it is probably well trodden terrain in cultist circles.


See above - you're contradicting yourself - given that you acknowledged earlier in the year that bitcoin doesn't qualify as a ponzi.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate so your rejection of mainstream economic academia’s damnation of bitcoin revolves around them being indoctrinated in a false Keynesianism with a vested interest in maintaining their own salaries i.e. take a machine gun to the messengers.
By contrast you seem to believe that bitcoin evangelists who predict prices of over $500k are driven by an altruistic desire to free mankind from evil central bankers.  I call that cultist.
If I said bitcoin was not Ponzi I was probably referring to it not initially being a deliberate fraud though it has in some ways morphed into that.  What the McAuley article highlights is not so much the similarities with Ponzi which are there for all to see but how it is strikingly worse than Ponzi.
Cantillon predicted that QE would result in a decline in population as the poor emigrate.  US, the daddy of QE, faces the exact opposite problem with some even wanting to build a wall to keep poor people from flooding *in*.
Lebanon is a basket case.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate so your rejection of mainstream economic academia’s damnation of bitcoin revolves around them being indoctrinated in a false Keynesianism with a vested interest in maintaining their own salaries i.e. take a machine gun to the messengers.



It's very clear what I stated. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> By contrast you seem to believe that bitcoin evangelists who predict prices of over $500k are driven by an altruistic desire to free mankind from evil central bankers.  I call that cultist.



And yet I've never stated what you claim that I 'seem to believe'.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If I said bitcoin was not Ponzi I was probably referring to it not initially being a deliberate fraud though it has in some ways morphed into that.



No. You clearly stated that bitcoin doesn't possess the characteristics of a ponzi scheme. There's no confusion. As regards it having 'morphed' into ' a deliberate fraud', please do explain how an open decentralised protocol is a 'deliberate fraud'.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> What the McAuley article highlights is not so much the similarities with Ponzi which are there for all to see but how it is strikingly worse than Ponzi.



He's making the claim that its a ponzi with the added twist that there will be no funds left to salvage when it blows up. You're going along with it as its anti-bitcoin - having tripped yourself up in long since acknowledging that bitcoin couldn't possibly be a ponzi.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Lebanon is a basket case.



Always finish your sentences.
Lebanon is a basket case ....because of this bank-run ponzi scheme -> https://www.thenation.com/article/world/lebanon-financial-collapse/


----------



## noproblem

tecate said:


> It's very clear what I stated. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.


Soon enough they won't be able to vote in that country, never mind vote for Christmas


----------



## tecate

noproblem said:


> Soon enough they won't be able to vote in that country, never mind vote for Christmas


Having had their life savings vaporised the damage is already done. Voting isn't going to bring those life savings back.









						‘There’s jobs but no money’: Turkey’s economic crisis begins to bite
					

As the value of the lira plummets and inflation soars, Turkish citizens are struggling to adapt and survive




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## RetirementPlan

Lisboa said:


> I was reading this RTE article earlier, it says _Half a million Irish people already own cryptocurrency._
> 
> https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/1221/1268059-bitcoin-bonanza-banker/
> 
> Very surprised it's that many.


I was very surprised they went to Grafton St for a voxpop and found three or four people who HAD bought cryptocurrency - all of them under 30 by the looks of things.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> ...having tripped yourself up in long since acknowledging that bitcoin couldn't possibly be a ponzi.


Can you help me from your comprehensive library of my musings and point to where I made this comment?  I am sure it stands up to context.  It is not a Ponzi in the same way that a house burglary is not a shop robbery but it certainly shares many attributes.
You mention "open decentralised" as if it were an Immaculate Conception incapable of being used for evil or naughty purposes.  I read somewhere that the criminal classes have a particular penchant for this holy of holies.
Anyway you have made it abundantly clear that your rejection of all mainstream academic views on crypto is based on a credo that they are hopelessly compromised by the "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas" syndrome. I admit that it is a lot easier than actually challenging their reasoned and informed arguments.


----------



## nest egg

RetirementPlan said:


> I was very surprised they went to Grafton St for a voxpop and found three or four people who HAD bought cryptocurrency - all of them under 30 by the looks of things.


Is it really that surprising? Take a look at this piece "No pension. No savings. No future. No wonder we’re betting the house on crypto". I suspect many of that cohort feel similarly.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not a Ponzi in the same way that a house burglary is not a shop robbery but it certainly shares many attributes.


Ok, then. Which attributes does it share exactly?





Duke of Marmalade said:


> You mention "open decentralised" as if it were an Immaculate Conception incapable of being used for evil or naughty purposes.


I mention 'open decentralised' because it's a protocol. It may have been coded by a person or persons but we can all see what that code is. We can all read the whitepaper. Here is the bitcoin whitepaper ->


			https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
		


Please point out the offending parts that identify bitcoin as a ponzi.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I read somewhere that the criminal classes have a particular penchant for this holy of holies.


I had no idea anyone referred to cash as the 'holy of holies'...who knew.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anyway you have made it abundantly clear that your rejection of all mainstream academic views on crypto is based on a credo that they are hopelessly compromised by the "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas" syndrome. I admit that it is a lot easier than actually challenging their reasoned and informed arguments.


If you think its unusual that incumbents in any field talk down a new innovation and claim that it wouldn't/couldn't/won't work - I'd have to ask you how many examples of that sort of behaviour have we had?  The main cohort left in opposition are those connected directly with central banking and Keynesian economics.
As regards the charge that I haven't put up reasoned and informed arguments, you can review the last five years of posts. Secondly, why would we even begin when you've conveniently forgotten yourself that you don't believe that bitcoin is a ponzi! - which is this guys claim (with an added twist).
However, maybe you yourself need to search for reasoned and informed argument to formulate and support your own views. You have previously suggested that you would simply have to trust central bankers blindly. When challenged as to what it would take for you to adjust your view re. bitcoin, you said that would only change when Roubini changed his mind. I think it's a mistake to assume that these guys know best or necessarily have your interests at heart.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Ok, then. Which attributes does it share exactly?
> 
> Please point out the offending parts that identify bitcoin as a ponzi, please.


Read McAuley.  Last in the big losers.  Okay, it is not fulfilled...yet.


tecate said:


> If you think its unusual that incumbents in any field talk down a new innovation and claim that it wouldn't/couldn't/won't work - I'd have to ask you how many examples of that sort of behaviour have we had?  The main cohort left in opposition are those connected directly with central banking and Keynesian economics.


Yep, you're consistent.


tecate said:


> Secondly, why would we even begin when you've conveniently forgotten yourself that you don't believe that bitcoin is a ponzi! - which is this guys claim (with an added twist).


I know you have all my posts in your library so the absence of a concrete reply had me searching.  This is what a search of Duke+Ponzi throws up:


			
				DOM 5/01/21 said:
			
		

> Taxpayers’ money should not be sucked into a _*Ponzi*_ scheme.





			
				DOM 5/01/21 said:
			
		

> When I pass on the assertions of learned observers that crypto is a Ponzi scheme, I am not suggesting it was started by an Italian gentleman. You know what is meant - when it blows up it will be the last suckers in who will be badly burnt. Along the way the manipulating whales will have performed a spectacular fraud.





			
				DOM 23/07/21 said:
			
		

> He (Prof Roubini) describes phenomena such as pump and dump, price manipulation, whales etc. but I don't think he has called it a _*Ponzi*_ scheme because it does not tick all the boxes to be so indicted. Maybe it should be called a Tulip scheme


If it is this latter reference that informs your opinion that  I "don't believe that bitcoin is a ponzi",  I have to ask is your real name Boris?


----------



## tecate

@Duke - you've stated above that bitcoin has the attributes of a ponzi scheme ( or some of the attributes). Can you please outline what those attributes are?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> @Duke - you've stated above that bitcoin has the attributes of a ponzi scheme ( or some of the attributes). Can you please outline what those attributes are?


As per McAuley but not yet delivered, I admit.  At the moment you have pole position.
The main attribute is that when it all ends in tears it will be the last in who will be the losers.
Another attribute is that the "winners" will be unscrupulous pump-and-dump merchants and whales.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As per McAuley but not yet delivered, I admit.  At the moment you have pole position.
> The main attribute is that when it all ends in tears it will be the last in who will be the losers.
> Another attribute is that the "winners" will be unscrupulous pump-and-dump merchants and whales.



Ok, so you say 'pump and dump merchants', 'whales' and 'last in = losers' means bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.  Lets stay with that then. Can you point out to me where I can see these elements enabled in the bitcoin whitepaper?

For convenience, here's a copy of the whitepaper -> https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf


----------



## Marc

My own firm has been researching crypto   In recent months, proper research now by people with Mscs in Finance, not someone sitting on the toilet scrolling social media.

We approached it with an open mind and i recently posted my initial thoughts on twitter and engaged in a lively discussion with the professor of finance at UCD.



			https://twitter.com/westlakemarc/status/1469996038241062921?s=21
		


But our conclusion is simply no amount of looking for reasons TO INVEST has led us to conclude that anyone should do so.

Cryptocurrency in general exhibit the characteristics of, and are therefore most likely to have the effects of a pyramid scheme is the most rational conclusion here.

Guide to be published shortly


----------



## tecate

@Marc 
A couple of questions...
-  Is bitcoin a pyramid scheme?
- If not, but it's "likely to have the effects of a pyramid scheme", can you clarify how it would or does have the effects of a pyramid scheme?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

It's simply a market.

This is not a Ponzi scheme (no central operator, no promised returns by said operator, and no fraud in delivering those returns).

This is not a pyramid scheme either (no central organisation at the top, no levels of hierarchy and therefore no kickbacks up the levels when people sell).

You can dislike what is being sold in the market, you can think people are stupid for buying and selling it, but it's still just a market.

Of course if the underlying item in a market fails, those holding it at the time lose out. This is as true for bitcoin as it was for the market of Anglo Irish shares or any other company that failed completely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Ok, so you say 'pump and dump merchants', 'whales' and 'last in = losers' means bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.  Lets stay with that then. Can you point out to me where I can see these elements enabled in the bitcoin whitepaper?
> 
> For convenience, here's a copy of the whitepaper -> https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf


I am not accusing Saint Satoshi of any underhand motivation.  Her main objective was to be the human race's salvation in a medium of exchange decentralised, censorship free blah blah blah. 
I am sure she is absolutely scandalised by the Temple of Speculation and Manipulation it has turned into.

Getting back to Ponzi, actually OP gives the most apt reason to describe it as such:


			
				OP said:
			
		

> _Investors buy in the expectation of profits. That expectation is sustained by the profits of those that cash out. But there is no external source for those profits; they come entirely from new investments._


----------



## bankrupt

I am a confirmed crypto-skeptic but it would be interesting to read a well written defence of Bitcoin, does anyone have any good links to share?  I understand the technology and I think I have a grasp of why some believe Bitcoin is not simply a speculative bubble but I have never read anything convincing.  

On an optimistic day I can just about conceive of Bitcoin having some value (I don't really believe it but I've been wrong often enough to concede that I may be mistaken again) but how on earth can the vast majority of the other crap-coins ever be anything other than a total con?  If you are a crypto believer how do you square this aspect of the whole crypto-mania?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Investors buy in the expectation of profits. That expectation is sustained by the profits of those that cash out. But there is no external source for those profits; they come entirely from new investments._



This is so general that any commodity market meets the definition.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

bankrupt said:


> On an optimistic day I can just about conceive of Bitcoin having some value (I don't really believe it but I've been wrong often enough to concede that I may be mistaken again) but how on earth can the vast majority of the other crap-coins ever be anything other than a total con?  If you are a crypto believer how do you square this aspect of the whole crypto-mania?


I ignore the crap-coins and don't participate in them.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> This is so general that any commodity market meets the definition.


After a brief scratch of the head I conclude that it is different
After all a share in XYZ widget manufacturer is an investment on the expectation that widgets will continue to have a utility and will therefore command a price.
An investment in a commodity is similarly an expectation that it will continue to have a utility that will command a price,
A Ponzi scheme has no intrinsic economic value or utility whatsoever, it is entirely reliant on a flow of new suckers.
Ditto bitcoin.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

And now we're back to the intrinsic value argument of course because that's at the root of this whole thing - thinking bitcoin is a mirage and working backwards from that to crowbar it into a ponzo/pyramid scheme definition that isn't accurate. That's what I meant when I said you may not like what is being traded in the market, but it remains simply a market none-the-less.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> An investment in a commodity is similarly an expectation that it will continue to have a utility that will command a price,


Bitcoin holders have that expectation/hope of bitcoin, which is why we see it as just another commodity market. I guess we'll never agree on that, and that's ok.


----------



## Marc

The closest parallel we found is tulip bulbs in Holland in the 17th Century.

Read

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Bonus points for Marc, at least that was also a market.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> And now we're back to the intrinsic value argument of course because that's at the root of this whole thing - thinking bitcoin is a mirage and working backwards from that to crowbar it into a ponzo/pyramid scheme definition that isn't accurate. That's what I meant when I said you may not like what is being traded in the market, but it remains simply a market none-the-less.
> 
> Bitcoin holders have that expectation/hope of bitcoin, which is why we see it as just another commodity market. I guess we'll never agree on that, and that's ok.


Yes, it comes down to has bitcoin a utility/intrinsic value?
John Kelleher of Investopedia argues that the only utility value it can ever have is as a medium of exchange.  I would insert "aspire to" before "have".  For me it is an aspiration that can never be fulfilled since as Satoshi said in an epistle to the Corinthians or whomever that what it missed was intrinsic value. She then went on in the spirit of the great theologians and argued that if it got adopted as a MOE then that would give it the utility to justify it as a MOE.  Better than 3 persons in 1, don't you think?
Anyway, you are right, old ground being covered for the umpteenth time, let's agree to disagree once more.


----------



## tecate

Marc said:


> The closest parallel we found is tulip bulbs in Holland in the 17th Century.


Ok, and was that a pyramid scheme?

It's just like DazedInPontoon has outlined above. The ponzi/pyramid claims are false. Nobody can point to design elements of the bitcoin protocol that scream ponzi. It's a protocol that doesn't proclaim to offer any return! How could it be a ponzi/pyramid scheme on that basis?

I could invest in a startup that claims X. X doesn't come to fruition and I lose all my money. That doesn't make it a ponzi/pyramid. If those attempts to develop that innovation/idea/tech were not genuine or downright false, maybe it could be deemed to be fraud (along the lines of Elizabeth Holmes / Theranos ). If bitcoin is fraudulent, then the codebase is opensource and the whitepaper has long since been published - have at it - and tell us where the ponzi/pyramid/fraud element is.

So now we've arrived at a point where pyramid/ponzi claims are once again thrown out and we're right back at intrinsic value once again.

With regard to the last in = loser claim, how is that any different to me investing in a startup offering new tech at an early stage, I sell all or some of my position as the price rises - and maybe the tech flourishes ( and the latecomer makes a stack) or the tech dies and the latecomer loses everything? This plays out all of the time. 
This is what VCs do in the traditional world - and the ordinary guy is not allowed to participate in! (as they have to be accredited investors). With regard to bitcoin, ordinary people have participated. If they participated early, they have shown greater conviction and taken greater risk...so my answer to anyone with this gripe is that you had the opportunity to participate at sub $1, $10, $100, $1000, $10,000, etc. What you decided to do was your choice. 

As regards comparisons with Tulipmania, there are important differences:

- Tulips are in no way scarce - bitcoin on the other hand is scarcer than gold.
- Bitcoin has inherent properties which provides it with utility in the role of money and as a store of value.
- There's never been a time when we are not reminded of bitcoin's utility - via failed currencies - the most recent example being the Turkish Lira. A coupe of months prior, it was the Lebanese pound....and on and on it goes. There is utility in a rules-based digital asset that governments and central bankers cannot tinker with.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> - bitcoin on the other hand is scarcer than gold.


What does that mean?  There are currently c. 2,000,000,000,000,000 satoshis in existence.  How many ounces of gold?  Or are you referring to atoms?  Be a bit more precise. 
And then we have the 2,000 crypto lookalikes.  Gold's lookalikes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Admittedly the protocol limits the supply of bitcoin, but my understanding is that even this is not immutable.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What does that mean?  There are currently c. 2,000,000,000,000,000 satoshis in existence.  How many ounces of gold?  Or are you referring to atoms?  Be a bit more precise.



I can tell you unequivocally that as per the bitcoin protocol, its designed to never exceed 21 million bitcoin. I see you've gone for the extreme fractional representation - in which case I would like to ask - if you continue slicing up a pizza, do you suddenly have more pizza than when you started? Now lets talk gold. I could ask you how much gold there is in the world - but I won't because you won't be able to give me an answer.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And then we have the 2,000 crypto lookalikes.  Gold's lookalikes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.


Of the 2,000 crypto projects - only a handful have been designed to take on a store of value/money use case. Of that handful, none can match bitcoin's network security. Those that are direct replicas have at one time or another been compromised on the basis of network security. And then there is network effect. Bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset. I'm open to it being usurped but its reasonable to expect that not only will the challenger have to match bitcoin's abilities it will need to be 10x better to usurp it at this stage.
Why is gold more valuable than other commodities? Because it has two key characteristics - durability and scarcity. Bitcoin possesses these characteristics and many more besides.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Admittedly the protocol limits the supply of bitcoin, but my understanding is that even this is not immutable.


That's correct. However, I'd encourage you to take a closer look at bitcoin development. Whereas other crypto projects take a move fast and break things approach, bitcoin development is insanely conservative and slow - and achieved by consensus. In theory, its possible that the cap could be changed in the same way as its possible yet incredibly unlikely that all participants to this discussion take the decision to cut off their ears. It's incredibly unlikely that any bitcoin user would ever want bitcoin to be anything other than a fixed cap digital asset - it's a fundamental prerequisite to what gives it utility and value.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate Still, what do you mean that it is scarcer than gold?  I'll grant that its supply is more limited but why do you say scarcer?  
I once got censured by the moderators for suicide reference; just a warning, though admittedly reading some of these threads could be dangerous in that regard.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate Still, what do you mean that it is scarcer than gold?  I'll grant that its supply is more limited but why do you say scarcer?



As a fixed cap digital asset, bitcoin's scarcity is absolute. Gold's scarcity is not absolute - that's why you can't provide an answer to the question of how much gold exists. Current gold supply averages out at around 2% /year. However, there's nothing preventing a supply shock. If the price of gold goes up, then the means by which to extract it intensify. If the price of bitcoin goes up, the supply remains the same. Nobody can manipulate that.
Bitcoin is also auditable via a public blockchain. Gold cannot be audited very easily - which is how Wall Street has manipulated the gold market via paper gold products that don't have actual backing with physical gold as they should.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I once got censured by the moderators for suicide reference; just a warning, though admittedly reading some of these threads could be dangerous in that regard.



Ok, no worries - I've amended the analogy provided.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> As a fixed cap digital asset, bitcoin's scarcity is absolute. Gold's scarcity is not absolute - that's why you can't provide an answer to the question of how much gold exists. Current gold supply averages out at around 2% /year. However, there's nothing preventing a supply shock. If the price of gold goes up, then the means by which to extract it intensify. If the price of bitcoin goes up, the supply remains the same. Nobody can manipulate that.
> Bitcoin is also auditable via a public blockchain. Gold cannot be audited very easily - which is how Wall Street has manipulated the gold market via paper gold products that don't have actual backing with physical gold as they should.
> 
> 
> Ok, no worries - I've amended the analogy provided.


You are talking potential supply, not scarcity.  Rockets for space tourists are extremely rare, though in theory they have unlimited supply potential.
I agree that the prospect of bitcoin participants cutting off their ears is remote though they do seem to be deaf to the academic community talking common sense.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You are talking potential supply, not scarcity.  Rockets for space tourists are extremely rare, though in theory they have unlimited supply potential.


Hmm...there's still quite an important distinction between scarcity and absolute scarcity. If supply is open to being variable, then that has consequences in terms of overall scarcity. 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree that the prospect of bitcoin participants cutting off their ears is remote though they do seem to be deaf to the academic community talking common sense.


Seeing as its Christmas Eve's Eve, I'll give you points for that one for entertainment value.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Meanwhile in NFT-land...






 I think we can all find common ground on this one.


----------



## time to plan

Brendan Burgess said:


> to Ponzi Schemes"
> 
> 
> Search for
> Why bitcoin is worse than a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme​and you will get to the article in the FT.
> 
> 
> 
> _the longstanding sceptical view by many economists and others that what bitcoin really is, in effect, is a Ponzi scheme. Brazilian computer scientist Jorge Stolfi is one voice who has contended this. His view is based on the following observations: Investors buy in the expectation of profits. That expectation is sustained by the profits of those that cash out. But there is no external source for those profits; they come entirely from new investments. And the operators take away a large portion of the money._


It's ridiculous to call BTC a Ponzi scheme. It's a pyramid scheme.


----------



## time to plan

tecate said:


> As a fixed cap digital asset, bitcoin's scarcity is absolute. Gold's scarcity is not absolute - that's why you can't provide an answer to the question of how much gold exists. Current gold supply averages out at around 2% /year. However, there's nothing preventing a supply shock. If the price of gold goes up, then the means by which to extract it intensify. If the price of bitcoin goes up, the supply remains the same. Nobody can manipulate that.
> Bitcoin is also auditable via a public blockchain. Gold cannot be audited very easily - which is how Wall Street has manipulated the gold market via paper gold products that don't have actual backing with physical gold as they should.



So if there were a quintillion times as many bitcoin, it would still be scarcer that Gold.


----------



## Marc

Ok folks here is our take on this






						Cryptocurrency: Should you invest? - Everlake
					






					globalwealth.ie
				




You need to separate the potential future benefits of the blockchain from the clear pump and dump/pyramid scheme characteristics of cryptocurrency.

We looked hard to find any justification to put money into this and can’t find one. It’s a classic speculative bubble and those late to the party will lose their shirt.

Those who argue that it’s different because of some Symantec technicality probably have a stake they are trying to pump. 

It’s not regulated and when it goes south you will have nobody to blame but yourself.  You have been warned


----------



## tecate

time to plan said:


> So if there were a quintillion times as many bitcoin, it would still be scarcer that Gold.



It's scarce because they're not making any more of it. They're not making any more gold either - giving it its primary value-instilling characteristic - scarcity. The distinction is that bitcoin's scarcity is absolute - gold's is not. If the price of any conventional commodity goes up, supply is more likely to increase. That's not the case when it comes to bitcoin. There continues to be growing acceptance within conventional finance of its position alongside gold as a store of value, an acknowledgement that it has taken a certain market share away from gold and a belief that it's likely to take more.
Your earlier pyramid claim has been covered comprehensively. If you believe it to be a pyramid scheme, fair enough.



Marc said:


> You need to separate the potential future benefits of the blockchain from the clear pump and dump/pyramid scheme characteristics of cryptocurrency.


So blockchain, not bitcoin? I feel like I'm back in 2017.



Marc said:


> We looked hard to find any justification to put money into this and can’t find one. It’s a classic speculative bubble and those late to the party will lose their shirt.


People do tend to get out ahead of their skis where tech-based hype cycles are concerned. However, I'd hardly call this a 'classic' speculative bubble. Bitcoin has been through a number of these cycles before. Each time it was written off. Each time, it carried on from where it left off. I'm not aware of the well known classic speculative bubbles of the past that followed that pattern.
There will be more of those events - although they may not be as pronounced where bitcoin is concerned by comparison with crypto generally. I think anyone would be wise to be mindful of any market becoming incredibly frothy - whether its bitcoin, crypto generally or any other market.



Marc said:


> Those who argue that it’s different because of some Symantec technicality probably have a stake they are trying to pump.


The opposite could also be said. i.e. those that are not vested in it having not done their homework when they first wrote it off have an interest in perpetuating that original line of thinking and argument that its the same as tulips/ponzis/pyramids, etc.
To write off any merits as semantics doesn't seem reasonable to me. In this instance, there doesn't seem to have been any upside found whatsoever. I'm discounting the 'blockchain not bitcoin' finding as that is akin to suggesting 'intranet not internet' (which was something that played out back in the dot com times). If there's a suggestion that centralised blockchain is beneficial - then that's wayward - as centralised blockchain equals a run of the mill database. If we're talking about decentralised blockchain, then we're talking about one or more of the crypto projects that have been written off in your analysis.



Marc said:


> It’s not regulated and when it goes south you will have nobody to blame but yourself.  You have been warned


People should be cautious in their approach and do their own due diligence. As I've mentioned many times, I'm fully accepting of the notion that bitcoin could fail (although the idea that it's going to go to zero has become more and more unrealistic to me over the course of these discussions here). I've no doubt that there will be periodic price resets - as there have been in the past.

What I'm not accepting of is the notion that it will go to zero come what may. Several folks here have insisted that there is no conceivable way that bitcoin can continue to develop and continue to succeed. Not to be open to the possibility of its ongoing development/adoption is wayward to my mind.

On the suggestion of 'nobody to blame but yourself', I agree. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly the way it should be. Ordinary people are deprived of the ability to invest in opportunities at a very early stage. Bitcoin/crypto has represented the first occasion when an asset class has been brought up to trillion dollar market status by the sheer will of retail investors/participants. Wall Street didn't have a hand in it - as they've always had in everything else. In the US VCs and accredited investors have the opportunity to invest in projects at an early stage. The ordinary joe is excluded for his own good.  People come down on either side of the argument, but my view is that everyone should have the opportunity to invest in whatever they like - and everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. I don't believe in governmental hand holding in that instance. If there is something positive that could be done though, its to teach investment/economy/banking/financial markets basics in our schools. Although maybe that would be too disruptive...


----------



## tecate

It seems that the guys n gals at the KPMG Canada office have been carrying out research whilst sitting on the toilet scrolling social media. Who knew..


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This is it!  The moment the cult has been waiting for.  The Toronto office of KPMG have decided to court cultists.  Where 1 goes the other 10s of thousands of accountancy offices must surely follow.
Add this to the long list of institutional adapters - Microstrategy, Tesla etc.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is it!  The moment the cult has been waiting for.  The Toronto office of KPMG have decided to court cultists.  Where 1 goes the other 10s of thousands of accountancy offices must surely follow.ssing
> Add this to the long list of institutional adapters - Microstrategy, Tesla etc.


10s of thousands? I think its a case of whether the other three want to do themselves a similar favour. Now I don't really give a fiddlers if they do or they don't but c'mere and tell me...will they be in the karzy -  whilst on twitter - when the dam bursts and they have a similar eureka moment?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> 10s of thousands? I think its a case of whether the other three want to do themselves a similar favour. Now I don't really give a fiddlers if they do or they don't but c'mere and tell me...will they be in the karzy -  whilst on twitter - when the dam bursts and they have a similar eureka moment?





			
				“Wikipedia” said:
			
		

> Headquartered in Amstelveen, Netherlands, although incorporated in the United Kingdom, KPMG is a network of firms in 145 countries


Offices in 145 countries and no less than 72 in US alone but hey the Toronto office chasing cult business is big, big news for cultists.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Offices in 145 countries and no less than 72 in US alone but hey the Toronto office chasing cult business is big, big news for cultists.


Well said Duke. They don't have an M.Sc. between the lot of them in that Toronto office. They should send out one of their top bean counters from Amstelveen to put this sort of thing down. Maybe he/she can take the toilets out - clearly it's where all the social media scrolling is done and where the big ideas are coming from. Can't mess around with this sort of stuff - what with the risk of contagion.


----------



## DublinHead54

I think these headlines are a bit clickbait and don't paint the full picture. I assume that any bitcoin held represents a small portion of the treasury assets and not an indication that firms are moving away from cash or other assets. It would be completely foolish for a corporate treasury function to put all its assets into Bitcoin, just like it would be to hold it all in cash. 

The purpose of the treasury function is....._Treasury involves the management of money and financial risks in a business. Its priority is to ensure the business has the money it needs to manage its day-to-day business obligations, while also helping develop its long term financial strategy and policies.

Case Study:_

MicroStrategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), the business-intelligence software company that’s taken to accumulating bitcoin, said it  1,914 bitcoins between Dec. 9 and Dec. 29 for about $94.2 million in cash.

The company paid an average price of $49,229 per bitcoin, it said in a statement
As of 9th Feb the 1,914 bitcoins are valued at ~$84m a ~11% devaluation
The value dropped to a low of ~63m a ~33% drop


It would not make sense to manage a business with this level of volatility, and thats why treasury functions don't manage their assets in Stocks. All this shows is that the technology is strengthening that corporates can now hold it via 3rd party custodies, its not an indication that fiat cash is becoming useless in my opinion.


----------



## tecate

So long as folks read the complete article - beyond the headline - then I don't think that there's any case of 'clickbait' or misdirection.

The significance of the development is not so much KPMG Canada's use of BTC/ETH as a treasury asset themselves ( they didn't disclose how much they've put on the balance sheet - it could be diddly squat ). What's important is the IP they're developing with regard to the use of digital assets as a treasury asset - combined with their expertise in navigating taxation/regulation. We're seeing greater moves towards enabling digital assets beyond the curtailment that current taxation rules place on them. The likes of KPMG will have its own role to play in that process. It will also be better placed to advise corporates who want to utilise digital assets as a balance sheet constituent going forward.

It's an individual - but not insignificant building block. In the same way as Square enabling lightning network on its own platform and in effect onboarding 70 million users onto the network is another individual yet significant development (coming at it from a completely different perspective entirely). Or take the emergence of Blackrock's (worlds largest asset manager ) plans to facilitate the trading of bitcoin on its platform. Individually, not such a big deal - collectively, all these developments matter.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> So long as folks read the complete article - beyond the headline - then I don't think that there's any case of 'clickbait' or misdirection.
> 
> The significance of the development is not so much KPMG Canada's use of BTC/ETH as a treasury asset themselves ( they didn't disclose how much they've put on the balance sheet - it could be diddly squat ). What's important is the IP they're developing with regard to the use of digital assets as a treasury asset - combined with their expertise in navigating taxation/regulation. We're seeing greater moves towards enabling digital assets beyond the curtailment that current taxation rules place on them. The likes of KPMG will have its own role to play in that process. It will also be better placed to advise corporates who want to utilise digital assets as a balance sheet constituent going forward.



Based on the article you posted, your statement is a stretch in my opinion. The article actually says they bought it via Geminis custody service, so all they did was send x dollars to Gemini who purchased and hold the amount of bitcoin for them, they aren't building IP. A consulting firm like KPMG doesn't have to hold Bitcoin on their balance sheet to be able to consult on Bitcoin, hence why consulting firms already offer tax and treasury advise on crypto. 

I actually think this isn't really very newsworthy, and is just a bit of a marketing ploy by KPMG. I don't think its a strong signal that the tide is turning, although it is always good to see more adoption.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> The article actually says they bought it via Geminis custody service, so all they did was send x dollars to Gemini who purchased and hold the amount of bitcoin for them, they aren't building IP


Of course they're using a custodian. Show me one corporate not using a custodian when it comes to digital assets. As regards not building IP, they're not building IP as a custodian, no. In other ways closer to the services they actually offer, I believe it likely.




Dublinbay12 said:


> A consulting firm like KPMG doesn't have to hold Bitcoin on their balance sheet to be able to consult on Bitcoin, hence why consulting firms already offer tax and treasury advise on crypto.


I didn't say that they do have to. What I am saying is that the more up close and personal they get with digital assets, the better an understanding they're likely to have. There are regulatory/taxation/accountancy hurdles that still exist when it comes to a corporate putting digital assets on its balance sheet. 



Dublinbay12 said:


> I actually think this isn't really very newsworthy, and is just a bit of a marketing ploy by KPMG. I don't think its a strong signal that the tide is turning, although it is always good to see more adoption.


You're very much entitled to your opinion but its one I disagree with.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Of course they're using a custodian. Show me one corporate not using a custodian when it comes to digital assets. As regards not building IP, they're not building IP as a custodian, no. In other ways closer to the services they actually offer, I believe it likely.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they do have to. What I am saying is that the more up close and personal they get with digital assets, the better an understanding they're likely to have. There are regulatory/taxation/accountancy hurdles that still exist when it comes to a corporate putting digital assets on its balance sheet.
> 
> 
> You're very much entitled to your opinion but its one I disagree with.



Tecate, the article you posted doesn't provide any evidence to support your opinion. There is no reference to building IP and you yourself have said holding Bitcoin via a custodian is not evidence of building IP. 

I'll say it again, I think that article is just a bit of a non-story given that consultancies already offer a number of services regarding blockchain and crypto assets and have done for years. You don't need to buy bitcoin to understand it or provide tax and regulatory advise on it, just the way you don't need to be a billionaire to provide tax advice to a billionaire.


----------



## Sunny

The fact that KPMG did a press release to announce that they are holding an unspecified amount of Bitcoin on their balance Sheet that you will never see says it all really. It was a PR exercise. I can guarantee you that the Partners end of year bonus is not going to be impacted by the performance of Bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, the article you posted doesn't provide any evidence to support your opinion.


There seems to be very much a disconnect here. I provided my opinion, you provided yours - which I acknowledged even though I don't agree with it. You should concern yourself with how you form your own - I'll look after forming my own if its all the same to yourself.

Unless you've water-boarded the KPMG Canada team, there is no definitive answer here - that goes for your opinion just as much as mine. You say I don't have evidence when I've provided my interpretation based on the evidence that is available....just as you have produced your interpretation. You can only speculate as to whether this is a cynical marketing opportunity - you don't have any definitive proof of their motives.



Dublinbay12 said:


> There is no reference to building IP and you yourself have said holding Bitcoin via a custodian is not evidence of building IP.


Given the nature of services rendered, first of all it's implicit. Beyond that, the company spelt it out in the fourth paragraph of its PR - in which it outlined the processes that the organisation went through to facilitate putting BTC/ETH on its balance sheet.
I'm not sure how you've managed to misunderstand this a second time. You seem to be confused about what KPMG does. I'll say it again - in-house custody of digital assets was never going to be a part of this. The likes of KPMG - or any of their corporate clients for that matter - are not going to self-custody digital assets. They wouldn't dream of doing so in that world.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'll say it again


You've long bemoaned lengthy threads on this subject - so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to do so. People form their own opinions and we shouldn't be at all surprised if they differ.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I think that article is just a bit of a non-story


I believe that you originally said that it was 'clickbait' - and so that charge falls at the door of Coindesk. Yet Coindesk has just reported the facts as were available to it. To not report on this would have been negligent on its part.
As regards you not seeing this as newsworthy, I acknowledge your view whilst disagreeing with it entirely.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'll say it again, I think that article is just a bit of a non-story given that consultancies already offer a number of services regarding blockchain and crypto assets and have done for years. You don't need to buy bitcoin to understand it or provide tax and regulatory advise on it, just the way you don't need to be a billionaire to provide tax advice to a billionaire.



That it doesn't need to doesn't mean that it shouldn't or wouldn't. If its serious about what its doing here - then it stands to reason that it would. It demonstrates that it has a corporate treasury capability when it comes to digital assets and that it likely has a template or playbook for clients in how to approach this task from the point of view of ESG, audits, general accountancy practices ( which has proven to be a difficulty for MicroStrategy in holding cryptoassets), taxation and custodial risk.



Sunny said:


> The fact that KPMG did a press release to announce that they are holding an unspecified amount of Bitcoin on their balance Sheet that you will never see says it all really. It was a PR exercise. I can guarantee you that the Partners end of year bonus is not going to be impacted by the performance of Bitcoin.



And even if you believe this to be cynical and purely marketing, it means that if this passes as best practice for Big 4 accounting firms these days, that in itself is interesting. It means that as they see it, there's very much a market for corporates holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. Otherwise, why would they even go there.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is it!  The moment the cult has been waiting for.  The Toronto office of KPMG have decided to court cultists.  Where 1 goes the other 10s of thousands of accountancy offices must surely follow.
> Add this to the long list of institutional adapters - Microstrategy, Tesla etc.



Are you looking at the list of institutional adopters though? Well I am at least.

In Oct 2020 I documented what the state at the time was from https://bitcointreasuries.org/ :


> It used to be an empty list, now it's a very small list, but they own 3.74% of the total supply. how far are we into institutional adoption? is this 3.75% the peak for these type of organizations?


1.5 years later we're at 7.26% of the total supply :


ETFs813,906$35,602,652,8003.876%Countries271,417$11,872,581,3731.292%Public Companies255,879$11,192,912,1011.218%Private Companies174,068$7,614,248,5340.829%*Totals:*1,525,372$66,724,286,1307.264%

Reminder that supply in circulation is currently at 90.25% of the eventual 21m and will increase by around 1.7% this year.


----------



## Sunny

tecate said:


> And even if you believe this to be cynical and purely marketing, it means that if this passes as best practice for Big 4 accounting firms these days, that in itself is interesting. It means that as they see it, there's very much a market for corporates holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. Otherwise, why would they even go there.



Best practice is not something any of the Big 4 can brag about in recent years or indeed for a long time. They actually make banks look competent and ethical. Especially as around that the same time KPMG Canada is making this press release, KPMG UK gets sued for £1.3 billion for failings

I never said it was cynical. I said it was PR. That doesn't mean it is cynical They didn't have to issue a press release. They are not a public company. The fact that they did means they wanted the world to know what they were doing. They didn't issue a statement saying how much they believed in Bitcoin as part of treasury management. They don't even tell us what their belief in Bitcoin equates to in monetary terms. Instead they tell us:
_
Having gone through this process ourselves now, we’re confident we can guide clients and prospective clients through the process of cryptoasset treasury allocation,” KPMG said in the email. “Our investment allows us to share our journey, our experiences, our challenges with them so that we can help them navigate the cryptoasset world.”_


----------



## tecate

Sunny said:


> Best practice is not something any of the Big 4 can brag about in recent years or indeed for a long time. They actually make banks look competent and ethical. Especially as around that the same time KPMG Canada is making this press release, KPMG UK gets sued for £1.3 billion for failings


I agree with you completely. Notwithstanding that, KPMG are where they are - they are one of the 'Big 4' - and they have influence. You and I may point to their failings but the reality remains that they're very well placed and established in what they do.



Sunny said:


> I never said it was cynical. I said it was PR. That doesn't mean it is cynical They didn't have to issue a press release. They are not a public company. The fact that they did means they wanted the world to know what they were doing. They didn't issue a statement saying how much they believed in Bitcoin as part of treasury management. They don't even tell us what their belief in Bitcoin equates to in monetary terms. Instead they tell us:
> 
> _Having gone through this process ourselves now, we’re confident we can guide clients and prospective clients through the process of cryptoasset treasury allocation,” KPMG said in the email. “Our investment allows us to share our journey, our experiences, our challenges with them so that we can help them navigate the cryptoasset world.”_



Then we're not that far apart in our thinking. As I outlined from the get go, I think this isn't so much interesting in terms of the sum value of digital assets KPMG Canada has put on its balance sheet ( I've speculated that there's every possibility that it's not all that significant in $ terms ). It's interesting because its gone to the time and effort of going through the process and it seems like it's with a view towards providing support services to corporates that it expects to present with the objective of putting bitcoin on their balance sheets. It wouldn't waste a second on it unless it could see the potential.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> There seems to be very much a disconnect here. I provided my opinion, you provided yours - which I acknowledged even though I don't agree with it. You should concern yourself with how you form your own - I'll look after forming my own if its all the same to yourself.
> 
> Unless you've water-boarded the KPMG Canada team, there is no definitive answer here - that goes for your opinion just as much as mine. You say I don't have evidence when I've provided my interpretation based on the evidence that is available....just as you have produced your interpretation. You can only speculate as to whether this is a cynical marketing opportunity - you don't have any definitive proof of their motives.
> 
> 
> Given the nature of services rendered, first of all it's implicit. Beyond that, the company spelt it out in the fourth paragraph of its PR - in which it outlined the processes that the organisation went through to facilitate putting BTC/ETH on its balance sheet.
> I'm not sure how you've managed to misunderstand this a second time. You seem to be confused about what KPMG does. I'll say it again - in-house custody of digital assets was never going to be a part of this. The likes of KPMG - or any of their corporate clients for that matter - are not going to self-custody digital assets. They wouldn't dream of doing so in that world.
> 
> 
> You've long bemoaned lengthy threads on this subject - so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to do so. People form their own opinions and we shouldn't be at all surprised if they differ.
> 
> 
> I believe that you originally said that it was 'clickbait' - and so that charge falls at the door of Coindesk. Yet Coindesk has just reported the facts as were available to it. To not report on this would have been negligent on its part.
> As regards you not seeing this as newsworthy, I acknowledge your view whilst disagreeing with it entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> That it doesn't need to doesn't mean that it shouldn't or wouldn't. If its serious about what its doing here - then it stands to reason that it would. It demonstrates that it has a corporate treasury capability when it comes to digital assets and that it likely has a template or playbook for clients in how to approach this task from the point of view of ESG, audits, general accountancy practices ( which has proven to be a difficulty for MicroStrategy in holding cryptoassets), taxation and custodial risk.
> 
> 
> 
> And even if you believe this to be cynical and purely marketing, it means that if this passes as best practice for Big 4 accounting firms these days, that in itself is interesting. It means that as they see it, there's very much a market for corporates holding bitcoin on their balance sheets. Otherwise, why would they even go there.



Tecate, I can't be bothered going to your level of commitment and detail in decomposing my responses into the above, for what is a non story in my opinion. You rightly point out the facts in that article don't prove your view and they don't disprove it either. 

I'm just applying logical sense to come to the conclusion this is really a non story in the adoption of BTC, so much so I didn't even notice in on COindesk. 

I guess you'll probably post the BlackRock story as your next evidence.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, I can't be bothered going to your level of commitment and detail in decomposing my responses into the above,


For expediency and efficiency, I don't think that letting me know to what extent you want to engage on the subject or otherwise is in any way useful or relevant to the actual discussion.



Dublinbay12 said:


> you rightly point out the facts in that article don't prove your view and they don't disprove it either.


Correction. I pointed out that we both expressed opinions - and that I respected yours even though it's quite clear you don't respect mine. I also pointed out that the conclusions that you have reached are in no way definitive and grounded in absolute fact ( which is what you seem to be forcing here ).



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'm just applying logical sense to come to the conclusion ..


No. Initially, you stated your opinion - and you provided what to your mind is the rationale for that opinion - just as I have done. In the manner in which you've gone on from there, you're forcing your opinion. You'll excuse me if I take the opportunity to reference this exchange in the future - should you complain about lengthy/protracted discussions as you have done in the past.



Dublinbay12 said:


> This is really a non story in the adoption of BTC, so much so I didn't even notice in on COindesk.


So you've stated on several occasions (having initially accused Coindesk of publishing clickbait). I acknowledged your opinion/view at the outset and respectfully disagreed with it. I'd appreciate it if you'd respect my view rather than trying to force the issue.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I guess you'll probably post the BlackRock story as your next evidence.


My understanding is that so long as its on topic and relevant to the overall discussion, I'm free to post my thoughts ( and as you well know, I've already raised the relevance of the world's largest asset manager enabling bitcoin trading on its platform for its clients). Might I suggest that if your energies were concentrated on the actual topic at hand rather than my alleged personal failings, it may well be for the benefit of all discussion participants.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I'm confused.  @tecate is of course an arch cultist.  But @Dublinbay12 certainly shares the faith.  Yet they seem to be embroiled in a heated debate over the meaning of the Blessed Trinity.


----------



## DublinHead54

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm confused.  @tecate is of course an arch cultist.  But @Dublinbay12 certainly shares the faith.  Yet they seem to be embroiled in a heated debate over the meaning of the Blessed Trinity.



I believe Tecate doesn't understand how I can understand Bitcoin yet be critical. In his view your either in his camp 100% or naysayer. There's no room for critical analysis and reflection that leads to a less than a positive analysis for Bitcoin i.e. it's just easier to say you're a naysayer and change the topic.

I like the crypto market, there's lots of interesting projects to get involved in that weren't available a few years ago. I don't really have strong opinions anymore bitcoin replacing fiat currency, I still buy my Guinness with cash.

But I do enjoy the odd back and forth on the topic.


----------



## DublinHead54

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, I can't be bothered going to your level of commitment and detail in decomposing my responses into the above, for what is a non story in my opinion. You rightly point out the facts in that article don't prove your view and they don't disprove it either.
> 
> I'm just applying logical sense to come to the conclusion this is really a non story in the adoption of BTC, so much so I didn't even notice in on COindesk.
> 
> I guess you'll probably post the BlackRock story as your next evidence.


Ok for the sake of peace...I'm wrong you're right.


----------



## tecate

I see once again we have posts with commentary on the individual and not on the subject.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I believe Tecate doesn't understand how I can understand Bitcoin yet be critical.


Incorrect. You made a big fat claim about being impartial - there's no such thing - everybody comes to the table with their own unique biases - whether consciously or otherwise.



Dublinbay12 said:


> In his view your either in his camp 100% or naysayer.


Incorrect. You've said that you're positive on bitcoin but there's hardly anything that you've posted that reflects that. That leaves the Duke in higher standing and that's saying something seeing as I took him off my Crimbo Card list in 2017.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I don't really have strong opinions anymore bitcoin replacing fiat currency



I haven't seen anyone express an opinion here that bitcoin was or is going to replace fiat currency over the course of the past 5 years.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Ok for the sake of peace...I'm wrong you're right.


Perhaps this is symptomatic of the problem. *Maybe* it's not a case of someone being right or wrong or 'winning'. As per the recent example, it's a case of an exchange of views. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to share the same view.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> I see once again we have posts with commentary on the individual and not on the subject.
> 
> 
> Incorrect. You made a big fat claim about being impartial - there's no such thing - everybody comes to the table with their own unique biases - whether consciously or otherwise.
> 
> 
> Incorrect. You've said that you're positive on bitcoin but there's hardly anything that you've posted that reflects that. That leaves the Duke in higher standing and that's saying something seeing as I took him off my Crimbo Card list in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone express an opinion here that bitcoin was or is going to replace fiat currency over the course of the past 5 years.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is symptomatic of the problem. *Maybe* it's not a case of someone being right or wrong or 'winning'. As per the recent example, it's a case of an exchange of views. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to share the same view.



I see once again you've successfully managed to change the topic to he said she said.

I'll leave it again saying that article regarding KPMG was a non story in my opinion. 

I should have known better than attempt any debate on the topic of crypto on this forum. 

Have a great weekend.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> I see once again you've successfully managed to change the topic to he said she said.


And I see that once again you're obsessed with personal commentary rather than discuss the actual topic.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'll leave it again saying that article regarding KPMG was a non story in my opinion.


Thank you for that. I tend to affix various weightings to opinions expressed. Yours I've placed in the methane-filled balloon category. The Duke's is much better regarded ;-)



Dublinbay12 said:


> I should have known better than attempt any debate on the topic of crypto on this forum.


That would require you going five minutes without resorting to personal commentary. That's a choice - totally up to yourself.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Have a great weekend.


On Bitcoin Beach? Kind of guaranteed! Hasta Luego.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Are you in El Salvador tecate?


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> Are you in El Salvador tecate?


Yup 
Sats for spending, not just for stacking.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Nice, I'd be curious to hear your take on how the bitcoin situation is going there


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> Nice, I'd be curious to hear your take on how the bitcoin situation is going there



It's chugging along nicely. So prior to getting here, I had been in contact with folk that had been spending time here and was tuned in to commentary on how it was progressing. For anyone that has spent any time in Latam, they know that online systems/forms/apps, etc. are usually broken, unstable & dysfunctional here. So when Bukele made that announcement in Miami last year and went at this at breakneck speed, I was concerned. Consequently, there have been issues with Chivo - the government-based bitcoin wallet/app - but under the circumstances not as bad as I expected. For the most part, those issues have involved identity fraud and stuff of that nature. However, there have also been issues with confirmation of transactions. The backend of the app is centralised - so however its coded under the hood is not in order.

Naturally, the vast majority of transactions here are Chivo to Chivo. It's centralised and so I imagine those transactions are being handled in a centralised manner. For the most part, it means very fast transactions with the problematic exceptions I mentioned above. For a foreigner rocking up with a lightning wallet, the app is not as accommodating. At this early stage, your average Salvadoreano is familiar with Chivo and nothing else. The assumption is made that everyone is paying with Chivo - and when that's explained further, they're not aware of the difference between a main net payment and a LN payment. The option is there to accept LN on Chivo - but it's very badly designed/placed and it doesn't confirm instantaneously (like a normal LN transaction would between normal, decentralised LN wallets). Oftentimes, they're putting my transactions through on main net - which is not ideal from the point of view of transaction time/cost.

Having said all of that, the government is aware that they have some work to do. As of last week, they announced that they're now collaborating with a new development co. (AlphaPoint) and specific refererence was made to LN payments as being key to work they'll be doing to bring the wallet up to scratch. Beyond that, they're adding another 1500 Chivo ATMs. You'll recall that their main motivation in doing this was to get all of the expat remittance money (which accounts for a large tranche of GDP) back to Salvador without Western Union's fat margin being sliced off. That's a win for both the people and the government itself (given how significant this remittance $ is - to the country - proportionately ).

In terms of acceptance, most mom n pop places don't accept bitcoin. It's a case of some do and some don't. I always ask - and some accommodate and some don't. With regard to the large multinationals (the likes of Wendy's, McDonald's, KFC, etc.), they all accept bitcoin.  McDonald's in particular have that down pat with instantaneous LN payment via their self service screens. I think it's a great opportunity for multinational retail to trial bitcoin payments. They'll have that ip/knowledge should they decide to roll it out in other markets.

Groceries I'm buying with BTC. The supermarket nearest to me has dedicated aisles for bitcoin payment and promotional audio announcements reminding shoppers of the option to pay via Chivo/BTC.

In hindsight, rather than give people $30 of free bitcoin, Bukele should have had an educational aspect to this - and given that free money on completion of mini tutorials via the app - so that people learn some bitcoin basics. The Bitcoin Beach project has taken this approach with its app. It's also started to map out locations that are accepting bitcoin and have integrated that within its app.

This has been my experience in San Salvador - I won't be on the coast until sometime tomorrow.

As regards the general perception of how this has unfolded for the locals, those that I've talked to about it so far believe that its something different and with an economy that has been nailed to the floor perennially, they're open to a new approach and like the idea that El Sal is getting positive press for a change.

There are a few different angles that this is being approached from. The remittance angle, day to day payments, inward spend via crypto-related tourism, inward investment from crypto-related entrepreneurs and of course, more recently we've had the development of the bitcoin bond - which I believe will launch next month.

All told, I think they're doing ok in terms of roll-out and adoption (given this is a developing LATAM nation).
​


----------



## Marc

Just to reaffirm the most logical position here.

Cryptocurrency is/are most likely a pump and dump scam. There is no underlying intrinsic value. No dividend and no rent.

It is a classic example of the greater fool theory in that “value” is only derived if you can find someone willing to pay more that you.

Everything else is just mindless speculation.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Still it is interesting that @tecate is in El Sal. S/he reminds of of the early evangelists.


----------



## tecate

Marc said:


> Just to reaffirm the most logical position here.
> 
> Cryptocurrency is/are most likely a pump and dump scam. There is no underlying intrinsic value. No dividend and no rent.
> 
> It is a classic example of the greater fool theory in that “value” is only derived if you can find someone willing to pay more that you.
> 
> Everything else is just mindless speculation.



That your 'report' couldn't come up with ONE redeeming characteristic where bitcoin is concerned isn't in any way credible Marc.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Still it is interesting that @tecate is in El Sal. S/he reminds of of the early evangelists.


Yes, the religious and faith-based terminology is strong with you Duke. I suppose it makes sense what with the 'In God we Trust' paper money, complete with its religious and masonic iconography and your reveal that you'll just have to have faith in the central bank high priests. By contrast, those that see value in bitcoin put value in maths. The maths behind bitcoin's programmable money is open to anyone to inspect. Rules-based programmable money isn't open to political influence, mismanagement or corruption - unlike your 'In God we Trust' money.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Marc said:


> Just to reaffirm the most logical position here.
> 
> Cryptocurrency is/are most likely a pump and dump scam. There is no underlying intrinsic value. No dividend and no rent.
> 
> It is a classic example of the greater fool theory in that “value” is only derived if you can find someone willing to pay more that you.
> 
> Everything else is just mindless speculation.



You receive dividends for renting your assets by securing decentralised networks

Some people got a dividend to the tune of $25k in January by doing just that and taking part in the governance of the network, they could cash out if they wanted or wait until it's worth over $100k
Another dividend is dropping this month which should be 5 figures for a lot of people, they can cash out if they want.

The more people think like this, the better it is for everyone who doesnt in order to keep the APY's higher


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Serious question.  In El Sal are things really priced in BTC?  Or is it just that BTC is accepted at the tills but converted to some more stable pricing medium at the going rate?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Serious question.


 I think your spellchecker swapped out 'rhetorical' for 'serious' - but no matter, I'll answer it anyway.

The fact that bitcoin isn't a unit of account in El Salvador doesn't in any way hinder me (or anyone else) in using it as a means of payment. That aspect is seamless with conversion in real time up to the point of transaction. I'm not in any way surprised you're hung up on unit of account though as from what I recall, you've always looked at this as binary i.e. either bitcoin or fiat. It's not binary, they will both exist alongside each other. And why shouldn't they - when was choice ever a bad thing?

So hang on to your unit of account, Duke - I don't mind in the slightest. I'll trade you unit of account for the inability of the government (or anyone else for that matter) to confiscate my money - as is happening in Canada right now. The lowest hanging use cases may be in the developing world for bitcoin but everywhere presents with one use case or another at times.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I'm not in any way surprised you're hung up on unit of account though as from what I recall, you've always looked at this as binary i.e. either bitcoin or fiat. It's not binary, they will both exist alongside each other. And why shouldn't they - when was choice ever a bad thing?


You're right that I can't get my head round this at all.  
By unit of account I presume you mean the way that folk actually think in terms of price.  Let us use € for sake of argument.  So an El Sal housewife has in her head that a loaf of bread costs €1.  She gets to the till and tosses up in her head "which way will I pay the week's shopping bill?", maybe she relishes the choice. She chooses bitcoin.  When she gets home she keeps an eye on the internet to see if that was a good call for the week's shopping.  It is no exaggeration to say that within the week it might turn out to be 20% good or 20% bad.  I can't see this is as a step forward for humanity - ordinary economic life a perpetual roll of the dice.


----------



## tecate

Ah, so you don't have any issue with unit of account either - what you meant to bring up was volatility? Don't quote me but I'd wager that this discussion has been had already.

Yes, bitcoin is volatile and yes, that makes it sub-optimal as a means of payment. In the example you're giving, you're suggesting that the housewife should agonise over btc unit price after the fact? What's the point in that Duke? If you understand bitcoin and where it is currently re. volatility, and you can't live with that volatility, then don't use it.

All other things being equal, Gresham's Law applies - and you'd want to offload the melting ice cube that is fiat money first ( but people's circumstances vary and all other things aren't necessarily always equal). I'm pretty sure that you've been looking at this as binary - i.e. either we get to use one or the other and not both. My point is that there will be circumstances where it will be convenient to pay with one over the other.

Here's an example for you - one that I come across a lot. I've travelled around Latam extensively in recent years and I keep coming up against this. I arrive in Country X and I don't have the local monopoly money. If I withdraw from an ATM, I'll be hit with charges...so what I've tried to do is minimise the use of cash and use card. However, its quite common that when paying with card, the vendor will say yes you can pay with card but I'm adding 5%. If you had a bitcoin wallet on your phone Duke at that point and the vendor accepted bitcoin, you'd pay with bitcoin.

What many people want to see is choice - the ability to be able to spend either/or - not one winning out against the other. We've also established that there is another rationale entirely for holding btc (store of value, censorship-resistant/non-confiscatable money), then why should someone not exercise the right to spend btc that they're holding anyway if it suits their circumstances to do so? I've rarely seen a circumstance where choice is bad.

And the last point on volatility... this is all still very early. As adoption continues, as market cap expands and as the asset matures, it's reasonable to expect that the relative level of volatility in the price of bitcoin will diminish. The data shows this trend is already happening. Here's the latest report from Bloomberg Intelligence. It plots BTC volatility against that of the Nasdaq 100. In December 2017, it was 8x that of the Nasdaq 100. Today its 3x more volatile than the Nasdaq 100. It's reasonable to expect volatility to decline as adoption continues and market cap expands.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

We agree on something at last.  Volatility will diminish.  In fact it will finish at zero.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact it will finish at zero.


 . So on a scale of 1-10, how would you classify your level of conviction in that eventuality?

And to follow up, can you give a reasonable timeline for such an eventuality? Would three years be sufficient? So let's say by 1 March 2025, you accept that your thesis has been validated or invalidated at that point by virtue of btc trading at zero or otherwise.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> . So on a scale of 1-10, how would you classify your level of conviction in that eventuality?
> 
> And to follow up, can you give a reasonable timeline for such an eventuality? Would three years be sufficient? So let's say by 1 March 2025, you accept that your thesis has been validated or invalidated at that point by virtue of btc trading at zero or otherwise.


On a scale of 1-10, 0. 
I have been horribly wrong so far.  My consolation is that I am in good company.  Roubini, Stiltjes, Buffet, Fax Machine Man etc.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> On a scale of 1-10, 0.
> I have been horribly wrong so far.  My consolation is that I am in good company.  Roubini, Stiltjes, Buffet, Fax Machine Man etc.



I'm not sure that makes sense though, Duke. Like @Brendan Burgess , you've confirmed that you think that there's ZERO possibility of bitcoin continuing to succeed. Surely that means you have a higher rate of conviction of bitcoin failing than 0/10?

Don't be like Larry, Duke.


----------



## DublinHead54

The driver of adoption in financial institutions is profits. It is not because they suddenly believe in Bitcoin, financial leaders have dismissed it previously, e.g. Jamie Dimon, and Larry Fink, two of the most systemically important leaders in Finance. Their clients are demanding access to it or they will go to competitors, it is no surprise that crypto native companies are bulking out their institutional investment and family office teams. 

Those clients are demanding access because they see an opportunity to make money, not because they want to disrupt the world order and undo central banks powers. 

It comes down to money and greed. 

Bitcoin is old news...it is all about Web3 now


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate Amusing video.
But of course history is also riddled with snake oil promises, cures for baldness, cures for dread diseases, the elixir of life or even turning base metal into gold.  And now we have a claim of turning digital entries on a blockchain ledger into gold.
On a scale of 1 to 10 that bitcoin is BOHA:  10.
On confidence that the satoshi will drop any time soon 0.


----------



## Rasputin

tecate said:


> The maths behind bitcoin's programmable money is open to anyone to inspect.


That will put lots of people's mind at ease - wouldn't want to go into something completely blind


----------



## ClubMan

Rasputin said:


> That will put lots of people's mind at ease - wouldn't want to go into something completely blind


Yes, I'm sure that most people who have piled into BTC have studied the source code as part of their due diligence...


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Those clients are demanding access because they see an opportunity to make money, not because they want to disrupt the world order and undo central banks powers.


Have you come across claims that bitcoin will 'disrupt the world order'? I've not seen that. As regards undoing central bank powers, its likely to act as an incentive for CBs not to abuse their powers and act responsibly - not 'undo' their powers. However, the opportunity that you refer to doesn't come without the utility in bitcoin which underpins it.



Dublinbay12 said:


> It comes down to money and greed.


Money certainly makes the world go round but as above - that opportunity doesn't exist in a vacuum, void of the utility that makes bitcoin a prospect from the outset.

As regards bitcoin and web 3, the latter refers to a  whole host of other utility not that closely related to what bitcoin provides for. I think that bitcoin is still at a very early stage in its development and adoption though.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate Amusing video.
> But of course history is also riddled with snake oil promises, cures for baldness, cures for dread diseases, the elixir of life or even turning base metal into gold.  And now we have a claim of turning digital entries on a blockchain ledger into gold.


All I'm sayin' Duke is 'don't be like Larry'. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10 that bitcoin is BOHA:  10.
> On confidence that the satoshi will drop any time soon 0.


So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that you see no utility in bitcoin but that despite that, bitcoin will continue and you don't see it going to zero?



ClubMan said:


> Yes, I'm sure that most people who have piled into BTC have studied the source code as part of their due diligence...


BTC has emerged as a retail phenomenon. With that, market behaviour has been quite different by comparison to assets brought to market by Wall Street. However, that there may have been a more amateur approach to investing in the asset is not a stain on the asset itself or its transparent, in-built, rules and monetary policy.
There may well be a herd mentality associated with money that has flowed into the asset - but that doesn't mean that there are not also savvy and well-informed people who have done their due diligence and thereafter, invested in the asset. Over the course of 13 years, all manner of attempts have been made to compromise that source code and they've failed. Circling back to the original point, the in-built rules that provides for bitcoin's supply schedule, fixed cap supply and overall monetary policy is tamperproof and not open to manipulation by politicians and others.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that you see no utility in bitcoin but that despite that, bitcoin will continue and you don't see it going to zero?


I misinterpreted your original question.  I have 100% certainty it will go to zero but 0 confidence on the time line.


----------



## DublinHead54

Bitcoin was created with the intent to change the current world order. That world order is one in which we 'trust' central governments to provide effective monetary policy and manage the economy. The adoption of Bitcoin by financial institutions as an investment product is not because suddenly they believe in the need to move away from a trust based system, it is driven by the potential to make more money. 

_"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." (Bitcoin Whitepaper)_


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I misinterpreted your original question.  I have 100% certainty it will go to zero but 0 confidence on the time line.


Ok, so 3 years would be enough for you to determine that, right? I mean, we've been discussing it for the past five and bitcoin has only gone from strength to strength in that 5 years. 


Dublinbay12 said:


> Bitcoin was created with the intent to change the current world order. That world order is one in which we 'trust' central governments to provide effective monetary policy and manage the economy. The adoption of Bitcoin by financial institutions as an investment product is not because suddenly they believe in the need to move away from a trust based system, it is driven by the potential to make more money.
> 
> _"What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." (Bitcoin Whitepaper)_


I think you're  affixing phraseology that's of your own making here. I've not seen any claims re. changing a world order. My understanding is that Satoshi recognised deficiencies in the conventional system (in the aftermath of the GFC and emergence of Occupy Wall St., etc.) and devised a system that addressed those deficiencies. It's simply an alternative system - using the phrase 'changing the world order' suggests something different entirely.


----------



## bankrupt

Apropos of nothing, this (Irish) YouTuber has a super video on the couple who were recently busted trying to launder $3.6Bn of stolen Bitcoin.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-MX6YdA8k0  [I really like his videos in general but just occasionally he does one like this for larks, see also his "Investment plan for 2022"] 

And this is the ne plus ultra of NFT:  https://twitter.com/SeanBurkeShow/status/1487048290277408770


----------



## ClubMan

Massive news for BTC!!!   








						Wexford’s first Bitcoin ATM installed at Gorey shop
					

GOREY has welcomed its first Bitcoin ATM machine at the XL Shop and Asian/Brazilian store on Gorey’s Main Street.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## tecate

ClubMan said:


> Massive news for BTC!!!


Seeing as this is the biggest of news for WEXFORD rather than bitcoin you'll probably get away scot free without the savaging I usually get for bringing a bit of good news to the discussion...well played sir


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Great news for Wexican ex-pats in far flung places like Leitrim who are sending remittances back to the mother land.


----------



## DublinHead54

ClubMan said:


> Massive news for BTC!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wexford’s first Bitcoin ATM installed at Gorey shop
> 
> 
> GOREY has welcomed its first Bitcoin ATM machine at the XL Shop and Asian/Brazilian store on Gorey’s Main Street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie


A clear sign of the massive adoption that is just around the corner......


----------



## DublinHead54

The US Department of Justice is now one of the biggest holders of Bitcoin....A currency created by a unknown person that becomes the defacto currency for the dark web, leading to efforts of the US to shut down illegal activities (Silk Road), and now capturing other criminals.....Maybe it was the US all along, after all they did create the private web browser ToR.

I jest, interesting conspiracy theory all the same! Can't wait to be berated and attacked by some members of this forum for daring to speak out against their precious Bitcoin.


On another note, I attended an event with a number of large institutional investors recently regarding digital asset strategies. It is definitely not being treated as Ponzi scheme, but the general consensus is how can they get exposure to it without holding it directly / what are the *investment* opportunities. The conversation never touched on adoption of it as a currency, it is purely viewed in the context of an emerging investment asset.


----------



## ClubMan

Dublinbay12 said:


> On another note, I attended an event with a number of large institutional investors recently regarding digital asset strategies. It is definitely not being treated as Ponzi scheme, but the general consensus is how can they get exposure to it without holding it directly / what are the *investment* opportunities. The conversation never touched on adoption of it as a currency, it is purely viewed in the context of an emerging investment asset.


So what? These are probably the same institutions that bought synthetic CDOs by the skip load back in the day...


----------



## tecate

ClubMan said:


> So what? These are probably the same institutions that bought synthetic CDOs by the skip load back in the day...


It must be true 'cos there's far greater alpha being shared around on the 'business luncheon' circuit by comparison with what us poor plebs have to settle for.


----------



## DublinHead54

ClubMan said:


> So what? These are probably the same institutions that bought synthetic CDOs by the skip load back in the day...



They are not.


It is important in the discourse of Bitcoin on this forum. Posters often cite news stories regarding institutions using crypto as evidence of adoption of Bitcoin. It is inferred this 'adoption' aligns to the original use case of Bitcoin as a decentralized global currency. 

However, my opinion is that this is not causation and the 'adoption' by financial institutions is as an investment product first and foremost, just like they saw opportunities to profit from synthetic CDOs, MBS, Weather Options etc Bitcoin and digital assets is just another conduit for these market players to profit.

The continued adoption as an investment product does legitimize bitcoin as an investment for a retail investor. The market infrastructure will continue to mature and regulation will occur (FSB announcment yesterday), making it more secure. This does not reduce the price risk associated with Bitcoin but it will reduce the operational risks associated (flash crashes, exchange security weaknesses).

This is all on the basis of Bitcoin being adopted as an investment asset and not as a currency. There however remains uncertainty as whilst FInancial institutions want to introduce clients to it as an investment asset and profit via bid/offer spreads and fees, other market players can't profit in the same way. For example Paypal, it too wants to profit from BTC, but its main profit mechanism is via offering it as a payment method. Thus we are heading to a fork in the road, companies want to profit from BTC, but it is split between an investment product or a payment product. My opinion is the investment product will win out.


----------



## tecate

As per his/her/their musings on the bitcointalk discussion board back in the day, Satoshi was well aware of the potential significance of bitcoin from a store of value perspective. In the same way as the early internet hit bottlenecks, so too has the bitcoin network. In 2017, the modest progress the network had made was stunted due to scaling issues - leading to transaction cost/transaction time issues. From that point, it has made headway as an inflation hedge, a store of value likened to digital gold and a credible & unique asset in its own right.

Enter 2021 and layer 2 scaling solution lightning network had finally gotten to a point where it could scale bitcoin payments. The lightning network has grown exponentially over the course of the past 18 months. There's bitcoin the asset and bitcoin the network. The likes of Strike is using the network for remittances  with minimal slippage. As per its announcement yesterday, Coinbase is taking a similar approach, starting with the US->Mexico market. And meanwhile, bitcoin is gaining traction with direct micro-payments also.

All different use cases - all developing. I'm sure that some will end up accounting for more activity (depending of course on how you measure that) than others. However, it's not binary. The use of bitcoin for one use case doesn't negate its use for another. In fact, I would suggest it's quite the opposite. If you hold or utilise bitcoin for one use case, isn't there a greater likelihood that you'll use it for another use case from time to time also?


----------



## ClubMan

Dublinbay12 said:


> It is important in the discourse of this subject on this forum when posters often use news stories of institutions using crypto as evidence of adoption of Bitcoin, inferring adoption aligned to the original intended usage.


I gave up at this sentence because it makes no sense.


----------



## DublinHead54

ClubMan said:


> I gave up at this sentence because it makes no sense.



You are extremely rude. If you don't have anything valuable to add to the conversation why even bother? Your moronic quips add no value to this conversation. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding or just that you want to get a rise out of people, they add zero value and just degrade the value of this forum.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Dublinbay12 said:


> It is important in the discourse of Bitcoin on this forum. Posters often cite news stories regarding institutions using crypto as evidence of adoption of Bitcoin. It is inferred this 'adoption' aligns to the original use case of Bitcoin as a decentralized global currency.


If you inferred that from my posts, well that's your mistake. Adoption of bitcoin is anyone using it, where 'using it' is holding it, or transacting with it, for any reason.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dublinbay12 said:


> This is all on the basis of Bitcoin being adopted as an investment asset and not as a currency.


According to John Kelleher this is not possible.


			
				John Kelleher of Investopedia said:
			
		

> One of the biggest issues is Bitcoin's status as a store of value. Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value.


JK is an avid BTC cultist believing its ultimate value will be €500k based on it achieving 15% penetration of global medium of exchange.
Suggesting that BTC can shrug off this medium of exchange dependence would be like some snake oil baldness cure becoming an investment asset even though only a tiny cadré of true believers are actually rubbing it on their scalps.


----------



## tecate

I would also like to clarify that I've discussed bitcoin here in the context of a number of use cases - not limited to store of value and means of exchange/payments. If anyone is suggesting that everything I've posted here has been exclusively in support of the use of bitcoin as a day to day currency, I've no idea how someone could arrive at that conclusion. 

On a related note, I recall someone or other lamenting a while back at how bitcoin had become a markets and wall street plaything. The point is that bitcoin is opensource and decentralised and can be used by any person or organisation for whatever purpose they decide to put it to. That can range from the street vendor who took payment in bitcoin from me for a pupusa here yesterday, the Colorado governor announcing the ability for taxes to be paid in bitcoin later this year, the world's largest energy exploration/production company announcing a bitcoin mining project or Fidelity announcing the launch of its first Bitcoin Exchange Traded Fund.


----------



## DublinHead54

DazedInPontoon said:


> If you inferred that from my posts, well that's your mistake. Adoption of bitcoin is anyone using it, where 'using it' is holding it, or transacting with it, for any reason.



I haven't inferred anything from your posts. If I am honest, I don't find that you have a strong position and it often changes to suit your needs of the conversation at a particular point. The above post is a good example. 

I infer from it that you don't believe that Bitcoins only use case is as a currency? If so you appear to agree with me, what I am not sure is why you have often spent time mentioning Bitcoin as means of replacing central bank currencies and the fiat system? 

Based on the above, I don't see any reason why you would disagree with my statements of financial institution adoption is about the opportunity to profit and not because of a belief in Bitcoin as a currency. That is why I don't believe it is a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> ...the world's largest energy exploration/production company announcing a bitcoin mining project...





			
				From tecate's link said:
			
		

> A representative for ConocoPhillips said the company is not operating the crypto mine itself. Instead, it sells gas that would otherwise have been burned off to a bitcoin processor that is owned and managed by a third party.


My guess is they would have sold gas to the Nazis.  Doesn't mean they in any way support those who buy its product or what they are doing with it.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My guess is they would have sold gas to the Nazis.  Doesn't mean they in any way support those who buy its product or what they are doing with it.



So let me get this straight. ConocoPhillips will now get paid for something that was otherwise being flared off and wasted. Secondly, when it comes to its Corporate Responsibility and ESG policy, obligations & associated metrics, it now boasts a 63% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions. And you want to spin this off as if its a bad thing?


----------



## DublinHead54

Duke of Marmalade said:


> According to John Kelleher this is not possible.
> 
> JK is an avid BTC cultist believing its ultimate value will be €500k based on it achieving 15% penetration of global medium of exchange.
> Suggesting that BTC can shrug off this medium of exchange dependence would be like some snake oil baldness cure becoming an investment asset even though only a tiny cadré of true believers are actually rubbing it on their scalps.



Duke,

I googled John Kelleher...he is a blockchain software developer, not an economist, not an academic, so I wouldn't put much weight behind his points for your argument. Then again, I'm not an academic, or an economist so what do I know either?! I just follow the money and logic.

Bitcoin isn't becoming an investment asset, it already is an investment asset. I've held it in various sizes for a decade, what is now happening is it is becoming institutionalized. The rumours of BlackRock entering the market and offering to clients, is some more evidence of this. I can compare it to gold and be shot down because gold has intrinsic use in jewellery etc. However, I can't send $10,000 of gold to my mate in Japan in a few minutes. I don't over complicate financial markets, Bitcoin has value because people believe and trust it has value. You'll probably say this is a Ponzi Scheme, but you could also describe any Tech firm that trades at multiples of book value as a ponzi scheme in my opinion.

We can debate back and forth back and forth as has happened for years on this forum. Whilst in the background Bitcoin continues to be adopted as an investment asset.

My biggest open question for the future of Bitcoin however is.....Microstrategy owns 0.5% of total supply of Bitcoins. That is one small company, there aren't enough Bitcoins to go around. However, what people have said on this forum is the issue is solved by the price rising, which is not a certainty and just a 'belief'. Even if the price does increase it will still lead to massive wealth inequality on the network. The other point that I have concern about is if everybody buys to hold, what happens to the network? There will be no incentives to run expensive infrastructure if there are low transaction rewards.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Dublinbay12 said:


> I infer from it that you don't believe that Bitcoins only use case is as a currency?


Correct, which is why I've been talking about the coming institutional adoption as a store of value since a year and a half ago. I've personally been using it as a store of value for the best part of a decade.


Dublinbay12 said:


> If so you appear to agree with me, what I am not sure is why you have often spent time mentioning Bitcoin as means of replacing central bank currencies and the fiat system?


I don't think I have. My main opinion is that adoption can/will continue in the manner it already has. I think that can continue in parallel to central bank currencies. I think that something like the El Salvador experiment in currency usage is less likely to succeed and if it does it's a long way away (10+ years probably) but I wouldn't rule it out. For a start it needs the lightning network or some other 2nd layer to become better than anything that exists right now.


Dublinbay12 said:


> Based on the above, I don't see any reason why you would disagree with my statements of financial institution adoption is about the opportunity to profit and not because of a belief in Bitcoin as a currency. That is why I don't believe it is a Ponzi scheme.


No argument there.


----------



## DublinHead54

DazedInPontoon said:


> Correct, which is why I've been talking about the coming institutional adoption as a store of value since a year and a half ago. I've personally been using it as a store of value for the best part of a decade.





Dublinbay12 said:


> Bitcoin isn't becoming an investment asset, it already is an investment asset. I've held it in various sizes for a decade, what is now happening is it is becoming institutionalized.



I think we are perfectly aligned 

I view the experiments in El Salvador as superfluous to the overall adoption and that it will not succeed. Whether that failure comes from lack of buy in from citizens or from external pressures. 

Where I view the real battle in the coming years is in the private for profit sector between Financial Institutions and Payment Companies. This boils down to Financial institutions who will have the motivation for it to be an investment asset vs Payment companies that want it used as a day to day currency in order to profit.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Just realised that a week ago David McWIlliams actually had Michael Saylor on this podcast as a guest to talk Bitcoin. Worth a listen, DMW might be finally starting to get it.


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> which is why I've been talking about the coming institutional adoption as a store of value since a year and a half ago. I've personally been using it as a store of value for the best part of a decade.


The entire discussion here (with rare exceptions) since early 2018 onwards has centred on the store of value use case - be that via retail adoption or institutional.



DazedInPontoon said:


> I think that can continue in parallel to central bank currencies.


Right. I haven't heard anyone call for or predict a complete swap out of fiat for btc over a number of years of discussion here.



DazedInPontoon said:


> I think that something like the El Salvador experiment in currency usage is less likely to succeed and if it does it's a long way away (10+ years probably) but I wouldn't rule it out.


It depends on what the definition of success is. My understanding is that the main reason that Bukele went down this road is to cut out the loss to the individual and the state to intermediaries in the remittance process. BTC and USD are legal tender - not one or the other.
He's using BTC and BTC network rails to break free of the clutches of the banks locally and conventional international banking/financial services. Success for me is the universal acceptance of bitcoin as a means of payment. It doesn't have to replace fiat currency. Fiat currency can remain to be utilised for 98% of everyday purchases and I wouldn't give a fiddlers as long as the choice is there to pay with bitcoin.

Gresham's law dictates that there's less reason to use hard money over fiat for everyday payments. That makes sense - but I think it's important that people have the choice. If a fiat currency is mismanaged entirely then ordinary people need to be in a position to switch over seamlessly. So long as there's no mismanagement, then there's no need to force the issue. Other than that, it needs to be there as an option to get round these moats that have been built in conventional financial services re. costly international transfers and to circumvent capital controls.

Having said that, there may be greater incentive for nations that don't have their own sovereign/fiat currency to go beyond that as they don't have some of the advantages that go along with that i.e. seigniorage, etc. His project is likely to come up against a lot more push back now that he's going down the bitcoin bond route and putting it up to the IMF....but that's a move that's entirely different to having BTC accepted as a means of payment on a day to day basis.



DazedInPontoon said:


> For a start it needs the lightning network or some other 2nd layer to become better than anything that exists right now.


They've done reasonably well considering it's been introduced over such a short space of time. He had to start with the centralised government app/wallet to get things kicked off. I think they'll improve the app but it gets more interesting as people get more up to speed with it, more comfortable with it and start to use independent lightning wallets.
My understanding as regards lightning itself is that it's more or less there. There are some aspects to be shored up still but fundamentally, it works. I'm not sure if you've played with it - but if not, download the Muun Wallet, DM me a QR code and I can ping you a few sats - just so that you see transaction time/transaction cost/user experience, etc.



DazedInPontoon said:


> Just realised that a week ago David McWIlliams actually had Michael Saylor on this podcast as a guest to talk Bitcoin. Worth a listen, DMW might be finally starting to get it.


Thanks for the heads up on that - certainly better than his last BTC-related guest! He seems to be getting a little bit closer but from his summing up, he's still a tad confused! Link to the podcast here in case anyone else wants to listen to it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> So let me get this straight. ConocoPhillips will now get paid for something that was otherwise being flared off and wasted. Secondly, when it comes to its Corporate Responsibility and ESG policy, obligations & associated metrics, it now boasts a 63% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions. And you want to spin this off as if its a bad thing?


Not like you, that is a complete Trumpian twist.  I did not say it was a bad thing.  I said it was a No thing as far as institutional adoption of btc is concerned.  ConocoPhilips will sell gas to anyone who will pay for it - and I presume they insist on In God we Trust  as the means of payment.  Next you will claim that Mercedes are institutional supporters because miners mostly drive S-series Mercs.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not like you, that is a complete Trumpian twist.  I did not say it was a bad thing.  I said it was a No thing as far as institutional adoption of btc is concerned.  ConocoPhilips will sell gas to anyone who will pay for it - and I presume they insist on In God we Trust  as the means of payment.  Next you will claim that Mercedes are institutional supporters because miners mostly drive S-series Mercs.


 
There are many facets to this Duke - and they all play a part. The first time I mentioned the use of flared gas and curtailed energy for bitcoin mining, there were claims that this was an irrelevance. Yet these examples keep coming. With that, it plays into the decision-making process re. institutional adoption or otherwise due to the whole ESG element. One of the biggest entities in energy participating in that adds to the significance. It demonstrates again that the trend is towards ever greener bitcoin mining (and in this case, its turning the pin in the other direction given that gas that is simply flared away accounts for a 63% higher CO2 equivalent emissions rate.

You'll recall the whole Elon-gate thing last year where he pulled back on BTC because Blackrock had raised the ESG issue with him?

And the only reason Conoco aren't doing this directly themselves is because its new and its not their core competence....so why not simply let someone else do it, take the $ and also benefit from the improved ESG stat?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dublinbay12 said:


> Duke,
> 
> I googled John Kelleher...he is a blockchain software developer, not an economist, not an academic, so I wouldn't put much weight behind his points for your argument.


I put no weight behind most of his arguments - but this one rang true.  Interestingly Investopedia seem to have removed this quote, I had to source it from past citations by myself.


Dublinbay12 said:


> Then again, I'm not an academic, or an economist so what do I know either?! I just follow the money and logic.


Neither am I.  That is why I rely on Nobel Laureates and eminent professors like Roubini just as I rely on the experts for advice on vaccination.


Dublinbay12 said:


> Bitcoin isn't becoming an investment asset, it already is an investment asset.


According to aforementioned experts, btc isn't an investment, it isn't an asset and it isn't a currency.  It has no assets.  It has no income.  It has no intrinsic value.


Dublinbay12 said:


> I've held it in various sizes for a decade, what is now happening is it is becoming institutionalized. The rumours of BlackRock entering the market and offering to clients, is some more evidence of this.


I do not regard folk like Fidelity or Paypal facilitating btc as it becoming institutionalized.  I presume like me they listen to the experts but if they see a client niche, heck they will grab it, that is what their marketeers are paid for.


Dublinbay12 said:


> I can compare it to gold and be shot down because gold has intrinsic use in jewellery etc.


You beat me to it.


Dublinbay12 said:


> However, I can't send $10,000 of gold to my mate in Japan in a few minutes.


The inability to transport things to Japan in a few minutes has not been a drag on Ireland's house market, if you have noticed.  Whereas my being able to post a mug shot of myself on the internet in theory capable for billions to be able to see in seconds is unfortunately of no value to me.


Dublinbay12 said:


> I don't over complicate financial markets, Bitcoin has value because people believe and trust it has value.


Ahh!  Getting close to agreement.  Bitcoin currently has a price because people are prepared to pay a price.  There is no basis for determining that price other than the experts' zero, which is why it is all over the shop and an ideal speculative bauble.


Dublinbay12 said:


> You'll probably say this is a Ponzi Scheme,


You keep stealing my lines but you will see elsewhere expert opinion that it is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.


Dublinbay12 said:


> but you could also describe any Tech firm that trades at multiples of book value as a ponzi scheme in my opinion.


Absolutely, and btc trades at a multiple of book value equal to infinity.


----------



## DublinHead54

DazedInPontoon said:


> I think that can continue in parallel to central bank currencies.



Yes Bitcoin can continue in parallel to central bank currencies, it has been doing that for the last 10 years. So I agree to that point. However, I believe the influence central banks can have on bitcoin will limit the success. For example last time I checked using Bitcoin in the US to purchase a good was a taxable event? That's a problem that will limit adoption.

I'm sure Tecate stated before they chose to leave their home country for a more tax efficient location (maybe better weather as well). There again is an example of a government having influence.

It is early days in the adoption curve, I'm just more sure of where it is going and ok to be proved wrong in the long run!

In your response you say you've considered it as a store of value for the last year and half. Then you say it can also be a currency but time will tell.

That's why I said it wasn't clear what your stance is for the future. A lot of statements are made on this forum caveated with time will tell. I'm actually laughing at Tecate claiming he hasn't been anti central bank currency and monetary policy. Barely a day has gone by without them mentioning the printing of money.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> For example last time I checked using Bitcoin in the US to purchase a good was a taxable event? That's a problem that will limit adoption.


Watch this space. ...literally...because there's plenty of action behind the scenes to have this corrected.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'm sure Tecate stated before they chose to leave their home country for a more tax efficient location (maybe better weather as well). There again is an example of a government having influence.


What we can be sure of is that YOU stated it previously - I on the other hand never did. It's one of many examples where you have deliberately misconstrued what I have or haven't claimed (more on that below).



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'm ... ok to be proved wrong in the long run!


Followed by this complaint.....



Dublinbay12 said:


> A lot of statements are made on this forum caveated with time will tell


Aside from the obvious ( what rational person would have an issue with accepting that nobody can foretell anything with 100% certainty and we won't until the whole thing transpires...), double standards much?



Dublinbay12 said:


> I'm actually laughing at Tecate claiming he hasn't been anti central bank currency and monetary policy. Barely a day has gone by without them mentioning the printing of money.


Evidential miscomprehension once again. The whole origin story of bitcoin is one in which it was created as a reaction to deficiencies in the current/conventional monetary/financial system. I've listened to five years of claims that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, a sham, etc. - while no admissions were ever made about the conventional system. That I want those shortcomings to be recognised whilst not looking for the complete destruction of the current system - and instead, that I'm a proponent of the availability of choice is rational to my mind. Not only have I claimed over the duration here that both can and will co-exist, I've drawn attention to the fact that maturity in the adoption of bitcoin globally will make CBs around the world far more responsible.

The irony - if fiat money was managed optimally in all cases, bitcoin wouldn't even have come into being. And if anyone thinks that rampant money printing isn't relevant to this discussion, then they haven't a notion of what's at play.

Lastly, I really doubt that you are laughing at anything - I clearly live rent free in your head - given that once again, the comments veer away from the actual subject to personal commentary.


----------



## DublinHead54

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I put no weight behind most of his arguments - but this one rang true.  Interestingly Investopedia seem to have removed this quote, I had to source it from past citations by myself.
> 
> Neither am I.  That is why I rely on Nobel Laureates and eminent professors like Roubini just as I rely on the experts for advice on vaccination.
> 
> According to aforementioned experts, btc isn't an investment, it isn't an asset and it isn't a currency.  It has no assets.  It has no income.  It has no intrinsic value.
> 
> I do not regard folk like Fidelity or Paypal facilitating btc as it becoming institutionalized.  I presume like me they listen to the experts but if they see a client niche, heck they will grab it, that is what their marketeers are paid for.
> 
> You beat me to it.
> 
> The inability to transport things to Japan in a few minutes has not been a drag on Ireland's house market, if you have noticed.  Whereas my being able to post a mug shot of myself on the internet in theory capable for billions to be able to see in seconds is unfortunately of no value to me.
> 
> Ahh!  Getting close to agreement.  Bitcoin currently has a price because people are prepared to pay a price.  There is no basis for determining that price other than the experts' zero, which is why it is all over the shop and an ideal speculative bauble.
> 
> You keep stealing my lines but you will see elsewhere expert opinion that is it actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Absolutely, and btc trades at a multiple of book value equal to infinity.



Valid points Duke, but I think what is missed here is the value of human nature....this isn't the first 'buble' or 'ponzi scheme' we've created. People always want the opportunity to make a quick buck. 

I don't think you can discount Fidelity or BlackRock, two of the largest money managers in the world as simple marketeers. I also agree that their adoption does not validate the importance of Bitcoin. It simply means it is being institutionalized i.e. Institutional Investors are getting access via traditional channels. It is slightly ironic that these players have been slammed for their part in the GFC but are celebrated by the same crowd when they start interacting with Bitcoin (recurring theme on AAM). 

As has been pointed out by the Bitcoin powers of AAM, my opinion or comments are worth nothing (apparently). This is of course the label stamped on anyone who dares share a differing opinion whilst being a market participant. But after all how can I argue with 'Bitcoin adoption is anything you want it to be, just wait and see'. 

You've made valid points, and I don't profess to understand the current market price of Bitcoin (perhaps @DazedInPontoon can run their model or Tecate can give us the inside track on the ongoings of US government). 

What I do believe is that if every poster on this thread were contemplating purchasing Bitcoin for the first time today at $45k vs $100 10 years ago the outcome would be different. 

We are all (myself included) biased to the positives of Bitcoin because we have profited. That is the real reason, all this hyperbole about 'wait and see the adoption', 'we are at the beginning' all my become true in future, but it is not enough to make me part with my cash at $45k. 

I look to @DazedInPontoon to offer his opinion on why it makes sense at this level to invest?

I have digressed Duke, I guess all I can say in the words of others is 'we will have to wait and see'


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> The other side of human nature is bias. Of course I and others will be pro bitcoin if we bought for $3 and it's now $45k. A person buying it at $65k won't be so pro.


On the subject of bias, nobody is immune from it - any suggestion to the contrary and it's time to go looking for the underlying motivation...be it ego or whatever else that's at play.
Bias equally plays a role for those that have made a miscalculation on bitcoin from the outset, and doubled/tripled down on that miscalculation to a point where they find themselves in a polarized position. It very much cuts both ways. That's evident from positions taken here where under no circumstances will some folk accept that there is a percentile chance that the adoption of bitcoin continues. Whilst I've no problem in backing my own conviction, I don't think its wise for any of us to _assume_ anything. Using the words of others, I'm _"ok to be proved wrong in the long run"_.

In another case in point, it recently led to someone producing  a 'report' where a trillion dollar asset (in a 2 trillion dollar asset class) was found not to have one single redeeming quality - not one. Bias has many stakeholders - not just $ stakeholders.

With regard to where people identify value, that discussion and ponderance has occurred infinite times going back to when BTC hit $1, $10, $100, etc.  If adoption of the asset is to continue, those discussions will continue - over the longer time horizon.



Dublinbay12 said:


> That's why that bias leads people on this forum to grab any news article and use as shining example of why bitcoin is so great.



Having established the nature of bias, I'd suggest that it can be assumed from the outset regardless of the contributor. The great thing about a discussion board is that this sort of stuff can be thrashed out - it's kind of the whole point. If someone has a counterview, they can post it. However, defaulting to things like 'this is clickbait' without any review of what was posted doesn't further anyone's understanding of the topic. Summarily dismissing data that comes from the industry (bias) whilst taking a completely different view when it comes to conventional old school media (bias) doesn't cut it either.  Not only is the latter an example of bias but it betrays the lack of an ability to think critically - as in the wayward assumption that this somehow is  'trusted' info, then it doesn't have to be challenged - when the reality is that everything has to be challenged, and nobody is immune from that - not even those claiming to be _impartial_.



Dublinbay12 said:


> As has been pointed out by the Bitcoin powers of AAM, my opinion or comments are worth nothing (apparently).


This is not fencing - it's a discussion. Clearly the greater issue lies with the opinion holder and what they think of their own opinion that suggests that it's got to be forced upon someone presumably until they're expected to relent. And part of that opinion involved calling a Coindesk article clickbait when it had legitimately reported on a relevant news event. Not to have reported on it would have been negligent.




Dublinbay12 said:


> Bitcoin adoption is anything you want it to be, just wait and see


Yeah, I got this one. The key to not getting upset in this instance is not to misquote the other party to the discussion to begin with - and afterwards feel offended/outraged, etc. at the misquote that you've written.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

John Kelleher is alive and well.  It’s just that he has re worded his article:
John Kelleher of investopedia
There is so much wrong in this article, except his math - if btc becomes 15% of world currency usage it will be worth c.$515k.
Just a small example.
He says the price of BTC follows its cost of production.  It is in fact the total opposite way round.
But he has stuck to the main point with which I agree.


> One of the biggest issues is Bitcoin's status as a store of value. Bitcoin's utility as a store of value depends on how well it works as a medium of exchange. If Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will not be useful as a store of value.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> On the subject of bias, nobody is immune from it - any suggestion to the contrary and it's time to go looking for the underlying motivation...be it ego or whatever else that's at play.
> Bias equally plays a role for those that have made a miscalculation on bitcoin from the outset, and doubled/tripled down on that miscalculation to a point where they find themselves in a polarized position. It very much cuts both ways. That's evident from positions taken here where under no circumstances will some folk accept that there is a percentile chance that the adoption of bitcoin continues. Whilst I've no problem in backing my own conviction, I don't think its wise for any of us to _assume_ anything. Using the words of others, I'm _"ok to be proved wrong in the long run"_.
> 
> In another case in point, it recently led to someone producing  a 'report' where a trillion dollar asset (in a 2 trillion dollar asset class) was found not to have one single redeeming quality - not one. Bias has many stakeholders - not just $ stakeholders.
> 
> With regard to where people identify value, that discussion and ponderance has occurred infinite times going back to when BTC hit $1, $10, $100, etc.  If adoption of the asset is to continue, those discussions will continue - over the longer time horizon.
> 
> 
> 
> Having established the nature of bias, I'd suggest that it can be assumed from the outset regardless of the contributor. The great thing about a discussion board is that this sort of stuff can be thrashed out - it's kind of the whole point. If someone has a counterview, they can post it. However, defaulting to things like 'this is clickbait' without any review of what was posted doesn't further anyone's understanding of the topic. Summarily dismissing data that comes from the industry (bias) whilst taking a completely different view when it comes to conventional old school media (bias) doesn't cut it either.  Not only is the latter an example of bias but it betrays the lack of an ability to think critically - as in the wayward assumption that this somehow is  'trusted' info, then it doesn't have to be challenged - when the reality is that everything has to be challenged, and nobody is immune from that - not even those claiming to be _impartial_.
> 
> 
> This is not fencing - it's a discussion. Clearly the greater issue lies with the opinion holder and what they think of their own opinion that suggests that it's got to be forced upon someone presumably until they're expected to relent. And part of that opinion involved calling a Coindesk article clickbait when it had legitimately reported on a relevant news event. Not to have reported on it would have been negligent.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I got this one. The key to not getting upset in this instance is not to misquote the other party to the discussion to begin with - and afterwards feel offended/outraged, etc. at the misquote that you've written.



Tecate, can I just point out there your continual reference to a clickbait comment is both a misquote and a misinterpretation. I am also not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that a comment on clickbait is a negative? The sole purpose of a headline is to get somebody to click and read the article. You can't deny that the article was underwhelming vs the headline, and hence why I said it was a bit too much like clickbait. I never, said they shouldn't report it, I just said in my opinion it was a non story. Regardless, it is such a small story in the grand scheme of things, I can't understand why you keep bringing it up, oh wait you just want to discredit.

It is ironic that you claim to want to have a debate and thrash out topics, when you spend most of your responses attacking people, nitpicking comments and then claiming people attack and misinterpret you. No offence, but why is a comment regarding click bait on a small story still living 'rent free' almost two weeks later.

This is why I chose not to discuss with you, because you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture, and your sole objective is to berate, attack, discredit until the person repents.

So I relent (yet again), you've successfully berated, attacked and picked apart everything I say. I don't have the energy to continue to read your over the top responses. I am going back to that nifty ignore function.


----------



## DublinHead54

Duke of Marmalade said:


> John Kelleher is alive and well.  It’s just that he has re worded his article:
> John Kelleher of investopedia
> There is so much wrong in this article, except his math - if btc becomes 15% of world currency usage it will be worth c.$515k.
> Just a small example.
> He says the price of BTC follows its cost of production.  It is in fact the total opposite way round.
> But he has stuck to the main point with which I agree.



He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dublinbay12 said:


> He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.


It still maintains a *price*.  I will admit once again that I have been horribly wrong in my implied predictions on price since I started posting on btc in these parts, but I am nowhere near admitting that I am wrong to trust the Nobels etc. on the fundamental BOHA nature of crypto. (Yes of course blockchain technology has some limited utility, that is a different thing from crypto currency having a value.)
It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price.  It has a price because it has a price. If the market in btc ceased everyone would lose their money just like Ponzi.  If the market in, say, Apple Inc. ceased folk could still expect to get what they paid for it in terms of future dividends.  That is what the price was meant to represent.  Of course, it can be very badly wrong in that assessment.


----------



## DublinHead54

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It still maintains a *price*.  I will admit once again that I have been horribly wrong in my implied predictions on price since I started posting on btc in these parts, but I am nowhere near admitting that I am wrong to trust the Nobels etc. on the fundamental BOHA nature of crypto. (Yes of course blockchain technology has some limited utility, that is a different thing from crypto currency having a value.)
> It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price.  It has a price because it has a price. If the market in btc ceased everyone would lose their money just like Ponzi.  If the market in, say, Apple Inc. ceased folk could still expect to get what they paid for it in terms of future dividends.  That is what the price was meant to represent.  Of course, it can be very badly wrong in that assessment.



It has a price because it has a price....that is market dynamics. The price of Apple can be very badly wrong and that is because the market is depicting the price. Yes there are some fundamentals behind to value it, and that is why stocks trade above and below book values. The common pricing methodology for Bitcoin is to tie it to the cost of energy to produce, but ultimately the price discovery came from how much people on the bitcoin talk forum wanted to pay for it. 

I don't think you should discount Nobels, I don't. All I am saying is that at this point in time they are being proved wrong. The price is its value, I can convert 1 bitcoing to $45k today and then I have a medium exchange, right?

The market in BTC won't cease, it is a piece of computer code that can always runs, and there will always be somebody willing to pay $$ for it. I just can't predict what that $$ amount is. 

P.s If I buy an Apple bond and the company ceases to exist I don't expect to get anything back, however somebody will always buy that bond for pennies on the $ because of the chance the company rebounds.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Post #128


Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!


----------



## Rasputin

Firefly said:


> Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!


I think you hit the nail on the head - that there is exactly where BTC derives its only 'value' from.  Without it's staunch internet warriors talking it up so much and defending it, the narrative will change and pass the parcel will begin and 'pop' !!


----------



## DublinHead54

Firefly said:


> Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!



Crypto never sleeps


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, can I just point out there your continual reference to a clickbait comment is both a misquote and a misinterpretation. I am also not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that a comment on clickbait is a negative?


Well you either called the article clickbait or you didn't (and you did - there's no misquote). It was being discussed widely on various media already - and so, as a news event, Coindesk had a duty to report on it - for them not to do so would have been negligent. Therefore, there is no accuracy in trying to undermine its significance  on the basis of it being clickbait - when clearly, it's not.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Regardless, it is such a small story in the grand scheme of things, I can't understand why you keep bringing it up, oh wait you just want to discredit.


I disagree - to my mind it's significant. That's my opinion - last I checked I was entitled to form one (albeit by the way you carried on in trying to force matters, it appears that I'm not).



Dublinbay12 said:


> This is why I chose not to discuss with you,


Your idea of discussing is forcing someone into submission it seems.


Dublinbay12 said:


> because you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture


Disagree entirely.


Dublinbay12 said:


> and your sole objective is to berate, attack, discredit until the person repents.


I believe this is called a Trumpism (i.e. deflecting what you're guilty of yourself onto someone else).



Dublinbay12 said:


> I am going back to that nifty ignore function.


You're free to do what you want but I doubt very much there is a need for a public announcement. My understanding is that this is a space for topic discussion - not for discussion of ones personal plans...but maybe I've misunderstood something somewhere. I mean, I need to nip out to get a couple of pupupas but I don't think me telling you that advances the discussion much.



Dublinbay12 said:


> He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.


The 15% calculation of his was based on both mediums of exchange and stores of value. Other than that, it's kind of a looking into the future type of assessment from him. I know that's not your style but last I'd checked, this market had not matured.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price.


I'd imagine it's more a case that people have moved past the intrinsic value debate relative to bitcoin and have come out one side or other of it.  If you're to be proven right, is time of no consequence? If market cap doubled or quadrupled from here and another 3, 5, 10 years passed, is it any more or less likely to be an established fixture than it was in 2017 or it is today?



Firefly said:


> Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!



Someone else would interpret this as stalking/trolling seeing as it has nothing to do with the actual topic but as we haven't heard from you in so long Firefly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for old times sake!


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Someone else would interpret this as stalking/trolling seeing as it has nothing to do with the actual topic but as we haven't heard from you in so long Firefly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for old times sake!


Stalking/trolling? I think you need to catch up on some sleep


----------



## tecate

Rasputin said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head - that there is exactly where BTC derives its only 'value' from.  Without it's staunch internet warriors talking it up so much and defending it, the narrative will change and pass the parcel will begin and 'pop' !!


See the last query I put to the Duke above. When can we expect the popping? What point of reference do we have historically for something like this - because this certainly isn't the classic bubble that it was claimed to be some years ago already. 

If adoption continued for another 3, 5, 10 years (and market cap. went up with that proportionately), does this change anything for you?


----------



## DublinHead54

I've looked at price predictions today and the below is a good summary, they range from $60k to $800k over 1 to 10 years. 









						Bitcoin Sell-Off Defers $100K Price Dreams
					

At the current price, BTC would have to nearly triple to hit $100,000.




					www.coindesk.com
				




It just shows the lack of consensus in how to price Bitcoin and the uncertainty of it as an asset. Although, I am biased and very much hope these predictions come true. 

I guess I can completely see why for the average retail investor the risks can be described as similar to a Ponzi scheme given the volatility.


----------



## Rasputin

tecate said:


> If adoption continued for another 3, 5, 10 years (and market cap. went up with that proportionately), does this change anything for you?


Absolutely not. As you yourself say, there is no real historical reference point as to how long it will take for something like this to unravel. When the price of something is based purely on speculation, it becomes very difficult to even guess, as there are so many vested interests with large sums of money to lose.  In my opinion, the crazy speculative volatility itself rules it out as ever being a means of payment that can be widely adopted, or as a real store of value for any sane person. For all its apparent technological advances, there is literally nothing that Bitcoin can do that can't be done with the currency that we use now. I can't see any situation where I would want to use a bitcoin to transact, although I'm not a criminal. 

What we do have are many situations to point to where the price of a stock or tech has been hyped to the max, pushing prices to ridiculous levels, and the lad that told me the other day that he bought 15k of bitcoin and literally has no idea even what it is, will invariable be the one to lose the most. 

At what point will you dump your bitcoins tecate ? or is your faith so profound that you're willing to lose everything ?


----------



## tecate

Rasputin said:


> Absolutely not. As you yourself say, there is no real historical reference point as to how long it will take for something like this to unravel.


Ok, but If I've been told on this board continually that its a ponzi/pyramid, etc. - we've had ponzi's and pyramid's before. What makes this different? Why would it not pan out in the very same way?  I've been told by some that it's the 'mother of all bubbles'..but show me the 'bubble' that inflates and deflates and has done so on about 5 occassions already. Would it not have been 'found out' after the first bust?
Surely it can only 'reinflate' if there's some utility there?




Rasputin said:


> When the price of something is based purely on speculation, it becomes very difficult to even guess, as there are so many vested interests with large sums of money to lose.



That presupposes that its purely speculative - I'd challenge that (and rather than go through that again, I'll assume you've been following the discussion, in which case  you'll have read that counterpoint already). 



Rasputin said:


> In my opinion, the crazy speculative volatility itself rules it out as ever being a means of payment that can be widely adopted, or as a real store of value for any sane person.


I agree that it takes a bit of getting the head round and it very much is volatile. However, there's a logic to the volatility. If you have a global asset whose supply is fixed  starting out from baseline and going through various iterations of adoption - combined with a difficulty in how it is priced (because it's not like any other asset that exists already - albeit probably closest to a commodity ), then to me it's entirely rational to expect it to be volatile. Have a look at the volatility of gold when the gold standard was dropped in the '70's. 

My understanding is that volatility will continue to diminish over a longer time horizon. Have a look at the stats from the latest Bloomberg Insights report that I linked to in a recent post. It demonstrates that relative volatility has already reduced considerably since 2017 - as adoption and market cap. has expanded. 

I'd sooner experience short term volatility in return for major capital appreciation over the longer term. Anyone who can't stomach that shouldn't touch bitcoin - they can buy it at multiples of the price when its a mature asset. Anyone who does and finds that the fear of volatility is giving them an ulcer has too big of a position size relative to their risk appetite.



Rasputin said:


> For all its apparent technological advances, there is literally nothing that Bitcoin can do that can't be done with the currency that we use now. I can't see any situation where I would want to use a bitcoin to transact,


It's a common mistake around these parts. Bitcoin is a global asset. If you solely consider it in terms of what it can or can't do for you today in Ireland, then you're not going to end up with a complete view of its actual utility. And by the way, that doesn't in anyway mean that anyone in Ireland can't find a use case for it today - or won't find an even greater use case for it tomorrow. 




Rasputin said:


> although I'm not a criminal.


Another common and incorrect assumption. There's plenty of recent data that shows illicit use as no more than 2% - far less than the conventional system.



Rasputin said:


> What we do have are many situations to point to where the price of a stock or tech has been hyped to the max, pushing prices to ridiculous levels, and the lad that told me the other day that he bought 15k of bitcoin and literally has no idea even what it is, will invariable be the one to lose the most.


Firstly, that everything is in a bubble is symptomatic that there's something seriously wrong with the conventional system - but nobody wants to address that. Run a search for Carl Icahn's recent comments - where he said that the most recent advances in his wealth have not come about because he's a genius but because the conventional system is both broken and inequitable.

As regards the lad that bought the 15k of btc and doesn't know what it is, sure - there are plenty like him. However, that there are people that opt in at precisely the wrong time, haven't done the work and are driven exclusively by greed, doesn't detract from the asset itself. People get carried away in markets and have done since markets have existed - and particularly so with the new shiny thing that they don't understand. However, that does not mean that there isn't utility in bitcoin the asset and Bitcoin the network. It just means that price will get out ahead of its skis periodically and in the depths of market depression, it will likely undershoot fair value relative to the point its at in the adoption cycle. 



Rasputin said:


> At what point will you dump your bitcoins tecate ? or is your faith so profound that you're willing to lose everything ?


I've exited the market on three occasions over the course of what is now just shy of a decade. I'd prefer not to - but if there's wild over-exuberance then its difficult not to.  Regardless of what some others may claim here, I don't run with a blind faith approach. When the facts change, my position will change. However, all I've seen over the past 5 years of discussion here is bitcoin growing by every conceivable metric. My thesis on bitcoin is intact. If that changes, I intend to change with it.  I've diversified quite a lot over the past 18 months - spreading the risk beyond digital assets. However, I'm still heavily weighted towards digital assets (not just bitcoin) - which is something that I'm happy with and not something that would suit most.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dublinbay12 said:


> The common pricing methodology for Bitcoin is to tie it to the cost of energy to produce,


Anyone applying that methodology simply doesn't understand how bitcoin mining works.  The cost of mining follows the price not the other way round.  If the price of bitcoin goes up the incentive to "mine" goes up and so the amount of electricity spent in finding the answer to the SHA puzzle goes up,  and all vice versa.
Within 2 or 3 halvings the release of new bitcoins will be almost irrelevant, and of course in 2140 it will become totally irrelevant.  Price is always an equilibrium between supply and demand but in the case of mined supply there is zero sensitivity to price.  The supply of mined coins is 6.5 per 10 minutes completely irrespective of the price.
For physical gold it is a bit more complex.  Obviously if gold became very cheap to mine that would bring down its price.  With gold the price is to a certain extent the equilibrium between the utility demand for it and the cost of new supply from mining  which can mine more or less gold unlike btc which always mines the same amount.  This is not in any way the case for bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anyone applying that methodology simply doesn't understand how bitcoin mining works.  The cost of mining follows the price not the other way round.  If the price of bitcoin goes up the incentive to "mine" goes up and so the amount of electricity spent in find the answer to the SHA puzzle goes up,  and all vice versa.
> Within 2 or 3 halvings the release of new bitcoins will be almost irrelevant, and of course in 2140 it will become totally irrelevant.  Price is always an equilibrium between supply and demand but in the case of mined supply there is zero sensitivity to price.  The supply of mined coins is 6.5 per 10 minutes completely irrespective of the price.
> For physical gold it is a bit more complex.  Obviously if gold became very cheap to mine that would bring down its price.  With gold the price is to a certain extent the equilibrium between the utility demand for it and the cost of new supply from mining  which can mine more or less gold unlike btc which always mines the same amount.  This is not in any way the case for bitcoin.



Mr. Antonopolous has trained you well, Duke  You're quite right about the adjustable nature of the algo. Here's a word from Satoshi though just to complicate things:

_"The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price. In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way round."_

If the market plummets, difficulty decreases as the algo adjusts. Cost of production decreases as mining equipment becomes more efficient. As the difficulty decreases, new miners with less efficient mining kit can enter the market sustainably and profitably - and the network moves back up again.

Whilst it's not anywhere near the same in terms of how gold production cost works out, it's still implicated. Beyond that, the supply/demand dynamic is key.

Any word yet on what market cap or duration would be sufficient to accept that bitcoin isn't going to zero? @Rasputin tells me that BTC can reach its 23rd birthday and beyond - and infinite market cap - and we still couldn't be sure of that. 
@Firefly : It's 1am local time - I do apologise for once again being in breach of your working hours directive.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate You are asking me when I would accept the cult is here to stay.  So I think of the cults of Christianity and Islam.  Now without offending any one and without necessarily saying both are a nonsense at least one surely must be.  And yet it has billions of followers and has been around for centuries.  Let’s call it Chrislam.  Is there a difference between Chrislam and bitcoin?  
Chrislam is a theory about the after life, it is possible that theory can never be proved wrong.  Bitcoin began life as a theory about being a global medium of exchange.  That article of faith has already waned considerably and morphed into “store of value”.  That illusion survives because the recent spectacular price performance is still in the memory.  I don‘t think the store of value fallacy can have the staying power of Chrislam, but unlike the many bitcoin prophets who have their own but different views of its final resting place I admit complete ignorance of when logic will collapse the cult.


----------



## tecate

@Duke ...I guess I won't be getting an answer to that question then! Oh well!

Otherwise, to your tar and feathering above, over to Jon Stewart & the former Kansas Fed CEO, Thomas Hoenig ->


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493308649254449152


----------



## RetirementPlan

ClubMan said:


> Massive news for BTC!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wexford’s first Bitcoin ATM installed at Gorey shop
> 
> 
> GOREY has welcomed its first Bitcoin ATM machine at the XL Shop and Asian/Brazilian store on Gorey’s Main Street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie



Like a pub with no beer.



> ATM machines do not dispense cash


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> @Firefly : It's 1am local time - I do apologise for once again being in breach of your working hours directive.


No need to apologise...I commend your work ethic. If you have applied the same dedication in your real job, you must have a stellar career


----------



## Firefly

RetirementPlan said:


> ATM machines do not dispense cash


Yet he says:

"_As soon as we can we definitely will buy Bitcoin from the machine as when it’s in flourish, you can get good money from it_”.

Presumably he's talking about the price of Bitcoin and not the ATM


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Yet he says:
> 
> "_As soon as we can we definitely will buy Bitcoin from the machine as when it’s in flourish, you can get good money from it_”.
> 
> Presumably he's talking about the price of Bitcoin and not the ATM


Yeah, I'd imagine he's talking about BTC and not the delusion Jon Stewart mentions in the clip above.



Firefly said:


> No need to apologise...I commend your work ethic. If you have applied the same dedication in your real job, you must have a stellar career


Oh good God no! Highly unqualified - no M.Sc. in Finance or business luncheons here.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> @Duke ...I guess I won't be getting an answer to that question then! Oh well!
> 
> Otherwise, to your tar and feathering above, over to Jon Stewart & the former Kansas Fed CEO, Thomas Hoenig ->
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493308649254449152


You’re better than that with your usual links.  I watched the full interview.  This extract was shamefully cut and paste by the cult to further their credo.  The cult’s high priests must obsess at creating this propaganda.
In the full interview the interviewer reveals his total naivete.  He asks why don’t the Fed print dollars and buy back the US debt from China and Europe and then tear it up.  Indeed that can be done.  What Jon misses is that instead of owing the bonds the US would then owe the dollars.
So called “printing” of dollars is the US government borrowing.  The owners of the dollars have a faith that they will be repaid.  The owners of bitcoin have faith that there will be folk in the future prepared to pay them for their valueless digital entries (with dollars, they hope) just as they have done.  That is Ponzi, though as OP reminds us it is actually worse than Ponzi.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This extract was shamefully cut and paste by the cult to further their credo.


I also watched the complete interview - and your claim isn't valid. The suggestion is that the excerpts have been devised to misrepresent. That's not the case - and what you go on with doesn't demonstrate otherwise.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The cult’s high priests must obsess at creating this propaganda.


And as you already know, your comment is wayward. There is no CEO for bitcoin. There is no Lagarde or Bailey or Powell. Those are your high priests. Bitcoin monetary policy is transparent and can't be tampered with. This is Trumpism from you (deflecting precisely the criticism that falls at the door of the conventional system).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In the full interview the interviewer reveals his total naivete.


That's also clear from the excerpts and it doesn't in any way detract from the evident takeaways from the interview. Everyone knows Jon Stewart isn't involved in monetary policy but he may have one or two years experience interviewing people perhaps.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> He asks why don’t the Fed print dollars and buy back the US debt from China and Europe and then tear it up.  Indeed that can be done.  What Jon misses is that instead of owing the bonds the US would then owe the dollars.


You're deliberately misconstruing the direction of his query. You did the very same thing a year ago when I asked why can't they just print off whatever we owe the state in taxes this year and accept that as payment? Stewart's line of thought was to question the unbridled printing of money.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So called “printing” of dollars is the US government borrowing.  The owners of the dollars have a faith that they will be repaid.



Complete BS Duke. In real terms if the $1000 dollars I've been carrying around in my pocket for the past 12 months is worth 10% less, who's going to write me a cheque for the $100 of buying power that has disappeared?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The owners of the dollars have a faith that they will be repaid.


Unless you can direct me to the person in the US government who's going to write me that $100 cheque, then I have no such faith. I'm not religious like you Duke - I don't have faith.
And in that interview we got it from the horses mouth. It's a FAITH - BASED system! The former Kansas Fed President acknowledged that and you yourself acknowledged that around 18 months ago when you said that you'd have to have faith in the ECB and the decisions it took.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The owners of bitcoin have faith that there will be folk in the future prepared to pay them for their valueless digital entries (with dollars, they hope) just as they have done.


Whether there are folks prepared to pay X for bitcoin in the future relates to adoption. It's got nothing to do with faith. Bitcoin's monetary policy is rules based - and everyone knows the rules - not just the elites. With fiat, you don't know from one minute to the next what interest rate will be set - or the motivation behind those decisions and who it may benefit most.
 Just before the GFC Bernanke said everything was hunky dory - when he had info that couldn't have left him in any doubt about what was in play. Some months back, the Fed were continually claiming that either there was no inflation or that it was 'transitory'. We had people here saying that the evidence presented re. inflation was just hearsay. AFTER the fact, the Fed admits it's not transitory.

Any reasonable commentator will admit that the Fed was under incredible pressure from the Trump administration. The very same is true now with the Biden administration. Decisions taken that are helpful to politicians in the short term are most likely not in the best interests of ordinary people in the long term. But that's what the conventional system facilitates. By contrast, bitcoin monetary policy can't be tampered with. From that perspective, people don't have to pray and hope that decisions are made with their interests in mind rather than special interest groups or political interests.

That's before we get into a whole host of central banks that are mismanaged to the nth degree - because the currency supply and monetary system can be tampered with.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You're deliberately misconstruing the direction of his query. You did the very same thing a year ago when I asked why can't they just print off whatever we owe the state in taxes this year and accept that as payment?


Indeed, why don't they?  Maybe that gives a clue to the (near) universal faith in developed democracies in their currency.


tecate said:


> Complete BS Duke. In real terms if the $1000 dollars I've been carrying around in my pocket for the past 12 months is worth 10% less, who's going to write me a cheque for the $100 of buying power that has disappeared?


Sure, why stop at 10%.  Take a leaf out of bitcoin and let it drop 40% in 2 months.  The reality is that US dollar cash investment (i.e. plus deposit interest) has beaten inflation over the last century.


tecate said:


> Unless you can direct me to the person in the US government who's going to write me that $100 cheque, then I have no such faith.


Ahh! I'm beginning to understand your lack of faith.  You want a father figure you can trust to honour your dollars.  Strange since you seem to drool at the lack of any central father figure for bitcoin.


tecate said:


> I'm not religious like you Duke - I don't have faith.
> And in that interview we got it from the horses mouth. It's a FAITH - BASED system! The former Kansas Fed President acknowledged that and you yourself acknowledged that around 18 months ago when you said that you'd have to have faith in the ECB and the decisions it took.


All debt is based on faith.  Admittedly no faith is required to believe that a digital entry on a blockchain ledger is a digital entry on a blockchain ledger.  One large dollop of Hope is required to hope this is a long term store of value.
Actually if you watch the clip again you will note that Jon teased the guy that it was a fake.  He responded by saying it was faith based.  Jon rolled around laughing as he thought he said it was fake based. 


tecate said:


> It's got nothing to do with faith. Bitcoin's monetary policy is rules based - and everyone knows the rules -


The first pre-requisite for an entity to be subject to "monetary policy" is that it is money.  Cult high priest John Kelleher concedes that it has not yet reached that status.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Indeed, why don't they?  Maybe that gives a clue to the (near) universal faith in developed democracies in their currency.


It's well you may ask the question. You and I are both left wondering as regards how much (money printing) was too much. You told me you didn't know where the line was.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sure, why stop at 10%.  Take a leaf out of bitcoin and let it drop 40% in 2 months.



And you're deliberately conflating two distinct and different things. We're not talking about the exchange rate between central bank monopoly money and bitcoin. We're talking about 10% inflation in USD. Can you tell me who I should have 'faith' in to write me a cheque for the $100 of buying power that's now missing?
(When it comes to bitcoin's price discovery process, it's averaged 214% appreciation pa over the course of 13 years. That's just an outcome of the adoption process).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The reality is that US dollar cash investment (i.e. plus deposit interest) has beaten inflation over the last century.


You can go with smoke and mirrors this way and that - it doesn't change the facts - here's a graphical  representation of the buying power of the US dollar over time ->










Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ahh! I'm beginning to understand your lack of faith. You want a father figure you can trust to honour your dollars. Strange since you seem to drool at the lack of any central father figure for bitcoin.


So nobody is going to write me that cheque for the missing $100 of buying power it seems. We've all had our pockets picked then. Thanks for confirming.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> All debt is based on faith.


You mean that fiat monetary policy is faith-based. Bitcoin's is not. It's rules based and it's monetary policy today, next month/year, decade is already known. You couldn't tell me how many dollars or euros have been issued today - let alone, tomorrow, next month, next year, etc.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> One large dollop of Hope is required to hope this is a long term store of value.


We weren't talking about bitcoin's progress in establishing itself as a store of value - but this is the only mechanism you have in order to deflect away from what arose from Stewart's interview with the former Fed President....i.e. that by its very design, fiat money is faith based. It's monetary system is faith based. Fiat is the real ponzi and the real cult.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Actually if you watch the clip again you will note that Jon teased the guy that it was a fake. He responded by saying it was faith based. Jon rolled around laughing as he thought he said it was fake based.


I'm a few timezones away Duke and I can smell the desperation coming off that fairytale from here!



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The first pre-requisite for an entity to be subject to "monetary policy" is that it is money.


Ah, it doesn't have a monetary policy? Say the following out loud, Duke:

"Alexa, what is bitcoin's current inflation rate?"


Now ask Alexa again - this time without covering your ears.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Now ask Alexa again - this time without covering your ears.


Alexa here @tecate 
The price of a latte in bitcoin increased by 40% from November to January according to my latest info.  I'm a humble gal but my bean counters tell me this is an annual inflation of hundreds of per cent.  Not as bad as Zimbabwe fiat.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Alexa here @tecate
> The price of a latte in bitcoin increased by 40% from November to January according to my latest info.  I'm a humble gal but my bean counters tell me this is an annual inflation of hundreds of per cent.  Not as bad as Zimbabwe fiat.




The Duke picking high points and low points to meet a certain narrative since 2017.  

Interesting to see that in the Duchy of Marmalade annualised figures can be obtained over 61 days. Bitcoin has averaged 214% appreciation year on year over the past 13 years. 

And of course, it was USD that we were focusing on - but you can't defend high priest Jay  (and I guess Janet & Sleepy Joe get a say now also) without going on the attack elsewhere.

But we can do this all day long. Here's the diminishing value of the USD vs. Gold over time ->

[broken link removed]

( let me help you out though...I know you like to cherry pick timeframes - and yes when you have a look at it, you will find short periods when gold was just as volatile as bitcoin ).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate You should take up that complaint of selective statistics with Alexa.
 It is the stated aim of the ECB/FED to target inflation of 2% p.a. Over 100 years that is effectively reducing it to zero.  Of course that is worse than gold.  No sleight of hand here.  But if it is your choice to use $ or € as a store of value, for which it is not intended, in fact together with interest (underpinned by Central Banks) it actually has kept its value. 
If bitcoin had intrinsic value, like gold, well of course it would accrue value versus fiat just as Central Banks aimed that it would and were totally open about their intentions.  Where's the scam?
Now when a high priest of the cult (JK) predicts a price of €515k per btc,  well the stench of scam is overpowering.  I am not accusing Saint Satoshi whoever she is of such base motivation.  She was in fact quite transparent.  If only, she fantasised, it could have intrinsic value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate It is the stated aim of the ECB/FED to target inflation of 2% p.a. Over 100 years that is effectively reducing it to zero.  Of course that is worse than gold.  No sleight of hand here.


Of course there's no slight of hand - that's why the metrics used to measure inflation were swapped out going back a few years and why I'm hearing that they're looking at doing something similar once again. That's why in another latin country recently, the smoothie I bought from a national chain in November cost X and in January, it was X+30%. That's the real world - not CPI.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But if it is your choice to use $ or € as a store of value, for which it is not intended, in fact together with interest (underpinned by Central Banks) it actually has kept its value.


If we're honest, traditionally_ ordinary people_ in Ireland have not had access (alongside the requisite knowledge) to any other store of value aside from property. Can you post a link to a statement from any of our Ministers of Finance warning the populace not to use euros as a store of value? Maybe Lagarde has told us that? Do you think that most ordinary people even understand inflation properly? And if you're going to start claiming that keeping yer yoyos down the post office beats inflation (as you've tried previously) - I'm sorry but I've no intention of hearing you out a second time on that.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Where's the scam?


We've been talking about a minimum 10% of personal wealth being summarily vapourised due to fiat monetary policy and you want to know where the scam is?




Duke of Marmalade said:


> If bitcoin had intrinsic value, like gold, well of course it would accrue value versus fiat just as Central Banks aimed that it would and were totally open about their intentions.


You want to throw out facts once again. Over the course of the past 13 years, bitcoin has appreciated 214% pa against the global reserve currency. Totally open about their intentions? Pull the other one. See above - point to a statement from any central bank of your choosing calling on citizens NOT to hold their savings in sovereign currency. Just ONE example will do. You have a plethora of CBs to choose from.
I can give plenty of examples going the other direction if it helps. I've had experience of being forced to convert money into a national currency in the past. In recent months, the Turkish CB has been contriving to get people out of dollars and gold and into their monopoly money.  There have been cases of forced conversions in the past - too many to mention.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now when a high priest of the cult (JK) predicts a price of €515k per btc,  well the stench of scam is overpowering.


What on earth are you talking about.  Your buddy might have written an article about bitcoin - but all his energies are spent on working on a project that has nothing to do with bitcoin. Meanwhile, we had folks on here in early 2018 saying we'd never see $20k again - you were amongst them. I'd worry about your cognition if you think that someone making a price prediction or speculating on its future price as part of an informed and considered article he put together and that YOU brought to this discussion  - you're now considering to be a 'scam'.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If only, she fantasised, it could have intrinsic value.


And if it doesn't, then you'll be proven right and I'll be proven wrong. In 2018, you (amongst others) assured us that it was done for and would never see $20k again. Not only has that confidence waned, but confidence in its demise is so weak - that if I give you a multi-decade timeline, you can't tell me when is a reasonable timeframe by which the digital asset will either be validated or invalidated as a store of value. To say that doesn't come across as sure-footed is understating it.

I'm quite happy to accept that it could fail but for those like you who can't even confirm a particular decade in which it's likely to have disappeared into the night, it seems like sour grapes to not accept that there's at least a percentile chance that it continues on its path to further adoption and maturity.


----------



## mollser

Fair play for the two of you lads keeping this going. I must say, I've listened to McWilliams podcast etc where yer man got a free pass to sell this. 

I am none the wiser as to why this is a store of value. No explanation given as to why this store of value will beat inflation, however defined. There's a lot of waffle about finite supply, but that exists in the ether and nothing stopping bettercoin2# being established also with a finite issue.

I've spent a few weekends with an open mind trying to get this, but the more I look at it the more I see an increasingly aggressive sell to try and hook more people in, not restricted to just consumers influenced by superbowl ads but also people of influence so they won't legislate and collapse the pyramid.

This includes having people based in El Salvador of all places posting day and night to plug this thing.

Why would this asset be a store of value over any other?


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Every thread I read on this just gets ruined

I think this is a very helpful forum for people and it would be great if we could discuss crypto (not just bitcoin) and be able to discuss decentralised finance and the options available to people without getting into pyramid scheme arguements regarding the entire space as a whole, obviously there are rugpulls but that's why its key to do your own research and know what your buying into.

it could be of great benefit to a lot of people to learn about decentralised finance options and the rates of interest you can receive (even just on stable coins for the risk averse).

There is so much to learn but I think people just arent aware of what's available to them. (Earlier in the thread we had Marc from a financial advisors firm outlining their research, no offence if your reading this Marc but I just dont think you understood the space or are aware of how it works outside centralised exchanges).

There has been multiple mentions of crypto having no intrinsic value, I ask you to get a crypto.com debit card and go see if it works in brown thomas or Penny's or anywhere else that you want to. Centralised exchanges should be used as an on/off ramp to decentralised exchanges.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Lesson on the ideal currency for a modern economy for slow learners.
it should retain enough value over the short term to be accepted as barter.
it should lose enough value over the medium term that people don’t HODL it.
That‘s a difficult act to pull off but after centuries of our developing civilisation we have managed to do it.


----------



## tecate

mollser said:


> I've listened to McWilliams podcast etc where yer man got a free pass to sell this.


What free pass? McWilliams is a long way from becoming a proponent of bitcoin. He may have dropped a few of the objections through which he misunderstood it - but he still remains a sceptic. Whilst Dave likes to talk, I honestly don't think he was equipped to challenge him. Pretty frustrating that between him and his sidekick, they came out with a couple of objections after the event - which they could have challenged Saylor on.




mollser said:


> I am none the wiser as to why this is a store of value. No explanation given as to why this store of value will beat inflation, however defined. There's a lot of waffle about finite supply, but that exists in the ether and nothing stopping bettercoin2# being established also with a finite issue.


If you believe that it doesn't have finite supply, then there's no discussion to be had. That argument was brought out in 2017 but not so much the last couple of years. If 'bettercoin' comes along, it will have to be 10x better to usurp bitcoin in the role that it's taking on. The usual example that's rolled out is Facebook usurping MySpace. The difference is that the market cap of MySpace was miniscule (comparatively) at the time and Facebook did have something significant in order to overcome them (optimised for mobile when myspace was desktop-based). Otherwise, if you think it could be usurped so easily, surely the same should have already happened to google, facebook, twitter, etc?  It's incredibly difficult to deconstruct network effect.



mollser said:


> I've spent a few weekends with an open mind trying to get this, but the more I look at it the more I see an increasingly aggressive sell to try and hook more people in, not restricted to just consumers influenced by superbowl ads but also people of influence so they won't legislate and collapse the pyramid.



So what's the difference between banks like JPMorgan, Citibank, Charles Schwab, etc taking out Superbowl ads vs. their equivalents in the crypto space? As regards the use of influence to make sure they don't legislate against it - you better believe it. Why would you expect them not to - given that this is the system that is setup already? This is the system that has been holding crypto back up until now - as those banks above (and many others) are embedded with the politicos in Washington.
A case in point. The current Chair of the SEC is ex-Goldman Sachs. The remit of the SEC is to protect the little guy. The only thing that Goldman Gary has done is approve a futures based bitcoin ETF (where his Wall Street chums make 10% in fees as those contracts are rolled over) and refusing to approve a spot-based bitcoin ETF - where ordinary investors wouldn't be exposed to those fees.



mollser said:


> This includes having people based in El Salvador of all places posting day and night to plug this thing.



You really think that me posting here is propping up  a $2 trillion + market?   Have a listen to one of Mark Cuban's podcasts where he states that he only thinks there's oversized opportunity if he figures out that there's something in it whilst at the same time, there's major resistance to it. In terms of making bank, the longer there's resistance to the adoption of BTC and the longer and more drawn out that process takes, the greater the opportunity. Everyone will end up buying bitcoin at the price they deserve.




mollser said:


> Why would this asset be a store of value over any other?



Because it possesses many of the qualities of what makes for a good store of value.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

I dont think anyone wants crypto to replace a currency, people just want to make money with their investments

Decentralised finance allows huge staking rewards for very little risk in a lot of cases. You can transfer those staking rewards to a centralised exchange and spend the money daily in any shop or pub or restaraunt 

There are multiple options available to people but it's not for everyone although I'm sure people would love an extra income hitting their accounts every day


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Listened to the podcast.
OMG the worst load of BS I have ever encountered from both these ego maniacs.  DMcW kept rolling out his nonsense and it was clear that Saylor didn’t agree with or understand what he was banging on about (neither did I).
Just some of the low lights:
BTC is energy which is thermonuclearly sound and can travel thru time and space (Einstein roll over)
If your main concern is leaving property to your great, great, great, grand (I counted) children BTC is yer only man
If God was to create a currency he would creat BTC
cryptocurrency is totally wrong nomenclature, it is crypto property - it is not a currency (gosh I agree)
The El Sal experiment is going off the rails because they are treating it as a currency (where did they get that idea, I cuda told them that leaving property to their great, great, great, grandchildren is a not a number one priority for the folk of El Sal)
Folk should have all their pension fund in BTC

Putting myself in Saylor’s shoes with more dosh than I or my kids could ever spend I might start worrying about my great, great, great, grandchildren and sure after a couple of nuke wars who knows? bitcoin might be the only game in town.  Mind you I’ll keep anything I might need in this mortal coil in The God I Trust.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> DMcW kept rolling out his nonsense and it was clear that Saylor didn’t agree with or understand what he was banging on about (neither did I).
> Just some of the low lights:


In all fairness, it's very hard for Saylor to respond to waffle and when that waffle comes from someone who hasn't got a proper grasp of  the subject  (yet), then what can you expect?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> BTC is energy which is thermonuclearly sound and can travel thru time and space (Einstein roll over)


I suppose you can try hard to not understand his point if you're diametrically opposed to it, Duke All he's saying is that value can be changed into different forms - whether its from fiat to bricks n mortar to equities, etc. Comparatively, bitcoin can be transmitted with ease through space. It can be done in an instant - without involving a third party.






That's not the same with gold - it's hard to move and it can be confiscated relatively easily (which he gives examples of - be it at a nation state level or personal level ). Bricks n mortar has far more friction in that sense. Equities less so - but you're still at the mercy of third party brokers, governments, etc.
On the 'time' aspect, his claim is that bitcoin holds its value over a long time horizon. Cash is a melting ice cube. Incidentally, did you manage to find any government or banking industry warning or advice directing citizens NOT to hold their savings in fiat?




Duke of Marmalade said:


> cryptocurrency is totally wrong nomenclature, it is crypto property - it is not a currency (gosh I agree)
> The El Sal experiment is going off the rails because they are treating it as a currency (where did they get that idea, I cuda told them that leaving property to their great, great, great, grandchildren is a not a number one priority for the folk of El Sal)


How is the El Sal experiment going 'off the rails'? I'm here - I haven't seen any 'off the rails' aspects to it. The photo I just took below suggests education and adoption.




What Bukele has done here is being misunderstood from what I can see. The objective isn't that everyone in the country use bitcoin every day for all purposes - it's simply that they can if they want or need to....and in that way remittances can be brought into the country without the Western Union tax and to get around the failed banking system where 70% don't have access.

Where there is push back is with the bitcoin bond raise - that kicks in next month. The IMF don't like the idea of being made irrelevant. It's very much an experiment and remains to be seen if it works - but it's an entirely different project to the initial bitcoin rollout here.

The reason Saylor exaggerated the timespan with reference to the great great grandkids was to demonstrate his belief that bitcoin can be relied upon over a long term time horizon to maintain its value and buying power. McWilliams came back at him with the same point you're making i.e. what would that matter to poor people - and his response is valid as far as i'm concerned i.e. if inflation is a minimum 10% pa  - then anyone holding any savings greater than a year has an interest in choosing a mechanism where their savings are not vapourised via inflation.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Folk should have all their pension fund in BTC


I didn't catch that when I listened to it. Can you provide the timestamp for the point in the interview where this was discussed?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Mind you I’ll keep anything I might need in this mortal coil in The God He Trusts.


Yeah, those that don't get it can have their savings pilfered via the melting ice cube that is fiat if they won't listen. I'm fine with that so long as I have full freedom to maintain full control over my own savings - and that I can be assured that it retains its buying power. That's all I ever wanted from btc when I first came across it. I didn't understand that to get there we'd have to go through this long, protracted adoption process with it being overpriced and underpriced at times - and all the other risks and growing pains. But that's alright - if I'm getting paid a premium to take on those risks as an early adopter, that works too.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> In all fairness, it's very hard for Saylor to respond to waffle and when that waffle comes from someone who hasn't got a proper grasp of  the subject  (yet), then what can you expect?


Agreed


tecate said:


> On the 'time' aspect, his claim is that bitcoin holds its value over a long time horizon


He has no basis for that claim at all.  12 years of the most turbulent price history albeit on balance spectacularly upwards is no proof at all that this will be around for his great, great, great, grandchildren.  All the cult high priests that I have read concede that there is a non negligible chance it will go to zero.  I think you agree with that or at least that it is possible that his g,g,g,g children will be into bitcoin series 10.


tecate said:


> Cash is a melting ice cube. Incidentally, did you manage to find any government or banking industry warning or advice directing citizens NOT to hold their savings in fiat?


They have made it very clear that they target reducing its purchasing power by 2% per annum.  Do you want them to draw diagrams?
Now investing in interest bearing deposits has kept pace with inflation over the last century and does belong in a pension portfolio.


tecate said:


> How is the El Sal experiment going 'off the rails'? I'm here - I haven't seen any 'off the rails' aspects to it.


It was just that Saylor said that what El Sal "got wrong" was calling it a currency but I can certainly believe you if you say he is talking BS.


tecate said:


> I didn't catch that when I listened to it. Can you provide the timestamp for the point in the interview where this was discussed?


Around about 30 mins.  No store of value left.  Cash, bonds, gold, equities all rubbish.  Money broken.  Retiree no choice but to invest in risky assets (he has a point there).  But now we have a "savings account in cyber space suitable for anyone who cannot run their own hedge fund".  Doesn't sound like advice to put 2% of your portfolio in crypto as a diversification play.  McWilliams went into brown nose overdrive at this point "That was very well put."


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> He has no basis for that claim at all.  12 years of the most turbulent price history albeit on balance spectacularly upwards is no proof at all that this will be around for his great, great, great, grandchildren.  All the cult high priests that I have read concede that there is a non negligible chance it will go to zero.  I think you agree with that or at least that it is possible that his g,g,g,g children will be into bitcoin series 10.



I would say this. He has most definitely done his homework. Yes, the history of BTC is short and it is going through the phases re. adoption. He has every right to express his opinion - especially so given that he has put his money where his mouth is. If bitcoin continues onward in terms of adoption this guy becomes a legend. If it fails, he becomes a fool. There's a a lot at stake for him personally - whereas he could have settled for the quiet/comfortable/non-controversial life.

And by the way, I will once again confirm that I believe there is a non negligible chance that bitcoin crashes and burns. Seeing as you raise that, I'll also state that there is very much a non negligible chance that bitcoin powers on from here. That yourself and @Brendan Burgess  won't acknowledge this speaks to how you both want things to transpire and not to the non-emotive reality.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> They have made it very clear that they target reducing its purchasing power by 2% per annum.


I don't give a ... It's like some chav rocks up and says I'm going to relieve you of just X % of your possessions and you should appreciate that. Tell u what.. let's get this bedded down to a point we can opt out of that crap and you boomers can keep getting ridden - that works for me (and by the way its never 2% in reality - that's a fairytale).




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do you want them to draw diagrams?


I've been living in Latin America for quite a few years. They're an exceptionally polite people..but disrespect them and watch what happens. So i invite you to drop over to this part of the world and come out with that bile. I'll make sure to bring some natives along.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now investing in interest bearing deposits has kept pace with inflation over the last century and does belong in a pension portfolio.


Get out of it Duke! Now I'm buying you a ticket to come out here as that's even worse than your statement above!


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It was just that Saylor said that what El Sal "got wrong" was calling it a currency but I can certainly believe you if you say he is talking BS.


I'm just saying that it's being misunderstood. Saylor comes from a highly regulated world and applies a different use case. I'm sure he wants to go out of his way to demonstrate how non-threatening bitcoin is. I kind of agree with him anyway with the caveat that it's necessary to have the ability to spend btc should an individual have cause to do so. He doesn't need that so much for bitcoin to be otherwise successful as a store of value but the world needs that - so that when some clowns in government screw things up (deliberately or otherwise), there's an immediate plan b available.
Also, it's a case of pure convenience. If you happen to have btc in your portfolio, why shouldn't you make use of the ease at which it can be utilised - whether its to transfer it to someone the other side of the planet or to pay for a good/service locally?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Around about 30 mins. No store of value left. Cash, bonds, gold, equities all rubbish. Money broken. Retiree no choice but to invest in risky assets (he has a point there). But now we have a "savings account in cyber space suitable for anyone who cannot run their own hedge fund". Doesn't sound like advice to put 2% of your portfolio in crypto as a diversification play. McWilliams went into brown nose overdrive at this point "That was very well put."


So he NEVER said what you claimed ( i.e. put ALL pension fund in BTC ) and you're playing to the AAM peanut gallery with that false claim.

People are being pushed out the risk curve in order to keep their heads above water (inflation). Ordinary people don't have the knowledge or time to navigate that crap. But he NEVER said what you claimed.


----------



## tecate

How many analysts do Fidelity have sitting on the toilet scrolling social media, exactly? Did they not read @Marc 's report? This is woeful stuff.

Fidelity to Allow Retirement Savers to Put Bitcoin in 401(k) Accounts​


----------



## newirishman

Couldn’t resist.


----------



## tecate

newirishman said:


> Couldn’t resist.


Indeed - except we're talking about bitcoin here rather than crypto. There's a distinction. None of the categories of 'diversity' in your tweet apply.

Now if you'd like to talk about crypto projects generally, sure there are plenty of wayward projects. However, if the suggestion is that none of these projects are legitimate and trying to innovate, that would be a mistake. If the suggestion is that we've found some wayward projects, so its logical to tar and feather every single project in the space as a ponzi/pyramid, etc. etc. - that would be moronic.


----------



## 24601

Thoughts and prayers for the people who have lost their shirts in the past 6 months.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Have you no prayers for those of us who bet against it and lost our shorts?  

Brendan


----------



## tecate

24601 said:


> Thoughts and prayers for the people who have lost their shirts in the past 6 months.


I think peeps in the conventional markets are getting short changed here. Are there no 'thoughts and prayers' for Netflix investors at all? - the poor craturs nursing their 74% loss over the past 6 months.





How about Virgin Galactic, Under Armour, Nvidia, Facebook? Amzn is _only_ down 40% so probably not worth mentioning.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

Alts will likely bleed a lot more.

It was market conditions like this and what's coming back in 2019 that made me diversify from bitcoin solely and into alts

This is the time I'll be looking for entries again, good luck to anyone starting this cycle. Good opportunities

I missed out on Luna but wow, that's going to make a fascinating documentary some day.

If they re-peg, I might have a flutter


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

No, comparing Bitcoin,  or indeed its derivatives,  to a ponzi scheme is not unfair. 

As it's the truth


----------



## tecate

Paul O Mahoney said:


> No, comparing Bitcoin,  or indeed its derivatives,  to a ponzi scheme is not unfair.


Which 'derivatives' do you have in mind exactly?



Paul O Mahoney said:


> As it's the truth


Indeed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Paul O Mahoney said:


> No, comparing Bitcoin,  or indeed its derivatives,  to a ponzi scheme is not unfair.
> 
> As it's the truth


In the Madoff Ponzi, victims were able to get 70% compensation from the crooks.  There will be no compensation for the victims of the Bitcoin BOHA.
At least Ponzi schemes are a zero sum game - winners match losers.  Bitcoin is a massive negative sum game as billions are incinerated in wasted electricity.
So it is certainly unfair on Ponzi to compare it with Bitcoin, as the FT article in OP claimed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Brendan Burgess said:


> Have you no prayers for those of us who bet against it and lost our shorts?
> 
> Brendan


Prayers for the poor people of El Salvador


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Prayers for the poor people of El Salvador


I wasn't aware they'd been buying stonks



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524583813711646720


----------



## 24601

tecate said:


> I wasn't aware they'd been buying stonks
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524583813711646720



At least if they had a well diversified portfolio that only included some stonks they'd be fairly insulated. I know a fair few 20 somethings who's only exposure is to this bag of hot air. I would wager that there is far more concentration risk associated with Bitcoin hodlers than pretty much any other class of investor.


----------



## tecate

24601 said:


> At least if they had a well diversified portfolio that only included some stonks they'd be fairly insulated. I know a fair few 20 somethings who's only exposure is to this bag of hot air. I would wager that there is far more concentration risk associated with Bitcoin hodlers than pretty much any other class of investor.


I'd almost agree with you if you hadn't run with the 'bag of hot air' commentary.  On that we won't agree.
On the rest - sure. I don't think there's equity in terms of criticism re. volatility of growth stocks vs. crypto. And I'd add that the latter, seeing as its the wild west in the process of being tamed, has more right to be the way it is (for right now) than growth stocks.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Professor Stolfi  gives an excellent argument for why bitcoin is a negative sum Ponzi.  The professor is the top academic in this sphere in Brazil.



			
				Professor Stolfi said:
			
		

> Features 1 and 2 make the scheme a fraud, rather than simply a bad investment (or bad "musical chairs" gambling game). As a minimum, the operators should warn investors of the negative-sum character and negative expected profit. In the case of bitcoin (and all other cryptos), not only that does not happen, but there are thousands of promoters and "investment experts" who predict impressive price increases and/or claim that bitcoin will have massive uses in the future that would somehow make it valuable. Apart from the mendacity of those claims, those promoters never point out that such massive uses would not translate into revenue for the investors.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Professor Stolfi said:
			
		

> Crypto promoters also make dozens of claims about the virtues of the currency and/or the payment system, such as that it will "one day" replace credit cards, replace national currencies, protect people's savings from inflation or confiscation by government, make banks obsolete, starve governments to death by depriving them of taxes or "money printing", enable support of dissidents in oppressive regimes, "bank the unbanked", allow free internet trade of drugs and other illegal items, end corruption, poverty, and inequality, etc. etc. etc. Ripple Inc., for instance, has boasted for many years that their XRP currency will be used by banks for international transfers. Ethereum promoters claimed that its "smart contracts" will remove the need for lawyers and courts in business deals. Creators of several cryptocurrencies, such as IOTA and Tron (TRX), falsely claimed to have partnerships with entities such as Microsoft [PYM1] and the Liverpool Football Club [TRW]. Bitcoin (BTC) promoters falsely claim that the Lightning Network will "soon" turn their crippled payment system into a "Visa killer". And so on. When one tries to debunk any of these claims, the promoters simply switch to another one.
> 
> Even if these rosy claims were to materialize, none of them would result in a source of revenue for people holding bitcoins. The value of those payment services would go partly to the users who use coins for payments, and partly to the miners in the form of transaction fees. But most crypto investors do not understand this point. They, almost "by definition", do not understand what a good investment is -- e. g. why gold, stocks, and real estate have value, and why investing in a game that is guaranteed to be negative-sum is a bad idea. And bitcoin promoters make no attempt to educate them on those points -- quite the opposite.


----------



## tecate

My what wonderful academic friends you have, Duke. I can give you  the names of a couple more if you need them. I see the great Stolfi's main claim to fame is his opposition to bitcoin and crypto. I'd suggest that he keeps on with that as I'm sure it will get him a few more speaking gigs on the conference circuit. 

Other than that, he claims this - "Bitcoin (BTC) promoters falsely claim that the Lightning Network will "soon" turn their crippled payment system into a "Visa killer"
I'm sure its a difficulty for him to accept but LN payments are real - and are being carried out in the wild - despite his protests.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate  let's stick to the Ponzi aspect of OP.  Just as Stolfi remarks you chose to strike out in another direction in an ad hominem attack on the professor's credentials and motivation - you are becoming tiresome.


			
				Stolfi said:
			
		

> When one tries to debunk any of these claims, the promoters simply switch to another one.


A good definition of a Ponzi scheme is where the only possible source of a return to investors is from other investors.  In this definition we do not necessarily have crooks and manipulators though crypto space certainly has its share of these.

It is not to deny that many folk buy shares mostly with a view to selling to other investors at a profit but in the end of the day shares are underpinned by real revenue.
Similarly many people buy gold with a view to its future resale, but without buyers who actually want it for its intrinsic value gold would also be a Ponzi.
He also points out that fiat is not Ponzi, although I believe you have described as such.  Reason being people do not acquire fiat to make a profit - they have been assured by the custodians of fiat that their intention is the exact opposite - that it will lose value.
Stolfi does identify a class of buyer who buy not with a view to store of value or resale at a profit but for "ideological" reasons.  He puts that constituency at 0.1%.
Stolfi also makes an interesting comparison between Ponzi/Madoff and bitcoin.  Ponzi/Madoff were based on a lie and when the lie was exposed the game was up.  Bitcoin on the other hand is based on delusion.  Even if it falls to $1 the delusion will still survive to some extent.  So I am going to shock you - I do not think bitcoin will go to zero (unless there is some regulatory intervention) for there is really no more information to be made available, unlike Ponzi/Madoff where the exposure was clear cut and final.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate  let's stick to the Ponzi aspect of OP.  Just as Stolfi remarks you chose to strike out in another direction in an ad hominem attack on the professor's credentials and motivation - you are becoming tiresome.


You provided a direct quote from your academic friend - with no other commentary. I commented on what you posted - inclusive of a wayward claim re. LN. If you don't want me to comment on something, then don't post it. 

On the ponzi claims, what new info does he bring to the table? Run a search on 'Stolfi' and you'll see that you've brought the guys views up multiple times. I don't particularly want to post the same response a 577th time to the very same claims that you're regurgitating. That to me is 'tiresome'. 
On motivations, I would say motivations are relevant. Furthermore, we've had motivations questioned from both sides of the house on a continuous basis. Why should Stolfi get a free pass? All his wiki profile says is that he's a professor, he's highly cited and he's a bitcoin skeptic. You can claim ad hominem all day long and yet I'll still point out to you that the point I made (that he is otherwise of little import and his anti-bitcoin stance has elevated his profile) very much stands.


----------



## letitroll

My view is simple.........the last wave of crypto, this last mass adoption spike, pulled in the last remaining suckers into the mania.......to put it another way in previous crytpo bull runs & pull backs it was still a niche, lets call it hobby, there were lots of people still left to indoctrinate......this last wave has exhausted almost everyone susceptible to the siren song of BTC.......pyramid schemes collapse when you run out of suckers, manias collapse when all the chips have been pushed into the centre of the table & the next fellow who comes along is just a little less optimistic about the future than the last .......and super bowl in the United States was like peak crypto with all the ads at half-time......it looked to me exactly like the crest of a wave that was about to break.

Nobody is left to 'suck in', the last cycle mopped up the last group of people and nobody, moving forward, will be interested in 'getting involved" in a trading sardine that has fallen 90% peak to trough.....and where 95% of the population of holders are underwater. See the great scheme with BTC was it turned its 'owners' into unbeknownst to the individuals, unpaid sales people like @tecate ....exactly like a multi-level marketing scam. Problem now is the total addressable population for 'the hustle' has been burned up and the evidence of BTC losses are dispersed wide enough for people to be wary enough to say no thanks.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

letitroll said:


> My view is simple.........the last wave of crypto, this last mass adoption spike, pulled in the last remaining suckers into the mania.......to put it another way in previous crytpo bull runs & pull backs it was still a niche, lets call it hobby, there were lots of people still left to indoctrinate......this last wave has exhausted almost everyone susceptible to the siren song of BTC.......pyramid schemes collapse when you run out of suckers, manias collapse when all the chips have been pushed into the centre of the table & the next fellow who comes along is just a little less optimistic about the future than the last .......and super bowl in the United States was like peak crypto with all the ads at half-time......it looked to me exactly like the crest of a wave that was about to break.
> 
> Nobody is left to 'suck in', the last cycle mopped up the last group of people and nobody, moving forward, will be interested in 'getting involved" in a trading sardine that has fallen 90% peak to trough.....and where 95% of the population of holders are underwater. See the great scheme with BTC was it turned its 'owners' into unbeknownst to the individuals, unpaid sales people like @tecate ....exactly like a multi-level marketing scam. Problem now is the total addressable population for 'the hustle' has been burned up and the evidence of BTC losses are dispersed wide enough for people to be wary enough to say no thanks.



You'll be delighted to know who is sponsoring the upcoming world cup


----------



## tecate

We've had these discussions before @letitroll . You were adamant it was going down and would never see $60k again. I believed it would go up first - and that as these things are cyclical, we'd see a major retrace.

On the 'no more suckers' aspect, I can see those that may have been burned being slow to come back. However, everyone that comes behind us are digital natives. They're different in that respect than the couple of generations before them. Furthermore, there are different constituencies at play. The gaming market is worth $200 billion and is expected to grow to $340 billion within 5 years. Decentralised digital assets are going to be part of that world - that change has already begun. And there is that digitally native group getting involved with that.

This past year has seen a whole host of new people being drawn in via NFTs. These are people that otherwise had no touch point with crypto. That whole thing is still only being scoped out - it has not drawn in its total addressable market. It hasn't even found all its utility yet because it's very early days. It's distinct from Bitcoin but they're very much related and anyone that can bring themselves to own an NFT is capable of figuring out what Bitcoin brings to the table.

Today saw the launch of a software stack to support decentralised social media on the Polygon sidechain. That implicates digital assets - albeit that it's very early days and it will probably take a decade to produce a mass market ready product and break down the stranglehold of social media incumbents. That will bring everyone in touch with digital assets.

I'm on record as saying that I expected a major slump and reset. What's changed since then is the macro economic picture looks much worse. If governments don't keep printing, then we all will have more to worry about than Bitcoin! Bitcoin by virtue of it being an immature asset will suffer most - but so will equities, property, gold, etc. Tech stocks already have suffered - in many cases nearly as much as Bitcoin - yet that special place in hell is only reserved for Bitcoin it seems.

You think this thing goes down never to recover. I think this thing can very easily go down - but ultimately, it will rise again. It's not impossible that we could have a multi-year crypto-winter. What there is no chance of us agreeing on is that where you see vapourware, I see utility. So you've promised you'll be here every step of the way as/when the price plummets. Great - athough can you provide an undertaking that you'll stick around upon recovery and not do a dishonourable runner as you did last time? 

I joined these discussions as crypto winter set in in early 2018 - and stuck around the whole time. I can assure you that there are all manner of twists and turns in this whole story just yet.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> that comes behind us are digital natives. They're different in that respect than the couple of generations before them.



Losing money on particular versions of a 'get rich quick schemes' and its pain has inter-generational memory transfer built in.....losing money on crytpo will transfer to those 'coming behind us'...........after the 1929 mania.....the audience for the ownership of equites in the United States went from basically everybody to nobody for nearly 35 years......the pain & memory of loss in public securities was inter-generational & these were minority ownership shares in business with INTRINSIC value, not trading sardines.

As I've said the generation coming behind will fall for a get rich quick scehem with different clothes.......maybe it will be a property bubble again, beanie babies who knows.......but it wont be BTC. I can assure you of that.



tecate said:


> This past year has seen a whole host of new people being drawn in via NFTs. These are people that otherwise had no touch point with crypto. That whole thing is still only being scoped out - it has not drawn in its total addressable market.



I'm afraid this cycle gobbled up almost everybody susceptible to the message - there are no more suckers left.....and not enough to ever get it back to $69,000 again.


tecate said:


> I'm on record as saying that I expected a major slump and reset.



You know my view..........reset and never to return to anything approaching $69k ever again



tecate said:


> You think this thing goes down never to recover. I think this thing can very easily go down - but ultimately, it will rise again. It's not impossible that we could have a multi-year crypto-winter. Great - athough can you provide an undertaking that you'll stick around upon recovery and not do a dishonourable runner as you did last time?



When would you be willing to wave the white flag @tecate ? Five years, ten years when BTC is no where near $69k? Interested to know vaguely remember you hating to get specific with timelines and price levels. Lets set a date I dont have time to be on forums the whole time...........if by 2030 BTC isnt back to its ATH's of $69k would that be a failure for it to function as a store of wealth???? Surely we can at least agree that? or would you prefer 2130   Come on if by 2030 (8 years) this 'thing' reporting to be a 'store of value', a digital gold,  isn't back to its previous high then come on @tecate you gotta give up by then.

I told you government was going to strangle BTC but it looks like BTC is going to strangle itself before government could fully get to it. Given manias lead to so much promotional chicanery and promotion by undesirable people is there any surprise that everybody who is susceptible to this messaging has been now reached by the unbelievable amount of marketing dollars spent to entice them into the scheme. i firmly beleive there is nobody left and the corpuses of those who've been burned will serve as a reminder to the 'generation coming up behind' such that they wont get involved either.


----------



## tecate

@letitroll : I don't believe bitcoin to be a 'get rich quick' scheme albeit I'm sure there may have been some who did or who do. Anyway, 2030 is fine. Coingecko puts market top at $67,617 on 9th Nov.


----------



## letitroll

tecate said:


> @letitroll : I don't believe bitcoin to be a 'get rich quick' scheme albeit I'm sure there may have been some who did or who do. Anyway, 2030 is fine. Coingecko puts market top at $67,617 on 9th Nov.


I know you don't think its a scheme and I don't doubt your sincerity/believe in the 'project' of BTC. I've always enjoyed chatting to you even though we have very different views.

No problemo on using Coingecko top tick figure of $67,617 in my world if I'm right, I'm going to be right by ALOT, not a couple K.....you will be first on my visit list Jan 1st, 2030 but were in agreement then that the BTC dream has clearly failed if it can't reach or exceed that high water mark of $67,617 it set in 2021 by the year 2030 right??


----------



## tecate

letitroll said:


> No problemo on using Coingecko top tick figure of $67,617 in my world if I'm right, I'm going to be right by ALOT, not a couple K.....you will be first on my visit list Jan 1st, 2030 but were in agreement then that the BTC dream has clearly failed if it can't reach or exceed that high water mark of $67,617 it set in 2021 by the year 2030 right??


Yup, that will work.


----------

