# David McWilliams: "Bitcoin Betrayal"?



## Brendan Burgess

I presume that McWilliams did not choose this headline:









						David McWilliams: Between rent, house prices and Bitcoin betrayal, how much more can the younger generation take?
					

Some of the promises of bitcoin in particular and crypto in general may still come to pass, but right now it looks like an old-fashioned boom-bust cycle




					www.irishtimes.com
				




I can't figure out from quick scan of the yarn he is telling, who did the betraying?

But he has made a good point. If people speculated the house deposit on Bitcoin, most of the recent speculators, are in a very bad position indeed.

_The conversation ebbed and flowed, more rapid-fire than laconic, becoming heated on the issue of crypto. As if paying high rents was not enough, the recent collapse of crypto, particularly bitcoin, has hit Ireland’s millennials and Gen Z’ers hard. Crypto is a generational issue. For those under 35 it was the asset of choice, a way of accumulating wealth for a generation locked out of the housing market. For Generation X (my crowd) and boomers, crypto was largely seen as an end-of-cycle scam, the ultimate pyramid scheme. As bitcoin has fallen from a high of €58,000 before Christmas to about €19,000, some younger people have suffered a huge fall in their ‘paper’ wealth.

Coming on top of house price and rent rises, this loss will be particularly difficult, not least because buying bitcoin was seen as an “alternative” to buying a house. Regular readers of this column will know that I’ve been a bitcoin sceptic for a long time, mainly due to my professional training as a monetary economist – but it hardly matters: globally, two trillion dollars of paper wealth has been wiped off the crypto markets, the biggest of these being bitcoin. For young Irish holders of crypto, the slump in prices has been a double negative whammy because bitcoin has been falling while houses prices have been rising, making them much poorer on a ‘relative’ wealth basis. We are talking about a lot of people._

The thing I find a bit odd is that although lots of young Irish people seem to own Bitcoin, I haven't heard many stories of people having lost all their money? Or maybe they don't recognise the loss as they expect it to back up?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Brendan Burgess said:


> most of the recent speculators


I usually hate the term "speculators" as it is mainly used by socialists now to describe the normal process of business investment, but it is completely correct here - people putting money into cryptos really are speculating!


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I usually hate the term "speculators" as it is mainly used by socialists now to describe the normal process of business investment, but it is completely correct here - people putting money into cryptos really are speculating!


I suppose there's always a level of speculation when investing in anything and we've all done it a some stage,  Xtravision, Eircom  Atlantic Resources,  Bula, remember those ?

But the younger generation live by what is told online, not all I would imagine,  many have access to online " investment platforms " or ponzi platforms as I describe it. Many will have ordered multiple " investment bibles " free online from financial guru who is so good at investing he/she are selling books and seminars, of course the shipping of these " bibles " isn't exactly cheap either.

The younger generation also probably think that they need to " score big" when it comes to investing as they feel owning a home might never happen so they speculate.

My two 22&21 are more interested in starting pensions once it becomes easier via the new proposals,  but my 2 remember the last crash when I was very sick and making every month took sacrifices for all of us, including Santa.

Speculation will always be in the world of investment and some will win and some will lose.

But its nobody's fault except the investor


----------



## Rasputin

Brendan Burgess said:


> The thing I find a bit odd is that although lots of young Irish people seem to own Bitcoin, I haven't heard many stories of people having lost all their money?



I think that's to do with human nature. You only ever hear of the few big wins a gambler will have in their lifetime, they never shout about the plethora of losses that fall either side of the those big wins.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I really can't believe there are any that thought bitcoin an alternative to buying a house. 
I think my Millennial nephew is typical - he is a clever guy, now studying actuarial.  He asked me about 18 months ago should he put the few thousand dollars he had earned in a US holiday job into bitcoin.  I referred him to the wise words of Professor Roubini and he certainly backed off.  It was about $40k at the time and I had to endure a bit of ribbing last November but he's back talking to me 
He wasn't seeing it as a life choice, but he was prepared to take a punt with far more exciting possibilities than earning a mere 5% p.a. in an investment fund.
To be sure, I don't think anybody with a tit or a wit over the age of 35 sees any sense in bitcoin so McWilliams is right, it is a bit of a fad for young rebels, a bit like punk rock, but I think he hugely overstates that phenomenon.


----------



## ClubMan

Lots of sweeping anecdotal generalisations here about "young people". So I'll add my own anecdotes. I know people older than myself who swear by crypto and have put their money where their mouths are. Meanwhile my 16 year old is, thankfully, convinced that it's a speculative bubble.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I really can't believe there are any that thought bitcoin an alternative to buying a house.



Hi Duke

A lot of people feel that they can't get the deposit together to buy a house.

But if they doubled or tripled their money on crypto, then they would have the deposit.

They are vulnerable to the crypto story. It's very easy for them to be suckered in by the argument "Something was $70k a while ago, and now it's a bargain at $20k." 

Brendan 


Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Brendan Burgess said:


> But if they doubled or tripled their money on crypto, then they would have the deposit.


I'm very curious as to how banks would assess this both from an AML perspective and also the creditworthiness of the borrower.

Who is less likely to default? Someone who turned €10k into €50k through some well-time crypto trades? Or someone to saved up €50k via putting €10k a year into a deposit account?


----------



## ClubMan

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Someone who turned €10k into €50k through some well-time crypto trades?


I thought that mortgage lenders generally didn't like to see a history of online gambling on an applicant's record?


----------



## joe sod

Rasputin said:


> I think that's to do with human nature. You only ever hear of the few big wins a gambler will have in their lifetime, they never shout about the plethora of losses that fall either side of the those big wins.


It was the same with the housing crash it was a long time before people were prepared to admit their losses , there was plenty of denial around in 2008 and 2009  ,it was only around 2010 that you really started to hear the stories


----------



## interested21

As a Millennial, here's my 2c based on my social circle of educated mid- to high-earning tech workers.

No one talks about investments in general, nevermind bitcoin. The most that people manage to set up is their pension, and even at that it's usually just up to the company match and into the default fund.

The only times investments come up are 1) when to cash in RSUs, and 2) recently with inflation there's been talk of protecting the value of money (which usually ends quickly when they see that losing 8% purchasing power per annum may be better than losing 20% in the last 6 months on the stock market).

I've had more taxidrivers talk to me about bitcoin than peers.

Maybe since my circle earn more than the average Millennial, many of them can afford a deposit anyway so don't feel they need to risk it on crypto. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence and all that. But I do think that there is an element of McWilliams enjoying saying "I told you so".


----------



## DublinHead54

There is a lot of speculation in that article! Although it is news to me that you can live in a Bitcoin!

There has been $7trillion wiped of the S&P500 in 2022 as well, so a smart pension investment in global equities is not doing too well either. I didn't see any facts in that article, probably based on conversations of 'did you hear about the guy down the pub who invested his house deposit in bitcoin and lost it all'.


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

I've been interested in crypto since 2014, I've seen this all before. it goes up, it goes down, it goes back up again and down again. 

I'm not sure if this is the bottom at 20k but this is where I'll begin putting my own money in again


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Brendan Burgess said:


> _Crypto is a generational issue. For those under 35 it was the asset of choice, a way of accumulating wealth for a generation locked out of the housing market._


Asset of choice for under 35s?


Brendan Burgess said:


> _For Generation X (my crowd) and boomers, crypto was largely seen as an end-of-cycle scam, _


End-of-cycle?


Brendan Burgess said:


> _Coming on top of house price and rent rises, this loss will be particularly difficult, not least because buying bitcoin was seen as an “alternative” to buying a house. _


As @Dublinbay12 remarked does anybody really see bitcoin as the alternative to a house?

I don't care if the author is a professionally trained monetary economist, AAM should not we wasting time on such drivel.


----------



## tomdublin

The postulated logic behind bitcoin is that there is a limited supply of it and therefore it will retain its value.  The flaw in this logic is that being in limited supply is a necessary but insufficient condition for something to have an exchange value.  Lots of things are rare yet worthless.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

tomdublin said:


> Lots of things are rare yet worthless.



Hi tom 

You have put this much more eloquently than I have done in the past: 






						Key Post - Why Bitcoin has value
					

And what earthly incentive do they have to distort the figures? What does it bring for them?    I honestly don't know, but my guess is that they are not attempting to report on global figures and are simply focusing on their own market. Their editorial focus in almost exclusively US centric. I...



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The youth are not the only people being betrayed by Bitcoin. Pity the poor criminals. 









						Kinahan cartel left reeling by crash in crypto
					

The Kinahan cartel has suffered significant financial losses as a result of the collapse in the value of cryptocurrency investments which it has been unable to convert into hard currency because of sanctions introduced by US authorities.Intelligence available to officials suggests that the cartel ha




					www.thetimes.co.uk
				




But they must have made out like bandits on the way up.

Brendan


----------



## interested21

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As @Dublinbay12 remarked does anybody really see bitcoin as the alternative to a house?


I think his point is that previous generations have had the opportunity to buy assets (property) at low prices which have subsequently grown significantly in value at the expense of the next generation.

Many Millennial and Gen X-ers have now been priced out of having the opportunity to get a slice of this pie, so some hoped that they could make a whole new pie instead. 

Today, young people talk about their parents generation who bought a 3-bed semi for 20k that's now worth 500k. They're hoping that in 50 years young people will complain about how our generation were able to buy bitcoin for "only" 20k and amass great wealth as it went over 500k per coin.


----------



## Rasputin

interested21 said:


> Today, young people talk about their parents generation who bought a 3-bed semi for 20k that's now worth 500k. They're hoping that in 50 years young people will complain about how our generation were able to buy bitcoin for "only" 20k and amass great wealth as it went over 500k per coin.



I think the house has a tad bit more utility than a bitcoin though, and the rationale for buying was far different. Their parents generation bought a house to live in and raise a family, and its value went up over time. The people buying bitcoin are just blindly buying into a get quick rich scheme for fear of missing out.
In 50 years time, the only place you'll find Bitcoin is in a behavioural economics text book as a 'that really happened' cautionary tale.


----------



## interested21

Oh I agree!


----------



## VonHohenzollern

Ive been hearing about crypto since 2014/15ish and never heard of a use case from anyone except a friend who bought magic mushrooms.

I know a few friends who have lobbed money into them. I had one who decided to gamble the deposit of a house he has saved. I know the price he invested in Etherium at; when it previously crashed he swore he would get out if the value evened out. I doubt he did, he picks up bad habits like kids pick up lice. We havent talked about CC after I interfered with his attempts to get another friend to invest their savings....

TBH, I can see why people might speculate with CC, compared to historic metrics the stock market seems to be very overvalued. Social media has been flooded with grifters who will tell you every lie to get you to buy into the greater fool scam they're pushing. This is the end of a very long period of economic growth, bitcoin came out the month when Lehmans folded, it hasnt had to survive in any kind of tough period. I think the concept will stick around like other fringe saving methods like antiques or 'luxury' brands where it's mostly just the same money being passed around a small group.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

interested21 said:


> I think his point is that previous generations have had the opportunity to buy assets (property) at low prices which have subsequently grown significantly in value at the expense of the next generation.


You're a brave person to try and guess what he meant.  Have you had a go at End-of-cycle?
How many people buy houses for their speculative potential?  They buy houses to live in, to get on the ladder before it gets pulled up any further, to escape the punitive rental market.  People (other than the Kinahans of this world) buy bitcoin for one and only one purpose, and it's not to buy latte, it is to make a lotto style killing.  I can't see how a professionally trained monetary economist can make a statement that people see bitcoin as an alternative to houses.  What research did he do to support this assertion?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Rasputin said:


> In 50 years time, the only place you'll find Bitcoin is in a behavioural economics text book as a 'that really happened' cautionary tale.



Hi Rasputin. Will it really take 50 years? 

I have been surprised it was not zero a couple of years ago. But 50 years?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What research did he do to support this assertion?



Sorry Duke. I didn't quote the research he referenced earlier in the article.




> By David McWilliamsSat Jun 25 2022 - 06:00
> Sitting in the shade outside the Footnote cafe in Hackney, listening to the chatter of three tables of young Irish emigrants


----------



## DublinHead54

I was a young Irish emigrant in London in my 20's and I didn't sit around talking about house deposits....times really have changed! 

This article is clearly picking on Cryptocurrency, as its not the only asset class that has lost considerable value this year, however it is probably the easiest to pick on. 

What is more important here is that investing platforms are far more accessible to the average joe than even 10 years ago, nobody in there 20s will have lived through a Financial crisis losing their own hard earned money, all they have known is a period of growth.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

The victory laps that Bitcoin has failed while it's at 20k are interesting when the historic threads here are calling it a brief fad at lower than 1k over half a decade ago, and a bubble years ago at 5k.

The heavy speculators weren't even really buying bitcoin in this cycle as they couldn't imagine a quick 100x gain when it was already in the 5 digit price range. They were buying Dogecoin or whatever NFTs celebs were being bribed to shill them on twitter. The exception to this was people chasing the unsustainable returns places like Celsius/Block-fi etc were offering. It seems people would deposit their crypto there and it was being either lent out to loans of varying risk, invested into highly risky crypto ventures or were straight up ponzi schemes.

The bear market is wiping out the unsustainable. This results in some forced selling - some people/institutions do not want to sell their bitcoin but they are being forced to. This moves Bitcoin from weak hands to strong hands. Additionally Bitcoin is regaining dominance in the overall crypto market as the alt-coins, NFTs etc take the brunt of the bear market, most will not recover, same as last time (remember ICOs?).

Anecdotally I'm not seeing capitulation among long term bitcoiners, only questions wondering where the bottom is for accumulation purposes.

As for DMW:



> But I do think that there is an element of McWilliams enjoying saying "I told you so".


He didn't even really do that, I've listened to many of his podcasts about crypto and he mostly sat on the fence during the bull market. I can at least admire Brendan for having conviction and being consistent (even though I completely disagree with him), but DMW didn't have conviction about Bitcoin, he doesn't understand it, and even worse now he's saying "I told you so" even though nothing has happened except the same old price volatility we've seen through its history.

I expect the AAM crowd is largely out of touch with the average global youngster (i.e. not south dublin), it's one of the things I actually find most interesting about this site. I participate in a lot of crypto communities elsewhere online so I might have more exposure. There are some things I notice that I think are different than previous generations, some of it only applying to the last few years:

There is probably more hate, disinterest and distrust of the traditional financial industry than ever
People have a 24/7 trading desk in their pocket with robinhood and revolut etc.
The pandemic gave a lot of people time and spare cash to get involved in investing/trading/speculating for the first time. With sports cancelled many sports gamblers went looking for an alternative.
There is unlimited information - for better or worse. Someone already mentioned the negative side of it: "investment platforms" and "financial gurus". The positive side of it is sites like this, investopedia, youtubers like Ben Felix, the FIRE movement (the reddit for this has over 200k members). If you want to understand how something works, whether it's the bond market, or bitcoin's blockchain, or the federal reserve you can find information about it and educate yourself.
Many young people feel really hopeless in terms of having the quality of life their parents did. They feel like 'the system' is working against them and not for them. Doing the right thing - even getting a degree, getting a 'good' job isn't enough like it used to be.
Many are not as scared of risk and volatility, probably because they're encountering both pretty quickly with the things they tend to dip their toe in with.
Like-minded people are finding each other online and forming communities, there is strength in (cult) numbers.
There are reasons the various threads full of predictions about Bitcoin and Tesla and even Gamestop (lol) here have been wrong, and I attribute a lot of of it to the above.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Rasputin said:


> I think the house has a tad bit more utility than a bitcoin though, and the rationale for buying was far different. Their parents generation bought a house to live in and raise a family, and its value went up over time. The people buying bitcoin are just blindly buying into a get quick rich scheme for fear of missing out.
> In 50 years time, the only place you'll find Bitcoin is in a behavioural economics text book as a 'that really happened' cautionary tale.


But you can see that the young people,  and I have two,  view this as inequity. 

I'm 55 and my wife and I started out in 1991 bought a house for IR£35000 sold it 7 years later for IR£ 67,000 and on it went no couple even on €50k each with bonuses and other bells and whistles have any chance of achieving what we did, and its only one generation later.

Bitcoin or other crypto offerings aren't the answer to this problem but if I was 25 and working I would imagine that I would certainly take some kind of punt.

In our day it was junk bonds/ stocks aka penny stocks and $500 bought a lot of them they attract the likes of KKR, or other Wall street types the news alone would send the stock up....skywards. 

During the late 90s early 00s it was .com stocks 

The world if full of financial junk and people will still buy it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@Paul O Mahoney I am not denying that the current younger generation are right to feel resentment at their financial situation versus that of their parents.  On the other hand, I didn't have iPhones, the Internet, cars with two speed wipers, a motorway system to be proud of, air travel as a commonplace (ok quicker check-in times in those days for those who could afford air travel), 3,000 TV channels and Bono in my day.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

DazedInPontoon said:


> There are some things I notice that I think are different than previous generations,



With respect, that is the big mistake that people make, thinking "this time it's different".


----------



## DazedInPontoon

There is linear progression where things change and never go back to how they were, there are cycles where patterns repeat. Saying something as general as "this time it's different" is never true is pointless, and it's trivial for me to demonstrate:

This is the 4th or 5th bitcoin bear market which has followed a bull market and an all-time high. Will the pattern repeat, or would you say "this time it's different"?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Dublinbay12 said:


> There is a lot of speculation in that article! Although it is news to me that you can live in a Bitcoin!
> 
> There has been $7trillion wiped of the S&P500 in 2022 as well, so a smart pension investment in global equities is not doing too well either. I didn't see any facts in that article, probably based on conversations of 'did you hear about the guy down the pub who invested his house deposit in bitcoin and lost it all'.


Smart pension investment doesn’t measure itself based on 5/6 months.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As @Dublinbay12 remarked does anybody really see bitcoin as the alternative to a house?


It certainly isn't an alternative to a house. However, it is a nascent asset in a nascent and developing asset class in its own right. On the housing inequality, that's real and it has been caused by a conventional economic system that is broken. A system that has allowed your generation to borrow from tomorrow - and in effect borrow from the generation coming after you to their detriment.
Something will have to give.



tomdublin said:


> The postulated logic behind bitcoin is that there is a limited supply of it and therefore it will retain its value.  The flaw in this logic is that being in limited supply is a necessary but insufficient condition for something to have an exchange value.  Lots of things are rare yet worthless.


Ok, so it seems it will be easy for you to come up with that list. Once you've assembled that list, now go through them and tell me which of them can allow the transfer of value digitally in real time 24/7/365 on a peer to peer basis - with no friction from governments, central banks, retail banks, etc? Which of them can be used for largescale international settlement that can match Fedwire? Which of them provide a payment rail to move value in remittances - whether that be a simple btc transfer or the bitcoin network as the conduit in the middle and usd/euro etc. at either end of that (like Strike is achieving over Bitcoin/lightning network)?


Brendan Burgess said:


> The youth are not the only people being betrayed by Bitcoin. Pity the poor criminals.


I don't have a subscription for the Times - so couldn't read that article. However, maybe the Kinahan's used crypto - but the article is clickbait insofar as it's taking an example (criminal use) that's in no way the norm. Someone made the point about it not being used for anything except for buying magic mushrooms. In the first couple of years of Bitcoin, the dark web did actually form a significant use case - off a base where it wasn't being used for anything else  - so an embryonic stage. Over the past three years, there have been a plethora of studies demonstrating that Bitcoin and crypto have less illicit use than fiat. It is opensource and censorship resistant - and so it can be used by anyone - for good or for bad. In that respect, it's just a tool like the internet is.


VonHohenzollern said:


> This is the end of a very long period of economic growth, bitcoin came out the month when Lehmans folded, it hasnt had to survive in any kind of tough period. I think the concept will stick around like other fringe saving methods like antiques or 'luxury' brands where it's mostly just the same money being passed around a small group.


You're absolutely right in that Bitcoin faces new challenges in this cycle as the macro economic picture turns incredibly negative. It will have to come through that - but I believe that it will.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> The world if full of financial junk and people will still buy it.


I've no doubt that you're right. There has been talk of 'speculation' but there are different types of speculators too - and that doesn't get considered. Whether consciously or otherwise, I feel if there's a natural bias towards finding Bitcoin to be pointless, then this always seem to feed in to the worst possible examples. In these hype cycles, there are people that never had any interest before getting triggered when things get frothy. Some don't take that  interest beyond 'number go up', have no knowledge aside from maybe something that they heard down the pub, and oftentimes just FOMO in with no knowledge on the back of primal greed (which we all possess as a human trait - albeit some have a much better awareness of it than others).

There's no doubt that this category of "investor" or "speculator" gets badly burnt - proportionate to just how greedy they've been. And they've already realized that loss right now as they've already sold. That's not a good outcome - but there has to be some semblance of personal responsibility with this sort of stuff. There may be others who just took a punt with a small amount of money - and now that they've gotten involved, they might go on to actually understand what digital assets are, what purpose they can serve, etc. I'd much rather we didn't have these cycles - it would be much better if Bitcoin could incrementally and gently gather momentum - but unfortunately, that's simply not how humans work. On the up side, each hype cycle draws more and more people in - to understanding what digital assets and Bitcoin are about. Some come for a feverish 'number go up' and some then stay having a better appreciation of what these assets are.

The notion of fast/easy money has been raised in relation to crypto many times. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are folks who have fomo'ed in who thought in those terms (and will do again). However, Bitcoin and crypto is the farthest thing from easy money.

Someone mentioned that smart pension investment doesn't measure itself based on 5/6 months. That's precisely the point relative to Bitcoin too. Anyone who isn't looking at this with a 3-5 year timeframe in mind isn't looking at it properly.

As for DMW, I didn't read his article as its behind a paywall although from the comments and the headline, I assume it's largely negative re. Bitcoin. However, I see from the first couple of lines that for a guy that has been very slow to gather an understanding of Bitcoin, he either is being clever (and covering his bases) or he's actually learnt something - because he states this:

"Some of the promises of Bitcoin in particular and crypto in general may still come to pass..."

This bear market is particularly challenging as it brings together an incredibly difficult macro setup (crypto responds much more quickly in both directions - I don't think we've seen anything yet in relation to more conventional assets) together with weak and unsustainable actors (who paid little heed to proper risk management) in the crypto space being taken out. Clearing them out comes with major pain for those caught up in it - but in the longer run, it's very healthy for crypto and particularly for Bitcoin.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @Paul O Mahoney I am not denying that the current younger generation are right to feel resentment at their financial situation versus that of their parents.  On the other hand, I didn't have iPhones, the Internet, cars with two speed wipers, a motorway system to be proud of, air travel as a commonplace (ok quicker check-in times in those days for those who could afford air travel), 3,000 TV channels and Bono in my day.


Oh I fully agree our lives were certainly simplier and we certainly valued any money that we made/had, and I'm also not saying that the younger generation have it worse, they don't, and when I point out this a lot of "eye rolling" takes place. 

But I can understand that they view that they have it worse and therefore take actions that they do.

I wouldn't be telling mine invest in crypto but once its their own money they can do what they want,  once the bank of Mam and Dad isn't called in for a bailout.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Once you've assembled that list, now go through them and tell me which of them can allow the transfer of value digitally in real time 24/7/365 on a peer to peer basis - with no friction from governments, central banks, retail banks, etc?


Seriously off topic as usual.
Look, if somebody showed me them holding a smartphone next to a bar of gold on a table and it disappears quick as a flash and appears beside another smartphone on the mantlepiece, I'd say "Wow! That is even better than Paul Daniels".  In fact I would be mightily impressed if it was only a cornflake.
Now if some visionary like your good self told me 20 years ago "some day it will be possible to transfer digital entries on a ledger in real time blah blah blah", I would stare blankly at you and ask "could they not do that 20 years ago?"


----------



## Rasputin

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Rasputin. Will it really take 50 years?
> 
> I have been surprised it was not zero a couple of years ago. But 50 years?


Absolutely not, I continue to be amazed by how long it is taking, but when people continue to get their financial advice from youtube and instagram where the landscape is dominated by zealots with vested interests, it was always going to take a lot longer to dawn I suppose.

The 50 years timeframe was just in response to the other poster who used the same timeframe, and I agree that its only extreme irrational exuberance that it's still hovering around 20k and not zeroed out a long, long time ago


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

McW claims that bitcoin is the asset of choice for under 35s and that they now see it as an "alternative" to buying a house.  If we were not familiar with David's penchant for wild attention seeking claims like these the Government and indeed society would have to take these claims from a Trinity professor and Central Bank professionally trained monetary economist very seriously indeed.  Thankfully his source for this shocking assessment was the chatter of a few Irish emigrants in a cafe in Hackney.

If such a social malaise did gather momentum it would be incumbent on the Government to at least make statements similar to the following from the Chinese government:

Chinese state-run newspaper Economic Daily has warned investors that the price of leading cryptocurrency Bitcoin is "heading to *zero*".

"Bitcoin is nothing more than a string of digital codes" the newspaper said.

"In the future, once investors' confidence collapses or when sovereign countries declare bitcoin illegal, it will return to its original value, which is *utterly worthless*," it added.


----------



## DublinHead54

DazedInPontoon said:


> There is linear progression where things change and never go back to how they were, there are cycles where patterns repeat. Saying something as general as "this time it's different" is never true is pointless, and it's trivial for me to demonstrate:
> 
> This is the 4th or 5th bitcoin bear market which has followed a bull market and an all-time high. Will the pattern repeat, or would you say "this time it's different"?



There are external factors that make this time different, at least in terms of the price. The price decrease in the last 6 months is broadly following the stock market, albeit more extreme given it is a riskier / less developed market. My view the price crash is this is split into two components

1. (A) Excess liquidity - In the last two years we have seen a huge amount of money printed (US Stimulus etc) and this money pumped into Crypto / Stock market driving large price increases. Creating overinflated asset prices, economy turns (inflation, higher rates) forcing asset prices back down
2. (B) Systemic Weakness in Crypto Market:  celsius, UST etc, this is similar to the Global Financial crisis, when the liquidity squeeze happened it acted like a domino knocking down institutions until they were bailed out. We are seeing this in Crypto, and it caused downward pressure. The next cycle will solve these issues much like Trad Fi resolved. 

If I guess that part A = $20k, then I can see BTC going back to $40k, but the peaks of $60k will need to be met by other driving factors as that excess liquidity in the market has gone.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

If bitcoin is the asset of choice for under 35s (no way do I believe that BTW) then Ireland inc.  faces a potentially devastating capital outflow.   For I now fear that bitcoin's death will be long and painful.  In the meantime half of Ireland's adult population will have pumped 10s of billions of euro into this "asset" and something tells me that when the music stops there will not be many Paddies amongst the whales that walk off with their Ponzi loot.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

DazedInPontoon said:


> This is the 4th or 5th bitcoin bear market which has followed a bull market and an all-time high. Will the pattern repeat, or would you say "this time it's different"?



Depends on how you look at this. 

This time will be no different from previous bubbles, pyramid schemes and scams.  Lots of people believed in it and claimed that their tulips were valuable for some reason.  Same with dot.com.  There were serious online discussions about why a company which added .com to their name should go up in value. There were serious discussions about how a share split doubled the value of the company.   The only difference now is that it's taking the market longer to recognise that bitcoin is a bag of hot air. And that seems to be because it's younger people doing the speculating and taking their advice from anonymous people online. 

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Seriously off topic as usual.


I've responded directly to the point that was made.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Look, if somebody showed me them holding a smartphone next to a bar of gold on a table and it disappears quick as a flash and appears beside another smartphone on the mantlepiece, I'd say "Wow! That is even better than Paul Daniels".  In fact I would be mightily impressed if it was only a cornflake.
> Now if some visionary like your good self told me 20 years ago "some day it will be possible to transfer digital entries on a ledger in real time blah blah blah", I would stare blankly at you and ask "could they not do that 20 years ago?"


I've no idea what you're going on with here. A bar of gold can't digitally reassemble itself in precise quantities on the other side of the country/continent/planet, no.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Chinese state-run newspaper Economic Daily has warned investors that the price of leading cryptocurrency Bitcoin is "heading to *zero*".
> 
> "Bitcoin is nothing more than a string of digital codes" the newspaper said.
> 
> "In the future, once investors' confidence collapses or when sovereign countries declare bitcoin illegal, it will return to its original value, which is *utterly worthless*," it added.


Well you mentioned gold - and this is pure gold. The Duke is now relying on information from his comrades at the Chinese Communist Party. I always knew you could develop your inner Shinner - more power to you. Do you want to have a look back at what they said about the internet back in the day? Do you want to refresh yourself as regards how they tried to block out the internet - and how the internet developed despite them? Bitcoin is freedom money - and that's the last thing the CCP is about.


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> This time will be no different from previous bubbles, pyramid schemes and scams.


What 'scam', 'pyramid' or 'bubble' proceeds along to another boom and bust cycle directly - and then another and another, one after the other?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Same with dot.com.  There were serious online discussions about why a company which added .com to their name should go up in value. There were serious discussions about how a share split doubled the value of the company.   The only difference now is that it's taking the market longer to recognise that bitcoin is a bag of hot air. And that seems to be because it's younger people doing the speculating and taking their advice from anonymous people online.


Many people got burned during the dot com boom bust - but you've always focused on that aspect of it - and never seem to recognise the incredible innovation that stemmed from it. Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc were there. Amazon went through 35-50% corrections every year for 12 years.
On the claim that everyone pro Bitcoin is "taking their advice from anonymous people online" that goes back to the point I made earlier. Those with a bias towards believing that Bitcoin is pointless seem to buy in to the most extreme negatives surrounding Bitcoin. Are there clowns on youtube presenting as experts on crypto? All day long. They're being outed within crypto circles - but newcomers may be oblivious to the fact. Beyond those clowns there are incredibly intelligent people involved in crypto that are an excellent source of information on the subject.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I've no idea what you're going on with here.


Oh I think you have.  You talk about the magic of real time transmission of "value" blah, blah, blah.  There is nothing particularly magic about transferring ownership of digital entries on a ledger which are *utterly worthless.*


tecate said:


> The Duke is now relying on information from his comrades at the Chinese Communist Party. Do you want to have a look back and what they said about the internet back in the day? Do you want to refresh yourself as regards how they tried to block out the internet - and how the internet developed despite them?


Boy could I have bet my house, or even my bitcoin on that one.  I quote Nobel Prize winners and you wax on about a fax machine blunder by one of their members.
I mention a well respected Professor who was incidentally introduced to me by you and you call him a "nutty" professor.
I cite the views of the leaders of the most successful (in relative economic terms) country on the planet and you play the yellow peril card.
Shoot the messenger is one of your preferred tactics.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh I think you have.  You talk about the magic of real time transmission of "value" blah, blah, blah.  There is nothing particularly magic about transferring ownership of digital entries on a ledger which are *utterly worthless*


Ah, there's no innovation here. I see. So according to the point the other poster made, we need something that's scarce that also provides some utility. I've given the example of peer to peer digital money and a mechanism for international settlement. You say any old digital ledger can do that. Fine. Send me value right now digitally by a means that is scarce Duke. In fact, as a demonstration, I'll offer to send bitcoin to anyone reading this that takes 5 minutes to install the Muun wallet. One cent worth of value can be sent from anyone anywhere - regardless of jurisdiction/geographical location to another - with practically no fees and no interference.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Boy could I have bet my house, or even my bitcoin on that one.  I quote Nobel Prize winners and you wax on about a fax machine blunder by one of their members.


I do so with purpose. It's an incredibly important point. Paul 'fax machine' Krugman piped up about technology - a field he has no notion of - with that statement. He had no right to do so - but because these academic alchemists are put on a pedestal by the likes of you, he did. Bitcoin is technological first and a financial innovation second. He had no idea what he was talking about then - just like he has no idea what he's spouting out about Bitcoin now.

This is the guy that said during the pandemic that the money printing wouldn't lead to inflation!



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I mention a well respected Professor who was incidentally introduced to me by you and you call him a "nutty" professor.


Respected by who? You? Debate at times here centered on that guys views - and you'll recall youtube clips of ranting from him where he was literally unstable. That's the origin story for the 'nutty' professor. He's earnt the title. I've said it many times - his views are not objective in any way, shape or form with regard to Bitcoin. He's been proven wrong on the subject since $13/BTC. Professor fax machine outscores him here - he's been wrong on Bitcoin since $7/BTC.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I cite the views of the leaders of the most successful (in relative economic terms) country on the planet and play the yellow peril card.
> Shoot the messenger is one of your preferred tactics.


Leaders? Are you out of your mind!? What company has either of them built? They're academics. As regards the 'shoot the messenger' charge, you have relied on them simply because they're 'nobels'. You've literally deferred any views you have onto them. You've said that you'd have to trust the likes of them (central bankers) and you will change your mind only when they change theirs. So it's in no way a case of 'shoot the messenger'. It's a case of challenging peoples views - which is healthy.


----------



## joe sod

interested21 said:


> Today, young people talk about their parents generation who bought a 3-bed semi for 20k that's now worth 500k. They're hoping that in 50 years young people will complain about how our generation were able to buy bitcoin for "only" 20k and amass great wealth as it went over 500k per coin.


I wonder is it the case that in the past a significant proportion of economic activity and labour was involved in constructing Houses not just in Ireland but internationally. 

At the same time Ireland had a low and stagnant population around 3.5 million .

During the boom of the early 2000s a substantial part of our economic activity was involved in the construction industry,  the immigrants that came from Eastern Europe were by and large employed by that industry aswell so we could build 80k Houses per year at the peak.
Working in construction then was attractive because the salaries relative to other  careers were attractive and you were also taxed less on those salaries no USC.
Another factor never mentioned is the WFH phenomenon,  that also makes construction work a whole lot less attractive even for construction professionals and engineers  ,better to get a job where you don't have to be at a mucky site at 7am in the morning but can roll out of bed and login to a laptop for 9am


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

tecate said:


> What 'scam', 'pyramid' or 'bubble' proceeds along to another boom and bust cycle directly - and then another and another, one after the other?
> 
> 
> Many people got burned during the dot com boom bust - but you've always focused on that aspect of it - and never seem to recognise the incredible innovation that stemmed from it. Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc were there. Amazon went through 35-50% corrections every year for 12 years.
> On the claim that everyone pro Bitcoin is "taking their advice form anonymous people online" that goes back to the point I made earlier. Those with a bias towards believing that Bitcoin is pointless seem to buy in to the most extreme negatives surrounding Bitcoin. Are there clowns on youtube presenting as experts on crypto? All day long. They're being outed within crypto circles - but newcomers may be oblivious to the fact. Beyond those clowns there are incredibly intelligent people involved in crypto that are an excellent source of information on the subject.


Now you are really getting silly,  none of the companies you mentioned above were a cause of the .com boom and bust.

The boom was purely a bubble and the technology web1.0 if even that.  

What spawned out that era, was the simple lesson that " hype,  is never a good investment " the difference though between the .com boom and bitcoin at least the various website domains still had some value and customers that were swept up by many now longstanding companies like Yahoo. 

Facebook and its cohort weren't even ideas in 1999 to 2001 as the technology wasn't developed until 2005 and even then it wasn't perfect. 


Google the same,  writing algorithms on paper is one thing getting a computer to run it is a completely different scenario. 

I feel you are running out of road in your defense of Bitcoin and are now resorting to frankly misleading information and many untruths.


----------



## tecate

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I feel you are running out of road in your defense of Bitcoin and are now resorting to frankly misleading information and many untruths.


I feel that you have missed the point entirely, Paul. I never said that Google/Amazon etc were 'responsible' for that boom/bust - just as I wouldn't suggest that Bitcoin is in this instance we have right now. Human nature is responsible for it. While some people are getting carried away on the markets end of this, others are working away diligently on the technology itself.

Secondly, the point I was making is that within both of those hype cycles lies incredible innovation. That exists in spite of people getting out ahead of their skis.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Facebook and its cohort weren't even ideas in 1999 to 2001 as the technology wasn't developed until 2005 and even then it wasn't perfect.
> Google the same, writing algorithms on paper is one thing getting a computer to run it is a completely different scenario.


You're right about Facebook - so lets take that out of the example I provided (albeit that I would argue that the base technology to facilitate it was being put in place by others during the dot com boom/bust. The earliest web-enabled social networks date back to 1995). Amazon and Google were right there in that time.

The point you make about Google makes another point for me. Time and time again, we've had folks here complain that we shouldn't look at how Bitcoin/crypto can be developed - we should only look at what it does right in this moment. It took years to develop internet technologies - in fact, they're still developing.
My original point stands that there was incredible innovation at the heart of the dot com boom/bust even if it was incomplete technology. Crypto is incomplete - there's an ocean of work to be done on this. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the base level technology isn't already there. It's not the technology's fault that people react like this -> "most people overestimate what can be achieved in one year and underestimate what can be achieved in ten".


----------



## Rasputin

tecate said:


> Beyond those clowns there are incredibly intelligent people involved in crypto that are an excellent source of information on the subject.



And they could well be the ones on the positive side of the transfer of wealth when all this unravels, while the majority of the less incredibly intelligent people will be on the other side, crying. 
It's like a game of musical chairs and they are the ones who control the music, and as always, there will be a small group rubbing their hands with glee, and a massive group rubbing their eyes in regret.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

tecate said:


> I feel that you have missed the point entirely, Paul. I never said that Google/Amazon etc were 'responsible' for that boom/bust - just as I wouldn't suggest that Bitcoin is in this instance we have right now. Human nature is responsible for it. While some people are getting carried away on the markets end of this, others are working away diligently on the technology itself.
> 
> Secondly, the point I was making is that within both of those hype cycles lies incredible innovation. That exists in spite of people getting out ahead of their skis.
> 
> 
> You're right about Facebook - so lets take that out of the example I provided (albeit that I would argue that the base technology to facilitate it was being put in place by others during the dot com boom/bust. The earliest web-enabled social networks date back to 1995). Amazon and Google were right there in that time.
> 
> The point you make about Google makes another point for me. Time and time again, we've had folks here complain that we shouldn't look at how Bitcoin/crypto can be developed - we should only look at what it does right in this moment. It took years to develop internet technologies - in fact, they're still developing.
> My original point stands that there was incredible innovation at the heart of the dot com boom/bust even if it was incomplete technology. Crypto is incomplete - there's an ocean of work to be done on this. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the base level technology isn't already there. It's not the technology's fault that people react like this -> "most people overestimate what can be achieved in one year and underestimate what can be achieved in ten".


Ok I found it difficult to understand what you said above,  so, I'll pose one question to try and get to the nub and I don't want an essay in answer.

Is "Bitcoin " and other cryptocurrencies real " innovation " given that mankind has recorded financial and other transactions since the dawn of time?, and what differentiates it from the normal proven ways of doing commerce?


Perhaps 2 questions rolled up into 1 unit like Bitcoin


----------



## tecate

Rasputin said:


> And they could well be the ones on the positive side of the transfer of wealth when all this unravels, while the majority of the less incredibly intelligent people will be on the other side, crying.
> It's like a game of musical chairs and they are the ones who control the music, and as always, there will be a small group rubbing their hands with glee, and a massive group rubbing their eyes in regret.



You're suggesting that the 'incredibly intelligent' people I'm referring to have bad intentions. That's not who I'm referring to - I'm referring to really credible people in the space who actually contribute - whether it's in building out the technology or some other aspect. 
There may well be smart scammers around also - but I would also say that I believe in personal responsibility. If someone is going to make a financial decision, they have to take responsibility for it. If they've done so on the basis of what a youtube shill or clown has suggested to them, that is their decision. What you describe is relevant to any financial decision in any market - it is not in any way exclusive to crypto (albeit that there are much more opportunities for scammers in an industry that's nascent and poorly understood).



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Ok I found it difficult to understand what you said above,  so, I'll pose one question to try and get to the nub and I don't want an essay in answer.
> 
> Is "Bitcoin " and other cryptocurrencies real " innovation " given that mankind has recorded financial and other transactions since the dawn of time?, and what differentiates it from the normal proven ways of doing commerce?
> 
> 
> Perhaps 2 questions rolled up into 1 unit like Bitcoin


Of course it's an innovation. If you don't see the difference between it and fiat money and/or transfers via fiat money, then you've misunderstood the basis of what it offers. On your second question, the ability to transfer value on a peer to peer basis with NO intermediary and no censorship. Allied with that, its a finite asset - which is entirely different than the means of exchange used in commerce today.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

tecate said:


> You're suggesting that the 'incredibly intelligent' people I'm referring to have bad intentions. That's not who I'm referring to - I'm referring to really credible people in the space who actually contribute - whether it's in building out the technology or some other aspect.
> There may well be smart scammers around also - but I would also say that I believe in personal responsibility. If someone is going to make a financial decision, they have to take responsibility for it. If they've done so on the basis of what a youtube shill or clown has suggested to them, that is there decision. What you describe is relevant to any financial decision in any market - it is not in any way exclusive to crypto (albeit that there are much more opportunities for scammers in an industry that's nascent and poorly understood).
> 
> 
> Of course it's an innovation. If you don't see the difference between it and fiat money and/or transfers via fiat money, then you've misunderstood the basis of what it offers. On your second question, the ability to transfer value on a peer to peer basis with NO intermediary and no censorship. Allied with that, its a finite asset - which is entirely different than the means of exchange used in commerce today.


"Its a finite asset " Really I thought they were " mined", continually digitally, and were not " physical " and all transactions were reecorded on" ledgers"  that were open.

Even the terminology used, is archaic and has been around "since commerce began."

"Peer to Peer" transactions are the essence of commerce and has been in existence , " since commerce began " .

Bitcoin is only a digital version of what humans have been doing for millions of years , yes millions.

It's not innovative in anyway is not a " disruptive innovation " in the slightest sense,  it builds on what has been going on and has rebranded itself,  so much so, that if it disappears tomorrow commerce won't skip a beat.

Reading your rebuttals not just on this thread but others, its easy to appreciate your passion for "this game changer" and while our present financial system is full of flaws, including FIAT leverage etc like Bitcoin,  but it works on a day to day second by second basis and people like that certainty .


The "black tulip" will never be created as the tulips dna can't create it, we know this now because of scientific innovation over centuries of speculation.

Will Bitcoin be subject to such scientific scrutiny? I doubt it and I fear archeologists won't find any evidence of its existence either.

Perhaps there is a place for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies but that need hasn't been proven and I doubt it ever will in my lifetime or my children's.

Sometimes innovation needs to stop and ask itself if this will be embraced and sometimes it does but in the vast majority of cases it lies at the end of a ravine...........

And I can assure you Bitcoin won't change the ills of the world either.


----------



## Rasputin

tecate said:


> Of course it's an innovation. If you don't see the difference between it and fiat money and/or transfers via fiat money, then you've misunderstood the basis of what it offers. On your second question, the ability to transfer value on a peer to peer basis with NO intermediary and no censorship. Allied with that, its a finite asset - which is entirely different than the means of exchange used in commerce today.


Blockchain might well be innovation, Bitcoin isn't. Could there be uses for blockchain technology in the future, yes, possibly, could there be uses for Bitcoin, I can't see any to be honest.  
I'm happy to have a regulated intermediary involved in all my financial transactions, and I'm also more than happy to have the currency I use supported by a sovereign.  I;ve never felt the victim of financial censorship - I like certain rules, regulations and restrictions for the money I use - it keeps it stable. If digital currency is the way forward, surely central banks will just develop their own over time, and why on earth would anyone rather use bitcoin which isn't backed by anything and could be worth half tomorrow - unless of course, its for nefarious reasons.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

tecate said:


> Allied with that, its a finite asset



tecate - will you stop saying that?

It's completely misleading.

There is nothing finite about cryptocurrencies.  

I can create one tomorrow and limit it to 20. That doesn't make it worth anything.

There is an infinite amount of crypto.

Brendan

p.s. it's not an asset either.


----------



## tecate

Paul O Mahoney said:


> "Its a finite asset " Really I thought they were " mined", continually digitally, and were not " physical " and all transactions were reecorded on" ledgers"  that were open.


They're mined with a transparent supply schedule that continually reduces every four years - with new supply coming to an end in 2140. That's set out clearly in the programmed rules of the cryptocurrency. There will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Even the terminology used, is archaic and has been around "since commerce began."



So what?




Paul O Mahoney said:


> "Peer to Peer" transactions are the essence of commerce and has been in existence , " since commerce began " .
> 
> Bitcoin is only a digital version of what humans have been doing for millions of years , yes millions.



It's "ONLY" a digital version? I can't help you if you don't see the significance Paul.





Paul O Mahoney said:


> It's not innovative in anyway is not a " disruptive innovation " in the slightest sense,  it builds on what has been going on and has rebranded itself,  so much so, that if it disappears tomorrow commerce won't skip a beat.


What was achieved in solving the double spend problem is highly regarded in cryptography as a breakthrough. Of course it builds on whats gone on before - things evolve. That's how innovation works. As regards it disappearing tomorrow and commerce not missing a beat - absolutely....just like the internet had it disappeared in 1995.




Paul O Mahoney said:


> Reading your rebuttals not just on this thread but others, its easy to appreciate your passion for "this game changer" and while our present financial system is full of flaws, including FIAT leverage etc like Bitcoin,  but it works on a day to day second by second basis and people like that certainty .


Those flaws can be improved upon...and that doesn't necessarily mean going to extremes and opting for one over another. Choice has never been a bad thing for society. Whilst flawed, you're talking about a mature system that has been afforded decades to evolve. The internet wasn't such an innovation in peoples lives in 1995.




Paul O Mahoney said:


> The "black tulip" will never be created as the tulips dna can't create it, we know this now because of scientific innovation over centuries of speculation.
> 
> Will Bitcoin be subject to such scientific scrutiny? I doubt it and I fear archeologists won't find any evidence of its existence either.


I have no earthly idea what your point is with this. Feel free to explain it if you wish.




Paul O Mahoney said:


> Perhaps there is a place for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies but that need hasn't been proven and I doubt it ever will in my lifetime or my children's.
> 
> Sometimes innovation needs to stop and ask itself if this will be embraced and sometimes it does but in the vast majority of cases it lies at the end of a ravine...........
> 
> And I can assure you Bitcoin won't change the ills of the world either.


I have not seen anyone claim that Bitcoin will 'change the ills of the world' over the course of 5 years of discussion here.




Rasputin said:


> Blockchain might well be innovation, Bitcoin isn't. Could there be uses for blockchain technology in the future, yes, possibly, could there be uses for Bitcoin, I can't see any to be honest.
> I'm happy to have a regulated intermediary involved in all my financial transactions, and I'm also more than happy to have the currency I use supported by a sovereign.  I;ve never felt the victim of financial censorship - I like certain rules, regulations and restrictions for the money I use - it keeps it stable. If digital currency is the way forward, surely central banks will just develop their own over time, and why on earth would anyone rather use bitcoin which isn't backed by anything and could be worth half tomorrow - unless of course, its for nefarious reasons.


So Bitcoin doesn't add value to you personally and so you now assume that everyone on the planet must have the same circumstances. That in no way is the case. You like rules and regulations - is it possible to have regulations that are just plain wrong? Is that ever possible? I'm not averse to regulation - but just in case anyone thinks regulation can only be good, that couldn't possibly be true. There are any amount of examples of bad regulation relative to money and finance that are not in the interest of the ordinary joe.
You've never felt the victim of financial censorship. That's great for you. That doesn't mean that it's not going on in the world right this second.
Digital currency is where this is headed and yes, we will have Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) but they are not in any way the same thing as Bitcoin.
Always the nefarious jibe yet multiple peer reviewed studies over the past few years have all shown Bitcoin to have less illicit use than fiat currency.




Brendan Burgess said:


> tecate - will you stop saying that?
> 
> It's completely misleading.
> 
> There is nothing finite about cryptocurrencies.
> 
> I can create one tomorrow and limit it to 20. That doesn't make it worth anything.
> 
> There is an infinite amount of crypto.
> 
> Brendan
> 
> p.s. it's not an asset either.


In no way will I stop saying that Brendan - because it's the truth. You cannot recreate Bitcoin with the very same security model. You could use the very same source code and it wouldn't match it because it wouldn't have the network security to keep it online. It would last all of five minutes. You're also conflating other digital assets with Bitcoin - which betrays a total lack of understanding as regards what they involve. They are not the same.
It's amazing that you're digging up this wayward FUD right now - I haven't heard that claim here since a few years ago already. I'll say the same now as i said then - spin up BurgessCoin or MarmaladeCoin - and come back and explain to us why nobody uses them - OR - if the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that Bitcoin isn't in any way unique, you can come along and explain why your new currencies have been ignored entirely.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

tecate said:


> You're also conflating other digital assets with Bitcoin - which betrays a total lack of understanding as regards what they involve. They are not the same.



tecate - and your toe nails are different from mine. But they are both worthless. 

There are many cryptos which have survived longer than 5 minutes so there is an infinite supply of crypto. 

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> There are many cryptos which have survived longer than 5 minutes so there is an infinite supply of crypto.


You've flagrantly ignored what I pointed out to you. If you don't employ the exact same consensus model and programed-in rules, then any other crypto is not the same as Bitcoin. But you're free to use the same source code. Use it Brendan and your cryptocurrency will be taken offline in 10 seconds flat (maybe not 10 seconds flat because it would actually have to garner some value before anyone would care about going to that effort).

A secondary point for you. Lets say you're a facebook or google engineer. You know precisely how their technology works - to a T. You go away and create Facebook2 or Google2. In terms of technology - they're clones - but no more. No further technological advantage has been achieved. Are they now the same Brendan? Will you now value Facebook / Google and Facebook2 / Google 2 as equal?

In the event that you say they're not the same, can you let me know why they're not the same?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Dublinbay12 said:


> There are external factors that make this time different, at least in terms of the price. The price decrease in the last 6 months is broadly following the stock market, albeit more extreme given it is a riskier / less developed market. My view the price crash is this is split into two components


I agree with you there, and this could be the first time bitcoin has been in existence in a recession if that's where we end up from the interest rate hikes this year. The macro situation in general seems to be a bit different than any time before.


Dublinbay12 said:


> 1. (A) Excess liquidity - In the last two years we have seen a huge amount of money printed (US Stimulus etc) and this money pumped into Crypto / Stock market driving large price increases. Creating overinflated asset prices, economy turns (inflation, higher rates) forcing asset prices back down
> 2. (B) Systemic Weakness in Crypto Market:  celsius, UST etc, this is similar to the Global Financial crisis, when the liquidity squeeze happened it acted like a domino knocking down institutions until they were bailed out. We are seeing this in Crypto, and it caused downward pressure. The next cycle will solve these issues much like Trad Fi resolved.
> 
> If I guess that part A = $20k, then I can see BTC going back to $40k, but the peaks of $60k will need to be met by other driving factors as that excess liquidity in the market has gone.


Also agree in general with that, but I see also a third component:
3. (C) People going to cash until things settle down. This is people who were not forced sellers because of A or B but are selling because they think they'll be able to buy back lower. What's interesting about this though is that cash is not a great place to be either at the moment with inflation so high, so there's a reasonable motive for people to get back into what they want to own sooner rather than later. Wouldn't surprise me if a catalyst like a change in the inflation trend and/or the Fed relaxing on the hikes sees a sharp end to the downturn. Things seem to move quicker these days. Of course things can go the other way too, especially if there are more blow-ups like Celsius and UST on the verge of happening.

I don't have enough information to estimate how much of the price action is due to either A, B or C.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Bitcoin is *utterly  worthless*.  I'm annoyed with myself that the Chinese government beat me to the perfect description.  And they weren't just name calling; they explained that all it is is a bunch of digital code.
Back on topic, I think some preliminary research should be commissioned by the Central Bank/Department of Finance/Department for Social Protection to see if there is any substance in David's claim that under 35s see bitcoin as the "asset of choice" and chose it as an "alternative" to a house.  As explained earlier, if there is any truth in this startling claim it has implications not only for the welfare of the upcoming generation but for the very macro financial position of Ireland Inc.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin is *utterly  worthless*.  I'm annoyed with myself that the Chinese government beat me to the perfect description.  And they weren't just name calling; they explained that all it is is a bunch of digital code.


I just called the CCP for you in Beijing. The CCP Ard Fheis is on on the 25th August and they'd be delighted if you'd attend. They said based on what I described, you scored high on their social profiling system and something about like minds and similar views, etc.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I just called the CCP for you in Beijing. The CCP Ard Fheis is on on the 25th August and they'd be delighted if you'd attend. They said based on what I described, you scored high on their social profiling system and something about like minds and similar views, etc.


Jayz, give me time to finish my posts


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I want to labour this point, though I do not believe David's wild assertion that bitcoin is the asset of choice for under 35s. But if it was in any way true it has serious implications.
The under 35s are the  generation entering the prime of their savings life. If this is true it will not be long before bitcoin is the asset of choice for Ireland inc.'s savings if it is not already so.  This is not good at all.  It may be the only hope for El Salvadorians and their celebrity seeking leader to go all in on a bet on bitcoin.  But we are one of the wealthiest nations on earth.  We could see in 20 years time that the upcoming generation had thrown it all away on an *utterly worthless* bunch of digital code.
But I do take comfort that panic is not setting in in official circles.  It shows that nobody takes David seriously.
@tecate would you have any concerns if bitcoin was the asset of choice for Ireland's upcoming generation's savings?  Though I think you are on record as being "5% of portfolio" guy.  A 5% hit to the nation's savings would not be total disaster.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It shows that nobody takes David seriously.


As ever, it's important that we can all rally around a common belief as a starting point.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

tecate said:


> They're mined with a transparent supply schedule that continually reduces every four years - with new supply coming to an end in 2140. That's set out clearly in the programmed rules of the cryptocurrency. There will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "ONLY" a digital version? I can't help you if you don't see the significance Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was achieved in solving the double spend problem is highly regarded in cryptography as a breakthrough. Of course it builds on whats gone on before - things evolve. That's how innovation works. As regards it disappearing tomorrow and commerce not missing a beat - absolutely....just like the internet had it disappeared in 1995.
> 
> 
> 
> Those flaws can be improved upon...and that doesn't necessarily mean going to extremes and opting for one over another. Choice has never been a bad thing for society. Whilst flawed, you're talking about a mature system that has been afforded decades to evolve. The internet wasn't such an innovation in peoples lives in 1995.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no earthly idea what your point is with this. Feel free to explain it if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not seen anyone claim that Bitcoin will 'change the ills of the world' over the course of 5 years of discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> So Bitcoin doesn't add value to you personally and so you now assume that everyone on the planet must have the same circumstances. That in no way is the case. You like rules and regulations - is it possible to have regulations that are just plain wrong? Is that ever possible? I'm not averse to regulation - but just in case anyone thinks regulation can only be good, that couldn't possibly be true. There are any amount of examples of bad regulation relative to money and finance that are not in the interest of the ordinary joe.
> You've never felt the victim of financial censorship. That's great for you. That doesn't mean that it's not going on in the world right this second.
> Digital currency is where this is headed and yes, we will have Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) but they are not in any way the same thing as Bitcoin.
> Always the nefarious jibe yet multiple peer reviewed studies over the past few years have all shown Bitcoin to have less illicit use than fiat currency.
> 
> 
> 
> In no way will I stop saying that Brendan - because it's the truth. You cannot recreate Bitcoin with the very same security model. You could use the very same source code and it wouldn't match it because it wouldn't have the network security to keep it online. It would last all of five minutes. You're also conflating other digital assets with Bitcoin - which betrays a total lack of understanding as regards what they involve. They are not the same.
> It's amazing that you're digging up this wayward FUD right now - I haven't heard that claim here since a few years ago already. I'll say the same now as i said then - spin up BurgessCoin or MarmaladeCoin - and come back and explain to us why nobody uses them - OR - if the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that Bitcoin isn't in any way unique, you can come along and explain why your new currencies have been ignored entirely.


Dude your gonna find it difficult to survive if you don't understand nuances, and frankly I'm beginning to think that you have an inability to debate "

You continue to " sell" the line but don't even understand that your analysis is incorrect on anything that proves that intangible ideas aren't assets.

You do remind me of a guy on YouTube who no matter what reasonable question on the virtues of Bitcoin that was posed , went on a rant with a heafty dose of conspiracy theory and like you name calling. He was in Singapore or Hong Kong and really was a bit nuts. Was that you?

You also " infer " the true sign of either lack of understanding or worse lying.

Bitcoin is a ponzi and a cult and despite your defensive position the truth will out,  and you and your ilk will answer either to the legal system or a least yourselves,  but I doubt the latter matters to ye.

Btw, the black tulip was the cause of tulip mania the first truly recorded scam which caused a lot of money to be lost by the entire economy of Holland, but during it " innovation was going to produce a black tulip" , and like Bitcoin everyone bought in expecting that it could be cultivated,  but its impossible,  bit like Bitcoin its "innovation " will suck people in bankrupt most, and the idea of its revolution will also be proven to be impossible .


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate would you have any concerns if bitcoin was the asset of choice for Ireland's upcoming generation's savings?  Though I think you are on record as being "5% of portfolio" guy.  A 5% hit to the nation's savings would not be total disaster.


I have always said 5% of portfolio sounds reasonable to me - and within that, I'd suggest that people dollar cost average (DCA) their way into that. I'll also add that what someone does or doesn't do is their decision. i.e. I believe in personal responsibility - grown ups make grown up decisions surrounding their own finances.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Dude your gonna find it difficult to survive if you don't understand nuances


If you haven't explained something in a way that someone understands what you mean, that's your failure. Although it wouldn't be much of a failure if you actually came back and explained what 'nuance' I haven't understood. But that's up to you.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> and frankly I'm beginning to think that you have an inability to debate


I very much disagree and I'll turn that right back on you. As above and with this statement, you're playing the man and not the ball (the actual subject). That's your choice.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> You do remind me of a guy on YouTube who no matter what reasonable question on the virtues of Bitcoin that was posed , went on a rant with a heafty dose of conspiracy theory and like you name calling. He was in Singapore or Hong Kong and really was a bit nuts. Was that you?



Again, how does this add to the discussion? What has this got to do with the discussion? You're practically saying that I engage in conspiracy theories. Please enlighten me as to which conspiracy theories I've put forward here? You call me nuts - the same sentiment back at you.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> You also " infer " the true sign of either lack of understanding or worse lying.


Again, we have the personal attack. I'd have more respect for a piece of dog crap stuck to my shoe than a reprobate that comes on here claiming that I'm lying - and conveniently can't point to where I've lied. That same sentiment right back at you.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Bitcoin is a ponzi and a cult and despite your defensive position the truth will out,  and you and your ilk will answer either to the legal system or a least yourselves,  but I doubt the latter matters to ye.



If you think its a ponzi and a cult, that just betrays that you have no notion what you're talking about - albeit you're more than entitled to your opinion. As regards "I will answer to the legal system", what the hell are you talking about? As regards "answering to myself", for what? Expressing my opinion? JHC.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Btw, the black tulip was the cause of tulip mania the first truly recorded scam which caused a lot of money to be lost by the entire economy of Holland, but during it " innovation was going to produce a black tulip" , and like Bitcoin everyone bought in expecting that it could be cultivated,  but its impossible,  bit like Bitcoin its "innovation " will suck people in bankrupt most, and the idea of its revolution will also be proven to be impossible .


Do you want to explain why Tulipmania involved one single bubble and Bitcoin is on its 5th hype cycle? Why would anyone ever even consider it a second time round if it's such a ponzi? Hype cycles relative to new innovation/technology are nothing new.

Also on the 'sucking people in' nonsense, grown adults make their own decisions. They could buy tech stocks and lose 80%, buy the Japanese Yen and lose 35% or buy bitcoin at its peak and decide to sell it at a loss. All of those decisions are their own. Of course, a special place in hell is reserved for anything to do with crypto whereas the other items mentioned get a free pass.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

tecate said:


> If you think its a ponzi and a cult, that just betrays that you have no notion what you're talking about



Hi tecate

You have to agree that it's a cult.  A large group of people believing in something totally irrational and completely blind to any argument.  A quasi-religious language.  

I don't believe that it's a Ponzi scheme, because I don't think that there is fraud involved.  Unless it was set up with the sole intention of defrauding people. As we don't know who started it, we don't really know for sure. But it looks like a genuine attempt to innovate that lost contact with its original purpose. 

But it's similar to a Ponzi scheme in that it depends on a "greater fool" paying more for the BOHA than you paid for it.  And those in at the end will lose everything. 

Brendan


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

tecate said:


> I have always said 5% of portfolio sounds reasonable to me - and within that, I'd suggest that people dollar cost average (DCA) their way into that. I'll also add that what someone does or doesn't do is their decision. i.e. I believe in personal responsibility - grown ups make grown up decisions surrounding their own finances.
> 
> 
> If you haven't explained something in a way that someone understands what you mean, that's your failure. Although it wouldn't be much of a failure if you actually came back and explained what 'nuance' I haven't understood. But that's up to you.
> 
> 
> I very much disagree and I'll turn that right back on you. As above and with this statement, you're playing the man and not the ball (the actual subject). That's your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how does this add to the discussion? What has this got to do with the discussion? You're practically saying that I engage in conspiracy theories. Please enlighten me as to which conspiracy theories I've put forward here? You call me nuts - the same sentiment back at you.
> 
> 
> Again, we have the personal attack. I'd have more respect for a piece of dog crap stuck to my shoe than a reprobate that comes on here claiming that I'm lying - and conveniently can't point to where I've lied. That same sentiment right back at you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think its a ponzi and a cult, that just betrays that you have no notion what you're talking about - albeit you're more than entitled to your opinion. As regards "I will answer to the legal system", what the hell are you talking about? As regards "answering to myself", for what? Expressing my opinion? JHC.
> 
> 
> Do you want to explain why Tulipmania involved one single bubble and Bitcoin is on its 5th hype cycle? Why would anyone ever even consider it a second time round if it's such a ponzi? Hype cycles relative to new innovation/technology are nothing new.
> 
> Also on the 'sucking people in', nonsense, grown adults make their own decisions. They could buy tech stocks and lose 80%, buy the Japanese Yen and lose 35% or buy bitcoin at its peak and decide to sell it at a loss. All of those decisions are their own. Of course, a special place in hell is reserved for anything to do with crypto whereas the other items mentioned get a free pass.


Tulip Mania was a sequence of bubbles each one more devastating than the last. 

Nature solved it , Bitcoin is unnatural so unnatural that its useless. 

Finally from me, I admire your tenacity on defending something you believe in, but I do think that perhaps that tenacity would far more profitable than 1 Bitcoin.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I admire your tenacity on defending something you believe in



+1


----------



## CuriousGeorge11

One of the main attractions of crypto is for gambling.

Online gambling is illegal is America but gambling with crypto is not illegal. That's a significant market


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> You have to agree that it's a cult.  A large group of people believing in something totally irrational and completely blind to any argument.  A quasi-religious language.


In no way do I have to agree with any such thing ( particularly given that in no way is that true). It's just the use of a disparaging term to tar and feather it. Precisely how you've presented that betrays your own bias on the subject. It being 'totally irrational' is your opinion - it's not one that I share. On the 'completely blind to any argument' suggestion, i disagree entirely. You are consistent in your view over a number of years that there can only be one outcome. I have always told you that I'm open to the notion that Bitcoin fails. The 'cult' view being 'blind to any argument' is yours in that instance. I could list off a whole host of drawbacks and criticisms I have mentioned here relative to Bitcoin or its ecosystem or of actors in the crypto space. Could you mention one positive trait of Bitcoin that you've identified - and disclosed here? Can you point to any post where you've been critical of the conventional monetary system?

My thesis on Bitcoin remains under constant review. If I'm to act in my own personal interests, it benefits me if I manage to discover something that indicates it's not going to continue to develop. None of that points to cult like behaviour. There are plenty of folks who are currently enthusiastic about Bitcoin who are more than happy to critique the digital currency or issues within the crypto sector.

However, there is a point you have missed relative to the tokenomics of crypto and how it relates to community. There is a way that marketing spend can be reduced in the future that implicates community and an element of user ownership through tokens. But again, all of that is pragmatic and doesn't involve religion or cult.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> Tulip Mania was a sequence of bubbles each one more devastating than the last.
> 
> Nature solved it , Bitcoin is unnatural so unnatural that its useless.
> 
> Finally from me, I admire your tenacity on defending something you believe in, but I do think that perhaps that tenacity would far more profitable than 1 Bitcoin.


If you have a link showing the sequence of bubbles, I'd be keen to have a look at that. My understanding was that it was one bubble taking place over the course of 3 years but subject to what you come back with, I'm open to correction.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Read Anna Golgars book and Charles Mackay's,  centuries apart but same message.  Golgars book is a more nuanced view of bubbles and has the history of the tulip in it.

Neither mentions the black tulip, which is otherwise known as the broken tulip as it was cultivated but was the rarest colours and mix of and the alchemists,  botanists etc sent for more samples as they thought they could create the ultimate " the black tulip" of course every bulb was then a potential and thus the bubble which reach its crescendo in the 3 years but had built up over 100 years, with peaks troughs but ultimately ruin.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

tecate said:


> There are plenty of folks who are currently enthusiastic about Bitcoin who are more than happy to critique the digital currency or issues within the crypto sector.


On that note, I really enjoyed this recent interview with Nic Carter about his assesment of Bitcoin right now:









						The Most Honest Assessment Of Bitcoin Right Now | Nic Carter Full Interview
					

Subscribe to the NEW Best Business Show Live Channel. This channel will be only be clips from the show only going forwardhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgE...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## tecate

DazedInPontoon said:


> On that note, I really enjoyed this recent interview with Nic Carter about his assesment of Bitcoin right now:


For sure. Probably not wise to put anyone on a pedestal but in terms of Carter's record so far, he's been a credible character in this space. He had spoken out about the dangers of algorithmic stablecoins ( and more specifically Terra/Luna) and about yield providers like Celsius.


----------



## ThatNewGuy

Brendan Burgess said:


> As we don't know who started it, we don't really know for sure. B



I subscribe to the theory of Hal Finney and David Kleinman as architects and engineers, with Craig Wright as general wrapper in trying to define their invention as "a thing".

I don't think "the thing" they created is a fraud - anything that people believe in can be an entity. A company is nothing more than a collection of people agreeing that a company exists and working to it's supposed purpose.

It's the latter part of that sentence though that I think Bitcoin is going to struggle with over the long term - it doesnt serve any external purpose other than being it's own "thing" people currently believe in. It doesnt solve any business problem or offer any services of its own like a company. 

In my view the entire crypto space is currently people exploring every possible use for blockchain technology and hoping something sticks. They created a hammer and are looking for nails. I think eventually some nails will make themselves clear, but there's an exceptionally large base of purpose-less ideas being created and hyped at the moment that I think will eventually have a complete wipeout. 

Until that happens, in the interim with a risk appetite and spare cash, there's quick bucks to be made...if you dont mind high risk of losing them also!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> On that note, I really enjoyed this recent interview with Nic Carter about his assesment of Bitcoin right now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Most Honest Assessment Of Bitcoin Right Now | Nic Carter Full Interview
> 
> 
> Subscribe to the NEW Best Business Show Live Channel. This channel will be only be clips from the show only going forwardhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgE...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.youtube.com


A very impressive and knowledgeable guy though I would question his assertion that the Glass Steagle Act of 1933 was in response to the dot.com bubble.  Also an admission that on the eve of the invasion he said Russia wouldn't.  He wasn't the only one but that and some subsequent comments about the futility of sanctions makes one wonder about his worldview and whether this colours his crypto view.  Anyway I really enjoyed the interview.  Some take-aways.
His analysis of the perilous situation of the conventional system and fiat is frightening and I am not really in a position to contradict him.
Excellent analysis of why we are having inflation which I totally agree with.  It is not to do with the bloated money supply, it is caused by the contracting goods supply - the war, de-globalisation, climate change, energy crunch etc etc.  - a reversal of the deflationary backdrop we are just emerging from.  (aside: bitcoin doesn't address goods side supply issues, even in theory).

On the prognosis for bitcoin he sees the potential upside coming from "fiat will die off",  "hyperinflation of 30% p.a. for a few years", "US default".  It is not impossible and one understands how one would desperately want a bunker to protect from that.  But wanting a bunker does not mean that one exists and it seems to me that Nic has indulged in wishful thinking.  For sure bitcoin fills a lot of the requirements - fixed supply, decentralised, politically neutral - all the things in @tecate's credo.  But it fails on the essential _sine qua non. _ Nic calls it a "synthetic commodity" .  Where is the "commodity"?  In the words of a source which has undoubtedly applied some of the sharpest brains in the planet to the issue "bitcoin is *utterly worthless*."
Fantastic take on the miners.  Procyclical.  Rewards crashing, hash rate rising, go figure!  Big problems looming in that space.
He certainly wasn't giving out any short term buy signals, though of course he still remains a long term believer.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A very impressive and knowledgeable guy though I would question his assertion that the Glass Steagle Act of 1933 was in response to the dot.com bubble.  Also an admission that on the eve of the invasion he said Russia wouldn't.


I didn't expect the Russian invasion either, but I didn't really know that much about the whole situation. I just figured Putin has historically generally been rational and this seemed irrational.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> He wasn't the only one but that and some subsequent comments about the futility of sanctions makes one wonder about his worldview and whether this colours his crypto view.


Genuine question from me: are the sanctions working? because we're paying a hefty price for them ourselves it seems and how screwed are we going to be come winter without Russia energy?

I've also heard Russia are just selling more unrefined oil to India, who are refining it and selling it back to the Western world at a higher price, but I don't have a good source for this so not sure if it is true or not.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anyway I really enjoyed the interview.


I'm glad the fact it was an interview between two cult members did not turn you off of it.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Some take-aways.
> His analysis of the perilous situation of the conventional system and fiat is frightening and I am not really in a position to contradict him.
> Excellent analysis of why we are having inflation which I totally agree with.  It is not to do with the bloated money supply, it is caused by the contracting goods supply - the war, de-globalisation, climate change, energy crunch etc etc.  - a reversal of the deflationary backdrop we are just emerging from.  (aside: bitcoin doesn't address goods side supply issues, even in theory).


I figured it would be a combination of all reasons, including money supply, to one degree or another.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> On the prognosis for bitcoin he sees the potential upside coming from "fiat well die off",  "hyperinflation of 30% p.a. for a few years", "US default".


I think he specifically mentioned *lesser* fiat currencies dying off.

I hadn't realised what was going on with the Yen until he mentioned it, look at that drop off in the last year against dollar, and that's against a dollar that's at 8.6% inflation!


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not impossible and one understands how one would desperately want a bunker to protect from that.  But wanting a bunker does not mean that one exists and it seems to me that Nic has indulged in wishful thinking.  For sure bitcoin fills a lot of the requirements - fixed supply, decentralised, politically neutral - all the things in @tecate's credo.  But it fails on the essential _sine qua non. _ Nic calls it a "synthetic commodity" .  Where is the "commodity"?  In the words of a source which has undoubtedly applied some of the sharpest brains in the planet to the issue "bitcoin is *utterly worthless*."
> Fantastic take on the miners.  Procyclical.  Rewards crashing, hash rate rising, go figure!  Big problems looming in that space.


The question is if enough of us collectively decide to use bitcoin as a bunker will it then be one? It's circular, as ever, and I don't expect by now I'll ever change your opinon on this. Subject theory of value and all that.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> He certainly wasn't giving out any short term buy signals, though of course he still remains a long term believer.


Yup, I've probably been more bullish lately than I should have been. He still sees the Fed actions reversing by 4th quarter though, which isn't that far away.

(Another interesting note related to your previous comments about the under 35s choosing bitcoin, it seems Nic's father was a lifer in the "fiat system" including working at the world bank, and here's Nic - a hardcore bitcoiner. Similar to the situation with goldbug, no-bitcoiner Peter Schiff, whose son is a bitcoiner too.)


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Further thoughts.  I am actually with him in that I am surprised that the fall in crypto was not sharper against the backdrop of Celsius and Tera.  Tether is the one to watch.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Another crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC)  bit the dust and filed for bankruptcy today it seems:


> Crypto broker Voyager Digital issued 3AC with a default notice on Monday after it failed to make payments on a loan of 15,250 bitcoin (approximately $324 million) and $350 million worth of USDC, a stablecoin


I had never heard of this one.

Meanwhile Saylor and MicroStrategy announced they bought another 480BTC for $10m.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> Meanwhile Saylor and MicroStrategy announced they bought another 480BTC for $10m.


I think that is extremely small beer for them and a rather blatant attempt to show confidence.  It actually shows weakness if that is all they are prepared to put up.  Better to have done nothing.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Nah I think they've been making periodic small (by their standards) buys like this with their profits. The bigger buys were with their original treasury cash and when they issued bonds. (EDIT full history here: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/microstrategy-statistics/) 

He's said himself he doesn't believe he can time the market so he buys when he has new cash available to do so.

Weakness would have been selling.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> Nah I think they've been making periodic small (by their standards) buys like this with their profits. The bigger buys were with their original treasury cash and when they issued bonds. (EDIT full history here: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/microstrategy-statistics/)
> 
> He's said himself he doesn't believe he can time the market so he buys when he has new cash available to do so.
> 
> Weakness would have been selling.


Okay, so it is just a continuation of existing strategy. Doing it means nothing therefore, they had no choice as to stop the routine would have been a very negative signal.


----------



## lff12

interested21 said:


> As a Millennial, here's my 2c based on my social circle of educated mid- to high-earning tech workers.
> 
> No one talks about investments in general, nevermind bitcoin. The most that people manage to set up is their pension, and even at that it's usually just up to the company match and into the default fund.
> 
> The only times investments come up are 1) when to cash in RSUs, and 2) recently with inflation there's been talk of protecting the value of money (which usually ends quickly when they see that losing 8% purchasing power per annum may be better than losing 20% in the last 6 months on the stock market).
> 
> I've had more taxidrivers talk to me about bitcoin than peers.
> 
> Maybe since my circle earn more than the average Millennial, many of them can afford a deposit anyway so don't feel they need to risk it on crypto. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence and all that. But I do think that there is an element of McWilliams enjoying saying "I told you so".



Well! I did a year on contract with one of the smaller banks here about 8 years ago, and I recall one of my colleagues was mining bitcoin (might have had some investment in it, at the time it was around 1k or so). The guy had a background in general business, had been a bit of an entrepreneur and he was more interested in the mining side of things. I recall our boss getting very excited at the idea. Now this was 8 years ago, bear. Even though the price was lower, they still regarded it as a bit of a day at the races, but its a lot less if you blow 1 or 2k, compared to the vast sums people are prepared to put in now. The colleague was about 30 and my boss was I'd say around 40 at that time.

Not long before that, people were still punting on live currency trades. I blew through 200 dollars in 2 days on that myself, and counted it as a lesson well learned.

People do talk about the new thing, but crypto is hardly new. Even back then I recall people saying that really it would only be worth it if you had already bought in.


----------



## lff12

interested21 said:


> I think his point is that previous generations have had the opportunity to buy assets (property) at low prices which have subsequently grown significantly in value at the expense of the next generation.
> 
> Many Millennial and Gen X-ers have now been priced out of having the opportunity to get a slice of this pie, so some hoped that they could make a whole new pie instead.
> 
> Today, young people talk about their parents generation who bought a 3-bed semi for 20k that's now worth 500k. They're hoping that in 50 years young people will complain about how our generation were able to buy bitcoin for "only" 20k and amass great wealth as it went over 500k per coin.


"Previous generations" also including people now aged 45 who bought their homes at the peak of the market in 2007 and are only seeing the price they paid return now, you mean?
Or my parents who paid 13% interest on their mortgage back in the early 80s?


----------



## Jim2007

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I usually hate the term "speculators" as it is mainly used by socialists now to describe the normal process of business investment, but it is completely correct here - people putting money into cryptos really are speculating!


I didn't realise I knew so many socialists after spending 30 plus years working in Swiss banking, who knew.


----------

