# The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future



## TheBigShort

These threads on bitcoin could be a source of some interest for psychology students or behavioural studies.
By my reckoning the first bitcoin thread on AAM was started in August 2017. Just when its price was making headlines with $3,000 a coin. This wasnt long after I dipped my toe in the water back in June, after dismissing bitcoin in similar vein as others here from about 2013.
Aside from the surge of interest on this site, bitcoin is now a daily topic on all business sites, news sites etc. I cant help feel it is starting to become embedded now into mainstream dialogues, to such an extent that even those who consider it nothing more than hot air are openly betting on its future value.
What was it about the $2,000 - $3,000 price tag between June- August that sparked the frenzy of interest?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> By my reckoning the first bitcoin thread on AAM was started in August 2017



Here is one from 2015   https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/bitcoin.192243/


----------



## TheBigShort

I stand corrected. Notably however that thread is idle after Feb 15, then resurfaces for a bit in Aug 16, then idle again until Feb 17 (where I make my own contribution complaining about fees - to think I was considering buying in Feb 17 but didnt)
After that in Aug 17, multiple forks of the bitcoin topic emerge in various threads. 
I just think its interesting that when certain price levels are obtained, then heads start to turn.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi BS 

Unfortunately we didn't have the internet during Tulipmania, so we don't know the arguments people were using back then to justify the prices. 

We do have the discussion forums during the dot.com boom.  I am not sure if anyone has researched the mania. 

From a quick look at boards.ie, most of the discussion is the believers talking to themselves. 

After Bitcoin collapses, Askaboutmoney will be very useful as the believers have been challenged robustly and systematically and forcefully by the non-believers. 

Brendan


----------



## Dan Murray

TheBigShort said:


> These threads on bitcoin could be a source of some interest for psychology students or behavioural studies.



That's a great point, TBS. It's amazing to watch.

Look at the way when a point is made which aligns with one's viewpoint, it receives multiple likes and couldn't agree mores (from one group) and when alternate points are made, there is little, if any, acknowledgement. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else - it just seems it's the nature of so-called internet discussions! That's a pity.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dan Murray said:


> Look at the way when a point is made which aligns with one's viewpoint, it receives multiple likes



Interesting point  and for the first time, I have "liked" one of your posts. 

While what you say is true, there is an exception in that that fp's posts which are factual have likes from both camps. 

Brendan


----------



## Dan Murray

Well, two can play that game!!

Seriously, I agree with your qualification!

It's also a big relief that my post was not deleted!!

The thing that really worries me, Brendan, is that there is a reasonable chance that you might be right and that if that day arrives, you will confuse the outcome with current probability! If that happens, you won't even have to ban me - I'll leave voluntarily - I simply would not be able to take the "I told you so lap of honour". I'm only flesh and blood!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dan Murray said:


> If that happens, you won't even have to ban me - I'll leave voluntarily



This is why the psychologists should be interviewing the believers now. When Bitcoin disappears, I think that the believers will disappear as well.

I remember meeting a neighbour on Grafton Street in the last week of 1999, handing out leaflets that the World would come to an end at the stroke of midnight on 31st December. I was really shocked.  I wished him a Happy New Year anyway. When I met him in the New Year, I tried to discuss it but all he would say was that due to their prayers, God changed his mind.

This would be the interesting thing about the psychological study. Why do very clever people believe weird things?  And how do they rationalise it afterwards when it is shown that it was untrue?

OK, Shortie will be able to say "A global conspiracy of corrupt governments, central bankers and the banking community conspired to destroy a competitor". But what will the non conspiracy theorists say?

So after the collapse, please don't leave AAM. Come back and see what might later generations learn from this bubble. 

Brendan


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> While what you say is true, there is an exception in that that fp's posts which are factual have likes from both camps.


+1. I really enjoy fb's posts and whilst challenged always keeps it civil and never goes off down rabbit holes like other posters do.


----------



## Dan Murray

Brendan Burgess said:


> ....please don't leave AAM.



Thanks! I really wouldn't want to leave AAM (....it's too good a site!). That said, I think I would have to steer clear of AAB!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Brendan Burgess said:


> I remember meeting a neighbour on Grafton Street in the last week of 1999, handing out leaflets that the World would come to an end at the stroke of midnight on 31st December. I was really shocked.  I wished him a Happy New Year anyway. When I met him in the New Year, I tried to discuss it but all he would say was that due to their prayers, God changed his mind.


We're all smiling at that one, thinking smugly "I wouldn't be like that".  In fact, something very similar happened on a grand scale.  I was a big skeptic on Y2K.  When I made an attempt at an "I told you so", I was dismissed with the conviction that it would have been a disaster if we had not heeded the warnings.  They didn't explain why Italy escaped and it famously spurned the Y2K hysteria.

I am resigned to the fact that when bitcoin bubble bursts there is no point in me making another attempt at "I told you so". 

Already the wagons are circling. 

There is the bullet proof camp who state rather unhelpfully that the value of bitcoin is what people pay for it,  they are always right whether it's price is $1 or $20,000. 

There will be the conspiracy theorists who will argue that the elite establishment killed off this brave attempt to free mankind. 

There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We're all smiling at that one, thinking smugly "I wouldn't be like that".  In fact, something very similar happened on a grand scale.  I was a big skeptic on Y2K.



Ah Y2K...Brendan believes the PP odds on BTC represent free money, but Y2K really was manna from heaven for a newbie contractor


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There will be those... who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.



I had not thought of that, but Dan gives a clear outline of it here in advance. 



Dan Murray said:


> ... Brendan, is that there is a reasonable chance that you might be right and that if that day arrives, you will confuse the outcome with current probability!


----------



## Fella

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is the bullet proof camp who state rather unhelpfully that the value of bitcoin is what people pay for it,  they are always right whether it's price is $1 or $20,000.



It’s not unhelpful , telling people that it will fall to below a value on a given date is unhelpful my posts are all factual , I think it’s lunacy to Bet on its rise or fall and advise others it’s free money . Yourself and Brendan are trying to make money by gambling on its fall but there is no edge here yous can not predict its decline , you are trying to time a market that’s behaving irrational .


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Fella said:


> you are trying to time a market that’s behaving irrational .



Hi Fella

What do you think Bitcoin will be worth on 1 January 2028? 

Brendan


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.



When BTC was hovering just over $200 back in 2015, the Duke said it was all baloney. The fact that the price has moved dramatically in the opposite direction since then does not absolutely mean that the Duke was wrong.

Brendan and the Duke seem unable to grasp this point - the logic deficit here is startling. I can't say anymore else my post really will be deleted.


----------



## Fella

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Fella
> 
> What do you think Bitcoin will be worth on 1 January 2028?
> 
> Brendan



I’ve no idea Brendan I couldn’t predict it’s rise to now so I can’t predict it’s future , I don’t believe anyone can beat the markets. 

It’s not sitting on the fence with me , i can’t predict human behaviour I’m happy to get rich slow investing but there are many who want to get rich quick investing in crypto’s I can’t predict there behaviour . 2028 is a long time away a lot can change Bitcoin could evolve to be actually useful and be used as a currency, maybe that’s not the plan but the main reason I say bitcoin is worth what the market is prepared to pay for it is it’s a belief system and if people believe it to be worth 14,000 or whatever then that’s what it will he exchanged for and even if I agree it’s lunacy that this useless currency invented that can easily be copied I can’t change other peoples belief and the more people accept this as a store or value then we can’t changr that so future predictions are impossible imo.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Fella said:


> I don’t believe anyone can beat the markets.



Hi Fella

I would have agreed with you on this 100% until the dot.com bubble came along. Then I realised that on rare occasions, mania grips a market, and that market can be shown to be wrong. 

So now I agree with you only 99% of the time. 

The bitcoin mania is clear to anyone who is not a believer. 

I invest in shares for the long term. I don't attempt to beat the market or to time the market. I know that I am taking a risk with those shares. I believe that the potential returns justify the risks. 

Selling Bitcoin to me is just another investment where the potential return way outweighs the risks involved.  It will form just a small part of my portfolio.  I won't want to close a losing position but I will do so.

But I fully agree with you that irrational behaviour is difficult to time.  Bitcoin might be over $15,000 this time next year. I might well lose money by selling Bitcoins short.  But I _think _we are at the peak of the bubble. I will sell Bitcoin short with a guaranteed stop and just live with the losses if the mania gets worse and lasts longer.

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Fella said:


> It’s not unhelpful , telling people that it will fall to below a value on a given date is unhelpful my posts are all factual , I think it’s lunacy to Bet on its rise or fall and advise others it’s free money . Yourself and Brendan are trying to make money by gambling on its fall but there is no edge here yous can not predict its decline , you are trying to time a market that’s behaving irrational .


_Mistaken identity_


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.



Of course it's possible to predict the outcome of something without being certain of it. Is that really where we're at here?

I could predict that it will rain in Meath on the 2nd of March or April or whatever month you like. If my prediction proves right, would it not be reasonable for someone to suggest that I couldn't have been certain about such an outcome? I think so, I sincerely think so.

Here's a prediction (again can't be certain about the outcome) but


Dan Murray said:


> ....when alternate valid points are made, there is little, if any, acknowledgement.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> Of course it's possible to predict the outcome of something without being certain of it. Is that really where we're at here?


I'm afraid so.  It's not me, read the other posts.


----------



## Dan Murray

elacsaplau said:


> I could predict that it will rain in Meath on the 2nd of....



Classic Elac,

Mind you - I think it was a good job that you chose Meath. If you had said Clare, then I think it would be reasonable to claim certainty that at some stage during the day, any day, it would turn soft!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

elacsaplau said:


> I could predict that it will rain in Meath on the 2nd of March or April or whatever month you like. If my prediction proves right, would it not be reasonable for someone to suggest that I couldn't have been certain about such an outcome?



I know nothing about the rain in Meath. But it's subject to the science of Meteorology. If Joan Byrne looks at the data, processes it through her computer and tells us that there is a 67% chance of precipitation in County Meath on a particular day, I think that is the best we can do. 

If I tell you that Ryanair shares are worthless because "everyone is flying with competitors" and then it turns out that there was a huge fraud in Ryanair, I would be right for the wrong reasons. 

Bitcoin has no value just like an empty bag has no value. No one has even attempted to put a value on it.  So we can be sure that it has no value. We can also be sure that it will not be priced above $100 for ever.  The big unknown is the timing and whether it will rise even further before the bubble bursts. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

I think there is a wide misinterpretation of views being peddled here of those that hold bitcoin, by those who don't hold it.
I don't think anyone who is holding bitcoin is not open to possibility of it returning to zero at some point. Its just that they don't think it will return to zero anytime soon, and instead has a long life span ahead of it. That is the reason for buying it. If I think it will increase in value I will buy more (quite soon, actually). If I think it will decrease, I will sell.

But for the record, in case I'm wrong, and it returns to zero before I even know whats going on, here are my hands up in advance;

"I was wrong, how could I have been so stupid as to buy into this nonsense. Why didn't I listen to all the great advice on AAM!"


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> "I was wrong, how could I have been so stupid as to buy into this nonsense. Why didn't I listen to all the great advice on AAM!"



But now is the time to open your eyes to that! Not after it has collapsed. 

But if your bet is only a token bet, you might as well leave it for the craic. 

Brendan


----------



## elacsaplau

Brendan Burgess said:


> No one has even attempted to put a value on it.



Eh, no



Brendan Burgess said:


> So we can be sure that it has no value.



Eh, no



Brendan Burgess said:


> We can also be sure that it will not be priced above $100 for ever.



Eh, no


----------



## Fella

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Fella
> 
> I would have agreed with you on this 100% until the dot.com bubble came along. Then I realised that on rare occasions, mania grips a market, and that market can be shown to be wrong.
> 
> So now I agree with you only 99% of the time.
> 
> The bitcoin mania is clear to anyone who is not a believer.
> 
> I invest in shares for the long term. I don't attempt to beat the market or to time the market. I know that I am taking a risk with those shares. I believe that the potential returns justify the risks.
> 
> Selling Bitcoin to me is just another investment where the potential return way outweighs the risks involved.  It will form just a small part of my portfolio.  I won't want to close a losing position but I will do so.
> 
> But I fully agree with you that irrational behaviour is difficult to time.  Bitcoin might be over $15,000 this time next year. I might well lose money by selling Bitcoins short.  But I _think _we are at the peak of the bubble. I will sell Bitcoin short with a guaranteed stop and just live with the losses if the mania gets worse and lasts longer.
> 
> Brendan



So we are largely in agreement on most things which is good to see , where we differ is I don’t see a way to profit from this and you do. We both invest in shares and we both agree it’s pointless trying to time the market , you think Bitcoin is worthless and a bubble you might be right but even if I agree 100% how can I profit from that information? 
I just don’t buy the argument that Bitcoin is almost guaranteed to have crashed by the end of this year , you haven’t explained why very well for me it’s as likely to go up or down , the lunacy has to end soon is not a great reason for it to end soon. 

Can you see my point we both would of been 0% or probably if you asked us both a few years ago could you see a worthless invented coin going from 1- 14,000 and staying at roughly that price when the option is there for all to short it , no chance I would have said and I bet you would of said the same . 

I feel like you desperately want to make a profit from this cause you missed out on a chance to make profit on dot com or tulip bubble , but you won’t be honest with yourself and admit there is no way to profit and your bets your making are as likely to lose as win because of the short time frame of closing the Bet. 

I’ve had lots of similar oppurtunitys in the past and I know the feeling of wanting to make money and be right and I had to at times just be honest with myself that there’s no edge here with my info. 

The edge I’d be looking at is if Bitcoin crashes what will benefit ? Gold perhaps ? Is there an edge there , that for me is a more calculated gamble instead of 50/50 will Bitcoin value games on x date .


----------



## Dan Murray

Fella said:


> I just don’t buy the argument that Bitcoin is almost guaranteed to have crashed by the end of this year , you haven’t explained why very well for me it’s as likely to go up or down , the lunacy has to end soon is not a great reason for it to end soon.



Great post, Fella

Remember the Duke was predicting the demise of Bitcoin back in 2015 when it was just over $200. You could get yourself very, very broke convincing yourself you were right all the while since then.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Fella

Certainly, if I had done the research I have now done, when Bitcoin was $1,000, I would have sold it and lost a lot of money. 

So by selling Bitcoin now, I run the significant risk that I might lose my investment. 

However the downside for Bitcoin seems much more likely than the upside.  it will eventually return to zero. But if it heads over $35,000 before it collapses, then I lose my money.   Again, I would stress that I am investing only a small percentage of my portfolio. With ordinary shares, I expect them to rise and fall. I don't expect any of them to drop to zero.  Selling Bitcoin is different - my investment could drop to zero. 

I would like a much more specific bet e.g. That Bitcoin will fall below $8,000 by 31 Dec 2018.   Even better would be a two year bet that it would fall below $8,000. But no one is offering that. I did ask Betfair to put prices for the 31 December, but they have not responded.

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Interesting that those who live with a pathological fear of being told "I told you so" have no problem dishing it out


----------



## Dan Murray

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would like a much more specific bet e.g. That Bitcoin will fall below $8,000 by 31 Dec 2018.   Even better would be a two year bet that it would fall below $8,000. But no one is offering that. I did ask Betfair to put prices for the 31 December, but they have not responded.



Hi Brendan,

What odds do you think would be fair to both parties as at 31/12/18 and 19? [Can I take it that the price at say close of business on the relevant day is the relevant price?]


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Interesting that those who live with a pathological fear of being told "I told you so" have no problem dishing it out



Pathological fear is an inappropriate term. Nonetheless, I do accept that it would be difficult to witness the characterisation of a successful prediction as a certainty.

It would be a bit like playing poker with a debutant who manages to fill a good hand and enquires _"does this beat that?"_


----------



## BreadKettle

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would like a much more specific bet e.g. That Bitcoin will fall below $8,000 by 31 Dec 2018.   Even better would be a two year bet that it would fall below $8,000. But no one is offering that. I did ask Betfair to put prices for the 31 December, but they have not responded.



It could fall below 8k, that sort of % drop has happened before several times. That doesn't spell the end at all though, it recovers. Why wont you take the zero/bitcoin armageddon bet? That's been your most frequent and sure prediction.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dan Murray said:


> What odds do you think would be fair to both parties as at 31/12/18 and 19? [Can I take it that the price at say close of business on the relevant day is the relevant price?]



Hi Dan

Why do I want a fair bet? 

There are crazy people prepared to pay $15,000 for an empty bag.  I want an unfair bet against them.

If and when Betfair sets up an exchange, I will offer odds and see if someone takes them. 

Until then, I have to get my action from spread betting on IG Index.  

Brendan


----------



## Dan Murray

Hi Brendan,

I'd like a fair bet!!!!

I don't want to step on the toes of Fella or Elac who were first to market here......but if you are really looking to bet on your ideal scenarios (i.e. prices as y/e 18 & 19), I'd be happy to come out to play if you offer a fair bet (given everything you've said). Remember, I have consistently said that I just don't know how to value BTC.

I would suggest that formal terms be agreed and money deposited with a solicitor for reclamation by the winning party.

In deference to the aforementioned posters, I would grant them first call.


----------



## elacsaplau

Dan Murray said:


> Remember the Duke was predicting the demise of Bitcoin back in 2015 when it was just over $200. You could get yourself very, very broke convincing yourself you were right all the while since then.



Fair enuff, Dan but it actually doesn't even take years - ever read up on Nick Gleeson, Jerome Kerviel et al? Once the market goes against you, it can be a very isolating place.

Bad days can turn into bad weeks; bad weeks into bad months and so it goes - I've seen it happen.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Here I go falling for one of _Dan's _gambits.  I looked at that 2015 thread.  I didn't predict anything about its price.  Sure I was of the view then as I am now that it is a load of baloney. 

I know I am going against the Trump/Brexit zeitgeist but I actually still have trust in experts in their field.  I don't think the likes of Krugman were shouting "bubble" back in 2015 but they certainly are now, and who am I to disagree with the experts.


----------



## Dan Murray

Ah Duke - now that's just semantics or sewomantics, if you will.

When you said it was the greatest load of baloney and that its use was not worth nearly enough to justify its then price (all of 200 smackeroonies!) - we all knew what you meant. 

I think it would be better just to admit that you got that call seriously wrong rather than try re-write history. 

[I referenced previously your selectivity regarding experts but that post was deleted so I am unable, regrettably, to comment further on that particular point.]


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Ah _Dan _- you've left a pawn hanging there and I'm going to grab it. 

I currently believe that bitcoin is (next to) worthless.  How can I admit I was wrong?  I didn't predict anything about its price trajectory, maybe I would have got that wrong, I don't know.  But look I'm not a proud man, if bitcoin is above $15,000 in a year's time I will admit that I got it seriously wrong.  Keep this post in your database, _Dan_, as you seem to keep most of my others.


----------



## Nermal

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I know I am going against the Trump/Brexit zeitgeist but I actually still have trust in experts in their field.  I don't think the likes of Krugman were shouting "bubble" back in 2015 but they certainly are now, and who am I to disagree with the experts.



The Krugman who said markets would never recover from Trump? That's who you consider an expert?

If he wasn't making laughable Bitcoin predictions in 2015, it's because he didn't even know what it was.


----------



## fpalb

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

 - Krugman


----------



## elacsaplau

Dan Murray said:


> When you said it was the greatest load of baloney and that its use was not worth nearly enough to justify its then price (all of 200 smackeroonies!) - we all knew what you meant.



Dan - sure that could mean anything - to be honest, it sounds like a strong buy recommendation to me 



fpalb said:


> "The growth of the Internet will slow drastically....."
> - Krugman



Of all your posts Fpalb - this is almost the best yet (.....I'm getting a little sick of the quality of them - simply unfair on us lesser mortals!)


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Keep this post in your database, _Dan_, as you seem to keep most of my others.



In fairness to Brendan, it was he would provided the link to your 2015 comments for all to see in post 2 of this thread.

What it shows clearly also is that Fpalb is being completely consistent and that he is not, in any way, an "after-timer".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:


> "The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
> 
> - Krugman


Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman,  he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome.  In that quote he is straying somewhat outside his area of expertise despite invoking Metcalfe’s Law.  However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency.  If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him.  But is there even one maverick economist who thinks bitcoin’s current price is justified?


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman, he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome.



Shortie Syndrome is spreading;

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/20...e-going-to-be-a-full-scale-cyber-war-in-2018/

_"They're starting to lay down ground rules for offensive cyber war, they're laying down red lines in terms of what is unacceptable, whether it's interference in elections, attacking critical national infrastructure or businesses.

"That if, I guess, some of those actions happen that potentially then that may lead to a declaration of war in its own right."
_
Even the French President Macron and former US presidential candidate Ron Paul are getting in on the act

https://www.rt.com/usa/414931-ron-paul-america-meltdown/

http://travelwirenews.com/that-lead...d-tone-down-iran-rhetoric-says-macron-613205/

Or of course, you can choose to pretend that none of this is actually happening, until it does happen of course. Lets hope it doesn't, but you would be naïve not to notice the increasing tensions occurring globally. The underlying factor of all is the preservation of self-interests, typically defined by control of wealth.

The signals of stock market bubble, bond market bubble, property bubble, fine art, antique & vintage car bubble and cryptocurrency bubble are pointing to economic instability in the near future. Instability breeds conflict.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

B/S trying to keep this on topic, last time we strayed into a S/S fork we got censored.

So let us imagine 2018:  Major cyber attack,  USA pulls in its horns, and we have (yet another) Islam war.  What exactly in this scenario underpins the current value of bitcoin?


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> B/S trying to keep this on topic



The topic is "The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future" (this was BB's title - perhaps a motion to move this topic into "Shooting the breeze" or "Letting off Steam")?.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So let us imagine 2018: Major cyber attack, USA pulls in its horns, and we have (yet another) Islam war. What exactly in this scenario underpins the current value of bitcoin?



It doesn't. It means uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds instability, instability breeds conflict. Conflicts can be, and quite often are , not  restricted to borders. The increasing frequency of tensions imply possible conflict across the globe (via cyber warfare, economic war, military war, revolt, political instability, etc).

So where should I hold my money or wealth?

My preference would be gold right now. But psychical gold is impractical for me. I keep a store in goldmoney.com, but I have to trust that party that they are actually holding gold. I have no real means to verify.  Property I have but to buy anymore is out of reach.
Fine art, vintage cars, antiques etc are also out of reach for me and I would suspect I would be fleeced in any case if I dipped my toe in it.

I have some money held in stocks but I suspect they will be worst hit if tensions continue to escalate and economic growth slows (I note a report indicating a surge in the price of oil courtesy of events in Iran. How will that effect global trade?).

I keep cash, but I suspect the underlying causes of these tensions are a consequence of the devaluation of fiat currencies, via QE. That said, I will always keep a store of cash savings if I'm wrong.
Crytpocurrency is an option - not without its vulnerabilities, particularly if cyber warfare occurs or if you and BB's predictions come to pass, but online banking could be as vulnerable.

Crypto offers an alternative means to store wealth (as long as people are confident holding it). Bitcoin is the choice of preference, I have some Litecoin too. I could choose from a plethora of others, but I could also choose from a plethora of fiat currencies, stocks, oil paintings, metals, food crops, etc...etc... I've placed a small amount of my disposable income in it - no sleepless nights here.
If it crashes it crashes, it crashes. It means that $600bn in the crypto market moves somewhere else, property perhaps? Stocks?

The underlying point, which I referred to before - I have no issue with central banks or fiat currencies and I wouldn't touch a cryptocurrency if the monetary system being operated was structurally sound. But its not, its corrupted to the core. The system is so vast that it is able to withstand certain levels of fraud and corruption. But when the levels of corruption and fraud and manipulation reach the levels they are at, the system is basically dying a slow death. The consequence of this is that everyone is out for their own self-preservation, including nation states.
If stock markets crash, where will all the QE printed go? If nation states fail? What happens then? If the US dollar loses its status as worlds reserve currency, what happens then?

This is what is underpinning bitcoin for me. Others can explain the mechanics of it.


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> B/S trying to keep this on topic



I actually agree that we should keep this on topic.

The thread is about the psychological and behavioural aspects of this debate. I'm interested in why you can't admit that your comments in 2015 look seriously flawed based on any reasonable use of language. The real point is that after being so wrong for so long how can you be so sure now? That's what I'd like to understand. That's what I would find interesting. It genuinely puzzles me.

As an add-on, you said something yesterday which when challenged you also denied.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Already the wagons are circling.
> There is the bullet proof camp who....
> There will be the conspiracy theorists who....
> *There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.*



Brendan then latched onto this, with:


Brendan Burgess said:


> I had not thought of that, but Dan gives a clear outline of it here in advance.



I then pointed out the logical incoherence of your argument


elacsaplau said:


> Of course it's possible to predict the outcome of something without being certain of it.



To which you then replied - surprise, surprise:


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It's not me, read the other posts.



It's all a bit baffling for me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Elac _I had to order a year's supply of tins of baked beanz after reading B/S apocalypse.

I had forgotten that I wrote that in 2015.  I was quite surprised to find that I am saying now exactly what I said then. That debate seemed to be more about the merits of bitcoin rather than about its price, which is very much at the centre of these latter discussions.

So the issue of the price trajectory didn't arise in the 2015 thread as far as I was concerned.  But I will be perfectly honest if it was up for discussion there is no way on this earth I would have predicted, as you may have done, that it would increase a hundredfold in two years.  I admit I would have been very seriously wrong.

As to the other point I suppose it does look a bit cryptic.  It actually arose because of the earlier comment (gambit) from another poster which Brendan then posted in response to me, a wee bit circular, sorry.  What that original post indicated was a pathological fear that Brendan would do a lap of honour if he was proved right.  As a pre-emptive defense that poster made it clear that even if Brendan is proved right later that does not mean he is right now, something to do with probability theory, a bit above my head I'm afraid.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I had to order a year's supply of tins of baked beanz after reading B/S apocalypse



What apocalypse? There you go again, misrepresenting what was said. Where did I mention apocalypse. I was referring to protecting my own store of wealth via in some small part, the purchase of bitcoin.

You are choosing to ignore, not some conspiratorial theory, but actual events as they are occurring. Good luck with that.
Lets hope there is no apocalypse, I certainly never proclaimed there is to be one. Stocking up on the baked beans though is another useful way of self-preservation.


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I will be perfectly honest....there is no way on this earth I would have predicted.....that it would increase 50,000% in two years.  I admit I would have been very seriously wrong......



Well, the paramedics have been and gone.

2/3rds of people aren't great with percentages, the other 50% aren't much better. Word to the wise - BTC has not increased by _50,000%_ in _two_ years since the post in question.

Of course, I predict that it's just a matter of time before that milestone is reached..........of that I am absolutely *certain. *


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As a pre-emptive defense that poster made it clear that even if Brendan is proved right later that does not mean he is right now



Upon a quick initial scan, I actually welcomed your post and gave it a like. Then, upon second reading, I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.

I think it's time for me to move away again from these threads - there's just too much misrepresentation for my tastes, unfortunately.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> Upon a quick initial scan, I actually welcomed your post and gave it a like. Then, upon second reading, I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.





elacsaplau said:


> I think it's time for me to move away again from these threads


----------



## Dan Murray

elacsaplau said:


> I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.



Thanks for de support, Elac - I get it, man.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman . . . However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency.  If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him.



Looks like Krugman's views are in development re. bitcoin.

Krugman states that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.


He's still a crypto skeptic but that's a hell of a turn around and a hell of a statement for him.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Looks like Krugman's views are in development re. bitcoin.
> 
> Krugman states that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.
> 
> 
> He's still a crypto skeptic but that's a hell of a turn around and a hell of a statement for him.


He certainly still is a skeptic.


			
				Krugman said:
			
		

> _“Indeed, eight years after Bitcoin was launched, cryptocurrencies have made very few inroads into actual commerce. A few firms will accept them as payment, but my sense is that this is more about signaling — look at me, I’m cutting-edge! — than about real usefulness. Cryptocurrencies have a large market valuation, but they’re overwhelmingly being held as a speculative play, not because they’re useful as mediums of exchange.”_


Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency.  I can actually buy a latte with bitcoin.  Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.
I would prefer if Krugman was more clearly in the "bag of hot air" camp but then he wouldn't get invited to crypto conferences.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> He certainly still is a skeptic.


Was never in dispute.  However, his current commentary is a long way from his previous -  'putting the monetary system back 300 years' comment.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency.


He referred to the utility of gold - so clearly he was referring to 'store of value' use case rather than transactional use.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.


I don't follow?  How does A.A.'s view differ exactly?  My understanding is that Antonopoulos believes that the future is not FIAT or crypto - but that there will be specific use cases for both.  As regards transactional use, my understanding is that he seems to think Lightning Network will work as a solution to Bitcoins scaling problem.  



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would prefer if we Krugman was more clearly in the "bag of hot air" camp but then he wouldn't get invited to crypto conferences.


The thought did cross my mind re. the crypto conference invite.  However, surely someone of his standing is above that? He can't be that hard up!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Not sure he was referring to store of value utility when comparing gold with bitcoin.  If he did imply that bitcoin was a better long term store of value than gold then I fear that he has indeed taken the "crypto conference soup".

My recall of AA's presentation was that he spent considerable time teasing out the audience's criterion for assessment of crypto "success".  My understanding was that his view was that mainstream adoption, far from being a measure of success, was even a measure of failure.  He wanted it to remain cult.  I may have misunderstood him.


----------



## Leo

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My recall of AA's presentation was that he spent considerable time teasing out the audience's criterion for assessment of crypto "success".



True, his primary use case for cryptos was in nations run by 'despotic leaders' where there was risk of them shutting down the local banking system and confiscating all assets. He believes that cryptos can play a role for people in such states to put some of their wealth out of reach of the regime. He added that in countries such as Ireland with a functioning banking system, he saw no gain or value in using cryptos.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure he was referring to store of value utility when comparing gold with bitcoin.  If he did imply that bitcoin was a better long term store of value than gold then I fear that he has indeed taken the "crypto conference soup".


I can't imagine he was referring to anything other than store of value as gold is used in the context of store of value rather than transactional.



Leo said:


> True, his primary use case for cryptos was in nations run by 'despotic leaders' where there was risk of them shutting down the local banking system and confiscating all assets. He believes that cryptos can play a role for people in such states to put some of their wealth out of reach of the regime. He added that in countries such as Ireland with a functioning banking system, he saw no gain or value in using cryptos.



Up until recently, I'd be inclined to agree with him.  However, I'm thinking that some of the new breed of stablecoins that are coming out would serve people in those situations much better (unless or until btc can get volatility under control).


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Up until recently, I'd be inclined to agree with him.  However, I'm thinking that some of the new breed of stablecoins that are coming out would serve people in those situations much better (unless or until btc can get volatility under control).



Yeah, a lot of the instability challenges are down to pure speculation, once that declines further it should become more stable.


----------



## WolfeTone

Now that the US election is more or less done and dusted, getting back to more familiar territory. From nearly _three years_ ago.... 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But look I'm not a proud man, if bitcoin is above $15,000 in a year's time I will admit that I got it seriously wrong.



...cough, cough....ahem! I knew this thread could be be interesting


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> ...cough, cough....ahem! I knew this thread could be be interesting





			
				Me Jan 3 2018 said:
			
		

> But look I'm not a proud man, if bitcoin is above $15,000 in a year's time I will admit that I got it seriously wrong.


Price on Jan 3 2019 -  €*3,804 *
_Aside:  That thread reminds me of that nutter TheBigShort - where did he disappear to?_

Anyway, on bitcoin,  I am astounded at the recovery it has made since then.  But then I am amazed what has happened to the financial world since then.  Unprecedented Central Bank interventions. 30 year interest rates below 0%  The bitcoin narrative - don't trust the conventional financial model - couldn't have had a greater boost.  The surprise is that bitcoin, unlike gold (guessing here), is still way below its historic high.
I myself am perplexed by current financial phenomena and do not profess to understand them. But the other big bitcoin narrative - hyperinflation -  is just not happening (yet).  So the bitcoin price will sustain itself whilst these bizarre conditions persist but I have trust that we will come out of this in reasonably one piece (can't tell when) and then the bitcoin price will hit its true value.

_(Editors' note:  I don't think you are particularly trollish Wolfie but if the usual trolls join us I'm off.)_


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Price on Jan 3 2019 - €*3,804 *



Ah! I see, it was the price on a very specific date that you were referring to as opposed to the specific price ever reaching or sustaining $15,000 itself? _Okay....I get it!!  _



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am astounded at the recovery it has made since then. But then _I am amazed what has happened to the financial world since then. Unprecedented Central Bank interventions. 30 year interest rates below 0% The bitcoin narrative - don't trust the conventional financial model - couldn't have had a greater boost.
> 
> Aside: That thread reminds me of that nutter TheBigShort - where did he disappear to?_




Rather than recycle the whole thread, I think it fair to leave the last word to him?



TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with central banks or fiat currencies and I wouldn't touch a cryptocurrency if the monetary system being operated was structurally sound. But its not, its corrupted to the core. The system is so vast that it is able to withstand certain levels of fraud and corruption. But when the levels of corruption and fraud and manipulation reach the levels they are at, _*the system is basically dying a slow death.*_ The consequence of this is that everyone is out for their own self-preservation, including nation states.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The surprise is that bitcoin, unlike gold (guessing here), is still way below its historic high.


Personally, I think focusing on absolute peaks (and for that matter absolute lows like the one in March this year) serves little purpose. They tend to be extreme and brief in bitcoin, so what are they really telling you?

Would you not agree that a long term average of price might be a better indicator of what the 'actual value' of bitcoin is (lets maybe leave that can of worms closed)  or what a sustainable value is?

Sorry I can't seem to embed the image, but here's a long term chart with the 300 day simple moving average overlaid as a line on it. That is just about at an all time high now. The previous peak of 20k was a brief outlier far above the average at the time, and was the top of one of 3 notable spikes in the chart, which show the 3 major historic 'bubbles'. 

We are also currently in the longest period that bitcoin has been above $10k.


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> Ah! I see, it was the price on a very specific date that you were referring to as opposed to the specific price ever reaching or sustaining $15,000 itself? _Okay....I get it!!  _


Didn't you know that Dukey automatically turned into a bitcoin bull from Jan. 4 2019 onwards?



DazedInPontoon said:


> Personally, I think focusing on absolute peaks (and for that matter absolute lows like the one in March this year) serves little purpose. They tend to be extreme and brief in bitcoin, so what are they really telling you?


This has been pointed out to his Dukeness and others here ad nauseum. However, picking the ATH price helps in trying to manufacture a certain narrative. He provides another example by trying to claim that gold is performing better when the data shows that bitcoin is the best performing asset of the past 10 years, the past 5 years, last year and of 2020.

We will need very latecomers to hit the bigger numbers in BTC in the years ahead  so for those blind homies amongst us, thank you for your sacrifice and service!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I am as gobsmacked by the stupidity of the Bitcoin fanatics as the Duke.

$20k down to $3k and now back up to $15k.

And no one has yet shown how any of those prices were justified.

I am glad that none of you remember my post where I said that a bet Paddy Power were giving 6/4 on Bitcoin being below $15,000 by the end of 2018 being as close to free money as you could get.  And that really annoyed a lot of people.  

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> And no one has yet shown how any of those prices were justified.


No-one has provided you with a neat little calculation to arrive at specific price - just like gold doesn't have one (yet there's NO outrage (re. the pricing of gold) to be found when that's pointed out). It's a brand new asset (within a brand new asset class). Models and metrics are being devised.



Brendan Burgess said:


> I am glad that none of you remember my post where I said that a bet Paddy Power were giving 6/4 on Bitcoin being below $15,000 by the end of 2018 being as close to free money as you could get. And that really annoyed a lot of people.


I wasn't aware of any 'outrage' but I do remember you mentioning that at the time. Personally, I bought back in at $6,000 in late 2018.


----------



## RoseMc

I think people, invariably, like to focus on their successful predictions and afford lesser attention to the ones that went south. For example, Brendan's claim that "Bitcoin is clearly in an identifiable bubble" can reasonably be deemed a very poor prediction at this point. Brendan has also made public predictions regarding other financial instruments that have similarly been spectacularly wrong. I mention this, not to have a go at Brendan, but just to show that less hubris and more humility will likely lead to a better exchange of views. Just my opinion.....which, of course, may well be flat wrong!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

RoseMc said:


> Brendan's claim that "Bitcoin is clearly in an identifiable bubble" can reasonably be deemed a very poor prediction at this point



Rose - with respect that is nonsense. 

Bitcoin is a bubble. It is clearly identifiable as a bubble.  It is lasting much longer than I expected but that does not make it anything other than a bubble. 

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> Bitcoin is a bubble. It is clearly identifiable as a bubble.  It is lasting much longer than I expected but that does not make it anything other than a bubble.


Is it a 'bubble' then in it's entirety from inception right up until today? Surely this is a re-defining of the term 'bubble'? I've never known any other asset to be classed as a bubble on the basis of it both inflating and deflating within that definition. There have been times of over exuberance in the market - no doubt. However, surely it wasn't in a bubble in 2014 or 2018?


----------



## tecate

RoseMc said:


> I mention this, not to have a go at Brendan, but just to show that less hubris and more humility will likely lead to a better exchange of views.


I think there's a deficiency in terms of accepting the possibility of an unexpected outcome on the crypto-critic side of this debate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> Personally, I think focusing on absolute peaks (and for that matter absolute lows like the one in March this year) serves little purpose. They tend to be extreme and brief in bitcoin, so what are they really telling you?
> 
> Would you not agree that a long term average of price might be a better indicator of what the 'actual value' of bitcoin is (lets maybe leave that can of worms closed)  or what a sustainable value is?
> 
> Sorry I can't seem to embed the image, but here's a long term chart with the 300 day simple moving average overlaid as a line on it. That is just about at an all time high now. The previous peak of 20k was a brief outlier far above the average at the time, and was the top of one of 3 notable spikes in the chart, which show the 3 major historic 'bubbles'.
> 
> We are also currently in the longest period that bitcoin has been above $10k.


Okay,  I am quite gobsmacked that bitcoin is back at the price that I shorted it in early 2018(I closed out at 8,000).
But even more gobsmacked must be those enthusiasts who have confidently valued bitcoin at six figure sums, notably Fidelity quite recently.  They must be scratching their heads that with everything in alignment on the bitcoin narrative, it is languishing at a mere fraction of their valuations.


----------



## RoseMc

I'm afraid that we will have to agree to differ on this one. And , of course, I could be wrong but simply denying what I said does not alter my thinking. 

Personally, I'm not a bitcoin gal. But let's be fair. We are 3 years on from the original statements about Bitcoin, the original sense of which was that Bitcoin would have well and truly exploded by now. Of course, as time passed, you were cute enough to modify your commentary so that it became that you can't predict the timing of this madness of crowds - just the ultimate trajectory. Hence you can never be wrong. I think that this is a cousin of after-timing.......in the original phase of the bitcoin discussions, there was a definite sense of a clear and present danger.

Following on from Tecate's well made points, the question that strikes me is when did Bitcoin enter bubble territory?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Okay,  I am quite gobsmacked that bitcoin is back at the price that I shorted it in early 2018(I closed out at 8,000).
> But even more gobsmacked must be those enthusiasts who have confidently valued bitcoin at six figure sums, notably Fidelity quite recently.  They must be scratching their heads that with everything in alignment on the bitcoin narrative, it is languishing at a mere fraction of their valuations.


I mean, I see that you quoted Dazed in Pontoon - but what you've responded with in no way addresses the point that he made to you. Instead, you've reverted to trying to support your ongoing narrative. 
Is that what Fidelity said - that bitcoin would be $100k today? I must have missed that part of their report.


----------



## RoseMc

Speaking of valuations - I see from earlier in this thread that Duke of M said that it was a bubble price back in 2015? If correct, arguably he does not seem to be possessed with the Midas touch when it comes to understanding the complex dynamics of Bitcoin's pricing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

RoseMc said:


> he does not seem to be possessed with the Midas touch when it comes to understanding the complex dynamics of Bitcoin's pricing.



I don't think that any of us understand the pricing.

The valuation is clear enough - zero.

But there is a widespread and long lasting madness that has it worth $5,000 one week, $10,000 the next, $15,000 now, and maybe $5,000 again next month.  There is no modelling of madness. 

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think that any of us understand the pricing.


You understand it just as well as you understand the pricing of gold. 


Brendan Burgess said:


> But there is a widespread and long lasting madness that has it worth $5,000 one week, $10,000 the next, $15,000 now, and maybe $5,000 again next month.  There is no modelling of madness.


It's a new asset in price discovery mode yet the data shows that bitcoin volatility continues to reduce. Meanwhile, we've had equities, oil, gold etc. oftentimes more volatile than bitcoin in 2020.



Brendan Burgess said:


> The valuation is clear enough - zero.


That's just your opinion, Brendan - not a statement of fact.


----------



## RoseMc

There was another Bitcoin thread recently where questions remained unanswered. I asked a question which got the Leaky Leo approach from Tuesday, i.e. where the specific question was ignored. I shall repeat it because it is relevant I think - when did Bitcoin enter Bubble territory?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Rose

When does any asset enter a bubble?  It's hard to know.

But when someone is worth zero and people start paying real money for it, then it's probably a bubble.  But don't get hung up on titles. 

It's worth nothing. Yet someone is prepared to pay $15,000 for one.  It's bizarre. 

If you show that it does not match the trajectory of previous bubbles, then I don't mind if you want to call it something else.  It's worth nothing.  You can call it a bubble or call it something else. 

Others have called it a Ponzi Scheme which I don't like.  A Ponzi scheme implies some deliberate fraud, which does not appear to be the case with Bitcoin. 

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone

Brendan Burgess said:


> And no one has yet shown how any of those prices were justified.



How is the price justified for anything? There is no formula other than price comparison, and time, to 'justify' the price of anything.

Price of oil 5yrs ago was $100 a barrel , last Yr $20, this year $40.
Oil does the same thing today as it did 5yrs ago. It's utility has not undergone any fundamental change. 

How are any of these prices 'justified' other than comparing the price, derived from market supply and demand, over time. 




Brendan Burgess said:


> It is clearly identifiable as a bubble.



A characteristic of a bubble is that it is *not *clearly identifiable. It's what makes a bubble a bubble.
We can all speculate at any given time what is, or is not, a bubble. But a bubble is only clearly identifiable _after _its price has burst and crashes. Until that point, it is not clearly identifiable.


----------



## WolfeTone

Brendan Burgess said:


> When does any asset enter a bubble? It's hard to know.



Yes, the point I'm making above.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

WolfeTone said:


> How are any of these prices 'justified' other than comparing the price, derived from market supply and demand, over time.



The supply and demand is based on its utility and scarcity and lack of alternatives.

Bitcoin has no utility and plenty of alternatives.

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> The supply and demand is based on its utility and scarcity and lack of alternatives.
> Bitcoin has no utility and plenty of alternatives.


That's incorrect. You continue to misunderstand the proposition that is bitcoin. You focus on the utility of gold and you and others cite its industrial use. Explain to us then how gold established itself as a store of value long before it ever had these marginal (7.49%) industrial use cases?  Such use cases are recent in its history.
Likewise, you fail to understand scarcity. No other asset has the fixed supply that bitcoin has in a store of value context - not even gold. Take the example of peak oil - which we were told some years back we were fast approaching. The oil price went up - and with that, the incentive to find more ways of extracting went up....leading to the development of fracking technology. When the price of gold goes up, so too does the incentive to mine more of it. That's not the case with bitcoin (insofar as the supply schedule is fixed).
On the claim of there being ample alternatives, you also misunderstand the proposition.  Maybe because its an assumption on your part that what you value or don't value is the same conclusion that everyone else on the planet arrives at. That's not the case - and the ability to self custody wealth and cut out intermediaries is far more powerful than you have ever acknowledged (or rather, you've not acknowledged it at all - you've dismissed it).


----------



## RoseMc

Brendan,

Can I ask 2 question please?

1. If Bitcoin has no utility, why would the EU produce reports like this?


			https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf
		


[You will no doubt be aware that the Irish Department of Finance has produced its own material in relation to Bitcoin.]

2. Specifically, within this report, are the authors wrong when they say:

_A first, and very important, player is the “cryptocurrency user”. A cryptocurrency user is a natural person or legal entity who obtains coins to use them (i) to purchase real or virtual goods or services (from a set of specific merchants), (ii) to make P2P payments, or (iii) to hold them for investment purposes (i.e. in a speculative manner)._

Frankly, I understand your difficulties when it comes to valuing Bitcoin but when you make statements to the effect that Bitcoin has no utility, I think that this simply serves to undermine your general position in this regard.

The more credible your response to these questions - actually the more I'd be inclined to respect your general position. If you continue with the unfortunate position that Bitcoin has no utility, then we get into the realms of the recent interview between Piers Morgan & Samantha Reid with Mr. Brexit.


----------



## Leo

RoseMc said:


> 1. If Bitcoin has no utility, why would the EU produce reports like this?
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3 Study on cryptocurrencies and blockchain.pdf



Are you suggesting a study on financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion once and for all confirms the utility of bitcoin?

How do you tally the (almost) anonymity bitcoin proponents tout with their detailing of how anonymity will have to be removed in order to enforce regulatory compliance?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

We are going around in circles

The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?

None of you is able to do that.  None of you is able to explain why it's worth $16,000 and not $5,000.  None of you can explain why it was worth $20,000 three years ago. Why it dropped to $3,000 and why it's now back at $16,000

You can only trot out irrelevancies like

"That is what the market says it's worth"
"I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"
"It's a whole new world"
"The fiat currencies are in trouble"


----------



## RoseMc

Leo said:


> Are you suggesting a study on financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion once and for all confirms the utility of bitcoin?



Not in the slightest. This is a disappointing misrepresentation of my questions.


----------



## Leo

RoseMc said:


> Not in the slightest. This is a disappointing misrepresentation of my questions.



Then please clarify, I'm trying to understand why you provided that specific link preceded with the 'If Bitcoin has no utility...'  What about that report or its publication confirms that bitcoin has utility?

You phraseology suggests you believe this report confounds Brendan's claims of no utility. How did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## RoseMc

Brendan Burgess said:


> The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?



I note that you have evaded the questions.



RoseMc said:


> The more credible your response to these questions - actually the more I'd be inclined to respect your general position. If you continue with the unfortunate position that Bitcoin has no utility, then we get into the realms of the recent interview between Piers Morgan & Samantha Reid with Mr. Brexit.



There was a reason why I felt compelled to write this in advance. I find this attempt to evade a direct question really disappointing. For the avoidance of doubt, trying to muddy the waters with evasive tactics by ignoring the question and countering with different questions is, in my opinion, at the very low end of the credibility scale.


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?


By recognising how well it scores in terms of the recognised and fundamental characteristics that account for a store of value and a means of exchange. I've invited you to do that - but because it doesn't fit the narrative you're running with here Brendan, you won't even consider that. That's your basic issue - not bitcoins.  Once again, here are those characteristics and how bitcoin/gold/fiat currency rank against them.







Brendan Burgess said:


> None of you is able to do that.


In your opinion - and it's an opinion I most definitely don't share.



Brendan Burgess said:


> None of you is able to explain why it's worth $16,000 and not $5,000.


It has been explained to you many times. It's the scarcest financial instrument the planet has ever seen - more scarce than gold (see my previous post). You rubbish the notion of scarcity when it comes to a store of value and you are completely wrong to do so. In rubbishing scarcity, you are rubbishing the fundamental characteristics of a store of value  - that were settled on long before bitcoin existed.
Secondly, its exactly because of folks like you that we will remain in price discovery mode for a number of years. Its a new asset class who's network effect is growing and has demonstrably grown in the three years that these discussions have been ongoing on AAM despite your protests.

Aside from all of that, I've asked you before but it seems given the nature of your question I have to ask you again. Why do you apply one standard to bitcoin with regard to pricing and you don't hold the same level of contempt in that respect for gold (silver or any other commodity whilst we're at it)?  You've said that you have encouraged people to buy gold in the past. How can you do that when the mechanism is precisely the same with regard to gold pricing. Please answer that question.



Brendan Burgess said:


> That is what the market says it's worth"


That's not an irrelevancy when it comes to bitcoin, gold or other commodities. It doesn't help provide a neat little calculation or formula but whilst it may not be convenient for you, it's not irrelevant.



Brendan Burgess said:


> "I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"


Brendan, for as long as you continue with this nonsense, I'll continue to ask you this very question. It's highly relevant because you are engaging in double standards.  The pricing mechanism is the very same whether its gold or bitcoin.  And don't respond saying gold has value, bitcoin doesn't.  We can disagree on that and it seems you still cant hold gold (or any other commodity) to the same standard.
I asked you this three years ago and you downright refuse to answer the question.



Brendan Burgess said:


> The fiat currencies are in trouble"


This is and always will be relevant to the qualities and utilities of bitcoin. Again, you won't have that conversation because you know well - and it doesn't fit your narrative.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

@Rose

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

Feel free to explain why you hold Bitcoin worth $16,000 today which were worth $5,000 a year ago and how you can justify both valuations.  And if your valuation is based on utility - fine.  Explain that.

Brendan

I repeat, in case you missed it.

We are going around in circles

The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?

None of you is able to do that. None of you is able to explain why it's worth $16,000 and not $5,000. None of you can explain why it was worth $20,000 three years ago. Why it dropped to $3,000 and why it's now back at $16,000

You can only trot out irrelevancies like

"That is what the market says it's worth"
"I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"
"It's a whole new world"
"The fiat currencies are in trouble"


----------



## Brendan Burgess

So tecate

I presume you continue to refuse to show your calculations as to why Bitcoin is worth anything? 

I can only conclude that it is a bag of hot air and worth nothing.

I look forward to your summary of both sides of the argument about Bitcoin.

Brendan


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume you continue to refuse to show your calculations as to why Bitcoin is worth anything?


Continue on holding bitcoin to a different standard than gold, silver and other commodities, Brendan.  I've long since acknowledged (as in three years ago right here on AAM) that bitcoin doesn't provide a neat little formula when it comes to pricing. But what's completely disingenuous in this discussion Brendan is your persistent failure to address WHY you expect a different standard in terms of pricing for bitcoin and won't hold gold, silver and other commodities to the same standard. You've twisted and turned every which way to squirm out from under that - it's there for any reader to see.

True to form - once again, you won't engage in a conversation re. the universally recognised characteristics of a good store of value (see graphic in my post above) - because you know that bitcoin scores exceptionally well in that regard.




Brendan Burgess said:


> I can only conclude that it is a bag of hot air and worth nothing.


I honestly don't mind what conclusion you come to Brendan. However, I think anyone here should have all the information so that they can make up their own minds.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

RoseMc said:


> 1. If Bitcoin has no utility, why would the EU produce reports like this?
> 
> 
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf


This is not a contribution to the debate but a technical question.


			
				EU Report said:
			
		

> In simple terms, these cryptographic puzzles are made up out of all information previously recorded on the blockchain and a new set of transactions to be added to the next “block”. Because the input of each puzzle becomes larger over time (resulting in a more complex calculation), the PoW mechanism requires a vast amount of computing resources, which consume a significant amount of electricity.


I believe this is wrong, but I may be wrong.  PoW does not involve verifying the whole ledger every time.  The reason PoW is getting more difficult is because the price of bitcoin has become large attracting many miners to the contest.  But because the protocol adjusts the difficulty of the puzzle to target 10 mins per block, then the more players the more difficult the puzzle.  It is not because the blockchain is getting bigger.  If I am right and the EU report is wrong it rather undermines the credibility of the latter.


----------



## 24601

RoseMc said:


> Brendan,
> 
> Can I ask 2 question please?
> 
> 1. If Bitcoin has no utility, why would the EU produce reports like this?
> 
> 
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> [You will no doubt be aware that the Irish Department of Finance has produced its own material in relation to Bitcoin.]
> 
> 2. Specifically, within this report, are the authors wrong when they say:
> 
> _A first, and very important, player is the “cryptocurrency user”. A cryptocurrency user is a natural person or legal entity who obtains coins to use them (i) to purchase real or virtual goods or services (from a set of specific merchants), (ii) to make P2P payments, or (iii) to hold them for investment purposes (i.e. in a speculative manner)._
> 
> Frankly, I understand your difficulties when it comes to valuing Bitcoin but when you make statements to the effect that Bitcoin has no utility, I think that this simply serves to undermine your general position in this regard.
> 
> The more credible your response to these questions - actually the more I'd be inclined to respect your general position. If you continue with the unfortunate position that Bitcoin has no utility, then we get into the realms of the recent interview between Piers Morgan & Samantha Reid with Mr. Brexit.



I think that's definitely the first time ever that the utility of something has been explained by reference to its convenience in laundering the proceeds of crime.


----------



## Leo

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The reason PoW is getting more difficult is because the price of bitcoin has become large attracting many miners to the contest. But because the protocol adjusts the difficulty of the puzzle to target 10 mins per block, then the more players the more difficult the puzzle.



Specifically for bitcoin, you're correct. Difficulty does go up or down based on computing power applied by those competing to win the reward, and is assessed every 2016 blocks.


----------



## RoseMc

Hi Brendan,

Please read what I have said in previous posts. It is unfair and flat wrong to suggest that I claimed to know the value of bitcoin. Please quote where I suggested this. It is simply not true and again disappointing that the truth is being jettisoned here. What I actually said is closer to the exact opposite:


RoseMc said:


> Frankly, I understand your difficulties when it comes to valuing Bitcoin....



I also don't understand the references to pots and their colour. All that has happened is that you made a statement which I believe to be untrue. I also believe that rather than accept that you made a wayward statement as part of a general debate (which is forgivable), you would prefer to muddy the waters and change the focus of the debate and evade questions (which is really not a nice way to engage in debate).


----------



## RoseMc

24601 said:


> I think that's definitely the first time ever that the utility of something has been explained by reference to its convenience in laundering the proceeds of crime.



Honestly, it was the first report that I happened upon this morning. It serves *its, *not it's, purpose. I am reluctant to explain my thinking further until Brendan addresses my two questions. There have been a few posts from Brendan since my questions were asked so it will be interesting to see how he decides to play it.


----------



## Leo

RoseMc said:


> Honestly, it was the first report that I happened upon this morning. It serves *its, *not it's, purpose.





RoseMc said:


> I find this attempt to evade a direct question really disappointing. For the avoidance of doubt, trying to muddy the waters with evasive tactics by ignoring the question and countering with different questions is, in my opinion, at the very low end of the credibility scale.



Indeed!



RoseMc said:


> I am reluctant to explain my thinking further until Brendan addresses my two questions. There have been a few posts from Brendan since my questions were asked so it will be interesting to see how he decides to play it.



Have you read the other thread where this was addressed in great detail? As you said yourself...



RoseMc said:


> I find this attempt to evade a direct question really disappointing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

A feature of Blockchain is that there is the concept of gaining more confidence in the credibility of a transaction the deeper is gets in the Blockchain, at 100 blocks it is regarded totally credible.
The same technique should be brought to bear on supposedly new posters to AAM.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I repeat, in case you missed it.

We are going around in circles

The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?

None of you is able to do that. None of you is able to explain why it's worth $16,000 and not $5,000. None of you can explain why it was worth $20,000 three years ago. Why it dropped to $3,000 and why it's now back at $16,000

You can only trot out irrelevancies like

"That is what the market says it's worth"
"I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"
"It's a whole new world"
"The fiat currencies are in trouble"
"It's magic. The more that we produce, the scarcer it becomes."


----------



## tecate

Brendan Burgess said:


> I repeat, in case you missed it.
> 
> We are going around in circles
> 
> The fundamental question is how do you justify the value of Bitcoin?
> 
> None of you is able to do that. None of you is able to explain why it's worth $16,000 and not $5,000. None of you can explain why it was worth $20,000 three years ago. Why it dropped to $3,000 and why it's now back at $16,000
> 
> You can only trot out irrelevancies like
> 
> "That is what the market says it's worth"
> "I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"
> "It's a whole new world"
> "The fiat currencies are in trouble"


I responded to your post comprehensively - here. You have no problem in making comparisons between bitcoin and nonsensical things but when challenged to defend such comparisons against the characteristics of a good store of value, you won't engage. That doesn't do much for your claims.


Perhaps you could extend me the courtesy of responding to this question which  I've put to you ->

 Why do you apply one standard to bitcoin with regard to pricing and you don't hold the same level of contempt in that respect for gold (silver or any other commodity whilst we're at it)? You've said that you have encouraged people to buy gold in the past. How can you do that when the mechanism is precisely the same with regard to gold pricing. Please answer that question.


----------



## WolfeTone

Brendan Burgess said:


> You can only trot out irrelevancies like
> 
> "That is what the market says it's worth"
> "I'll answer when you tell me how you value gold"
> "It's a whole new world"
> "The fiat currencies are in trouble"



Brendan, with respect, we are indeed going around in circles.

You appear insistent that some mathematical formula must be attributed to bitcoin in order to 'justify' its price, when no such mathematical forumla exists for any other commodity, good or service.
There are many_ indicators _or usable_ tools_ such as P/E ratios, sales projections, interest rates, inflation rates, govt taxes, number of competitors, historic valuations, fees, climate, employment levels, etc, etc, that all serve to provide guidance in determining a market price of any good or service relative to the currency it is being traded in at any given time. 
Yet not one of them is an actual fool-proof way of determining if the price reflects value. Only time, will tell if such a indicators or tools provided value in the price.  

A not so crude mathematical formula for determining the value a house could be - available credit + ability to repay over 30yrs and interest rates + number of prospective buyers + sellers minimum acceptance price = the price. 

Another formula for determining the house price could be - location! location! location!

Or a combination of all, or give or take any number of other variables. 


Here is _my_ formula for valuing bitcoin.

- Money stored on a secure network outside the conventional monetary system + reducing value of fiat currency + potential use as a generally accepted medium of exchange = value.

The price I place on that on that value is gauged from a number of variables such as, 

 -The risk of losing private keys. This limits the amount of my personal wealth that I can attribute to bitcoin I buy at any given time, instead I buy in tranches, over time, that I comfortable with. 

- The decaying monetary system. This is historic, over and over the millenia, the value of fiat currencies do return to zero, or next to zero. This is evident today when the largest economies of the world can borrow infinite amounts and interest rates remain at zero. It is a bust system. 
The economy of the human race owes itself more than it actually values itself! It makes no sense.

It is hard to gauge what price level is too high, but that is no different to any other asset class - what price is too high for houses is Dublin? 

So in order to try put a price on a bitcoin, I use the following equation - Total global monetary supply of 36trn*modest storage of 2% on bitcoin network / 21million BTC = $34,285.71 per BTC

Now you may not agree with this calculation, I will take a wild guess that you wont? It may never reach that amount, and of course I could be totally way off the mark and my formula totally inaccurate. 
No different to someone who ends up paying under or over the odds for a house, a Da Vinci painting, or my record collection based on their own formula for calculating the price of such goods. 

But you cannot now say anymore that nobody has justified the price paid for bitcoin. I value it at $34,285.71 as of today. So I will be inclined to buy some more shortly at its current cheap price.


----------



## RoseMc

Personally, I don't how to value Bitcoin. I am aware, however, of the academic research into different valuation bases. What I do know for sure is that (a) Brendan clearly misrepresented what I said, (b) has neither acknowledged nor apologised for this misrepresentation and (c) has declined - as is his perogative - to answer my initial questions on the topic. Accordingly, I feel disinclined to participate further in this debate

_Soft you, a word or two before you go.
I have done the thread some service, and they know ’t.
No more of that_


----------



## 24601

RoseMc said:


> _Soft you, a word or two before you go.
> I have done the thread some service, and they know ’t.
> No more of that_



He lives! Arise and follow Charlie!


----------



## RoseMc

Ah well as Trump is on the way out, time to remember another politician who had a certain capacity to divide the jury - obviously, Charlie had far more bitcoin than Trump but still...........SOUND THE PIBROCH 

And thank you 24601, you seem like a good egg!


----------



## WolfeTone

RoseMc said:


> Personally, I don't how to value Bitcoin. I am aware, however, of the academic research into different valuation bases.



Of course, but none of them are fool-proof. 
Nobody would actually pay €200 for a pair of shoes that they thought were worth far less, would they? 
Surely a person only pays for what you believe represents best value from their own given resources (including available credit) ? 
So a pair shoes retailing for €200 may represent value for some, others may deduce that they are overpriced, of no real value.


----------



## RoseMc

Hi WolfeTone,

Are we agreeing or disagreeing - it's (not its) been a long day!?


----------



## WolfeTone

RoseMc said:


> Hi WolfeTone,
> 
> Are we agreeing or disagreeing - it's (not its) been a long day!?



I'm agreeing. 
My point is that basically value, and the price attributable to that value, is basically in the eye of the beholder. There are many set ways to gauge the price of a product, but ultimately none are fool-proof. If there were, we would live in a world where everything is priced exactly right, providing 'just' value for all buyers and sellers. 
But obviously that is not so. There are an innumerable amount of variables at any given time that persuade people what is, or is not a 'just' price. The combination of all these variables in a market of many participants resulting is the market price. 
Bitcoin is $15,500 today because that is what the market (of innumerable variables) determines it to be. 
For some, this represents further value (me) for others (Brendan, Duke) it is no value at all. 
Overall the price associated to the market value today is $15,500. This is indisputable.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:
			
		

> Then we arrive at Satoshi's proposal:
> 
> As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: - boring grey in colour - not a good conductor of electricity - not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either - not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose and one special, magical property: - can be transported over a communications channel If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it. Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. *But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.* (I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)


This is an extract from an excellent OP in a Key Post "Why Bitcoin has Value".  I have put a sentence in bold.  We see in this how Satoshi craves for some intrinsic value to "bootstrap" bitcoin.  He posits that his bitcoin with such intrinsic value would be such a wonderful thing that even if it doesn't exist people will take up something (that they convince themselves meets the test).  This is rather like the argument that the idea of a paradise in our after life is so appealing that religions arise to assert that this is the case.

John Kelleher of Investopedia is their bitcoin expert and a real fan.  I don't agree with much of his enthusiasm but I am wholly on board the following sentiment.


			
				John Kelleher of Investopedia said:
			
		

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


 (Bold again supplied by me.)  Of course this has to be true and is how Satoshi saw it as well.  Fiat has no intrinsic value, but people accept it as a store of value (not an investment) because they have confidence in its role as a medium of exchange.  Workers give their labour for a digital entry in their bank account knowing they can pay their mortgage with it etc.  The commitment of central banks to stabilise the price level is a very important factor in this.  Bitcoin enthusiasts boast proudly that there is no such institution for stabilising its price.  A digital entry with no intrinsic value can only possibly have a store of value if it has made the grade as a medium of exchange.  Bitcoin is a long long way off that and if it ever showed signs of making that grade it would be suppressed by regulators (in my interests)*.
My guess is that much of the bitcoin speculation does not think this deeply about what bitcoin essentially is.  Many are having a punt.  Some believe that the Fiat system is hopelessly corrupt and very vulnerable in the current crisis - it certainly is a bit disturbing.  But how anyone sees an antidote to Fiat vulnerability in digital entries signifying nothing is completely beyond me.

Finally mainstream economic thought is dismissive of bitcoin.  Maybe developments across The Pond will put a stop the dismissal of experts.

_*We see from the EU report that it has made the grade to some extent with the criminal classes, not because they buy into the narrative, but to get round the regulations which make Fiat so hot for them.  _


----------



## RoseMc

Thanks WolfeTone,



WolfeTone said:


> Bitcoin is $15,500 today because that is what the market (of innumerable variables) determines it to be.



My late husband used to say that the market is like the client - neither market nor client is always right but they are always the market / client (as the case may be). I think that this is a pretty good concept. I'm not claiming it's an original one.

One final thought before I sign off for the weekend. Imagine if someone had 1,000 yoyos in 2015 and were presented with Duke of M's advice.

Following it, such a person would now have circa 1,000 x $200 or a not-so-bad $20,000

Eschewing his advice, imagine  - and following some form of reckless self-sabotage, the same irresponsible reprobate would have now, in excess of,.................................wait for it......................................$1,500,000

That's a pretty significant difference no matter which way you look at it for being completely wrong!!

THE MARKET MAY NOT ALWAYS BE RIGHT BUT IT IS ALWAYS THE MARKET! 

Have a nice weekend - it's definitely wine o'clock.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We see in this how Satoshi craves for some intrinsic value to "bootstrap" bitcoin.  He posits that his bitcoin with such intrinsic value would be such a wonderful thing that even if it doesn't exist people will take up something (that they convince themselves meets the test).


So he(she/they) - alongside other cypherpunks - engaged in long ongoing discussions about how to build the most resilient decentralised cryptocurrency - and you home in on one single aspect of that to support your narrative?  I see where you're going with that. At the end of the day, beyond all considerations, Satoshi released bitcoin. The digital currency has many qualities - that crypto-critics here won't acknowledge. In the consideration of intrinsic value, trustlessness and supreme scarcity are key. To consider the bitcoin proposition and the intrinsic value question without considering these characteristics is wayward.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course this has to be true and is how Satoshi saw it as well.


I've listened to / read plenty of discussions related to the originator of bitcoins thoughts and you're the first to assume you know precisely what his thinking was (on the back of cherrypicking a couple of sentences that meets your narrative...the same as you did with Keleher).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Fiat has no intrinsic value, but people accept it as a store of value (not an investment) because they have confidence in its role as a medium of exchange.


And that 'acceptance' as a store of value gets questioned continually and increasingly.  Ask the people of Venezuela what their thoughts are on its properties as a store of value. Ask them what confidence they hold in it as a store of value today.  Repeat the exercise with the Lebanese, the Iranians, the Argentines, the Turkish, .....how long have you got? There's a reason why the average lifespan of a fiat/sovereign currency is 27 years.
And we don't have to go so far from home. In developed countries, target inflation has been 2% - yet CBs use CPI which doesn't in any way account for inflation. Peoples hard earned savings are being taken by stealth every year. As Michael Saylor puts it, it's like a melting ice cube thats losing 6% pa in a normal year. Michael's thesis with regard to the next couple of years is that the buying power of sovereign currency is going to lose a shed load more than that.
He's backed his conviction in bitcoin on the back of that to the tune of $625 million ($200 million of that being his own personal wealth).


Duke of Marmalade said:


> The commitment of central banks to stabilise the price level is a very important factor in this.


And people around the world are at the mercy of whether they will be competent in doing so. In cases where they do their best, they rely on past data to try and decide how to balance things. Whether they undercook or overcook those measures is fraught with difficulty.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin enthusiasts boast proudly that there is no such institution for stabilising its price.


They do because the bitcoin network provides for a complete monetary policy within its own right. All stakeholders know from the outset how that works - it's predefined.  It's in this way that stakeholders can have complete confidence in it. There's no second guessing interest rate changes or money printing, etc.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> A digital entry with no intrinsic value can only possibly have a store of value if it has made the grade as a medium of exchange.


Gold is not a medium of exchange yet it's a store of value. Your theory has been debunked.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin is a long long way off that and if it ever showed signs of making that grade it would be suppressed by regulators (in my interests).


Again, everything for you seems to be black and white. There's no reason why sovereign currency, decentralised digital currency and corporate digital currency can't co-exist. Competition is healthy - and its good for ordinary people.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> My guess is that much of the bitcoin speculation does not think this deeply about what bitcoin essentially is.


Some of the brightest minds are working within the crypto space - having left other industries because they see what's coming down the tracks.
As regards speculators - they exist in every market with varying degrees of sophistication or the opposite. That's not exclusive to crypto although new technologies/sectors do come with a hype cycle.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Some believe that the Fiat system is hopelessly corrupt and very vulnerable in the current crisis - it certainly is a bit disturbing.


You once spoke of the evolution of monetary systems.  The irony is that its staring you in the face. You'll be the very last to accept it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Finally mainstream economic thought is dismissive of bitcoin.


We've been over this - but I guess we need to go over it once more. You mean fax machine guy? Turkeys dont vote for Christmas. Like you, they'll accept it when they have no alternative.  In the same way the banking set is coming round. We had Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan saying bitcoin is a fraud in 2017 - now one of his analysts is saying that bitcoin could give gold a run for its money and could 10x.  We had the CEO of S.E. Asia's largest bank saying that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme in 2017. Now they're going to offer it to all of their customers.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Fiat has no intrinsic value, but people accept it as a store of value (not an investment) because they have confidence in it role as a medium of exchange. Workers give their labour for a digital entry in their bank account knowing they can pay their mortgage with it etc.



Of course, this is not in dispute. All that is occuring, from my perspective anyway, is hedging against the prospect of a loss of confidence in fiat. Not a total loss, but devaluations, confiscations, inflation etc are par the course of a fiat monetary system throughout history. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The commitment of central banks to stabilise the price level is a very important factor in this. Bitcoin enthusiasts boast proudly that there is no such institution for stabilising its price.



Again, _my interpretation_, the value of having no 'commitment of central banks' to stabilise the price level, is to do with the realisation that central banks are hopelessly incompetent of providing price stability for any prolonged period of time. 

The euro is a wonderful example of this. For sure, we can all point to relative price stability and an abundance of goods and services in our supermarkets and elsewhere in the goods and services we buy and sell on a daily basis. And all of this provides for a stable and functioning society and economy, and that in itself is worth its weight in gold. 

But the backdrop to all of this the clear and obvious price _instability _wreaking havoc in asset prices from, property, stocks, bonds, energy etc... with the underlying glue holding the whole house of cards together - debt, increasing all the time. 

The current trajectory of the fiat monetary system is headed into decline. How it all pans out is anybodys guess but at some point there will be some form of correction. Who will benefit, who will lose? 
So holding some personal wealth in decentralised network may not be the smartest move, alternatively it may be a very good move. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Some believe that the Fiat system is hopelessly corrupt and very vulnerable in the current crisis - *it certainly is a bit disturbing.* But how anyone sees an antidote to Fiat vulnerability in digital entries signifying nothing is completely beyond me.



It would be interesting, just for a change, to perhaps elaborate on what you find disturbing about the Fiat system in the current crisis. 
I would have thought you would be of the opposite view, the monetary system showing a magnificent ability to keep society and the economy at large relatively stable and free of panic - notwithstanding the real struggles of many people and businesses, toilet rolls are still plentiful.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, this is not in dispute. All that is occuring, from my perspective anyway, is hedging against the prospect of a loss of confidence in fiat. Not a total loss, but devaluations, confiscations, inflation etc are par the course of a fiat monetary system throughout history.


That's the bitcoin narrative, a hedge against collapse of fiat.  The hedge is not based on a diversification of intrinsic value as neither have any intrinsic value.  Probably as good a hedge as a bet on next year's derby winner.





> Again, _my interpretation_, the value of having no 'commitment of central banks' to stabilise the price level, is to do with the realisation that central banks are hopelessly incompetent of providing price stability for any prolonged period of time.
> 
> The euro is a wonderful example of this. For sure, we can all point to relative price stability and an abundance of goods and services in our supermarkets and elsewhere in the goods and services we buy and sell on a daily basis. And all of this provides for a stable and functioning society and economy, and that in itself is worth its weight in gold.


Doesn't sound like a damnation of the fiat of major western economies.



> But the backdrop to all of this the clear and obvious price _instability _wreaking havoc in asset prices from, property, stocks, bonds, energy etc... with the underlying glue holding the whole house of cards together - debt, increasing all the time.


 Fair points but is only a hedge against that in that it is completely unpredictable.  It is really a repeat of the hedge point, but doesn't convince me that bitcoin has a future as a major medium of exchange, which would underpin its price - the John Kelleher point; do you agree with John?.  Its price is purely speculative and since that can go anywhere it does constitute a hedge.



> The current trajectory of the fiat monetary system is headed into decline. How it all pans out is anybodys guess but at some point there will be some form of correction. Who will benefit, who will lose?
> So holding some personal wealth in decentralised network may not be the smartest move, alternatively it may be a very good move.


  Hedge point again, a bet on the 2021 derby winner is just as good.





> It would be interesting, just for a change, to perhaps elaborate on what you find disturbing about the Fiat system in the current crisis.


 You have done that adequately without me echoing it.


> would have thought you would be of the opposite view, the monetary system showing a magnificent ability to keep society and the economy at large relatively stable and free of panic - notwithstanding the real struggles of many people and businesses, toilet rolls are still plentiful.


Yes that is my view but I am certainly uneasy by the unprecedented CB interventions but unlike you I will never see bitcoin as a hedge against that as its price is based purely on speculation with no underlying support as a valid medium of exchange.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Brendan what is the value of a barrel of crude oil?

Why was the _price_ of a barrel $68 in January, $21 in April and $40 this week. What is the relationship between price and value? What is the value on any given day if it is not the market price?

do you think you can justify a price of oil above $5, and if so how?


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The hedge is not based on a diversification of intrinsic value as neither have any intrinsic value.



A bit like buying $ with € or vice versa? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> is only a hedge against that in that it is completely unpredictable.



Well I agree it's unpredictable, but not wholly so. There are indicators, depending on your perspective of how you measure or calculate value. 
Bank deposit accounts, zero interest on savings, or next to. Credit cards that devalue purchasing power, corporate debt used to buyback and pump up share prices, sovereign debt at record highs, house price increases during a pandemic, wage stagnation, etc all amidst a prevailing economic policy that amounts to little more than more and more stimulus or "whatever it takes". 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> the John Kelleher point; do you agree with John?



Not particularly. It already exists as a medium of exchange albeit in fringe instances. Kellehers view is suppositional, very much referring to an undefined period of time in the future. 
My own particular view is that bitcoin, rather than becoming the conventional digital currency that was maybe envisaged, instead has the potential to become the benchmark to value all other digital currencies. In particular, emerging digital currencies that are now routinely being mentioned by nation states and central banks. 
This will never be official given bitcoin decentralised status but rather an unofficial benchmark, recognised internationally, affording sovereignty to individuals citizens to protect their own self-interest and acting as a bulwark against fraud and manipulation (human nature).


----------



## tecate

tecate said:


> We had Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan saying bitcoin is a fraud in 2017 - now one of his analysts is saying that bitcoin could give gold a run for its money and could 10x.



JP Morgan are now confirming that there's currently more demand for Grayscale's Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) than all gold ETFs combined.



			https://twitter.com/Sonnenshein/status/1325218504258281472?s=20
		


Meanwhile, the CEO of Paxos (who've partnered with Paypal recently in facilitating their crypto offering - and who offer a tokenised gold product themselves) stated that gold has to be digitised in order to compete with bitcoin ->
_“Having a physical bearer asset only has so much utility in today’s world.”_


----------



## RoseMc

tecate said:


> _“Having a physical bearer asset only has so much utility in today’s world.”_



Well having _only so much utility_ presumably trumps having _no utility_?!


----------



## tecate

RoseMc said:


> Well having _only so much utility_ presumably trumps having _no utility_?!


Indeed it does, Rose. I guess it comes down to an evaluation of what represents value and utility.


----------



## Leo

RoseMc said:


> Well having _only so much utility_ presumably trumps having _no utility_?!



Speaking of utility, you must have missed this question earlier...



Leo said:


> Then please clarify, I'm trying to understand why you provided that specific link preceded with the 'If Bitcoin has no utility...' What about that report or its publication confirms that bitcoin has utility?
> 
> You phraseology suggests you believe this report confounds Brendan's claims of no utility. How did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## RoseMc

Hi Leo,

I did not miss this question. I understand that it is an outstanding question which resides, somewhat uneasily, in my court.

However, I have chosen not to answer it until my two initial and prior questions to Brendan are answered. In addition, I would like that he apologises for misrepresenting me.

As a matter of curiosity, do you accept that he misrepresented me?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Everyone accepts that price is decided by supply and demand.  So when someone asks why is such and such that price they are really asking two questions; why is the supply as it is and why is the demand as it is.  With oil these are very clear to see and driven by geo-political and geo-economic factors.  There is a mild derivative overlay to supply/demand in the futures market and a milder still demand for store of (strategic) value.
With bitcoin the supply question has no mysteries at all so the question "why that price?" simplifies to "why that demand?" and unlike oil that latter question is indeed very difficult to analyse and why it goes from 15,000 in 2018 to 3,000 in 2019 back to 15,000 today.
We need a more forensic look at demand.
Take copper.  There is a clear industrial demand and also a minor demand for ornament and kitchen utensils especially through its offspring brass and bronze.  Copper has grown in price 200% over the last 20 years.  It is durable.  So it is a candidate for store of value but because there are far better alternatives nobody keeps copper in vaults.  Gold also has a demand for industrial and cosmetic use but because of its much limited supply the resultant price makes it a much handier store of value than copper.  As a thought experiment imagine the supply of gold was as plentiful as copper what would be their respective prices?  Gold would remain preferable to copper for its cosmetic value - that is an intrinsic advantage.  As its price fell it would find more and more industrial uses.  But my guess is that the superior industrial qualities of copper (lighter and better conductor) woud make it dearer than gold.  It is copper that would be stored in vaults.
Now we get to the point.  We see now a completely new source of demand piggybacking off the fundamental utility driven demand, the demand for its store of value _per se.  _Clearly with gold this is genuinely extra demand.  People keep gold in vaults having no intention to use it at some stage for its industrial use or its ornamental value.
Let's have another thought experiment.  It is suddenly discovered that Gold radiates fatal marmalade rays, perhaps as a result of Climate Change (hey its a thought experiment).  Its fundamental demand collapses.  For those who have been keeping it in vaults they are not especially concerned by the new discovery, they might have to build lead vaults.  But can anyone doubt that nonetheless its price would collapse.
The point I am making is that the demand for store of value has to be underpinned by fundamental demand.
And with bitcoin there is no fundamental demand.


----------



## Leo

RoseMc said:


> However, I have chosen not to answer it until my two initial and prior questions to Brendan are answered. In addition, I would like that he apologises for misrepresenting me.



So it's only 'at the very low end of the credibility scale' when someone else engages in evasion?



RoseMc said:


> As a matter of curiosity, do you accept that he misrepresented me?



I fail to see how that has any bearing on your ability to explain your thoughts on posting that link? But to humour you, it seems he asked you to justify your valuation of bitcoin. You haven't answered that in multiple posts since, so it has to be considered a reasonable assumption that you are unable to do so.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For those who have been keeping [gold]] in vaults they are not especially concerned by the new discovery, they might have to build lead vaults.  But can anyone doubt that nonetheless its price would collapse.
> The point I am making is that the demand for store of value has to be underpinned by fundamental demand.
> And with bitcoin there is no fundamental demand.


Ok, so you now make a distinction between what you perceive has 'fundamental' demand - lets say this is Dukey-approved demand and non-Dukey approved demand when it comes to bitcoin.  Same question to you as to Brendan. How do you price a barrel of oil?  Should it be $100, $10, -$40 today?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Everyone accepts that price is decided by supply and demand.


Brendan doesn't. He expects a higher standard from bitcoin by comparison with gold, other monetary/precious metals and commodities which somehow get a free pass when it comes to pricing.

Meanwhile, gold had little to do with your 'fundamental demand' a century ago when there was no industrial use for it (that 7.49% industrial use). it had long since established itself as a store of value.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> And with bitcoin there is no fundamental demand.


There's a 7.49% 'fundamental demand' for gold - which in NO WAY explains or accounts for its price today.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Finally mainstream economic thought is dismissive of bitcoin.


Here is the worlds foremost bitcoin-bashing 'economist' - Nouriel Roubini - doing a u-turn on bitcoin and for the first time, recognising its characteristics as a store of value in an interview last week.  LINK


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And with bitcoin there is no fundamental demand.



Good post.

The exception being, there _is_ a fundamental demand. Rather than get caught up in the mechanics of bitcoin, what does it offer to prospective buyers.

TheBigShort (me!) touched on this earlier in this thread - only to be somewhat dismissed as an apocalyptic doomsdayer.



TheBigShort said:


> So where should I hold my money or wealth?



I referenced gold, property, stocks, antiques, art etc.....

Most of these, if not all, are out of the reach of most people on the planet, and even closer to home, in this country, by way of long-term investment plan. I would hazard a guess that, despite the frenzy of the Celtic Tiger and outside of inheritance, the proportion of people with second properties or home is still relatively low compared to the rest of the population?

Bitcoin offers a fundamental demand to place money outside of a system that has, for a long time now, failed to return any significant amount to those who have no access to the markets of property, stocks, anitques in their own right, only savings (replaced by debt) and wages.
This market is huge.

In turn, for those who do have access to all those other markets, it has the _potential _to act as a _prospective_ benchmark against which everything can be valued. This is a _potentially_ massive market.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Good post.
> 
> The exception being, there _is_ a fundamental demand. Rather than get caught up in the mechanics of bitcoin, what does it offer to prospective buyers.
> 
> TheBigShort (me!) touched on this earlier in this thread - only to be somewhat dismissed as an apocalyptic doomsdayer.
> 
> 
> 
> I referenced gold, property, stocks, antiques, art etc.....
> 
> Most of these, if not all, are out of the reach of most people on the planet, and even closer to home, in this country, by way of long-term investment plan. I would hazard a guess that, despite the frenzy of the Celtic Tiger and outside of inheritance, the proportion of people with second properties or home is still relatively low compared to the rest of the population?
> 
> Bitcoin offers a fundamental demand to place money outside of a system that has, for a long time now, failed to return any significant amount to those who have no access to the markets of property, stocks, anitques in their own right, only savings (replaced by debt) and wages.
> This market is huge.
> 
> In turn, for those who do have access to all those other markets, it has the _potential _to act as a _prospective_ benchmark against which everything can be valued. This is a _potentially_ massive market.


That reads to me a bit circular.  _Shortie _seems to be arguing a Store of Value demand for bitcoin.  The Marmalade Principle states that "store of value demand depends on there being fundamental demand :- no fundamental demand->no store of value demand".  If we are then to define some aspect of the store of value demand as fundamental demand, as _Shortie _appears to, then clearly the Marmalade Principle becomes ad absurdum.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

does 'fundamental' demand just mean non-monetary demand?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Marmalade Principle states that "store of value demand depends on there being fundamental demand :- no fundamental demand->no store of value demand"


The Marmalade Principle doesn't pass peer review. Gold established itself as a store of value long before there was any 'fundamental demand' as you put it. All the while, that 'fundamental demand' is peripheral at 7.49%.
Meanwhile, we have the world's foremost bitcoin-bashing mainstream economist finally recognising bitcoin as a store of value.


----------



## RoseMc

Leo said:


> It seems he asked you to justify your valuation of bitcoin.



Leo,

You seem like an intelligent person but your comments to me in this thread are disappointing.

I never, not once, put a value on Bitcoin. Nor did I ever claim to have a basis for its valuation.
Your latest post is a continued misrepresentation of my position. I am surprised at you and your apparent difficulty following this thread. I believe that you are better than this.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Here is the worlds foremost bitcoin-bashing 'economist' - Nouriel Roubini - doing a u-turn on bitcoin and for the first time, recognising its characteristics as a store of value in an interview last week.  LINK


Anybody making that interpretation is delusional.  This was a strong denunciation of cryptocurrencies.  Yes he has a kinder word for bitcoin over the other sh1tcoins (his expression).  He uses the words "part store of value".  Obviously it has a part store of value.  If someone offered me a bitcoin, I would accept it. Even I would have  100% certainty that I could exchange it over the next few months for a reasonable amount of fiat.
My post was arguing that the unique situation of something having a demand as a store of value not underpinned by some fundamental utility demand is unsustainable.  I am sure Nouriel would agree with me.


			
				tecate said:
			
		

> Gold established itself as a store of value long before there was any 'fundamental demand' as you put it.


 If gold was a poisonous putrid smelling substance it would never have achieved any value no matter how scarce it is.  Gold is clearly attractive to the human senses; that underpins its fundamental demand and was there before its demand as a store of value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anybody making that interpretation is delusional.  This was a strong denunciation of cryptocurrencies.


We're not talking about cryptocurrencies plural - we're talking about bitcoin. His comments were referenced in relation to bitcoin. If you want to discuss other crypto's, then by all means, open a new thread.
The strongest of denunciations of bitcoin has been Dr. Doom's default position on bitcoin for years. There is no economist on this planet who has been as poisonously opposed to bitcoin as he has. This was not a denunciation - you're the delusional one if you can't see that.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> He uses the words "part store of value".


Precisely that - that's what I was referring to. And he'll crap all over btc still in other ways (for the moment) but he's never made this admission. It's a first - and it's a u-turn.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Obviously it has a part store of value.


This is priceless!  Show us where any one of you and your fellow bitcoin critics have suggested anything like that in three years of discussion here. Provide a link to the post or posts!



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My post was arguing that the unique situation of something having a demand as a store of value not underpinned by some fundamental utility demand is unsustainable. I am sure Nouriel would agree with me.


How can you be sure when he just came out and referred to it as a store of value (partial or otherwise).  He's doing a u-turn - maybe you should pay attention as chances are you'll have to do one yourself soon enough.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Gold is clearly attractive to the human senses; that underpins its fundamental demand and was there before its demand as a store of value.


Beauty can be found in nature in all manner of things - they don't have to be putrid. They DO have to be scarce to be a store of value. Your fundamental demand argument doesn't stand - just like your claim that bitcoin can't establish itself as a store of value without first being pervasive as a means of exchange. Ask Nouriel - through gritted teeth (as he's politically and diametrically opposed to it), he understands that.


----------



## WolfeTone

The fundamental demand is for the ability to store money securely _(trustless)_ outside of the prevailing banking system. This is its utility.

The store of value is the level of adoption. If I’m the only one with this fundamental demand, then store of value is negligible (to me it might be precious – e.g. my record collection, to everyone else it is an irrelevance.)
If many, many others have this fundamental demand a market price for this store of value will emerge.
The price applicable to that store of value (per btc) is determined by the level of that fundamental demand over the supply. No different to anything else.

The question is, for me, do many, many others have this fundamental demand?

I could buy property, art, stocks, gold, antiques etc – all of which are also stores of value. However, I may not have access to such markets, or access is cumbersome (gold), or access is constrained, complicated or a level of (perceived) expertise (property, art, stocks) is required/advisable for prospective investors.
This leaves a huge swathe of people reliant primarily on fruits of their labour, wages, and with interest on savings accounts. For a large swathe of people the purchasing power of their labour has diminished relative to property and rent, and interest on savings has been replaced by easy credit and long-term debt.

To me the answer to the question of fundamental demand to store money securely outside the prevailing banking system is a resounding, yes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> The fundamental demand is for the ability to store money securely _(trustless)_ outside of the prevailing banking system. This is its utility.


Not sure we are mixing terminology a bit.  Yes there is a demand to store money..., not sure that translates to a demand for money.  But is bitcoin money?  Is bitcoin a medium of exchange, ergo money?  I agree with John Kelleher that it is necessary for bitcoin to make the grade as a medium of exchange to be considered money and therefore justify store of value status.  Where I disagree with him is that I don't think it will (be allowed to) make that grade.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure we are mixing terminology a bit.  Yes there is a demand to store money..., not sure that translates to a demand for money.  But is bitcoin money?  Is bitcoin a medium of exchange, ergo money?



There's a need for people/entities to store value.  That doesn't have to be money or a means of exchange - as you can see with gold. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree with John Kelleher that it is necessary for bitcoin to make the grade as a medium of exchange to be considered money and therefore justify store of value status.


Re. your post above, aren't you now saying that you believe it IS a (part) store of value....


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure we are mixing terminology a bit.



Perhaps. But the driving force behind my interest in bitcoin is, aside from my initial speculative curiosity, the option to place money outside the banking system. My reasoning for that is no different to placing money outside the banking system in stocks, property or gold or whatever. I consider any number of factors and I believe that they provide an opportunity to protect the value of the money that I have placed in it long-term.

I could of course be wrong and lose my shirt, but ditto, property, stocks and gold.

As discussed elsewhere, bitcoin has been around for 12yrs. Along with smartphone technology and the internet, access to bitcoin is probably more readily available to the masses than the banking system is, which has been around for donkeys years, and is quite clearly shy of offering proper financial services and access to those with limited and restricted opportunity. 

The digital currency age is upon us, the race is on for a internationally recognised standard. I like some of what the Libra White Paper says about its own project; 


We believe that many more people should have access to financial services.
We believe that people have an inherent right to control the fruit of their legal labor.
We believe that global, open, instant, and low-cost payment networks create immense economic opportunities and more commerce across the world.
Bitcoin may, or may not be, the standard bearer. I would be inclined, at this point, to think that it will be.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps. But the driving force behind my interest in bitcoin is, aside from my initial speculative curiosity, the option to place money outside the banking system. My reasoning for that is no different to placing money outside the banking system in stocks, property or gold or whatever. I consider any number of factors and I believe that they provide an opportunity to protect the value of the money that I have placed in it long-term.
> 
> I could of course be wrong and lose my shirt, but ditto, property, stocks and gold.
> 
> As discussed elsewhere, bitcoin has been around for 12yrs. Along with smartphone technology and the internet, access to bitcoin is probably more readily available to the masses than the banking system is, which has been around for donkeys years, and is quite clearly shy of offering proper financial services and access to those with limited and restricted opportunity.
> 
> The digital currency age is upon us, the race is on for a internationally recognised standard. I like some of what the Libra White Paper says about its own project;
> 
> 
> We believe that many more people should have access to financial services.
> We believe that people have an inherent right to control the fruit of their legal labor.
> We believe that global, open, instant, and low-cost payment networks create immense economic opportunities and more commerce across the world.
> Bitcoin may, or may not be, the standard bearer. I would be inclined, at this point, to think that it will be.


_Wolfie _it has to establish a utility value to be a sustainable long term store of value.  The only utility it can possibly supply is as a medium of exchange.  The desire for bitcoin to achieve this utility value does not mean it will happen.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Re. your post above, aren't you now saying that you believe it IS a (part) store of value....


Like the tweeter you linked to you seem to believe you have a big gotcha on the Duke and on Roubini.  I am not the sort to reject facts as they present themselves.  Bitcoin has a price.  Bitcoin will have a price in a week's time, a month's time and yes in a year's time, this despite the fact that I believe it is a BOHA.  So of course it has a (part) store of value on those timescales. Where's the big gotcha here?  
I do not think it is a good store of value over those timelines. not because of BOHA but because of the massive volatility.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie _it has to establish a utility value to be a sustainable long term store of value.  The only utility it can possibly supply is as a medium of exchange.  The desire for bitcoin to achieve this utility value does not mean it will happen.



Ok, I have no real desire to recycle the past three years, but bitcoin is already a medium of exchange. It may be a relatively scarce medium of exchange but so is gold. When is the last time you bought and sold anything in gold other than for decorative jewellery or for fiat currency? 
I do not think bitcoin has the propensity to be traded abundantly in our daily lives for groceries and electricity bills any day soon. 
Instead, I would consider bitcoin having the prospect of being a great equaliser. Acting as a bulwark against manipulation (human nature) and offering economic opportunity and autonomy to anyone with an internet connection.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Like the tweeter you linked to you seem to believe you have a big gotcha on the Duke and on Roubini.


I wasn't looking for one - but I do see a change when its set out before me. Ask anyone in crypto circles for who above anyone else epitomises bitcoin-hate and more often than not, the answer you will get is Nouriel Roubini. Of course, there are others - your friend fax machine guy took great joy in socking it to crypto folk during the 2018 bear market. But nobody has topped Nouriel.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not the sort to reject facts as they present themselves.


Well that is at least true in this instance Duke, where both you and Nouriel acknowledge for the first time that bitcoin is a store of value.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin has a price. Bitcoin will have a price in a week's time, a month's time and yes in a year's time, this despite the fact that I believe it is a BOHA. So of course it has a (part) store of value on those timescales. Where's the big gotch here?


I wasn't chasing a 'big gotcha'. However, just like many in crypto see Nouriel's acknowledgement of bitcoin as a store of value as a complete change, I also take yours as significant in the development of this discussion - as you've never described it in those terms before.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I do not think it is a good store of value over those timelines. not because of BOHA but because of the massive volatility.


Thats fair enough although I don't agree that volatility has a lot to do with the characteristics of a good store of value. It does come into play with regard to a medium of exchange though.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, I have no real desire to recycle the past three years, but bitcoin is already a medium of exchange. It may be a relatively scarce medium of exchange but so is gold. When is the last time you bought and sold anything in gold other than for decorative jewellery or for fiat currency?
> I do not think bitcoin has the propensity to be traded abundantly in our daily lives for groceries and electricity bills any day soon.
> Instead, I would consider bitcoin having the prospect of being a great equaliser. Acting as a bulwark against manipulation (human nature) and offering economic opportunity and autonomy to anyone with an internet connection.


Please _Wolfie_, you're better than that  .  Real Estate has no utility as a MOE.  Neither does precious art.  The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE.  Of course it has been used on some occasions to buy latte, or so I am told but we are a galaxy away from its MOE utility value justifying a price of $15k.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE.


And your and Nouriel's point is that it's a store of value - which I agree with. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course it has been used on some occasions to buy latte, or so I am told but we are a galaxy away from its MOE utility value justifying a price of $15k.


As acknowledged by I think everyone, it is available to be used as a medium of exchange today and is used for that purpose. However, it suits the exchange of large amounts of value right now - and not a cup of coffee. There's plenty that needs to change before it becomes a reasonable prospect for micro-transactions.
It's price today is justified on the basis of the demand its seeing as a store of value - given that it is a supreme asset from the point of view of scarcity. In that respect, it's unmatched and unrivaled.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Real Estate has no utility as a MOE. Neither does precious art.



I never suggested they did have utility as a MOE. I referenced gold, which is a medium of exchange, albeit infrequent and relatively rare to fiat currency.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The John Kelleher point is that the only possible utility that bitcoin can achieve is as MOE.



Yes, and I have already stated that I don't necessarily agree with Kelleher. His statement is suppositional, referring to an undefined point of time in the future. Surely there is a time limit to achieving this? If so, when? 12yrs a waiting, no real sign of BTC being adopted as a mainstream MOE yet it is still very much in demand. Perhaps Kelleher is wrong?

The extent upon which bitcoin will be used as a MOE is not apparent. At the moment it is rare, but that may well change in the future and I am open to that.
Granted, references to BTC being $15k and latté purchases in the same sentence does imply a galactic distance from day-to-day use. I wouldn't pay more than 0.00016 satoshis myself.
I don't think bitcoins prospective utility has been fully observed yet.


----------



## tecate

One more u-turn...

Hedge fund veteran Stanley Druckenmiller (net worth $4.4 billion) said of bitcoin in June 2019:

_"I don't understand why its a store of value."_


November, 2020:

_"I own many more times gold than I own bitcoin, but frankly, if the gold bet works, the bitcoin bet will probably work better because it's thinner and more illiquid and has a lot more beta to it"_


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Nouriel Roubini on twitter said:
			
		

> Bitcoin is NOT a currency: it is not a unit of account, it is not a single numéraire, it is not a scalable means of payments, it is not backed by any asset, it is not legal tender, its price is highly manipulated & thus its partial store of value function is based on nothing


Gotcha Nouriel    You said "store of value".  This is a great boost to bitcoin cultists.





			
				tecate said:
			
		

> However, just like many in crypto I see Nouriel's acknowledgement of bitcoin as a store of value as a complete change


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Gotcha Nouriel    You said "store of value".  This is a great boost to bitcoin cultists.


You remember the part your Dukeness when I said that Nouriel is the most poisonous, venomous critic of bitcoin?  No claim was being made that the guy has changed his _ways_. The claim was that he's changed his _response_, knows he's got this wrong and he's trying to create wriggle room.

Tell me this - what is a 'partial store of value'?  Either it is or it isn't! - but he's trying to fudge things now to cover his tracks (because he's in 'fax machine guy' territory).  I've never heard anyone refer to a "_partial_ store of value". When you google the phrase, guess what comes up?  Nouriel!  ONLY Nouriel.

The tweet that you saw is him lashing out at crypto peeps who called him out on his preparatory fudge/u-turn.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You remember the part your Dukeness when I said that Nouriel is the most poisonous, venomous critic of bitcoin?  No claim was being made that the guy has changed his _ways_. The claim was that he's changed his response, knows he's got this wrong and he's trying to create wriggle room.
> 
> Tell me this - what is a 'partial store of value'?  Either it is or it isn't! - but he's trying to fudge things now to cover his tracks (because he's in 'fax machine guy' territory).  I've never heard anyone refer to a "_partial_ store of value". When you google the phrase, guess what comes up?  Nouriel!  ONLY Nouriel.
> 
> The tweet that you saw is him lashing out at crypto peeps who called him out on his preparatory fudge/u-turn.


@tecate I never heard of Nouriel until you introduced him to me.  That the bitcoin community are in a celebratory "gotcha" over his use of the words "store of value" is, frankly, sad.
Thought experiment.  If someone offers me a bitcoin for $100 but on condition I do not sell it for a month.  I would bite their hand off even though it's BOHA - gotme!, I must think it has part store of value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate I never heard of Nouriel until you introduced him to me.


 and your point is?


Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate That the bitcoin community are in a celebratory "gotcha" over his use of the words "store of value" is, frankly, sad.


 The 'gotcha' comment is yours - and its an insight into how you approach and perceive this 'discussion'.
Secondly, you're speaking from a point of ignorance then because if you're not aware of Nouriel, then you're not aware of the back and forth that's being going on with his venomous attacks on bitcoin and crypto. Just like you, him confirming that its a store of value means that he's fudging things as the pressure is on now and he's second guessing himself.

Yesterday, you agreed that its a store of value - after spending three years saying the opposite.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Thought experiment.  If someone offers me a bitcoin for $100 but on condition I do not sell it for a month.  I would bite their hand off even though it's BOHA - gotme!, I must think it has part store of value.



NOBODY will be offering you a bitcoin your Dukeness. You can buy a fraction of one when the time comes (because by that time, a fraction of one is all you'll be able to afford).
Secondly, nobody is now wondering whether you 'think' it is a store of value. You told us yesterday that it is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate if you believe Mr Roubini has made a U-turn and is now supportive of the store of value case for bitcoin, and that makes you happy; it would be unfair of me to rain on your parade.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate if you believe Mr Roubini has made a U-turn and is now supportive of the store of value case for bitcoin, and that makes you happy; it would be unfair of me to rain on your parade.


This isn't about your or my happiness, Duke but a discussion of the topic itself.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe Mr. Roubini when he says that bitcoin is a 'partial store of value'?
You agreed with him on that. Should I not believe him or you?  Or are you/he being misrepresented in some way?

I had asked you before what the difference is between a 'partial store of value' and a 'store of value'. Is there one?  My initial thought was that there wasn't - that there couldn't be a half way house for such a thing. I googled the phrase and it seems the only guy on the planet to use it is Mr. Roubini. To me, it looks like he's covering his tracks - when in later years he's asked about his views on bitcoin.

If there's something I'm missing, please do clarify.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> This isn't about your or my happiness, Duke but a discussion of the topic itself.
> Are you suggesting that we shouldn't believe Mr. Roubini when he says that bitcoin is a 'partial store of value'?
> You agreed with him on that. Should I not believe him or you?  Or are you/he being misrepresented in some way?
> 
> I had asked you before what the difference is between a 'partial store of value' and a 'store of value'. Is there one?  My initial thought was that there wasn't - that there couldn't be a half way house for such a thing. I googled the phrase and it seems the only guy on the planet to use it is Mr. Roubini. To me, it looks like he's covering his tracks - when in later years he's asked about his views on bitcoin.
> 
> If there's something I'm missing, please do clarify.





			
				Roubini latest tweet said:
			
		

> ...its partial store of value function is based on nothing...


 @tecate if you still believe that this is Mr  Roubini having made a U-turn and supporting the store of value case for bitcoin, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.
_Aside:  I hope like you me that you will ignore the noise from the hydra which has sprouted a few more heads after the earlier ones were chopped off._


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate if you still believe that this is Mr  Roubini having made a U-turn and supporting the store of value case for bitcoin, I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.


Firstly, I'm not asking you to convince me of anything your Dukeness. However, I see an opportunity for you to provide a valuable contribution towards advancing the discussion here. 

At the third(?) time of asking, can you confirm what a 'partial store of value' is?  How could something have a 'partial' store of value?  I'm sure there's a wealth of people asking Mr. Roubini the same thing! 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Aside:  I hope like you me that you will ignore the noise from the hydra which has sprouted a few more heads after the earlier ones were chopped off._


I don't think the ongoing personal reference to anyone who has contributed to this discussion over the course of the past three years - when they present with a point of view contrary to your own (as said commentary is nowhere to be seen when it's a viewpoint you share)  - is in any way helpful to the discussion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> At the third(?) time of asking, can you confirm what a 'partial store of value' is?  How could something have a 'partial' store of value?


I don't know what he meant by a "partial" store of value. I only heard of the guy when you introduced him to me and have no knowledge of his linguistic style.  
However, I know where he stands now and unlike you I do not see it as a ringing endorsement of the store of value case for bitcoin.  That there are a "wealth of people" in the bitcoin community chasing down what they think is a "gotcha" on Mr Roubini tells its own story.

_Beware of posters of 35 posts standing showing you fausse empathy._


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't know what he meant by a "partial" store of value.


Really?  This was your response to his declaration of bitcoin having a 'partial store of value' ->


Duke of Marmalade said:


> He uses the words "part store of value". Obviously it has a part store of value.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I know where he stands now and unlike you I do not see it as a ringing endorsement of the store of value case for bitcoin.


I never suggested this as a 'ringing endorsement.  As I've pointed out to you twice already, there has never been anyone in economist circles who has been as poisonous in directing his bile at the crypto community and at bitcoin. I never suggested this was a ringing endorsement because precisely as I said, he will do everything in his power to diss bitcoin/crypto. 
What I did say was that he's trying to manufacture a way out - because he now knows he's digging a hole for himself (of fax machine guy proportions).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That there are a "wealth of people" in the bitcoin community chasing down what they think is a "gotcha" on Mr Roubini tells its own story.


Once again, the only person talking about a 'gotcha' is you. Secondly, the crypto community will hold anyone to account for their public comments - and rightly so. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Beware of posters of 35 posts standing showing you fausse empathy._


I don't know what that means. However, if you disagree with the actual contributions of someone, then normal procedure is to deal with that - not to attack people personally - or criticise if they click on the 'like' tab, etc.

*At the fourth time of asking* - can you explain what is the distinction between a 'store of value' and a 'partial store of value'?  How could there be a half way house for such a thing? Surely it either is a store of value or it isn't?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I don't know what that means. However, if you disagree with the actual contributions of someone, then normal procedure is to deal with that.


I have reported the post to the moderators.

*



			At the fourth time of asking
		
Click to expand...

*


> - can you explain what is the distinction between a 'store of value' and a 'partial store of value'?  How could there be a half way house for such a thing? Surely it either is a store of value or it isn't?


I had no idea that I was getting involved in a fierce semantic "gotcha" row between the bitcoin community and their nemesis.  
I did note the use of the word "part" when I looked at the link and it seemed to mean something.  I surmised that it might refer to time qualification but I don't know exactly what he meant.  *Why are you making such a big deal of this?*


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I had no idea that I was getting involved in a fierce semantic "gotcha" row between the bitcoin community and their nemesis.


Again, the only one mentioning the word 'gotcha' is yourself - no-one else.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I did note the use of the word "part" when I looked at the link and it seemed to mean something.  I surmised that it might refer to time qualification but I don't know exactly what he meant.


Well, if you didn't know what it meant, I'm surprised that you decided to mirror his comments - and state the same thing i.e. that bitcoin is a 'part' store of value.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Why are you making such a big deal of this?


Because it's totally unclear what either of you are claiming.  Are you claiming that bitcoin IS or IS NOT a store of value?  If the latter, why did you back up Nouriel's commentary on it? 
When I say that a 'partial store of value' = ' a store of value', have I got it wrong - and if so how?

My suspicion is that Nouriel is trying to find a way to ease back - but because of a few years of vehemently poisonous comments, he's not going to be allowed to. Hence, his follow up tweets.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate you have given me wonderful links on bitcoin which have greatly increased my understanding of the debate.  You have also given me a new hero - Mr Roubini who I have put on my to follow list on Twitter. This particular debate has run its course IMHO but I look forward to future engagements, hopefully without the pollution of trolls.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate you have given me wonderful links on bitcoin which have greatly increased my understanding of the debate.  You have also given me a new hero - Mr Roubini who I have put on my to follow list on Twitter. This particular debate has run its course IMHO but I look forward to future engagements, hopefully without the pollution of trolls.


It's been a total pleasure your Dukeness.  I've no doubt yourself and Nouriel are kindred spirits - so you're very welcome.

I'll leave you with this tweet from the bould Nouriel of November 2018 vintage...



			https://twitter.com/Nouriel/status/1065016586824757248?s=20


----------



## tecate

For anyone with an interest, I can highly recommend financial analyst - Lyn Alden's - '7 misconceptions about bitcoin' - which she published on Wednesday.
Earlier today, Paypal rolled out bitcoin to all  of its US users. It will extend that to international users within H1, 2021. With much smaller rival Square (Cash App) buying up 2x the bitcoin mining supply over recent months, this should be a very interesting development - given that it seems that Paypal are required via the regulator to buy the requisite amount of bitcoin to match demand from its users. The company has also confirmed that within Q1, 2021, it will enable crypto payments at 26 million US merchants.


----------



## DublinHead54

Potentially a good way for people to cash out of their BTC without tax implications.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Lyn Alden on Intrinsic Value of btc said:
			
		

> To start with, digital assets can certainly have value. In simplistic terms, imagine a hypothetical online massive multiple game played by millions of people around the world. If there was a magical sword item introduced by the developer that was the strongest weapon in the game, and there were only a dozen of them released, and accounts that somehow got one could sell them to another account, you can bet that the price for that digital sword would be outrageous.


Sorry, doesn't do it for me.
Later:


			
				Lyn Alden on possible government ban said:
			
		

> If bitcoin is successful governments might ban it.


*If? *$250bn market cap and she is still talking "if".  She is right of course.  As per Satoshi, John Kelleher et al, bitcoin will only be judged a success when it achieves meaningful adoption as a medium of exchange.  The whole $250million is a punt that bitcoin will achieve that success.  Lyn then goes on to argue that with increasing institutional take up a ban becomes harder to enforce.  I don't follow the logic at all.  If the US were to ban bitcoin would Microstrategies continue to publish large holdings in its public accounts?


----------



## DazedInPontoon

The logic is that they wouldn't ban it *because* companies like MicroStrategy hold it


----------



## DublinHead54

Dublinbay12 said:


> Potentially a good way for people to cash out of their BTC without tax implications.



Actually upon reflection, would this qualify as a CGT eligible event? I read that you don't actually pay in BTC, paypal exchange BTC to USD and pay the merchant in USD. So does this create a CGT eligible event for the customer?

Apparently it will. So unless a user is sitting on gains that outweigh the tax implication then there is no real benefit to use BTC in a transaction on Paypal vs the risk. I assume Paypal will also be charging a large bid/ask spread to account for the potential volatility and settlement risk. 

_"However, it will not allow cryptocurrencies to be taken off the platform and sent to a bank, or back to the wallet from which they came. Selling crypto within PayPal triggers a taxable event as does using the crypto to buy anything, as PayPal converts the funds into fiat first before paying the merchant". _









						Will PayPal’s crypto offer turn into a tax nightmare?
					

U.S. tax laws treat crypto like property so PayPal users need to be aware of the requirements when using the new cryptocurrency payments system




					cointelegraph.com


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> The logic is that they wouldn't ban it *because* companies like MicroStrategy hold it


That is probably what she meant.  I don't see people ever wanting bitcoin as a medium of exchange in preference to their own fiat currency.  If it did show signs of happening it would threaten monetary policy and the more institutional involvement the easier for the authorities to control or even ban it.


----------



## WolfeTone

I'm confused...how do you ban bitcoin? 

Perhaps they could ban exchanges from trading, perhaps they could issue a decree that it is worthless currency, or some other method, but I cannot see how you can actually ban bitcoin.
Of course, such a move a move to ban bitcoin would actually have to have some basis behind it. We are, after all, living in free and open democracies, right?
So to ban it, or try ban it, would require some basis....on what basis could bitcoin be banned?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> I'm confused...how do you ban bitcoin?
> 
> Perhaps they could ban exchanges from trading, perhaps they could issue a decree that it is worthless currency, or some other method, but I cannot see how you can actually ban bitcoin.
> Of course, such a move a move to ban bitcoin would actually have to have some basis behind it. We are, after all, living in free and open democracies, right?
> So to ban it, or try ban it, would require some basis....on what basis could bitcoin be banned?


I recommend that you read @tecate's interesting link to Lyn Alden.  There she discusses how Gold was banned in the mid twentieth century in America.  It is in order to protect the nation's monetary system.  "First I am the Lord thy Dollar and I shalt not have any sh1tcoins before me."


----------



## DazedInPontoon

If you banned it you couldn't really enforce prevention of individuals from holding it or transacting in it but banning it would be enforceable at business level which would prevent legal regulated exchanges and institutional investment, perhaps even wallet apps from iphone/google-play stores would be removed. It would destroy retail and institutional investment in bitcoin in whatever country did it.

As a hodler I'm not worried though as I've not seen any evidence yet that it will be banned, especially not in the US. I think there is enough opposition to banning it in terms of wealthy individuals and companies involved in bitcoin lobbying politicians and the now sizable number of the population that have some (including politicians themselves). Politicians need a pretty strong motive to do something that pisses off a significant number of their voters.

I watched some senate hearings about crypto and the main concern of a lot of the politicians seemed to be whether the crypo industry could bring jobs to their state.


----------



## Leo

Banning is as simple as passing a piece of legislation. Banning and preventing are two completely different concepts. Exceeding the speed limits is banned here, yet many people do it on a daily basis. Enforcement doesn't catch everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not banned. 

Once thing that always confuses me about the argument for bitcoin being a way to evade the state confiscating your assets is that people don't seem to realise that any government who would do that is certainly more than capable of limiting internet access or content within their borders, and travel through them. Governments, including our own, already filter internet traffic. Unless there's a major re-write of bitcoin, ISPs could easily filter out bitcoin transactions. If there were a re-write, blocking enhancements would likely follow. The BGP exploit attacks (example) show what's possible with deep access. 

Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as once thought, authorities have the tools to identify users. If it's banned, enforcement will follow for some.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There she discusses how Gold was banned in the mid twentieth century in America. It is in order to protect the nation's monetary system



Yes, but a threat to a nation's monetary, as nefarious a thing as that might be, it suggests it has value?

Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity, but arguably they also have value in preventing a futile third World War? For some, nuclear weapons have value.

Why would bitcoin be banned?


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> Exceeding the speed limits is banned here, yet many people do it on a daily basis. Enforcement doesn't catch everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not banned.



That is very true, because people see the value in reducing speed to save lives, prevent accidents, reduce insurance claims.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> That is very true, because people see the value in reducing speed to save lives, prevent accidents, reduce insurance claims.



Really don't know what you're trying to say there!


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity, but arguably they also have value in preventing a futile third World War? For some, nuclear weapons have value.



Mosquitoes and the diseases they carry are a threat to humanity, are you suggesting that means mosquitos have value?


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> Really don't know what you're trying to say there!



Really? I thought it was quite straightforward and obvious? There is a reason why speed limits are imposed.



Leo said:


> are you suggesting that means mosquitos have value?



Eh no, but mosquito repellent has value.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, but a threat to a nation's monetary, as nefarious a thing as that might be, it suggests it has value?
> Why would bitcoin be banned?


I refer to John Kelleher.  Bitcoin can only have sustainable value whenever it becomes a meaningful means of exchange.  Personally, I don't see it ever happening.  But if we started to see job advertisements offering bitcoin salaries, or those big double spread Dunnes Stores ads offering cooked ham at x satoshis per slice, well then we would have a parallel monetary system and, as John Kelleher argues, bitcoin would have acquired a genuine utility value as a moe.  It would be easy in such a situation to forbid offering salaries in bitcoin or Dunnes Stores pricing its wares in satoshis. This woud quickly kill off its moe utility value.  Off course, no amount of banning can prevent cultists hoarding it, just as I am sure folk who are so inclined can access snuff movies.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> Really? I thought it was quite straightforward and obvious? There is a reason why speed limits are imposed.



If it's the will of the people that introduces speed limits, why do the vast majority exceed those limits in urban areas where collisions with vulnerable users are more likely? Perhaps you did stumble across a very good example of how people are in favour of controls and restrictions that they  perceive as affecting others more so than themselves. If cryptos become a threat to state revenue collection and consequently the provision of services and management of factors such as inflation, I'd imagine the majority would be in favour of banning them too. 

Developments like DMG's Blockseer are interesting though. If that or similar enhancements are successful then there will be far less incentive on governments banning bitcoin as they will allow full KYC & AML controls.



WolfeTone said:


> Eh no, but mosquito repellent has value.



I was pointing to the mixed messages on value here. Some of the crypto faithful are keen to dismiss gold's utility in electronics, industry and jewelry as irrelevant in determining its value, but you suggested that because something constitutes a thread means it has value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sorry, doesn't do it for me.


Wrong demographic?


Duke of Marmalade said:


> *If? *$250bn market cap and she is still talking "if".


You make a good point, Dukey. Many reference the MySpace example when considering the possibilities of other contenders. However, MySpace never got anywhere close to $250bn.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> She is right of course.  As per Satoshi, John Kelleher et al, bitcoin will only be judged a success when it achieves meaningful adoption as a medium of exchange.


Rose tented glasses, Dukey? That's what you'd like her to say - it's not what she's saying at all.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Lyn then goes on to argue that with increasing institutional take up a ban becomes harder to enforce.  I don't follow the logic at all.  If the US were to ban bitcoin would Microstrategies continue to publish large holdings in its public accounts?


Every day above ground for bitcoin means every day there's further sprawl in terms of network effect. It becomes ever greater to put the genie back in the bottle (ergo, it's not possible).


Dublinbay12 said:


> Actually upon reflection, would this qualify as a CGT eligible event? I read that you don't actually pay in BTC, paypal exchange BTC to USD and pay the merchant in USD. So does this create a CGT eligible event for the customer?


Yes. It's the very same with the multitude of crypto debit cards that have hit the market over the past 12-18 months.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't see people ever wanting bitcoin as a medium of exchange in preference to their own fiat currency.


Why not? If you live in a country where your local fiat currency is failing or has failed, why not? Or simply one that applies capital controls or debases itself (even more than the others do). Perhaps there are controls in making overseas payments or friction/costs? That's why bitcoin is increasingly being used for payments and international transfers in W.Africa.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> If it did show signs of happening it would threaten monetary policy and the more institutional involvement the easier for the authorities to control or even ban it.


If there's competition, then there's an incentive for the purveyors of fiat currency to do better. Anyone should want that scenario. More institutional involvement means more network effect ...ergo, bitcoin gets woven into financial services. It becomes more and more difficult to ban as there would be an ever increasing backlash.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I recommend that you read @tecate's interesting link to Lyn Alden.  There she discusses how Gold was banned in the mid twentieth century in America.  It is in order to protect the nation's monetary system.  "First I am the Lord thy Dollar and I shalt not have any sh1tcoins before me."


And she makes the distinction that there is a difference between that example and now - ergo, the dollar was gold backed back then.


Leo said:


> Banning is as simple as passing a piece of legislation. Banning and preventing are two completely different concepts.


Precisely.



Leo said:


> Once thing that always confuses me about the argument for bitcoin being a way to evade the state confiscating your assets is that people don't seem to realise that any government who would do that is certainly more than capable of limiting internet access or content within their borders, and travel through them. Governments, including our own, already filter internet traffic. Unless there's a major re-write of bitcoin, ISPs could easily filter out bitcoin transactions. If there were a re-write, blocking enhancements would likely follow. The BGP exploit attacks (example) show what's possible with deep access.


Then people can transact over satellite (right now) or mesh networks (to come). How do people get round China's 'great firewall'? Why can't transactions be routed over tor?



Leo said:


> Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as once thought, authorities have the tools to identify users. If it's banned, enforcement will follow.


Re. enforcement, Alden makes the point with the gold ownership prohibition there were serious consequences for defying that ban - yet very few prosecutions.  Enforcement is possible (to an extent) but at what point does it become politcally unacceptable as network effect grows?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I refer to John Kelleher.  Bitcoin can only have sustainable value whenever it becomes a meaningful means of exchange.


I hope yer getting John something nice for the Crimbo, Dukey. You insist on repeating this - in which case, I've no choice but to remind you that gold exists as a store of value yet it isn't a means of exchange.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But if we started to see job advertisements offering bitcoin salaries, or those big double spread Dunnes Stores ads offering cooked ham at x satoshis per slice, well then we would have a parallel monetary system and, as John Kelleher argues, bitcoin would have acquired a genuine utility value as a moe.


See above - gold exists as a store of value yet it's not a means of exchange.  Other than that, there are plenty of people in the digital assets industry being paid in crypto.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would be easy in such a situation to forbid offering salaries in bitcoin or Dunnes Stores pricing its wares in satoshis. This woud quickly kill off its moe utility value.


Null and void  - see above.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Off course, no amount of banning can prevent cultists hoarding it, just as I am sure folk who are so inclined can access snuff movies.


You can continue with the ignorant 'cultist' jibes all you want - it changes nothing.



Leo said:


> If cryptos become a threat to state revenue collection and consequently the provision of services and management of factors such as inflation, I'd imagine the majority would be in favour of banning them too.


The technology exists to move to more equitable per use taxation models. Times change, systems change.



Leo said:


> Developments like DMG's Blockseer are interesting though. If that or similar enhancements are successful then there will be far less incentive on governments banning bitcoin as they will allow full KYC & AML controls.


Indeed - and it's for that reason that crypto is much preferable to law enforcement than cash. Notwithstanding that, there are privacy updates waiting in the wings for bitcoin. I just don't expect them to be applied in the short term.



Leo said:


> I was pointing to the mixed messages on value here. Some of the crypto faithful are keen to dismiss gold's utility in electronics, industry and jewelry as irrelevant in determining its value, but you suggested that because something constitutes a thread means it has value.


You mean the peripheral 7.49% industrial use that has only existed in more recent times?....yet gold had long since established itself as a store of value without it.
As for jewelry, that conversation has been had. The World Gold Council cited jewelry as a store of value - as per their recent report. It's just an extension of that use case.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Then people can transact over satellite (right now) or mesh networks (to come). How do people get round China's 'great firewall'?



Only if they can buy a satellite modem, and satellite internet still has to route through ground stations and on through backbones that are state run. People get around the great firewall only to the extent that the authorities allow. Authorised VPN use is permitted, but you need to ask what do companies have to do to achieve authorisation?


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> You mean the peripheral 7.49% industrial use that has only existed in more recent times?....yet gold had long since established itself as a store of value without it.



See, still ignoring the largest class of use. Kinda proves my point.



tecate said:


> As for jewelry, that conversation has been had. The World Gold Council cited jewelry as a store of value - as per their recent report. It's just an extension of that use case.



The last time you said that you refused to post a link confirming that view. Can you now?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I hope yer getting John something nice for the Crimbo, Dukey. You insist on repeating this - in which case, I've no choice but to remind you that gold exists as a store of value yet it isn't a means of exchange.


With respect, I don't think you fully follow JK's argument.  He argues that store of value can only piggyback off some utility value - it cannot stand alone.  Gold, Real Estate, Fine Art, Precious Stones etc. are all stores of value but they piggyback off some utility (call it intrinsic if you like) value. None of these not even Gold are any good as an moe. 
JK was not arguing that store of value must have moe value.  JK's argument is that the only possible utility value that bitcoin can acquire is moe - it stands or falls on achieving that status.
Reminder of thought experiment.  Because of Climate Change gold suddenly emits deadly Marmalade Rays.  It immediately loses its utility either industrial or ornamental.  Even if these fundamental demands may currently only account for a fraction of the demand for gold (the lion's share being as a store of value) if they vanish then so too would the demand for store of value.  It is not the case that Gold originated as a store of value because it is scarce - lots of things are scarce.  The demand for Gold is much more primeval than that - humans just luv gold.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> I was pointing to the mixed messages on value here.



Me too.



Leo said:


> Some of the crypto faithful are keen to dismiss gold's utility in electronics, industry and jewelry as irrelevant in determining its value,



That's not how I read it. Rather dismiss golds utility what I understand is that we are trying to understand how gold, with its limited industrial use, is valued at €1,500 per ounce? There is little rationale for it if focusing solely on its industrial use.



Leo said:


> but you suggested that because something constitutes a thread means it has value.



It doesnt mean it has value, it can mean it has value. I will make an assumption that we all agree that nuclear annihilation serves no value to the human race?
However, it is arguable, that the _threat _of nuclear annihilation does have value as it compels adversaries to resolve their differences by other means, typically diplomatically. This has obvious value for the human race.

My question is, given that the thrust of these bitcoin debates have centered on whether bitcoin has value or not (as aside from putting a price on any such value), why would governments ban, or try to ban, bitcoin? If it has no value, such as a BOHA, then why try ban it?

A threat to the prevailing monetary system has been alluded to in this discourse as perhaps a basis for wanting to ban bitcoin. If this is the case, then it is clear to me that bitcoin must have intrinsic value.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> There is little rationale for it if focusing solely on its industrial use.



You too are falling into the trap of ignoring the ~50% of demand from the jewellery industry?



WolfeTone said:


> If it has no value, such as a BOHA, then why try ban it?



Speeding has no value, but we ban that. You conflating the tangible with the intangible.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Only if they can buy a satellite modem, and satellite internet still has to route through ground stations and on through backbones that are state run. People get around the great firewall only to the extent that the authorities allow. Authorised VPN use is permitted, but you need to ask what do companies have to do to achieve authorisation?


For what you set out, you'd need the cooperation of every government on the planet without exception. I think that's highly unlikely. Bitcoin transactions are already possible over satellite - i'm not talking about satellite internet so that we're clear.
Other than that, does internet filtering work where tor is concerned?


Leo said:


> See, still ignoring the largest class of use. Kinda proves my point.


I'm doing no such thing. I'm completely in acceptance of the use of gold for jewelry.  What I've pointed out to you is that the World Gold Council states that the motivation behind gold jewelry use is as a store of value. People want to use it as a store of value as much as they want to display their wealth.



Leo said:


> The last time you said that you refused to post a link confirming that view. Can you now?


Trying to twist things again Leo. I pointed out to you that in that debate that was had originally - a link was provided. If you are of a mind to read it, then run a search for world gold council and report - it will come right up.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> With respect, I don't think you fully follow JK's argument.  He argues that store of value can only piggyback off some utility value - it cannot stand alone.


Ok, and in that instance, Duke - how do you square that against yours(?) and Nouriels contention that bitcoin is a store or value (or partial store of value - albeit i'm waiting on someone to clarify the distinction ...I suspect there isn't any)?


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Trying to twist things again Leo. I pointed out to you that in that debate that was had originally - a link was provided.



Rather than get lost in the myriad threads you spin, why don't you just provide that link again? I searched, I couldn't find it.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> You too are falling into the trap of ignoring the ~50% of demand from the jewellery industry?



I don't think so. The price of gold has fluctuated anywhere between €250 an ounce to €1750 an ounce over the last 20yrs. Is the demand for jewellery over the last 20yrs that much a factor on this price fluctuation? I would not have thought so, but I may be wrong.



Leo said:


> Speeding has no value, but we ban that. You conflating the tangible with the intangible.



Speeding of course, has value. Is there no value between transporting goods by horse and cart and instead more quickly by mechanical vehicles? 

There comes a point, specific to speeding on our roadways where the value of that speed is lost to other factors other than just economic. Societal values such as our health and safety. We value our health and safety over speed, so we try to find a balance between the two by imposing speed restrictions. As well as a societal advantage it also an economic advantage in reducing accidents and associated healthcare costs, insurance premiums, and overall well being of society. Excessive speed, while of value to some (not wanting to be late for work for example), is a threat to that overall well being. That is why we impose penalties for breaking speed limits.

Anyway, back to the banning of bitcoin. I can not see any conceivable reason why governments, in open and free societies would even consider banning bitcoin unless it is a fundamental threat, perceived or real, of some kind overall to the institutions of the State and the fabric of society and economy at large. 
Personally, I do not think it is a threat, but rather it is a benefit to society and the economy at large. Only those who feel threatened by it will want to ban it.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I searched, I couldn't find it.


Astonishing.  Here you go, Leo.


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> I don't think so. The price of gold has fluctuated anywhere between €250 an ounce to €1750 an ounce over the last 20yrs. Is the demand for jewellery over the last 20yrs that much a factor on this price fluctuation? I would not have thought so, but I may be wrong.


You're not wrong Wolfie!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Anyway, back to the banning of bitcoin. I can not see any conceivable reason why governments, in open and free societies would even consider banning bitcoin unless it is a fundamental threat, perceived or real, of some kind overall to the institutions of the State and the fabric of society and economy at large.
> Personally, I do not think it is a threat, but rather it is a benefit to society and the economy at large. Only those who feel threatened by it will want to ban it.


I agree that it is very difficult to see bitcoin reaching a position where it serious unsettles monetary policy.  But Lyn Alden does include it in her 7 points. 
The current price of bitcoin can only be sustained long term if it achieves a commensurate utility value as a moe (John Kelleher).  If it did achieve that utility value as an moe it would indeed be a significant factor in the monetary landscape, perhaps enough to lead to significant official curtailment. Lyn sees that danger but minimises it by reflecting that adoption my the likes of Microstrategy makes that less likely.  I would not be so sanguine if I were her.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree that it is very difficult to see bitcoin reaching a position where it serious unsettles monetary policy.  But Lyn Alden does include it in her 7 points.


Can't you see that as being a force for good? If bitcoin use goes to those levels then that will only come about because some central bank (or banks) have been negligent. If the knowledge of bitcoin and its usability improves, governments and central banks will be given a further incentive not to steal or screw up. I can't imagine how anyone could see that as being anything less than a force for good. Where has competition/more options ever been a bad thing?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The current price of bitcoin can only be sustained long term if it achieves a commensurate utility value as a moe (John Kelleher).


And every time you try and drown the discussion out with this, I'm forced to refute it. We can go the long way round with this or the more expedient way - whichever is your preference, Duke. I think at this stage, everyone is aware of your/John's view on this. I'm not sure John was banking on this level of fame.
So once again, that's your/John's opinion. It's not one shared by plenty...including the worlds most foremost bitcoin hater - Nouriel.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Lyn sees that danger but minimises it by reflecting that adoption my the likes of Microstrategy makes that less likely.  I would not be so sanguine if I were her.


Firstly, how do we know it's a danger? The likes of fax machine guy and those that follow him will say that. Personally, I doubt the world has to fall apart (without people's wealth being continually pilfered through inflation).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would not be so sanguine if I were her.


You're not her.


----------



## Leo

WolfeTone said:


> I don't think so. The price of gold has fluctuated anywhere between €250 an ounce to €1750 an ounce over the last 20yrs. Is the demand for jewellery over the last 20yrs that much a factor on this price fluctuation? I would not have thought so, but I may be wrong.



There are interests that control the supply of new gold to some extent, if the almost 60% annual demand for non-investment/ store of value shrank to zero, they would likely attempt to limit supply to protect their income, but I doubt they could fully insulate from that scale of a shock to the system. The Gold Council state that a drop in demand for jewellery as a result of the pandemic is a factor in current pricing.



WolfeTone said:


> Anyway, back to the banning of bitcoin. I can not see any conceivable reason why governments, in open and free societies would even consider banning bitcoin unless it is a fundamental threat, perceived or real, of some kind overall to the institutions of the State and the fabric of society and economy at large.
> Personally, I do not think it is a threat, but rather it is a benefit to society and the economy at large. Only those who feel threatened by it will want to ban it.



And that's where we differ, I think cryptos bring about the possibility of better money, where the financing of terrorism, human trafficking, etc. is severely hampered, and where the wealthy can't hide income from the state to avoid paying taxes. There appears to be a cohort within the crypto community that are striving to go in the opposite direction, looking to prevent regulatory authorities from performing any oversight or control or governments from having accurate insight into earnings. There is a continued narrative that governments and authorities in general are inherently evil.

My fear is the greatest threat here is to the poorest in society who depend on state supports to feed their families. I don't see bitcoin of itself as offering much in the way of benefit to broader society.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree that it is very difficult to see bitcoin reaching a position where it serious unsettles monetary policy. But Lyn Alden doe



Yes, I agree. I don't think it's bitcoin that is unsettling monetary policy, it is central banks themselves and the inherent manipulation (human nature) within the system that is achieving that all by itself. Bitcoin is merely an option to opt out of the nonsense.
As mentioned elsewhere, the level of fraud and penalties imposed on licensed financial institutions over the last 20yrs is light years ahead of the levels of fraud, in terms of frequency and amounts, combined over the previous 200yrs.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The current price of bitcoin can only be sustained long term if it achieves a commensurate utility value as a moe (John Kelleher).



Perhaps, that is his opinion, it is very much in the ultimate-destination-return-to-zero basket of opinion.
But when? When is the moment of realisation? This year, next year, 20yrs?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If it did achieve that utility value as an moe it would indeed be a significant factor in the monetary landscape, perhaps enough to lead to significant official curtailment. Lyn sees that danger but minimises it by reflecting that adoption my the likes of Microstrategy makes that less likely. I would not be so sanguine if I were her.



"_Once the political donor class owns it as well, which they increasingly do, the game is basically over for banning it. Trying to ban it would be an attack on the balance sheets of corporations, funds, banks, and investors that own it, and would not be popular among millions of voters that own it. "_

I would agree more with this assessment from Lyn Alden.
The only reason to try ban bitcoin is if it is perceived as a threat, a threat to the monetary system.
But if the monetary system is under threat from bitcoin....then some may be inclined to own a piece of it rather than to dump it?


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Astonishing.  Here you go, Leo.



OK, perhaps I am astonishingly stupid, but I can't see where that states:



tecate said:


> ...the motivation behind gold jewelry use is as a store of value. People want to use it as a store of value as much as they want to display their wealth.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> The Gold Council state that a drop in demand for jewellery as a result of the pandemic is a factor in current pricing.


Jewelry being a sub-category within the over-arching 'store of value' use case of gold. 
The 7.49% industrial use case of gold does not in any way account for its price.  Why would it - gold was an established store of value long before these peripheral industrial uses cases came about.



Leo said:


> There is a continued narrative that governments and authorities in general are inherently evil.


I'm not seeing that. Can you link to a post that describes this inherent evil of government across the board? 
You did balk at the suggestion that bitcoin could be used to evade sanctions. Is it yourself that's pointing towards the suggested 'inherent evil'?



Leo said:


> TMy fear is the greatest threat here is to the poorest in society who depend on state supports to feed their families. I don't see bitcoin of itself as offering much in the way of benefit to broader society.


So when an emigrant wants to send a remittance home, bitcoin can't contribute towards them not having slippage of 10% through western union and the likes? Bitcoin can't prevent banks and governments from confiscating their wealth? Bitcoin can't assist in a scenario where the local sovereign currency is experiencing high or rampant inflation - with their life savings evapourating?  Bitcoin can't help where governments and central banks impose capital controls?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> OK, perhaps I am astonishingly stupid, but I can't see where that states:


You also suggested that the link to the report couldn't be pulled up with the keywords I provided you with.
Go and read that discussion Leo. The answer is right there in front of you.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Jewelry being a sub-category within the over-arching 'store of value' use case of gold.



No, you said 'the motivation', not a small fraction of the motivation.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> No, you said 'the motivation', not a small fraction of the motivation.


What do you mean?
For the most part, the motivation behind the purchase of gold jewelry is due to its monetary value - and the ability of gold to serve as a store of value....as per the World Gold Council's report.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leo said:


> There appears to be a cohort within the crypto community that are striving to go in the opposite direction, looking to prevent regulatory authorities from performing any oversight or control or governments from having accurate insight into earnings. There is a continued narrative that governments and authorities in general are inherently evil.



Yes that is a train of thought alright but I never understood it to be because government and central banks are 'inherently evil'. 
More so, human nature of fraud and manipulation when it comes to finance is inherent in all monetary systems. Try as we may, to regulate, license, monitor, adjudicate etc, there is a cohort of people who are paid to try find ways to manipulate or exploit loopholes in the interest of some over others, or implement policies that in their view are 'for the greater good'. 
It is this manipulation that ultimately distorts true value and in the long-run fractures societies time and time again. It is human nature, it is futile to expect it to change. 

I agree with your earlier point 



Leo said:


> I think cryptos bring about the possibility of better money, where the financing of terrorism, human trafficking, etc. is severely hampered, and where the wealthy can't hide income from the state to avoid paying taxes.



Also, with regard to the poor. I don't think bitcoin is the solution to poverty, but it has the potential to offer everyone with an Internet connection an option to participate in, and achieve a greater degree of economic and financial autonomy than the prevailing banking system is ever likely to offer.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> What do you mean?
> For the most part, the motivation behind the purchase of gold jewelry is due to its monetary value - and the ability of gold to serve as a store of value....as per the World Gold Council's report.



But that's not what the report says at all! In the section on jewellery demand, not once does it mention store of value. It uses the phrase several times when talking about investment demand.

Read their website, they call out four demand sectors for gold, jewellery, investment, central banks & industrial. Even there, they do not suggest jewellery as an investment or store of value.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> But that's not what the report says at all! In the section on jewellery demand, not once does it mention store of value. It uses the phrase several times when talking about investment demand.
> Read their website, they call out four demand sectors for gold, jewellery, investment, central banks & industrial. Even there, they do not suggest jewellery as an investment or store of value.


Wrong. Page 23. They refer to the Middle/Far East being ground zero for the bulk of the worlds gold jewelry purchases. Within that, they refer to the basis behind it - the passing on of inheritances. They speak of family assets. It's referred in that context because its viewed in that context. You think if gold wasn't scarce, it would have any greater value than an ornate polished rock? Think again!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You're not her.


AAM respects anonymity and speculation about poster's identity is verbotten


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> And every time you try and drown the discussion out with this, I'm forced to refute it. We can go the long way round with this or the more expedient way - whichever is your preference, Duke. I think at this stage, everyone is aware of your/John's view on this. I'm not sure John was banking on this level of fame.
> So once again, that's your/John's opinion. It's not one shared by plenty...including the worlds most foremost bitcoin hater - Nouriel.


It is fundamental to my belief that bitcoin ultimately will not survive.  I don't really have any other objection.  I am sure I am in agreement with Nouriel.  I am not saying bitcoin *will *make it as a  moe, it will not.  What I am saying is that the only way it can get utility value and therefore hang store of value on that hook is to make it as a moe.  It may be boring, but to drop my central point eliminates me form the discussion and I know you don't want  that my dear @tecate


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is fundamental to my belief that bitcoin ultimately will not survive.


And I respect your opinion. However, my suggestion is that there's no need to trot out a paragraph about your buddy Johnny Keleher on each occasion. Buy hey, play it as you see it, your Dukeness.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am sure I am in agreement with Nouriel.  I am not saying bitcoin *will *make it as a  moe, it will not.


Actually, no. I think there's a lot of confusion about what Nouriel believes and to what extent you agree with Nouriel. After all, Nouriel believes that bitcoin is already a store of value. ...as per his recent interview.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It may be boring, but to drop my central point eliminates me form the discussion and I know you don't want  that my dear @tecate


I mean, it's just a suggestion (for the sanity of readers) but surely that can be done in short hand - without trotting out Johnny Keleher's musings each time? Totally up to yourself, your Dukeness.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> "_Once the political donor class owns it as well, which they increasingly do, the game is basically over for banning it. Trying to ban it would be an attack on the balance sheets of corporations, funds, banks, and investors that own it, and would not be popular among millions of voters that own it. "_


So Lyn Alden foresees some sort of pandemic effect whereby it becomes impossible to stop it.  I don't see it being banned as a "store of value", no reason to do that.  But if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange.  And as John Keller (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its store of value.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So Lyn Alden foresees some sort of pandemic effect whereby it becomes impossible to stop it.  I don't see it being banned as a "store of value", no reason to do that.  But if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange.


I would  say it becomes harder to shut down at that point. Isn't it a case of critical mass? I'd imagine if usage levels got to the point you're talking about, then there would be habitual use of bitcoin and bitcoin in active circulation.
At that point, people will earn it directly. Furthermore, its the availability of bitcoin that would be under attack - not the ability to transmit it - as that is impossible to shut down. Here's another item to consider. If it gets to that point - and then governments go full on with prohibition, how do you think that will play out politically?

I continue to maintain that you are looking at this the wrong way round. Rather than viewing bitcoin as a threat, how about viewing bitcoin as an incentive for governments/central banks to get their .... together? How about viewing it as a parallel system that helps keeping the primary system in check? I rarely meet anyone these days who thinks competition is bad.

If fiat/sovereign currency fails its because of mismanagement or corruption - it won't be because of bitcoin.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And as John Keller (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its store of value.


And as John Keller Nouriel Roubini (apologies) argues it would then fail to achieve the utility value needed to underpin its has already achieved the status of store of value.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> if bitcoin was seriously threatening the dollar as the nation's medium of exchange and interfering with monetary policy it would be extremely easy to shut down its mass use as a medium of exchange



Perhaps, but you would have to define what constitutes a serious threat. Personally, I think the serious threat to dollar and global monetary system is emanating from monetary policy of the global monetary system itself. The Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ are all engaged in co-ordinated efforts to drive up asset prices in the attempt to induce some form of an inflationary effect. 
It's not working very well so far. This is the biggest threat, not bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is simply emerging as an asset class benefiting from this monetary policy. There is no real indication that it will be used broadly as a medium of exchange anytime soon and in the narrow pockets where it is being touted, say on PayPal, I don't think there is any intention on their part to use bitcoin to evade their responsibilities under the financial regulatory system? In other words, they will declare their holdings and transactions in Bitcoin and will be subject to the appropriate tax regulation etc. 

My own view is that, because of the internet and the digital age that we live in, bitcoin is asset class for anyone and everyone. It offers an opportunity for everyone with an internet connection to obtain a degree of economic and financial autonomy that the prevailing banking system has failed to achieve in 300yrs. 

As I'm prone to say on occasion, "_If the men of property will not support us, they must fall. Our strength shall come from that great and respectable class, the men of no property." _

In the context of bitcoin, the prevailing order of money printing for the "too big to fail" classes versus austerity for the rest is coming to an end.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate @WolfeTone Forget banning it, it was never a big part of my argument as I never see it remotely threatening mainline monetary management.  It's just that Lyn has it as one of her magnificent seven and it was the "if bitcoin succeeds" intro to that section which was a bit of a gotcha IMHO.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> it was the "if bitcoin succeeds" intro to that section which was a bit of a gotcha IMHO.


Because of the unhealthy way that you approach this discussion?  Dukey, if your approach is 'winner takes all' and a consideration in a 'gotcha' sense, then sure - the nature of your posts on the subject doesn't surprise me.

The exchange of value is the cornerstone of civilisation and human activity. To fundamentally change current practice in that regard by offering a unique parallel/standalone approach fit for the digital era is quite the accomplishment. Nobody can take that away. We've had naysayers here who have suggested that its achieved nothing in a whole lot of time. I couldn't disagree more with that - they have no idea of the task at hand if they think that.

Bitcoin can achieve different levels of success. Think about this - if there's supreme confidence that this is a nothing burger - then why have you invested countless hours here posting about it? How do you square that? 

Think about this - bitcoin doesn't give a rats ass about your precious centralised system. That's precisely the point. It has nothing to do with it. Wolfie is dead right in his post above. If central banks and governments screw up, that's on them. Don't go blaming bitcoin.  BTC was inspired by bad practice in that world - it's not responsible for it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate I see you have personalized bitcoin.  Is btc male/female; black/white; LGBT?  Anyway I see that s/he is notching it up as a minor success that the Duke has wasted countless hours posting about it.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate I see you have personalized bitcoin.  Is btc male/female; black/white; LGBT?  Anyway I see that s/he is notching it up as a minor success that the Duke has wasted countless hours posting about it.


surely you're much bigger than 'minor' successes your Dukeness?..........unless......?? 

In any event, this newly elected senator (and former state treasurer) seems to see a healthy life ahead for bitcoin:

_"Our own currency inflates. Bitcoin does not. "_

 It's hard to work out where the enemy is with this stuff, Dukey.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

DazedInPontoon said:


> The logic is that they wouldn't ban it *because* companies like MicroStrategy hold it





Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is probably what she meant.  I don't see people ever wanting bitcoin as a medium of exchange in preference to their own fiat currency.  If it did show signs of happening it would threaten monetary policy and the more institutional involvement the easier for the authorities to control or even ban it.



As a follow on to this, apparently Cynthia Lummis has just recently been the first bitcoin holder to be elected to the US Senate. 

In her own words here: "I do hope to bring bitcoin into the national conversation. I'm a former state treasurer. I invested our states’s permanent funds, I was always looking for a good store of value, Bitcoin fits that bill, our own currency inflates, Bitcoin does not"

I don't think Cynthia will be trying to ban bitcoin.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Wrong. Page 23. They refer to the Middle/Far East being ground zero for the bulk of the worlds gold jewelry purchases. Within that, they refer to the basis behind it - the passing on of inheritances. They speak of family assets. It's referred in that context because its viewed in that context. You think if gold wasn't scarce, it would have any greater value than an ornate polished rock? Think again!



What sentence or sentences on that page do you suggest specifically mean that 100% of the motivation for purchasing jewellery is as a store of value?

Note you have repeatedly backed up your original statement on 'the motivation', that implies all, and not some or a percentage of the motivation. That report, in talking of 57% of the demand coming from four countries, does not talk of all demand. It goes on to clarify that:



> Each market is driven by a different set of socio-economic and cultural factors.



That doesn't suggest they're all seeking a store of value. Hindus liking displays of gold as a symbol of wealth and prosperity is far removed from a store of value. Indeed, the entire section on jewellery doesn't even mention store of value.

Also note that it starts the section on jewellery with the tell-tale 'jewellery demand is driven by desirability'. Chocolate cake is desirable, doesn't make it a store of value.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Then people can transact over satellite (right now) or mesh networks (to come). How do people get round China's 'great firewall'? Why can't transactions be routed over tor?



OK, so I've no internet service, can you explain how I would send bitcoin to someone using a current satellite service? I'm assuming you're not talking about Blockstream.

I also think you misunderstand the potential range of mesh networks.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> What sentence or sentences on that page do you suggest specifically mean that 100% of the motivation for purchasing jewellery is as a store of value?


Go back and read my post Leo  - I've referred to the specific phrases from that page that tie in with a store of value use case. And just to short cut matters as I've been down the road of semantics with you over the course of three years, you can interpret that as you wish - you can claim the opposite (and that's fine but I won't be agreeing with you).



Leo said:


> Hindus liking displays of gold as a symbol of wealth and prosperity is far removed from a store of value.


Thanks for making my point for me. If it was a polished rock that wasn't a symbol of *wealth*, then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much fuss.



Leo said:


> Also note that it starts the section on jewellery with the tell-tale 'jewellery demand is driven by desirability'. Chocolate cake is desirable, doesn't make it a store of value.


If its being viewed as 'wealth' and a 'family inheritance', then its already a store of value. The scarcity of gold has a large part to play in that.


Leo said:


> OK, so I've no internet service, can you explain how I would send bitcoin to someone using a current satellite service? I'm assuming you're not talking about Blockstream.


Why am I not talking about Blockstream?
Other than that, successful tests have been carried out via high frequency radio. In Venezuela, transactions have been facilitated over cell networks via text message.



Leo said:


> I also think you misunderstand the potential range of mesh networks.


Only because they're not prolific right now.  That's likely to change.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Go back and read my post Leo  - I've referred to the specific phrases from that page that tie in with a store of value use case. And just to short cut matters as I've been down the road of semantics with you over the course of three years, you can interpret that as you wish - you can claim the opposite (and that's fine but I won't be agreeing with you).



So again you choose to redefine elements of the language to try back up a false statement.



tecate said:


> Thanks for making my point for me. If it was a polished rock that wasn't a symbol of *wealth*, then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much fuss.



Are you now saying that something attracting a lot of fuss means it is a store of value?

A fancy car is a symbol of wealth, are you suggesting cars are a good store of value?



tecate said:


> Why am I not talking about Blockstream?



I thought that would be clear if you knew the scope of their offering. Using Blockstream then, can you explain the steps required for me to send bitcoin without the need for an internet connection.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> So again you choose to redefine elements of the language to try back up a false statement.


I do NO such thing - and I couldn't care less if that's what you think. That's your problem.
Here's the bottom line, Leo. Under this 'alternative investments' sub-category - bitcoin is being accessed as such. Over the course of 3 years, your assessment has been as far out as a lighthouse. 



Leo said:


> Are you now saying that something attracting a lot of fuss means it is a store of value?


You can go out of your way and contrive to miss the point as much as you want, Leo. Again, that's your own issue.
People like to display *wealth* - as you said yourself.  It's the wealth part that's the attraction.



Leo said:


> A fancy car is a symbol of wealth, are you suggesting cars are a good store of value?


I'm saying that gold has long since been proven as a store of value. It's in that context, the report referred to people using it for inheritance purposes and holding it as an 'asset'.



Leo said:


> Using Blockstream then, can you explain the steps required for me to send bitcoin without the need for an internet connection.


YOU brought up Blockstream.  Now you explain what the point of your comments were.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> You can go out of your way and contrive to miss the point as much as you want, Leo. Again, that's your own issue.



Again, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect, and the report that you cited to back up your point contained no such claim.




tecate said:


> People like to display *wealth* - as you said yourself.  It's the wealth part that's the attraction.



Yes, that's my point exactly, thanks!! Display of wealth is one element of the motivations behind jewellery purchase. Of course, display of wealth is not the same thing as a store of value. 



tecate said:


> I'm saying that gold has long since been proven as a store of value. It's in that context, the report referred to people using it for inheritance purposes and holding it as an 'asset'.



Getting closer, the report says that using it for inheritance purposes is indeed a factor in societies where the prevailing religion prohibits fathers from leaving anything to their daughters. That's not so much a store of value than a mechanism to bypass what we consider to be archaic laws. Jewellery vendors there like everywhere else charge a margin of (up to ~20% in India), so in many cases you're looking at loss.

The report clearly says that as *one *of the motivations behind the purchase of jewellery in a small sector of the market. That's a long way removed from 'the motivation'. 



tecate said:


> YOU brought up Blockstream.  Now you explain what the point of your comments were.



How about you answer the question I posed first, then I will address that. With no internet access, how do I use an existing satellite service to send bitcoin?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Again, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect, and the report that you cited to back up your point contained no such claim.


And again, I'm pointing out that's your OPINION - that's not fact. I don't agree. We can park it up there or keep going round in this merry circle - as you see fit, Leo.



Leo said:


> Yes, that's my point exactly, thanks!! Display of wealth is one element of the motivations behind jewellery purchase. Of course, display of wealth is not the same thing as a store of value.


The display of wealth - of course. The 'wealth' in gold has been an established store of value since the year dot. You lot claim that gold derives its value simply because it has an ornate use. Why don't polished rocks have the same value? Answer -  because gold is scarce - and with all that, it's value takes the form of store of value.



Leo said:


> Jewellery vendors there like everywhere else charge a margin of (up to ~20% in India), so in many cases you're looking at loss.


So its not the most savvy purchase in the context of a store of value. That in NO way disproves its use in that context. The less well off and the less savvy are using it as such.



Leo said:


> The report clearly says that as *one *of the motivations behind the purchase of jewellery in a small sector of the market. That's a long way removed from 'the motivation'.


I disagree entirely with your statement.



Leo said:


> How about you answer the question I posed first, then I will address that. With no internet access, how do I use an existing satellite service to send bitcoin?


YOU brought up blockstream - YOU - not me. So you can just drop it in there or articulate your thoughts fully. That's up to yourself.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> And again, I'm pointing out that's your OPINION - that's not fact. I don't agree. We can part it up there or keep going round in this merry circle - as you see fit, Leo.



I don't think I'm alone in holding the opinion that the word 'the' is singular. 'The motivation' can only infer a single source of motivation. You took a piece describing multiple factors that motivate the purchase of gold and tried to pass it off as meaning all gold jewellery purchases are motivated by use as a store of value. 



tecate said:


> You lot claim that gold derives its value simply because it has an ornate use.



What lot? Where did I state that?



tecate said:


> YOU brought up blockstream - YOU - not me. So you can just drop it in there or articulate your thoughts fully. That's up to yourself.



It was you who brought up using satellites to send bitcoin in the absence of internet service. You've ignored multiple requests to explain how that works. Does this mean you finally realise it's not possible to send bitcoin via a one way service that just broadcasts a copy of the ledger as a publicity stunt?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I don't think I'm alone in holding the opinion that the word 'the' is singular. 'The motivation' can only infer a single source of motivation. You took a piece describing multiple factors that motivate the purchase of gold and tried to pass it off as meaning all gold jewellery purchases are motivated by use as a store of value.


You can persist with this nonsense all you want, Leo. I understand that's your belief - but I won't be buying what you're selling here. Others can make up their own minds.



Leo said:


> What lot? Where did I state that?


AAMs crypto-deniers.



Leo said:


> It was you who brought up using satellites to send bitcoin in the absence of internet service. You've ignored multiple requests to explain how that works. Does this mean you finally realise it's not possible to send bitcoin via a one way service that just broadcasts a copy of the ledger as a publicity stunt?


This is the guy who claims that he's here to learn - but the nature of your engagement here time and time again Leo proves otherwise. It's completely disingenuous. YOU brought up blockstream - if you'd like to expand on that (rather than just drop it there) - then fill your boots. Either way, I don't give a fiddlers. You've long since used up any goodwill in these discussions.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Satoshi's thought experiment. said:
			
		

> As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: - boring grey in colour - not a good conductor of electricity - not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either - not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose...


Let me throw in that this base metal was highly toxic and stank to high heaven. @tecate would it achieve store of value status?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Let me throw in that this base metal was highly toxic and stank to high heaven. @tecate would it achieve store of value status?


Let me throw in ...that if you had a polished rock (other than gold), does it have the same value? They're used for personal adornment and home decor - but yet they don't have a value anything like gold. At some stage you folks will acknowledge the importance of scarcity in this dynamic. Cynthia Lummis does. As does Tom Fitzpatrick - MD of Citibank - in his recent report on bitcoin where he estimates price potential of $300k/btc within 12 months.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Let me throw in ...that if you had a polished rock (other than gold), does it have the same value? They're used for personal adornment and home decor - but yet they don't have a value anything like gold. At some stage you folks will acknowledge the importance of scarcity in this dynamic. Cynthia Lummis does. As does Tom Fitzpatrick - MD of Citibank - in his recent report on bitcoin where he estimates price potential of $300k/btc within 12 months.


As usual you didn't answer the question. I will guess that your answer is that no matter how obnoxious and useless the base metal is, its scarcity is enough to give it store of value status.  We'll have to agree to differ on that one.
Scarcity is absolutely essential to store of value status, I didn't think that point needed acknowledging.  But scarcity on its own does not confer store of value as per Satoshi's thought experiment.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As usual you didn't answer the question. I will guess that your answer is that no matter how obnoxious and useless the base metal is, its scarcity is enough to give it store of value status.  We'll have to agree to differ on that one.


That wasn't my answer - you got my answer, Duke. It seems yet again, you don't like my answer - but so be it.
I'm not claiming that scarcity in and of itself is sufficient - and I've never claimed that. I do however claim that it is fundamental - and whilst you have just acknowledged that, there are a few others here who have not.

As regards your specific example, I get where you're going with that. However, we don't have to use your example. We can use mine - i.e. something other than gold that's not 'toxic'. That's a more reasonable comparison in my view. As per my point, there are other polished rocks used for personal adornment - but they don't come anywhere near golds price. That's not to say that they don't have their own natural aesthetic.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But scarcity on its own does not confer store of value as per Satoshi's thought experiment.



Except that is not his/her thought experiment. 

You are deliberately subtracting another property....the special, magical property....."_can be transported over a communications channel" _and adding your own properties - toxicity and stinky, that when combined, serve the _BOHA _position well - but that is a wholly different proposition to bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> You are deliberately subtracting another property....the special, magical property....."_can be transported over a communications channel" _and adding your own properties - toxicity and stinky, that when combined, serve the _BOHA _position well - but that is a wholly different proposition to bitcoin.


Point well made, Wolfie. There's never been an acknowledgement of the fact that bitcoin has its own positive attributes (over and above absolute scarcity) from the crypto-critics amongst us. It's these positive attributes that has an ever increasing number of commentators suggesting that bitcoin is superior to gold.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> You can persist with this nonsense all you want, Leo. I understand that's your belief - but I won't be buying what you're selling here. Others can make u their own minds.



I'm sorry, but it appears you want to continue to make false claims and then start throwing out the accusations when challenged? This isn't Trump's twitter!



tecate said:


> AAMs crypto-deniers.



Why did you bundle me in with them?



tecate said:


> YOU brought up blockstream - if you'd like to expand on that (rather than just drop it there) - then fill your boots. Either way, I don't give a fiddlers.



Let's pretend I never mentioned Blockstream. You claimed it was currently possible to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection. Please explain how that works and what service provider supports this?



tecate said:


> You've long since used up any goodwill in these discussions.



I'd settle for a straight answer.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I'm not claiming that scarcity in and of itself is sufficient


Ahh we are making progress.  It needs something else other than scarcity alone to bootstrap its value.  
Being able to transfer it over long distances, being trustless, being censorship free etc. do not of themselves provide that magic ingredient.  Satoshi suggested some candidates for the magic ingredient e.g. that it might become a collector's item.  JK (apologies) more realistically posits that the only possible candidate for the magic ingredient was to make it as a medium of exchange.  I agree (apologies) but where I disagree is that I don't think it ever will achieve the penetration needed to support current price levels.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I'm sorry, but it appears you want to continue to make false claims and then start throwing out the accusations when challenged? This isn't Trump's twitter!


Maybe you really see a 'false claim', Leo - but that's your issue, not mine. I threw out nothing except your disingenuous engagement in this discussion - and I'll continue to call you on it.



Leo said:


> Let's pretend I never mentioned Blockstream.


I'm not playing your games. You brought it up - now justify what you brought up ...or don't Leo - I honestly don't give a fiddlers.



Leo said:


> I'd settle for a straight answer.


Once again, you don't like the answers that you're getting - that's the distinction.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ahh we are making progress.


Firstly, we were talking about gold in that specific instance. If we're switching back to bitcoin, then be aware that bitcoin brings absolute scarcity into the frame - gold does not. As a store of value however, I do agree that all characteristics of a good store of value are important. You'll appreciate that we covered that previously.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Being able to transfer it over long distances, being trustless, being censorship free etc. do not of themselves provide that magic ingredient.


Says who?  You?  With all due respect, that's your opinion and it's an opinion that I and many would take issue with. See Wolfies post above - there's never been an acknowledgement of other positive traits that bitcoin brings to the table. To my point, you've just trashed another one of them in your last post.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Satoshi suggested some candidates for the magic ingredient e.g. that it might become a collector's item.


A complete understanding of satoshi's thoughts on the matter is speculative. Yes, you can cite a couple of statements but lets not assume that those isolated statements are/were his/her/their full understanding and belief. At the end of the day, the decision was taken to launch the bitcoin network.
JK's is an opinion - the same as Nouriel's is an opinion (when he stated the other week that bitcoin is a store of value).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> but where I disagree is that I don't think it ever will achieve the penetration needed to support current price levels.


Dukey, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. What I've had an issue with over the course of these three years is an unwillingness on the crypto-critic side of the discussion to accept that bitcoin has the opportunity to continue to grow and expand. Not to believe that to be the case but to be open to it.
My current view is that it will continue to grow - but that's an opinion I have constantly under review.


----------



## WolfeTone

I think this is the salient point



tecate said:


> What I've had an issue with over the course of these three years is an unwillingness on the crypto-critic side of the discussion to accept that bitcoin has the opportunity to continue to grow and expand. Not to believe that to be the case but to be open to it.



Bitcoin is now hovering just under the $17,000 mark.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> I'm not playing your games. You brought it up - now justify what you brought up ...or don't Leo - I honestly don't give a fiddlers.



I get it, you can't admit you're wrong.

Just in case anyone else is in any doubt, it is *not *possible today to transact bitcoin over satellite. Some have fallen for the Blockstream hype (they're well known for it). 

Blockstream are leasing bandwidth on a number of geo-stationary satellites, and are simply broadcasting a copy of the ledger, their own material makes it clear you can't use it to send transactions.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Once again, you don't like the answers that you're getting - that's the distinction.



Did I miss where you explained how to send a transaction via an existing satellite service without internet connection?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Says who?


Satoshi.  I don't think you really understood the thought piece.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I get it, you can't admit you're wrong.


And the proof keeps coming in buckets, Leo.  This is the guy who proclaimed that he's here to learn - with a genuine engagement to the discussion with the inference that others (ergo, me) don't.
If that's the case Leo, you can explain to everyone why you couldn't simply explain the blockstream satellite proposition? It was after all YOU who brought them up. Can you explain why you had to badger me for that info over the course of a number of subsequent posts, holding back that information yourself?  Clearly, it's the same 'gotcha' mentality that's your objective here as we see his Dukeness present with. I've maintained for quite some time that the nature of your engagement in these discussions has been disingenuous. This is just the latest installment.



Leo said:


> Just in case anyone else is in any doubt, it is *not *possible today to transact bitcoin over satellite.


It is possible to utilise that satellite feed in combination with other technologies like mesh networking and high frequency radio. Those are in early stages of development but it is something that is being worked on. Other than that, there is no technical obstacle that I'm aware of to 2-way satellite communication so should that nature of censorship come about, blockstream can deploy it.




Leo said:


> Some have fallen for the Blockstream hype (they're well known for it).


I'm no fan of Blockstream but what 'hype' are you referring to? How have they been wayward in their communication about this project?  Can you provide a link to demonstrate that claim?



Leo said:


> Did I miss where you explained how to send a transaction via an existing satellite service without internet connection?


What nobody has missed at this stage Leo - is the disingenuity of your engagement on the matter. You can scream blue bloody murder and expect someone else to entertain your disingenuous games but don't expect me to do so.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Satoshi.  I don't think you really understood the thought piece.


Incorrect. See my previous post. As I've mentioned to you before, I've listened to plenty of discussions surrounding Satoshi's thoughts - and nobody has presumed to know what they are. You're the first. Taking one musing because it fits your narrative doesn't qualify Duke.
The reality is that the qualities that bitcoin holds as a store of value you (and others here) refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> If that's the case Leo, you can explain to everyone why you couldn't simply explain the blockstream satellite proposition? It was after all YOU who brought them up. Can you explain why you had to badger me for that info over the course of a number of subsequent posts, holding back that information yourself?



I mentioned the Blockstream option after you repeatedly failed to explain your claim that sending bitcoin via satellite without an internet connection was possible. I suspected you might have fallen for their false hype, so I mentioned it to try get any detail from you to back up *YOUR* claim.

But yet again you choose not to back up your claim when surely it would be much easier to do so, and prove my statement incorrect by simply backing up your original claim and providing evidence of a service that allows someone to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection.



tecate said:


> Clearly, it's the same 'gotcha' mentality that's your objective here as we see his Dukeness present with.



No, it's frustration at your repeatedly posting factually incorrect statements and then just trying to badger anyone who dares question you into submission. Several other posters have given up posting in this section because of your diversion and repeated refusal to accept when you are wrong.



tecate said:


> What nobody has missed at this stage Leo - is the disingenuity of your engagement on the matter. You can scream blue bloody murder and expect someone else to entertain your disingenuous games but don't expect me to do so.



You do know that asking you to back up a claim is not being disingenuous, right? I'm asking you to confirm your statement, there is no lie in that.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I mentioned the Blockstream option after you repeatedly failed to explain your claim that sending bitcoin via satellite without an internet connection was possible.


YOU brought up Blockstream - but you wouldn't expand on that when prompted.



Leo said:


> I suspected you might have fallen for their false hype


You were asked to provide evidence of this 'hype' and again, nothing. The irony here is that you've tried to claim over the course of three years that I have not answered your questions. The reality is that you have conveniently ignored all manner of points put to you.



Leo said:


> But yet again you choose not to back up your claim when surely it would be much easier to do so,


See that's where you're 100% wrong Leo. You were asked to explain why you brought the Blockstream project into the conversation - and you downright refused on a number of occasions when THAT information would have been much easier to supply. The motivations behind you holding that info back are disingenuous.



Leo said:


> No, it's frustration at your repeatedly posting factually incorrect statements and then just trying to badger anyone who dares question you into submission.


EH, no Leo - it's not. It's a response to blatant disingenuity on your part.



Leo said:


> Several other posters have given up posting in this section because of your diversion and repeated refusal to accept when you are wrong.


Firstly, people are free to post or otherwise. That has nothing to do with me - so don't suggest for a second that it has. That in itself is disingenous.  You mean the attempts to drown me out haven't gone to plan.

As regards being 'wrong', I'm quite happy to learn and adjust my view as I go along. I'm currently vested in bitcoin on that basis. However, when people like yourself come on here attempting to nail someone to the cross, that changes the dynamic of the 'discussion' into something else entirely.



Leo said:


> You do know that asking you to back up a claim is not being disingenuous, right? I'm asking you to confirm your statement, there is no lie in that.


You do know that the nature of your engagement here isn't in any way conducive to a free and open discussion. As regards backing up claims, there's nobody here that has cited and referenced more external sources in backing up such claims.

The bottom line here Leo - is that whilst you claim that I'm 'wrong', we're three years down the road. In the space of that three years, the network effect of bitcoin continues to expand. It's eco-system continues to expand. Had I listened to any of your merry band of crypto-deniers, I'd have been down a considerable amount of $ from mid 2018 onwards. That's the extent to which I've been wrong.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> YOU brought up Blockstream - but you wouldn't expand on that when prompted.



I already expanded on that! Twice! Prior to that you claimed it was possible to send bitcoin over satellite in the absence of an internet connection. Why can't you explain how that works? Will you now?

Yet again, you just break a post into a long diatribe in an attempt to distract from your errors.



tecate said:


> You do know that the nature of your engagement here isn't in any way conducive to a free and open discussion.



Your approach attacking any dissenting voices has killed off any hope of a conducive discussion. Most, myself included have long given up on any hopes for such a conversation. So now, I settle myself with calling out lies or misleading information where I see them.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I already expanded on that! Twice!


You downright refused to do so initially.



Leo said:


> Yet again, you just break a post into a long diatribe in an attempt to distract from your errors.


Maybe you actually believe your own BS Leo - but I'm having none of it. 



Leo said:


> Your approach attacking any dissenting voices has killed off any hope of a conducive discussion.


Double standards much, Leo? That's a bare faced lie.



Leo said:


> Most, myself included have long given up on any hopes for such a conversation.


And its just coincidence that we're talking about a group of crypto-deniers and AAM regulars like yourself, Leo?  Tell me - how many anti-bitcoin (and that's what they are!) posters have you banned from this forum?



Leo said:


> So now, I settle myself with calling out lies or misleading information where I see them.


My, how fortunate we are Leo. Thank you for your service.


----------



## Firefly

Greetings all, having fun I see!!

Bitcoin reminds me of peer-to-peer torrent sites that were all the rage a number of years ago. Those torrent sites were great for people who couldn't get programs from abroad, for those would didn't have the means, for those who didn't want to part with the fees or for those who were just interested in for the challenge. A lot of the content was illegal, e.g. pirated movies, but some content was perfectly legal...a bit like how Bitcoin is used today.

Netlix, Amazon Prime TV and others ultimately killed off torrent site...for a relatively small fee you could save yourself a lot of hassle and risk of the doorbell ringing.

I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites, but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff


----------



## Firefly

Leo said:


> Prior to that you claimed it was possible to send bitcoin over satellite in the absence of an internet connection. Why can't you explain how that works? Will you now?



Leo, I am getting worried about your penchant for being led down so many rabbit holes. 

Tell me this, when you were small, were you a Bosco fan?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Greetings all, having fun I see!!


Never the same without you Firefly - good to have you back.   



Firefly said:


> Bitcoin reminds me of peer-to-peer torrent sites that were all the rage a number of years ago. Those torrent sites were great for people who couldn't get programs from abroad, for those would didn't have the means, for those who didn't want to part with the fees or for those who were just interested in for the challenge. A lot of the content was illegal, e.g. pirated movies, but some content was perfectly legal...a bit like how Bitcoin is used today.


Not the worst analogy I've heard. It can't be killed off - so they're both the same in that respect. Industries tried as they might to fight it - but they couldn't. Some of them have suffered on that basis - and others have adapted and flourished.



Firefly said:


> Netlix, Amazon Prime TV and others ultimately killed off torrent site...for a relatively small fee you could save yourself a lot of hassle and risk of the doorbell ringing.


So through that wave of innovation, the consumer has been better served. Torrent sites are not dead but I get the point that other services have emerged. As it relates to bitcoin, I agree that it's just the tip of the iceberg and that there are a whole host of services that are going to be developed off the back of it. That's a topic that's largely untouched here.




Firefly said:


> I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites,


Like I mentioned, torrents have not gone away. More importantly, there are a range of options available to people to use. To your point, there will be a range of blockchain-related services for people to use also - in the fullness of time.



Firefly said:


> but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better


well, bitcoin is blockchain but I'm sure you mean other projects. For sure - there's a whole raft of innovation ongoing in the space. All sorts will emerge but bear in mind also that much of that innovation also centres on the bitcoin project. It (and its eco-system) remain work in progress.



Firefly said:


> and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff


I guess that's where we disagree a little i.e. that there's a bigger financial world out there than just micro-transactions (such as digital gold/store of value and larger settlements).


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I am getting worried about your penchant for being led down so many rabbit holes.


Well Firefly, Christmas will be soon upon us. Perhaps you could gift him some guidance in that regard.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> You downright refused to do so initially.



Just once, how many refusals are you up to now?



tecate said:


> And its just coincidence that we're talking about a group of crypto-deniers and AAM regulars like yourself, Leo?  Tell me - how many anti-bitcoin (and that's what they are!) posters have you banned from this forum?



I don't think I've banned any crypto-deniers as a result of their posting on this forum. For that matter, I haven't banned any of the pro-bitcoin cultists either. I have *never *banned anyone simply because I don't agree with them.


----------



## Leo

Firefly said:


> I'm not saying that Bitcoin will go completely the way of torrent sites, but more likley, blockchain will be used by someone to offer something a bit better and then, who knows, people might actually use this new currency, to you know, actually buy stuff



That's my sense of the space too. I believe in the future of cryptos and do foresee broad adoption. Bitcoin however is just too hampered by its limitations. That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....


----------



## Firefly

Leo said:


> That's my sense of the space too. I believe in the future of cryptos and do foresee broad adoption. Bitcoin however is just too hampered by its limitations. That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....


I agree, and it's too cumbersome for the average person to use.

Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public. Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people. A crypto currency pegged to a number of large, global currencies would make more sense.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Leo said:


> That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....



But surely the analogue phones had first mover advantage?  And they were in limited supply, like gold, so their value had to go up.  And people in developing countries, and Iran, love them. 


Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Firefly said:


> A crypto currency pegged to a number of large, global currencies would make more sense.


Ah @Firefly  you had to join the fun  
I think that suggestion would make the crypto purists (not cultists, see I am learning) cringe.  At least 2 reasons for such cringe.  It would seem to need some trust in a central entity that guaranteed the peg.  Secondly one of their main motivations is that they think conventional currencies are corruptible.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would seem to need some trust in a central entity that guaranteed the peg.



Absolutely, not having a central authority is a cornerstone of the appeal of bitcoin. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Secondly one of their main motivations is that they think conventional currencies are corruptible.



You are being modest Duke. Its not that we 'think' they are corruptible, we _know _they are corruptible 

JP Morgan metal traders charged
"_Michael Nowak, head of precious metals trading, was charged on Monday along with two colleagues, Gregg Smith and Christopher Jordan, on federal racketeering charges normally used to take down organised crime syndicates."_ 

Welcome back @Firefly, I hope your absence was a fruitful one.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Its not that *we *'think' they are corruptible, *we *_know _they are corruptible


_Wolfie_, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultist


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie_, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but here you unambiguously identify as a crypto purist or maybe even a cultist



_Ah jeez Duke, _I had long accepted that you pigeon-holed me into the cultist clique? 
Its a bit of a shock to realise that you only had me pencilled in as a potential recruit?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Just once, how many refusals are you up to now?


Just once? Leo, how many of my questions do you think you've ignored or left unanswered?....because I can tell you, there's plenty of them. I just haven't been mr. pedantic about trying to nail you to the cross in that regard.
That said - taking this particular instance into account, why should there be any exception? My point was that there was ill-intent in your approach. If you have something to share with everyone, then share it. That's not what you were doing.



Leo said:


> I don't think I've banned any crypto-deniers as a result of their posting on this forum. For that matter, I haven't banned any of the pro-bitcoin *cultists* either. I have never banned anyone simply because I don't agree with them.


Re-read those sentences and the big reveal is your own bias. I'm aware of quite a lot of folks that were veering towards a positive view of bitcoin who have been banned from here over the course of three years - or had posts removed - yet I can't recall one instance in the opposite direction.  Go figure.



Leo said:


> Bitcoin however is just too hampered by its limitations.


Bitcoin has its drawbacks and difficulties - some of them locked in, some with potential to be overcome in one way or another. For which use case as there's more than one in play?



Leo said:


> That would be like thinking the first generation analogue cellular service brought us mobile phones, let's not bother with 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G....


Again, for which use case?
What gets dismissed here is the proposition of a _decentralised_ cryptocurrency and that's wayward. I too believe that there will be a number of digital currencies and assets for different purposes. That doesn't mean that bitcoin doesn't have a place in the world going forward.



Firefly said:


> I agree, and it's too cumbersome for the average person to use.


I agree that its too cumbersome for regular joe's to use. The difference is that you don't seem to think that this can evolve. That's not guaranteed but I think that it's a definite possibility.
Isn't Paypal's rollout an example of this? Do you think that it will be difficult for an ordinary joe to use bitcoin through the Paypal interface they're familiar with once they facilitate bitcoin payments to 26 million US merchants in Q1, 2021?



Firefly said:


> Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people.


I mean, If I lifted your wallet, took out x% and replaced it, what's the harm? It's theft by stealth and it goes well beyond the inaccurate CPI figures.



Firefly said:


> Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public.


For the store of value use case, it doesn't matter so much. For a means of exchange use case, it's not ideal. However, again I'd put it to you that this is something that's likely to dissipate as bitcoin's market cap expands (today helps with bitcoin reaching a new record in terms of overall market cap).


Brendan Burgess said:


> But surely the analogue phones had first mover advantage?


First mover advantage matters, yes. Some guard against that, rolling out the 'MySpace' example. Only difference is that at its height, MySpace had a market cap. of $12 billion. As it stands today, bitcoin has a market cap of $335 billion.
Again, like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon. Other than that, if you or @Leo believes that there's a better alternative to bitcoin in terms of crypto's, which one is it?  I've been waiting to hear you both tell us this over the course of three years. Not a dickiebird out of either of you.



Brendan Burgess said:


> And they were in limited supply, like gold, so their value had to go up.


You can poke fun at the notion of scarcity as it relates to stores of value all you like but at the end of the day, it reflects poorly on your own judgement. It's one of the key characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value - as acknowledged by Central Bankers and others. Bitcoin goes well beyond the scarcity of gold as in bitcoin's case, that scarcity is absolute.



Brendan Burgess said:


> And people in developing countries, and Iran, love them.


Ireland is but a few million people. You can ignore vast swathes of the planet all you like but it makes for a wayward assessment.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It would seem to need some trust in a central entity that guaranteed the peg.  Secondly one of their main motivations is that they think conventional currencies are corruptible.


As Wolfie pointed out to you, they've been proven to be corruptible. So - others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes. The thing is - they will work quite nicely for certain purposes - but they're not competition for bitcoin in the role that it is fulfilling and that it will fulfill.


----------



## DublinHead54

Technology does not replace trust by itself. The fiat currency system is still one of high trust that has a number of bad actors. If there is an argument for why the fiat system cannot be trusted then the same argument would apply for BTC. There are a number of bad actors involved in the system looking to deceive, fraud and steal BTC. Just yesterday an Irish Teenager got 3 years for stealing $2m of BTC. 

A system is only as strong as its weakest point.


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> Just yesterday an Irish Teenager got 3 years for stealing $2m of BTC.



This is a misunderstanding of the trustless concept. BTC does not proclaim to be theft proof. Anyone can steal or hack my phone or put a gun to my head for my private keys. Anyone can try lure me to part with my bitcoin under false pretences. This has nothing to do with bitcoin, this is just plain old fraud, theft and deception. 

What bitcoin is, is that transactions that occur on its network are verifiable without third party confirmation. Those transactions cannot be manipulated, they cannot be placed 'off-balance sheet', they cannot be hidden, etc.
The transaction has taken place for an exact amount of bitcoin between and nothing can alter that fact. Ruling out the need for third party verification.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> This is a misunderstanding of the trustless concept. BTC does not proclaim to be theft proof. Anyone can steal or hack my phone or put a gun to my head for my private keys. Anyone can try lure me to part with my bitcoin under false pretences. This has nothing to do with bitcoin, this is just plain old fraud, theft and deception.
> 
> What bitcoin is, is that transactions that occur on its network are verifiable without third party confirmation. Those transactions cannot be manipulated, they cannot be placed 'off-balance sheet', they cannot be hidden, etc.
> The transaction has taken place for an exact amount of bitcoin between and nothing can alter that fact. Ruling out the need for third party verification.



I know very well what Bitcoin is, there is no misunderstanding. What I said is that the majority of issues that impact the fiat currency system not being trustworthy exist for BTC markets as well. Fraud, price manipulation, spoofing, pump and dump schemes etc.

The BTC algorithm may force trust from a technological standpoint, but that does not make the entire infrastructure more trusting than the current fiat system. That is the common misconception I observe in the general discourse for BTC.


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> The BTC algorithm my force trust from a technological standpoint,



Thats it in a nutshell.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> Thats it in a nutshell.


 
Yes that is it, and as we all know we don't earn trust simply from technology. My view is the 'trust' discourse around BTC, is not as important as it is made out to be. The existing system has enough controls in it to replicate trust, for example, I have never been able to spend money using my debit card that was not in my account. However, there are benefits to this DLT specifically for regulated financial markets that currently have a lot of manual transaction verification.

The market infrastructure for BTC is not very advanced, the controls and algorithms (trading bots) are way less advanced than what exists in traditional financial markets. THat is in part thanks to regulation that has forced controls. For example, there was an April fools joke posted on Twitter that the bots picked up and caused a surge in the price of BTC.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> The BTC algorithm may force trust from a technological standpoint, but that does not make the entire infrastructure more trusting than the current fiat system. That is the common misconception I observe in the general discourse for BTC.


Trust is fundamental to what gives bitcoin value. The point is that bitcoin comes with its own monetary system and nobody can change that. The rules of the game are set out. At a systemic level, you are secure in the knowledge that nobody can print more bitcoin - devaluing your holding. The interest rate of bitcoin is predefined with bitcoin where its subject to change with fiat. Someone may attempt to steal your bitcoin and they may succeed if your security regimen isn't up to scratch. However, they can't confiscate it (without your consent or without ineptitude in terms of the storage of keys).

At that fundamental/systemic level, there's  a world of difference between bitcoin and fiat money. Central banks have to be trusted not to debase a currency - yet history is littered with examples where that has happened.

Theft is not an issue of trust. The example you cite was a sim-swap attack. As for market manipulation, it exists in all markets. However, the smaller the market, the more susceptible it is to said manipulation. Manipulation will dissipate as market capitalisation expands. Notwithstanding that, it's not systemic - its external to bitcoin itself.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I'm a simple soul.  Like Dublinbay.  I trust that when I see online that I have €X in my bank account that indeed I do have €X.  If I owned btc I would certainly also trust that ownership.  This level of trust is no big deal and was in fact a necessity not a feature of bitcoin.
But where trust really matters is can I trust that my digital entry (on whatever platform) will buy me in say a few years' time roughly what it can buy me now.  I do not regard the digital entry of itself as a collectors' item, to quote Satoshi,  it's what it will buy me in the future.  I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power or at least that if I see hyper-inflation looming I can take corrective action.  How anybody can have any trust on bitcoin's purchasing power a month ahead never mind a few years absolutely escapes me.
I note from yesterday's court case that the judge was particularly moved by the couple who lost their life savings in bitcoin.  The mind boggles.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Manipulation will dissipate as market capitalisation expands. Notwithstanding that, it's not systemic - its external to bitcoin itself.



The issues may be external to the codebase of BTC, but they make up an important part of the overall system. So, they should not be ignored, the political, social and infrastructure issues are as important as the codebase of BTC. 

With every system, there are positives and negatives. In the current Fiat world, the average Joe can earn fiat through work and the average Joe trusts the system. In BTC, there are only a small percentage that can earn BTC, there are the issues also related with the distribution of BTC. I am not sure if this still holds true but 99% of BTC holders hold less than 1 BTC. 

So manipulation will not dissipate as market capitalisation expands, as an increase in market capitalisation does not change the ownership breakdown. 

I have said this on the other thread, the technology is a nice novel concept, but technology is not the only factor on whether something should be adopted.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> The issues may be external to the codebase of BTC, but they make up an important part of the overall system. So, they should not be ignored, the political, social and infrastructure issues are as important as the codebase of BTC.


Insofar as external issues (political, social and infrastructure issues) shouldn't be ignored, I agree completely. I'm just making the distinction between those externalities and the question of systemic trust.



Dublinbay12 said:


> With every system, there are positives and negatives. In the current Fiat world, the average Joe can earn fiat through work and the average Joe trusts the system. In BTC, there are only a small percentage that can earn BTC, there are the issues also related with the distribution of BTC. I am not sure if this still holds true but 99% of BTC holders hold less than 1 BTC.
> 
> So manipulation will not dissipate as market capitalisation expands, as an increase in market capitalisation does not change the ownership breakdown.


Distribution is an issue but I don't think there was any way of avoiding it in designing and setting out bitcoin. With regard to manipulation, you're right to say that market cap expansion in and of itself won't be sufficient to counter market manipulation. However, market cap expansion as a symptom of much greater active adoption will.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I have said this on the other thread, the technology is a nice novel concept, but technology is not the only factor on whether something should be adopted.


Technology is a tool - nothing more. Mileage will vary based upon specifically how its deployed. There's no question but that Satoshi attempted to harness technology to solve existing issues with regard for the political/social/infrastructural. That's a fine art though. To your point, every system does have positives and negatives - and it's for that reason that a range of crypto's / digital assets will serve a range of needs as we move forward.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note from yesterday's court case that the judge was particularly moved by the couple who lost their life savings in bitcoin.  The mind boggles.


With ownership comes responsibility. Bitcoin has to be stored securely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> With ownership comes responsibility. Bitcoin has to be stored securely.


What was boggling my mind was that a couple would have their life savings in bitcoin. Even the most enthusiastic hedge fund goes no further than 1%.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm a simple soul.



Aren't we all? This is actually an important point. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have a fair bit of trust that my €X in my bank account won't lose too much of its purchasing power or at least that if I see hyper-inflation looming I can take corrective action.



Yes, in general terms that is of course the case. But it should be mentioned that it only takes one event, or one sequence of events that can rapidly change things, far quicker than most of us simple souls could possibly contemplate. 
If you had filled your oil tank last December you might be cursing your luck following the subsequent rapid decline in the price oil?
And there is a reason why, despite the impending election of Joe Biden as POTUS that his appointment is meeting resistance in betting markets at 1.05/1.06. 

The truth is, it very hard to see hyper-inflation (or hyper-deflation) looming, or more accurately, near impossible to time its occurrence. In all probability, it will happen before you have enough time to adequately respond to it. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> How anybody can have any trust on bitcoin's purchasing power a month ahead never mind a few years absolutely escapes me.



And that is a valid point, which if I'm not mistaken has been addressed many times before? 
Is anybody advocating for others to place large sums of personal resources into bitcoin? I certainly am not. 
I hold a small amount, which by this stage has already paid for itself. I buy small tranches either monthly or bi-monthly, or not at all. 
To date, the present growth in value of my holding is light years ahead of any deposit savings account or shares that I hold. 
I state that BTC is worth $34,500. When that price will be reached, if ever, I do not know. And of course, I'm open to real possibility that I could be wrong or that an unexpected events occur that changes my view. 

In the end, other than its current levels of volatility, it is no different to any other asset class - Property, stocks, oil etc, which have all gone through, and still do, periods of volatility to lesser and greater extents. Those asset classes are established hundreds of years. Bitcoin is only through its first decade.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What was boggling my mind was that a couple would have their life savings in bitcoin.



How much are we talking about here?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Wolfie_, it was more this question of "trust" that I was trying to tease out rather than replay the whole debate.  I see two aspects to "trust".  Trust that you do indeed own the digital entry (whether on a blockchain or on a bank accunt).  With the latter there is the need to trust the bank.  The former doesn't have any central authority to dispense that trust.  Hence the need for the blockchain "trustless" infrastructure.  This is not a plus point, it is a necessity. In any event it is not a big deal.
Much more important is trust in its purchasing power.  You have made its excuses, fair enough, but I can't see how anybody can have any great trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power.  It may be a great speculation and I suspect that is its main attraction but we've covered that ground before.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Just once? Leo, how many of my questions do you think you've ignored or left unanswered?....because I can tell you, there's plenty of them. I just haven't been mr. pedantic about trying to nail you to the cross in that regard.



You're right of course, there are way too many to count, but as I've said, that appears to be your approach to distract from having to answer a key question. 

If you'll just tell me how I might send bitcoin via an existing satellite service without the need for an internet connection, I'll answer any question of your choosing.


----------



## Leo

Firefly said:


> Also, I think Bitcoin's price fluctuates too much to be used by the general public. Sure it may claim to protect against inflation, but only in extreme cases does inflation cause too much bother for people.



Agreed, it's purely speculative demand driving that at the moment so for most it's a poor choice for day-to-day use or as a store of value. It's not causation, but there's a tight correlation between bitcoin price and the volume of google searches on the subject.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> that appears to be your approach to distract from having to answer a key question.ht of course, there are way too many to count, but as I've said,


AAAhhh....so YOU ask the questions around here Leo. The audacity on my part to dare to ask a few questions to advance the conversation.  As regards this 'distracting' charge - it's a complete contrivance but continue on with it if it makes you feel better.



Leo said:


> If you'll just tell me how I might send bitcoin via an existing satellite service without the need for an internet connection, I'll answer any question of your choosing.


Go back and re-read. I addressed the topic. Again, maybe you'd prefer to write my posts for me so that they're to your liking.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Even Davy has caught the bug

*  THE DAVY VIEW  *




Against a backdrop of growing interest, in this thematic report we undertake a deep-dive on the economic and technological principles of Bitcoin. Software is eating the world and reshaping the architecture of the monetary system – one inclusive of digital assets. The pandemic has accelerated monetary easing and digitisation, driving a growing interest in cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is the king of the crypto jungle, a technology prodigy with a dominant market position. Its technological and monetary properties arguably rank it senior to gold as a non-sovereign store of value. Recent corporate investment is also helping to legitimise bitcoin’s use case as a treasury reserve asset.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> AAAhhh....so YOU ask the questions around here Leo. The audacity on my part to dare to ask a few questions to advance the conversation. As regards this 'distracting' charge - it's a complete contrivance but continue on with it if it makes you feel better.



You chose to reply to a post I wrote responding to another poster. You made a claim in that post that something I wrote was untrue. I'm just asking you to back up that claim. You may feel otherwise, but I think if you accuse me of telling a lie or making a false statement that I should be allowed ask you to back up your assertion.

There is plenty of evidence here that anyone can ask questions, it just appears you have a difficult time answering some of those directed at you.



tecate said:


> Go back and re-read. I addressed the topic. Again, maybe you'd prefer to write my posts for me so that they're to your liking.



In which post did you clarify how I might go about sending bitcoin over a satellite service without need for an internet connection? I've been looking hard, but I don't see it.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> There is plenty of evidence here that anyone can ask questions, it just appears you have a difficult time answering some of those directed at you.


The point put to you is that it seems your questions are more important than mine. Secondly, you were (and are) the one whinging about answers to questions - when in reality it's that you don't like the answers.  I didn't whinge about any such thing - but we're on the subject now - perhaps you can clarify why there's a whole host of questions you've left unanswered. Carry on with this nonsense Leo and you'll be held to the very same standard. It's just a shame people have to read through your nonsense.



Leo said:


> In which post did you clarify how I might go about sending bitcoin over a satellite service without need for an internet connection? I've been looking hard, but I don't see it.


Just like you were looking hard for that report I linked to last week?  I answered it - you can't find it - that becomes your problem Leo. And you can scream bloody blue murder - I don't give a fiddlers.  You can claim that I haven't answered the question - and I'll come back and correct you on it.  How long have you got? Because you won't be drowning me out.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> The point put to you is that it seems your questions are more important than mine. Secondly, you were (and are) the one whinging about answers to questions - when in reality it's that you don't like the answers.



No, not at all. It's clear I have already answered a number of other questions you have posed in this thread since you accused me of of being wrong there. Why can't you just answer that question and prove me wrong?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I agree that its too cumbersome for regular joe's to use. _The difference is that you don't seem to think that this can evolve_.


Source please



tecate said:


> Again, _like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon_


Source please



tecate said:


> As Wolfie pointed out to you, they've been proven to be corruptible. So - _others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes_.


Source please


----------



## Leo

Firefly said:


> Source please
> 
> 
> Source please
> 
> 
> Source please



Ha! Good luck with that!

Perhaps you should read the Gold Council report, if you can't find it in there, well then you're obviously thick!


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> No, not at all. It's clear I have already answered a number of other questions you have posed in this thread since you accused me of of being wrong there.


On the back of that, here comes my next question. Ready?
Have you conveniently not answered a whole host of questions I've put to you over the course of three years here?



Leo said:


> Why can't you just answer that question and prove me wrong?


Because I did answer your question - and beyond that, your social capital with me is sub-zero.  This was never supposed to be about wrong/right - but you and a couple of others here moulded it that from the outset.  So seeing as that's what we're left with - I'll point out what I pointed out to you a couple of days ago. You were wrong about the proposition that is bitcoin a few years ago - and you continue to be proven wrong.



			
				Fruitfly said:
			
		

> Source please


As per previous discussions (and as I know you're being disingenuous here and trying to add fuel to the fire, I'm not going trawling through previous posts to find them). If you'd like to correct me on it, go on ahead - perhaps you've had a change of heart.



Leo said:


> Ha! Good luck with that


This is all that's left for the embittered to go on with - pathetic.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I can't see how anybody can have any great trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power. It may be a great speculation and I suspect that is its main attraction but we've covered that ground before.



I don't have _great_ trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power, if I did I would be more inclined to go all in.
I accept it is not without its flaws, that it is does not yet have mainstream appeal or is not user friendly in the sense of how we use other technologies.
But what I do accept is its concept, and its _prospect_ to develop mainstream appeal, and for user friendly applications to be developed for it.
I could be alone in thinking that way, but clearly I am not.
So while there is a great deal of speculation (limiting the € amount anyone should put into it) that speculation is not a blind-throw-a-dart-over-your-shoulder-see-where-it-lands levels of speculation that, with respect, the BOHA camp may be inclined  to proclaim it to be. There may be elements of that, but enough to induce a several hundred billion market over 12yrs? In my opinion, no.

The speculation is based on the technology fulfilling its promise, or even part of, the mechanics of it, and crucially for me, the time being invested in it by reasonable and intelligent people. 
None of that amounts to a fire-proof endorsement of bitcoin, but they are strong indicators of its intrinsic value. 

It is mentioned elsewhere that something else, something better than bitcoin will emerge and that will be the end of bitcoin.
Indeed it might, or maybe it will just make what is there now better?

Did the colour TV replace the B&W TV, or did it just make TV better?

For now, the _BOHA_ argument is dead. It has zero value. It is worthless.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Because I did answer your question - and beyond that, your social capital with me is sub-zero.



No you didn't.  Now, everyone reading this knows if you had answered the question, all you have to do to prove me wrong is just quote the post where you explained how it is possible to send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection. 

Please, prove me wrong.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> No you didn't.


Yes, I did - and if you were a character with even a modicum of respect, you'd act with a bit of courtesy.  You weren't owed an answer - you got one - and that's where it ends.
And again with the double standards. WHERE is the answer to the question I just put to you Leo? Where? Where are the answers to the questions I asked you in posts from earlier today?



Leo said:


> Please, prove me wrong.


You've been proven wrong consistently on bitcoin since 2017 - it seems you haven't gotten over that yet.



			
				WolfeTone said:
			
		

> For now, the _BOHA_ argument is dead. It has zero value. It is worthless.


precisely.


----------



## Firefly

Fruitfly? Now, now...Wolcate   




tecate said:


> I know you're being disingenuous here and trying to add fuel to the fire


I posted an observation about Bitcoin. You made 3 references to viewpoints I did not make. When I asked you to back them up, you accuse me of being disingenuous. It looks the other way round to me..





tecate said:


> As per previous discussions ..I'm not going trawling through previous posts to find them).


So that's a no then? Make assertions about people without backing it up....how do you honestly expect people to take you seriously then??




tecate said:


> If you'd like to correct me on it, go on ahead - perhaps you've had a change of heart.


You are the one asserting 3 times in the past 24 hours things I have not said. The onus is on you I'm afraid.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Fruitfly? Now, now...Wolcate


My profuse apologies - slip of a key..



Firefly said:


> I posted an observation about Bitcoin. You made 3 references to viewpoints I did not make. When I asked you to back them up, you accuse me of being disingenuous. It looks the other way round to me..


I still maintain that you're being disingenuous Firefly - given that it's unlikely that you've forgotten previous discussions we've had on the subject. I'll bite.  The first one you questioned was this ->

_"The difference is that you don't seem to think that this can evolve_. "

That's an opinion based on previous discussions - as in my opinion.  You want a source for that? Hold on? Let me go ask myself?  Yeah - that's my opinion  

Next one....

"_like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon_ "

Statement made on the basis of the opinion expressed above - and followed on from it sequentially.

Next one....

"So - _others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes_ "

Post 246.


Firefly said:


> A crypto currency pegged to a number of large, global currencies would make more sense.


There are projects taking this approach that you suggested.



Firefly said:


> I posted an observation about Bitcoin. You made 3 references to viewpoints I did not make.


You have nothing to argue about - it's a contrivance.  If you want to disagree with my opinion, that's another thing entirely. That doesn't require asking someone to cite sources.



Firefly said:


> So that's a no then? Make assertions about people without backing it up....how do you honestly expect people to take you seriously then??


Like I told the other guy, I'm under no obligations to do jack - that's first and foremost. I may or may not choose - as I decide - I won't be dictated to.
Secondly, I don't yearn to be 'taken seriously' by a small group of crypto-deniers who - from the outset in 2017 have trashed bitcoin and from that point, fail to develop the ability to look at it objectively. What I will do is correct the lies that have been disseminated here over the course of three years so neutrals can make up their own minds.



Firefly said:


> You are the one asserting 3 times in the past 24 hours things I have not said. The onus is on you I'm afraid.


1. Your wrong. 2. I'm not beholden to anyone. I'm pretty sure I was being sent on a wild goose chase on this - but I've gone with it.  Persist with this sort of nonsense and I'll respond in the same way as the other guy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> I don't have _great_ trust in bitcoin maintaining its purchasing power, if I did I would be more inclined to go all in.
> I accept it is not without its flaws, that it is does not yet have mainstream appeal or is not user friendly in the sense of how we use other technologies.
> But what I do accept is its concept, and its _prospect_ to develop mainstream appeal, and for user friendly applications to be developed for it.
> I could be alone in thinking that way, but clearly I am not.
> So while there is a great deal of speculation (limiting the € amount anyone should put into it) that speculation is not a blind-throw-a-dart-over-your-shoulder-see-where-it-lands levels of speculation that, with respect, the BOHA camp may be inclined  to proclaim it to be. There may be elements of that, but enough to induce a several hundred billion market over 12yrs? In my opinion, no.
> 
> The speculation is based on the technology fulfilling its promise, or even part of, the mechanics of it, and crucially for me, the time being invested in it by reasonable and intelligent people.
> None of that amounts to a fire-proof endorsement of bitcoin, but they are strong indicators of its intrinsic value.
> 
> It is mentioned elsewhere that something else, something better than bitcoin will emerge and that will be the end of bitcoin.
> Indeed it might, or maybe it will just make what is there now better?
> 
> Did the colour TV replace the B&W TV, or did it just make TV better?
> 
> For now, the _BOHA_ argument is dead. It has zero value. It is worthless.


Now, now _Wolfie_, bad form to gloat when you are on top.  Did I gloat when bitcoin fell from 20,000 to 3,000?  I felt very confident shorting bitcoin in early 2018 and that paid off.  I'll have to admit that I would be nervous shorting it now, but nothing at all has altered my conviction that it is BOHA.


----------



## tecate

Davy Research via Brendan Burgess said:


> Software is eating the world and reshaping the architecture of the monetary system – one inclusive of digital assets.


Bitcoin is eating the world and its very, very hungry.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Did I gloat when bitcoin fell from 20,000 to 3,000



My goodness Duke, Im getting worried about you now. Surely you are not claiming a €3,000 price tag per bitcoin as qualifying evidence of BOHA?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I still maintain that you're being disingenuous Firefly - given that it's unlikely that you've forgotten previous discussions we've had on the subject.


I haven't. Time and time again you accuse me of being disingenuous when I ask that you back up baseless assertions you have made about me. Why do you continue to do so?  



tecate said:


> "like Firefly you're not open to the consideration that usability can be improved upon "
> Statement made on the basis of the opinion expressed above - and followed on from it sequentially.
> 
> You have nothing to argue about - it's a contrivance.  If you want to disagree with my opinion, that's another thing entirely. That doesn't require asking someone to cite sources.


You make that statement about me as a _fact _not as an opinion




tecate said:


> Like I told the other guy, I'm under no obligations to do jack - that's first and foremost. I may or may not choose - as I decide - I won't be dictated to.
> 
> ..I'm not beholden to anyone. I'm pretty sure I was being sent on a wild goose chase on this - but I've gone with it.  Persist with this sort of nonsense and I'll respond in the same way as the other guy.



So you can make baseless assertions about someone and when they ask you to back it up you get all defensive. 

If you think I am dictating, I am not, simply that you should have the decency to provide burden of proof


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I haven't. Time and time again you accuse me of being disingenuous when I ask that you back up baseless assertions you have made about me. Why do you continue to do so?


Because that's my belief - and as much as people want to erase it here - that ain't happening. I'm entitled to it - and this last post of yours does nothing to change that - quite the opposite.
And as a side note - 'time and time again'?  Dramatic much?  When have you and I discussed bitcoin here in 2020?  The extent people here will go to...



Firefly said:


> You make that statement about me as a _fact _not as an opinion


I make that statement as an opinion.  Can you read?  Aside from the fact that it reads that way, I'm telling you for a second time.



Firefly said:


> If you think I am dictating, I am not, simply that you should have the decency to provide burden of proof


Firstly, don't you even begin to talk about decency! Secondly - given that you didn't get the point the first time - I'll restate it for you.  I'm not obliged to do jack - and certainly not at the behest of the embittered and disingenuous - just so that we're clear.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Oh dear!  And I thought from earlier engagements that @tecate and @Firefly were a beautiful love affair.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Oh dear!  And I thought from earlier engagements that @tecate and @Firefly were a beautiful love affair.


There's only one _'beautiful love affair'_ to be had here, your Dukeness.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I'm not obliged to do jack


Imagine this happening in the real world. You're at a table with a group of people. Someone provides your opinion for you 3 times which are unfounded. You challenge them to back it up but they reply that it's just their opinion and they don't have to do Jack.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> To your point, every system does have positives and negatives - and it's for that reason that a range of crypto's / digital assets will serve a range of needs as we move forward.



This is a thread on Bitcoin, if other cryptocurrencies can serve needs better than BTC, does this not challenge your stance that BTC adoption will only increase?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Imagine this happening in the real world.


Indeed I have, Firefly. My conclusion is that you wouldn't come up with that contrivance in the real world - in which case there would be no need for you to receive such a response.


Dublinbay12 said:


> if other cryptocurrencies can serve needs better than BTC, does this not challenge your stance that BTC adoption will only increase?


I'm saying that there are a range of needs/circumstances and when you break down those needs/circumstances, it's not a 'one size fits all' scenario. As you said yourself, every system has its positives and negatives. There are times when the use of one will be more appropriate than the use of another. It's within that context that I believe bitcoin keeps progressing.
There are a gazillion crypto's - which is great for innovation. That said, the vast majority of them will fail. To my mind, many of them already have. But we'll be left with category winners.

@Leo has been telling us for three years that there are superior cryptos to bitcoin out there but when the question is put to him as to which crypto(s), no answer.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Indeed I have, Firefly. My conclusion is that you wouldn't come up with that contrivance in the real world - in which case there would be no need for you to receive such a response.
> 
> I'm saying that there are a range of needs/circumstances and when you break down those needs/circumstances, it's not a 'one size fits all' scenario. As you said yourself, every system has its positives and negatives. There are times when the use of one will be more appropriate than the use of another. It's within that context that I believe bitcoin keeps progressing.
> There are a gazillion crypto's - which is great for innovation. That said, the vast majority of them will fail. To my mind, many of them already have. But we'll be left with category winners.
> 
> @Leo has been telling us for three years that there are superior cryptos to bitcoin out there but when the question is put to him as to which crypto(s), no answer.



So given BTC is not a 'one size fits all' do you think this will have an impact on the increase of adoption or not? 

Note there are a gazillion tokens, there are only a handful of currencies.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> So given BTC is not a 'one size fits all' do you think this will have an impact on the increase of adoption or not?


There is no crypto that is 'one size fits all' in line with your comment that 'all systems have their positives and negatives'. That rule applies to all cryptos - not just to bitcoin.
The attributes of a crypto will feed into its use case and its currently well positioned to rival gold. Beyond that, its decentralised and so there are other conditions/circumstances where it has value as a settlement layer. For large amounts, its currently fine for transactional use. For micro-transactions we all acknowledge that it has some drawbacks (usability, volatility, etc.). If those current drawbacks give way in the future, then it can play a role in that respect also.
You can correct me if I'm wrong but I sense that you feel that the value proposition of bitcoin is or will be covered by a CBDC or the likes? You're working on such a project in some capacity or other if I recall correctly.  Then you know that in 2020, the level of activity on that front has gone through the roof. It seems quite clear to me that we'll all be using digital sovereign currencies - starting with back-end implementations and later retail implementations. Some corporate digital money will get approved also. It didn't come off for facebook (albeit they;re not done yet) but we will have some approved at some stage. I don't see these things as threats to bitcoin - I actively encourage them.  They'll help bitcoin.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Indeed I have, Firefly. My conclusion is that you wouldn't come up with that contrivance in the real world - in which case there would be no need for you to receive such a response.


I made a post about Bitcoin that in no way was directed at you
You/your side-kick welcomed be back to the thread
You make 3 baseless assertions on my behalf
I challenge you to back them up 
You then accuse me of being disingenuous and of contrivance

Regarding the 3 baseless assertions ....would backing them up really be that difficult, unless of course they are indeed baseless?...


----------



## tecate

@Firefly 
What I stated was not baseless. On the first two, I expressed an opinion. You may have many rights in life but depriving me of my opinion isn't one of them. On the last one, I've clearly demonstrated what you stated. If not, explain yourself.

And by the way - I maintain the whole time that this is a contrivance.  You're trying to support the other guy in his baseless views and came up with this nonsense. If someone expressed an opinion that you don't believe, you can politely state 'i disagree' (or a more detailed version of same).  Not this nonsense.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> What I stated was not baseless. On the first two, I expressed an opinion. You may have many rights in life but depriving me of my opinion isn't one of them. On the last one, I've clearly demonstrated what you stated. If not, explain yourself.



You said:



tecate said:


> So - others have gone with digital currencies as @Firefly proposes.


What have I proposed?


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> You said:
> What have I proposed?


Yes, I did say and I linked to the relevant post. Are you disputing your own post now?


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> And again with the double standards. WHERE is the answer to the question I just put to you Leo?



As I already said, back up your claim and tell me how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite as I asked almost a week ago and I'll answer any question of your choosing that you have asked since then. 

Why are you so upset about my refusing to answer questions you have asked since I first asked mine?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> As I already said, back up your claim and tell me how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite as I asked almost a week ago and I'll answer any question of your choosing that you have asked since then.


You seem to have comprehension difficulties. Unlike the numerous questions that have been put to you, I've answered your question. You don't like the answer - your problem, deal with it. 

From this point onwards, any demand for any question coming from you will not be met with an answer. Your social capital with me has long since evapourated. 



Leo said:


> Why are you so upset about my refusing to answer questions you have asked since I first asked mine?


 I'm not in any way upset, Leo. Notwithstanding that, I see attempts to destroy free and open discussion for what they are.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Yes, I did say and I linked to the relevant post. Are you disputing your own post now?


Accepted, thank you.




tecate said:


> What I stated was not baseless. On the first two, I expressed an opinion.


Whether it is based on opinion or fact, when asserting a viewpoint for someone else you should have the decency to back it up. 




tecate said:


> You may have many rights in life but depriving me of my opinion isn't one of them.


I am trying to deprive you of having an opinion? And you accuse me of contrivance and nonsense? 




tecate said:


> You're trying to support the other guy in his baseless views and came up with this nonsense.


I can genuinely promise you that this was not my intention at all.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> You seem to have comprehension difficulties. Unlike the numerous questions that have been put to you, I've answered your question. You don't like the answer - your problem, deal with it.



This is beyond tedious (which I assume is your aim), in which post did you explain the process?  Golden opportunity to prove me wrong, why not take it?


----------



## Firefly

Ladies & gentlemen, I think it's fair to say that "Alternative Facts" have arrived on AAM. 
Kellyanne must be so proud. 
Now you can claim anything without backing it up. 
The world is flat


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Accepted, thank you.


Right - and you're not welcome Firefly - you've no right to go dragging this discussion off point for this contrived nonsense.



Firefly said:


> Whether it is based on opinion or fact, when asserting a viewpoint for someone else you should have the decency to back it up.


You have a nerve talking about decency! I can express my opinion any which way I want. To suggest otherwise is wayward.



Firefly said:


> I can genuinely promise you that this was not my intention at all.


I disagree.  Source - your last couple of days of posts.


Leo said:


> This is beyond tedious (which I assume is your aim)


You've been consistently wrong in your take on bitcoin over three years. Being entrenched in your views, this is the pathetic course of action you take. Priceless, Leo.



Leo said:


> in which post did you explain the process?


See my last post. Your question privileges have been withdrawn.   



Leo said:


> Golden opportunity to prove me wrong, why not take it?


No need - you've been consistently wrong since 2017.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Ladies & gentlemen, I think it's fair to say that "Alternative Facts" have arrived on AAM.
> Kellyanne must be so proud.
> Now you can claim anything without backing it up.
> The world is flat


You talk of decency and respect and such - I have no respect for your approach to this discussion and this contrivance of yours to take the discussion away from what it should be - free and open discussion of the topic at hand.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> See my last post. Your question privileges have been withdrawn.



You refused to answer there too. The only conclusion left is that you accept that it is not possible to do so. What is the point of these threads if you continue to make claims yet refuse to back them up when questioned?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Right - and you're not welcome Firefly


Wow. I accepted your post and stand corrected. Why the rudeness?




tecate said:


> you've no right to go dragging this discussion off point for this contrived nonsense.


I didn't. I wasn't engaging you at all. You brought me into your posts. Perhaps _you _did this intentionally to "go dragging this discussion off point for this contrived nonsense"?




tecate said:


> I can express my opinion any which way I want. To suggest otherwise is wayward.


So if I said that "tecate thinks that poor people should put all their money into Bitcoin" that would be ok, right?




tecate said:


> I disagree.  Source - your last couple of days of posts.


Which posts, can you be a bit more specific please?




tecate said:


> I have no respect for your approach to this discussion


I don't have _an approach_. I am just asking someone making assertions about me to back them up.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> You refused to answer there too. The only conclusion left is that you accept that it is not possible to do so. What is the point of these threads if you continue to make claims yet refuse to back them up when questioned?


I think you may be having comprehension difficulties. Your question was answered. Over and above that, any subsequent questions from you will be disregarded from here on in.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> think you may be having comprehension difficulties.



Worse still, I must be going blind!  Again, just point to the post where you explained how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite without an internet connection.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Wow. I accepted your post and stand corrected. Why the rudeness?


I treat people as good as they treat me. You've contrived to take this thread off course - there's ill-intent. 
Why did you waste my time with that? Isn't it a case that was part of the objective from the outset?  I don't give a fiddlers re. your acceptance or otherwise given what you're about here.



Firefly said:


> So if I said that "tecate thinks that poor people should put all their money into Bitcoin" that would be ok, right?


I've been misquoted many times in these three years. I wouldn't have to go back more than a few days to find the last example. In those circumstances, I've restated my position. In NORMAL discussion, that's what people do. 



Firefly said:


> Which posts, can you be a bit more specific please?


I can but I won't as the intent behind the question is far from wholesome.



Firefly said:


> I don't have an approach.


Disagree entirely.


Firefly said:


> I am just asking someone making assertions about me to back them up?


Disagree entirely.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Worse still, I must be going blind!  Again, just point to the post where you explained how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite without an internet connection.


My...how embittered you must be, Leo!


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> My...how embittered you must be, Leo!



Why do you think it is that you resort so quickly to personal attacks and insults when questioned? 

But I'm not at all bitter, I'm just going for the record on how many times you can refuse to admit you were wrong or back up your claim.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Why do you think it is that you resort so quickly to personal attacks and insults when questioned?


Leo knows that I treat people equally as well as they treat me. If I've insulted someone, then he's a moderator - he can ban me. I've been honest - if that's interpreted as an insult, I guess that old irish saying applies...the truth hurts but it cures.



Leo said:


> I'm just going for the record on how many times you can refuse to admit you were wrong or back up your claim.


Except that you're wrong.  And worse still, the guy with more questions left unanswered over the course of three years of discussion here is you.

If you dispute that, put your money where your mouth is right now - Lets put 1 BTC on it - we'll put it in escrow and winner takes it.

The above to be accepted within the next 30 minutes


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Leo knows that I treat people equally as well as they treat me. If I've insulted someone, then he's a moderator - he can ban me.



You already accused me of banning people I disagree with, you server as a great example of how untrue that accusation is.



tecate said:


> I've been honest - if that's interpreted as an insult, I guess that old irish saying applies...the truth hurts but it cures.



So just point to the post where you answered the question already?  Why all the drama? Just explain how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite without an internet connection.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> ..I know you're being disingenuous here and trying to add fuel to the fire..





tecate said:


> I still maintain that you're being disingenuous Firefly





tecate said:


> You have nothing to argue about - it's a contrivance.





tecate said:


> Persist with this sort of nonsense





tecate said:


> Indeed I have, Firefly. My conclusion is that you wouldn't come up with that contrivance in the real world





tecate said:


> you've no right to go dragging this discussion off point for this contrived nonsense





tecate said:


> I have no respect for your approach to this discussion and this contrivance of yours to take the discussion away from what it should be





tecate said:


> You've contrived to take this thread off course - there's ill-intent.



8 times you have accused me of contrivance, nonsense, dragging this discussion off point. All I have asked is that you backup assertions you have made about me. 




tecate said:


> I treat people as good as they treat me.



How, exactly, have I treated you to justify the torrent of accusations above?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> You already accused me of banning people I disagree with, you server as a great example of how untrue that accusation is.


As I stated, people who were more accommodating towards bitcoin have had posts removed and have been banned from this forum.



Leo said:


> You already accused me of banning people I disagree with, you server as a great example of how untrue that accusation is.


Yeah, sure it is. lol



Leo said:


> So just point to the post where you answered the question already?  Why all the drama? Just explain how I can send a bitcoin transaction over satellite without an internet connection.


Leo doesn't get that his question privileges have been taken away but I'm sure he'll figure it out at some stage. He contrives to suggest that i have not responded on said subject when I have. There's nothing more to say on the subject.
*
Note that Leo isn't taking that wager in my post above.*



			
				Firefly said:
			
		

> 8 times you have accused me of contrivance, nonsense, dragging this discussion off point.


I have - in response to the same nonsense each time. You don't like my responses? Sorry, not sorry.



			
				Firefly said:
			
		

> And how, exactly, have I treated you to justify : ?


That's my opinion. In other circumstances, I might empathise if you feel offended. In these specific circumstances, note that I don't.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Leo doesn't get that his question privileges have been taken away but I'm sure he'll figure it out at some stage.


Ha! You did something like this years ago with Purple!!! You blocked him but still answered his questions


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I have - in response to the same nonsense each time. You don't like my responses? Sorry, not sorry.


In my opinion , for someone who claims to treat people as good as they treat you, you certainly don't walk the walk!


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Ha! You did something like this years ago with Purple!!! You blocked him but still answered his questions


I can't recall who 'purple' is. I mean I could ask you for a source but that'd be pointless - and unlike you two, I won't waste anyones time or energy.
I wasn't aware there's a 'block' feature on this board. Good to know!
I answered his questions?  His behaviour must not have matched Leo's current standard then. 



Firefly said:


> In my opinion , for someone who claims to treat people as good as they treat you, you certainly don't walk the walk!


In my opinion, the stunt that you two have pulled over the last couple of days (and on an ongoing basis for the other fella) speaks volumes.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I can't recall who 'purple' is.


Disagree entirely. 



tecate said:


> I wasn't aware there's a 'block' feature on this board.


Disagree entirely.  



tecate said:


> In my opinion, the _stunt _that you two have pulled over the last couple of days (and on an ongoing basis for the other fella) speaks volumes.


You've made a heap of accusations & insults over the last few days with a fair dose of paranoia thrown in for good measure.

Truly....a cunning array of stunts


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Disagree entirely.


Duly noted.



Firefly said:


> You've made a heap of accusations & insults over the last few days with a fair dose of paranoia thrown in for good measure.


I disagree. I provided my opinion and thoughts and nothing has changed in that regard - quite the opposite.



Firefly said:


> Truly....a cunning array of stunts


We have the good fortune that I'm not dyslexic or that statement could have well been rearranged.


----------



## WolfeTone

Maybe time to bring the thread back on topic? That this thread could be 'interesting' in the future?

Bitcoin $18,073.22

The ECB is requesting approval to issue €750bn in economic 'aid' to Eurozone countries....it says, wait for it...that it cannot 'run out of money'. If there is a limitless supply of euro, then how do we measure the value of the €?

Why is the ECB answering questions about limitless money supplies?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> We have the good fortune that I'm not dyslexic or that statement could have well been rearranged.


----------



## Firefly

WolfeTone said:


> Maybe time to bring the thread back on topic? That this thread could be 'interesting' in the future?


Welcome back Wolfie


----------



## WolfeTone

Firefly said:


> Welcome back Wolfie



Thanks Firefly, but I haven't been away anytime lately.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Leo doesn't get that his question privileges have been taken away but I'm sure he'll figure it out at some stage. He contrives to suggest that i have not responded on said subject when I have. There's nothing more to say on the subject.



Luckily you don't run AAM, so that is not in your power. 

Again, you're misrepresenting what's clearly laid out in the previous posts here. I have never suggested that you have not responded. You have done so many times, but all the time seeking to ignore the fundamental question. 



tecate said:


> *Note that Leo isn't taking that wager in my post above.*



Of course I'm not, it's clear to everyone that you continue to ask way more questions in order to avoid having to admit you are wrong. Asking more questions isn't an achievement or a measure of authority on any subject.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> His behaviour must not have matched Leo's current standard then.



I've a lot of respect for Purple, and not just because he's prepared to back up his claims and answer straight questions. You could learn a lot from him.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> Luckily you don't run AAM, so that is not in your power.


It's against the rules of AAM for me NOT to answer a question?  That _IS_ news!


Leo said:


> Again, you're misrepresenting what's clearly laid out in the previous posts here. I have never suggested that you have not responded. You have done so many times, but all the time seeking to ignore the fundamental question.


That's a blatant lie. Time and time again you've said I have not answered! Now when its put up to you you're changing your story.



Leo said:


> Of course I'm not, it's clear to everyone that you continue to ask way more questions in order to avoid having to admit you are wrong.


So your questions are more important than mine? The arrogance. And worse than that the suggestion to go with it. Here we have two reprobates talking about rudeness and respect. I have a strong interest in this topic and anything I've posted here is in reference to it. Who do you think you are to deem your questions acceptable and mine not? Double standards doesn't cover whats at play here.



Leo said:


> Asking more questions isn't an achievement or a measure of authority on any subject.


I was pointing towards the blatant double standards just in case that could possibly have escaped you.



Leo said:


> I've a lot of respect for Purple, and not just because he's prepared to back up his claims and answer straight questions. You could learn a lot from him.


I have no idea who Purple is but let me clarify something. If he stands behind you two in your shenanigans here I have the same amount of respect for him as I have for you two.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Maybe time to bring the thread back on topic? That this thread could be 'interesting' in the future?


Brave attempt 



> If there is a limitless supply of euro, then how do we measure the value of the €?


Try your local supermarket, or easier still Amazon.  More on topic is how do we measure the value of bitcoin (I am being genuous here if that is a word).
Let's try the experts first:
Investopedia (actually John Kelleher) suggests 15% penetration of World medium of exchange and store of value which gives a figure of $514k per bitcoin _(reminder with apologies, he argues it cannot achieve 15% store of value unless it achieves 15% medium of exchange)_
Fidelity Digital Assets (actually Ria Bhutorria, courtesy @tecate ) is less definitive and gives a range of values:
1% of the flight from low yielding bonds -> increase of $27k on today's price i.e. $45k
5% share of Alternative Assets ->increase of $37k i.e. $55k
10% share of AA -> increase of $74k i.e. $92k
@WolfeTone $34.5k (methodology not revealed)
Founder of renowned consumer money site $0
Quite a range from the experts, you will admit.  What does the market think?
End 2017 $20k
Start 2019 $3k
Start 2020 $10k
March 2020 $6k
Today $18k


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> More on topic is how do we measure the value of bitcoin


I would suggest that its entirely relevant for Wolfie to bring up rampant money printing and practices related to fiat money. It is very much relevant into what gives bitcoin value if you're using a eur/btc or usd/btc pairing in assessing value.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> What does the market think?
> End 2017 $20k
> Start 2019 $3k
> Start 2020 $10k
> March 2020 $6k
> Today $18k


You will notice you're picking out extreme price points for effect, your Dukeness. Bitcoin is in a price discovery phase and will continue in that process for a number of years ahead. Graph the price over that period and draw a line through the mean and you will see that bitcoin has been on a consistent uptrend.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I would suggest that its entirely relevant for Wolfie to bring up rampant money printing and practices related to fiat money. It is very much relevant into what gives bitcoin value if you're using a eur/btc or usd/btc pairing in assessing value.
> 
> 
> You will notice you're picking out extreme price points for effect, your Dukeness. Bitcoin is in a price discovery phase and will continue in that process for a number of years ahead. Graph the price over that period and draw a line through the mean and you will see that bitcoin has been on a consistent uptrend.


@tecate easy on the knee jerk defensive reaction.  I did answer _Wolfie's_ question.  Thanks for the reference to Mr Roubini.  As a Twitter follower he sent me an email today speaking just like _Wolfie_ about unprecedented debt levels.  It is scary I'll admit.  It is almost surprising that bitcoin in these very propitious circumstances (for him/her) is a mere fraction of the experts' range of values.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Brave attempt


 (_had to try something  ) _



Duke of Marmalade said:


> More on topic is how do we measure the value of bitcoin (I am being genuous here if that is a word)



Yes, it is more on topic but you must admit it has had a fair amount of scrutinising to this point, albeit with unsettled outcomes.
I think it is reasonable to ponder the other side of the equation of the value question, particularly in the face of public declarations by the head of the ECB that the money supply is limitless.
Surely the question of value applies to € as much as it applies to BTC?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Quite a range from the experts, you will admit.



Absolutely, and again only goes to emphasis that value is subjective. The price attributable to that value is in the eye of the participating buyers and sellers _and _prospective buyers and sellers, aka the market.
Your own BOHA valuation is priced at zero, or next to zero (with an apparent range these days up to €3,000? )



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone $34.5k (methodology not revealed)



Not true, I set out my methodology in an earlier post. Somewhat crude, 2% of a €36trn money supply / max 21m bitcoin in circulation = €34,265.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> I think it is reasonable to ponder the other side of the equation of the value question, particularly in the face of public declarations by the head of the ECB that the money supply is limitless.
> Surely the question of value applies to € as much as it applies to BTC?


 Of course it is a valid question.  My answer was not meant to be trite.  The main central banks have announced their inflation targets and I can live with those.  My day to day experience is indeed that inflation has been very subdued but I do share a worry that with the unprecedented money printing they may lose the plot, but I have to trust them.  A digital entry with no backing might seem like salvation to some, it will never be for me, gold before that for sure.



> Not true, I set out my methodology in an earlier post. Somewhat crude, 2% of a €36trn money supply / max 21m bitcoin in circulation = €34,265.


Apologies Crude yes, but on a par with the methodologies of Investopedia and Fidelity Digital Assets.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Quite a range from the experts, you will admit



There is a real-life observable market that we are familiar with in the Betfair US Presidential election. 
This is a market that you have touted as being efficient and I would tend to agree given the volume of trade. 

The market currently sits at a buy/sell 1.05/1.06 for Biden to be next President. 
As this is gambling on short-term, immediate outcomes, it is highly speculative. That said, there are a number of observable factors (most obvious, the election count) that are priced in to market that make the outcome a _near_ certainty. 

This makes 1.05 great value?  Yet I am hesitant given the risk of 100% sudden and immediate loss on the other side of the equation. So therefore, it is poor value? 
Which is it? 

Another observable factor is that outside the 1.05/1.06 level, there are considerable sums of money on a wide range of prices. 

If this is an efficient market, how can the market participants offer such a broad range of prices?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> There is a real-life observable market that we are familiar with in the Betfair US Presidential election.
> This is a market that you have touted as being efficient and I would tend to agree given the volume of trade.
> 
> The market currently sits at a buy/sell 1.05/1.06 for Biden to be next President.
> As this is gambling on short-term, immediate outcomes, it is highly speculative. That said, there are a number of observable factors (most obvious, the election count) that are priced in to market that make the outcome a _near_ certainty.
> 
> This makes 1.05 great value?  Yet I am hesitant given the risk of 100% sudden and immediate loss on the other side of the equation. So therefore, it is poor value?
> Which is it?
> 
> Another observable factor is that outside the 1.05/1.06 level, there are considerable sums of money on a wide range of prices.
> 
> If this is an efficient market, how can the market participants offer such a broad range of prices?


First the easy one.  The broad range are just the chancers, hoping to pick up suckers.
On the second issue is risk aversion.  I personally think Biden is at worst 1.01, why don't I jump at 1.05.  Let's say 10k (subject to you lending me 10k) at 1.05.  Almost certain to win 500 but even the remote chance of losing 10k scares me off.  Is this relevant to the bitcoin discusion?


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Almost certain to win 500 but even the remote chance of losing 10k scares me off. Is this relevant to the bitcoin discusion?



So the prospect of losing €10k outweighs the gain of winning a near certain €500.
So it is fair to say that you do not consider 1.05 to be good value given the risk/reward?
Even though you think Biden, at worst is worth 1.01.

Can you explain that rationale? It is relevant to determining value.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ...
> Quite a range from the experts, you will admit.  What does the market think?
> End 2017 $20k
> Start 2019 $3k
> Start 2020 $10k
> March 2020 $6k
> Today $18k



I'll just smooth out the volatility noise and add

900 day SMA ~8k
600 day SMA ~9k
300 day SMA ~10k


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> So the prospect of losing €10k outweighs the gain of winning a near certain €500.
> So it is fair to say that you do not consider 1.05 to be good value given the risk/reward?
> Even though you think Biden, at worst is worth 1.01.
> 
> Can you explain that rationale? It is relevant to determining value.


Simple it is utility theory
If I lose 10k I am near suicide, probably evaluate it as a loss of 100k
If I win 500 that is how I rate it
Utility theory my dear _Wolfie_


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DazedInPontoon said:


> I'll just smooth out the volatility noise and add
> 
> 900 day SMA ~8k
> 600 day SMA ~9k
> 300 day SMA ~10k


I was  merely pointing out that nobody has a clue how to value BTC.  The experts have an incredible range as do the markets as do the punters on AAM from various polls.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Simple it is utility theory
> If I lose 10k I am near suicide, probably evaluate it as a loss of 100k
> If I win 500 that is how I rate it
> Utility theory my dear _Wolfie_



Ok, but there must be a point along your utility curve where the risk/reward ratio meets?
The minimum bet on Betfair is €2. I'm going to suggest that you could cope with a €2 loss, however the prospect of winning €0.10c may not be worth the utility of battery energy expended on your phone to place such a bet?

Somewhere along the utility curve there is a point where the risk/reward of a stake of an amount between €2 and €10,000, the price of 1.05 offers value?
If there is no point, then 1.05 does not offer you value and instead the price that you would back or lay a bet is outside the efficient market price, currently 1.05/1.06.

The methodology to determine that price, given all the information available to you is yours alone.

The 1.05/1.06 price range has attracted so far about 19% of the entire €880m market, the vast bulk of it in recent days. This is an efficient market, so clearly 1.05/1.06 represents value on either side of the bet at some utility point between €2 and €10,000? Whether you back or lay?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, but there must be a point along your utility curve where the risk/reward ratio meets?
> The minimum bet on Betfair is €2. I'm going to suggest that you could cope with a €2 loss, however the prospect of winning €0.10c may not be worth the utility of battery energy expended on your phone to place such a bet?
> 
> Somewhere along the utility curve there is a point where the risk/reward of a stake of an amount between €2 and €10,000, the price of 1.05 offers value?
> If there is no point, then 1.05 does not offer you value and instead the price that you would back or lay a bet is outside the efficient market price, currently 1.05/1.06.
> 
> The methodology to determine that price, given all the information available to you is yours alone.
> 
> The 1.05/1.06 price range has attracted so far about 19% of the entire €880m market, the vast bulk of it in recent days. This is an efficient market, so clearly 1.05/1.06 represents value on either side of the bet at some utility point between €2 and €10,000? Whether you back or lay?


Excellent point _Wolfie_, I surely must put something on Biden at a near certain 1.05.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was  merely pointing out that nobody has a clue how to value BTC.


In looking at past pricepoints, D.i.P. has helped you by applying mean averages. From that, you can see that the price has been steadily increasing. 
Valuation is a difficulty - albeit as we've discovered via these discussions, gold presents with the very same pricing difficulties.

Meanwhile in Canada.....

If you have $50,000 CAD in the bank today, how do you actually value it on the basis of what's going on in the background?  More money has been printed under Trudeau's government than all previous Canadian governments put together.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Excellent point _Wolfie_, I surely must put something on Biden at a near certain 1.05.



Well you brought up the utility theory so I will apply it accordingly.
I am already in the red to several hundred euro in this market. This deficit was accumulated on small incremental bets over a couple of years on long odds candidates who I considered had reasonable prospects of being in the hunt at some point and I could take a tidy profit. As it happens, no such luck.
However, if I were to enter this market today with my hundreds, having not placed a bet yet, I would be very reluctant to place the exact same amount money on a near certain return of 5%. So even though the consequences of losing are exactly the same, the risk of a sudden and immediate loss in return for 5% return outweighs the sentiment of losing the exact same amount of money over a period of years with potentially substantial, albeit remote, returns.

Instead, and accepting that we share broadly the same information - election count, few weeks to official result, Trumps fraud claims not gaining traction in the courts, etc - my interpretation of all that information, and acknowledging that Biden is a practical cert, to lay the 1.06 price provides more utility to me insofar that the potential substantial but remote gains far outweigh the additional and likely loss as it will be inconsequential to me in the round.
So laying at 1.06 provides greater (prospective) value.
If you think that is mad... take a look at the market, in order to back there has to lay. And in this efficient market, it is these price levels that has gained most action.
I appreciate this is a gambling market with a defined end point. But the principles are the same. The market price for bitcoin is a consequence of all available information and the interpretations of that information about Bitcoin, including those who are selling or simply not buying, culminating in a price tag of $18,000.
Unlike US 2020 however, there is no definitive end point for bitcoin.


----------



## SGWidow

Hi WolfeTone.

Just one point that I think is relevant and I would be interested in your views. The crowd dynamic inherent in Betfair's model is usually impressive. But not always. Even in this election, post election day, in my opinion there was a couple of critical hours where Betfair's pricing was miles out.

Specifically, when Trump made that mad speech (very late on election night in the US / early morning on the Wednesday morning here), any reasonable interpretation of this speech was that his "intelligence" (meaning information, analysis of the votes) had already predicted that his voting day lead was not sufficiently large to sustain the anticipated counter postal surge from Biden. 

This was the reason he was already calling foul on the election results when his then Betfair odds were c. 1.5 (with Biden at 3.0). In other words, the market had him odds-on to win, when he himself was aware that his goose was probably cooked. This "pricing" inaccuracy lasted a few hours at a critical time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@WolfeTone On a utility play I will not be helping myself to that very easy 5%.  The pain of losing €1,000 far outweighs the pleasure of winning €50.

I think the comparison between the bitcoin price and betfair odds is worth exploring.  The price of oil or bananas or even shares is not dictated by the betting motive but by the supply and demand for their utility.
Seems to me that the bitcoin price is almost entirely driven by the betting/speculative motive.  From the FOMO folk who are betting on what its price will be next week to JK who speculates on its ultimate penetration of global medium of exchange to Fidelity who speculate on the flight from bonds or penetration of the alternative assets market.  Almost no-one is buying it for the only utility for which it was intended and is fit i.e. as a medium of exchange.
Where it differs from betfair is that on betfair the "fors" and "againsts" have equal presence.  In bitcoin the potential buyers (everybody) far, far outweigh the potential sellers (current holders).
It is a bubble.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> That's a blatant lie. Time and time again you've said I have not answered! Now when its put up to you you're changing your story.



No, I am consistent is saying you have repeatedly failed to back up your claim that it is possible to send bitcoin over a satellite service without the need for an internet connection.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> No, I am consistent is saying you have repeatedly failed to back up your claim that it is possible to send bitcoin over a satellite service without the need for an internet connection.


I disagree.


----------



## WolfeTone

SGWidow said:


> Specifically, when Trump made that mad speech (very late on election night in the US / early morning on the Wednesday morning here), any reasonable interpretation of this speech was that his "intelligence" (meaning information, analysis of the votes) had already predicted that his voting day lead was not sufficiently large to sustain the anticipated counter postal surge from Biden.



I don't doubt that is a reasonable interpretation and for sure the crowd dynamic does not always call it right. But this is what represents value. The interpretation of information and putting a price on it or exploiting the price of the market. I hope you capitalised on it.


----------



## SGWidow

Hi WolfeTone.  

Agreed.

Regarding personal gains, unfortunately not! Sometimes, it takes a while for the penny to drop. Also, that morning I think I was looking for the number for the Samaritans. I don't think that I could have stomached 4 more years of that gentleman.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> There is no crypto that is 'one size fits all' in line with your comment that 'all systems have their positives and negatives'. That rule applies to all cryptos - not just to bitcoin.
> The attributes of a crypto will feed into its use case and its currently well positioned to rival gold. Beyond that, its decentralised and so there are other conditions/circumstances where it has value as a settlement layer. For large amounts, its currently fine for transactional use. For micro-transactions we all acknowledge that it has some drawbacks (usability, volatility, etc.). If those current drawbacks give way in the future, then it can play a role in that respect also.
> You can correct me if I'm wrong but I sense that you feel that the value proposition of bitcoin is or will be covered by a CBDC or the likes? You're working on such a project in some capacity or other if I recall correctly.  Then you know that in 2020, the level of activity on that front has gone through the roof. It seems quite clear to me that we'll all be using digital sovereign currencies - starting with back-end implementations and later retail implementations. Some corporate digital money will get approved also. It didn't come off for facebook (albeit they;re not done yet) but we will have some approved at some stage. I don't see these things as threats to bitcoin - I actively encourage them.  They'll help bitcoin.



In my view the current adoption of BTC and the direction it is going (from links you have provided) is that of an investment asset rather than the original use as a decentralized currency.

I don't really see any material increase in retail adoption of BTC, unless the treatment under tax law changes. The introduction by paypal by increase retail usage via existing Bitcoin holders converting for goods. But for a new entrant (in the paypal markets) there is zero benefit to using BTC, why would I use btc to purchase something when I then have to work out taxes, never mind having to deal with price volatility.

You are correct, I have been involved in Central Bank Digital Currencies, but that is a very large topic that I don't want to muddy this thread with.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> In my view the current adoption of BTC and the direction it is going (from links you have provided) is that of an investment asset rather than the original use as a decentralized currency.


If by investment asset, you mean 'digital gold' or an investment asset in its own right - then I agree. Isn't that a vast use case in and of itself?


(Timothy Petersen  - Twitter)



Dublinbay12 said:


> I don't really see any material increase in retail adoption of BTC, unless the treatment under tax law changes.


I see the path toward micro-transactional use developing on a much longer time horizon. That's contingent on some improvements being made to usability and scalability. Other than that, contrary to what some claim, the development of a store of value first before becoming more successful as a means of exchange makes more sense to me.
Having said that, the Paypal move helps. It helps with legitimising it, makes it available to a large group of people who may not have had access to it previously, etc. All of these things increase its network effect. It all contributes towards escape velocity/Lindy Effect where bitcoin is concerned.

If you have access to it, then you're more likely to use it. If you have the option of buying something and the seller is in a part of the world where it suits them to accept payments in bitcoin, then a potential customer may be more likely to go with it if there's a reduced cost (no credit card fees) and they have access via paypal where they didn't have before - through a platform that they are familiar with/trust (whereas maybe they understand little about bitcoin).

The difference as opposed to gold is that it can be transacted near instantly - anywhere. It's also more accessible than gold as a store of value for ordinary people. Again, if you have it, you're more likely to use it for transactional purposes also. That - to play out over a longer time horizon - but even if it never cuts it for mainstream payments, there's enough in a digital gold use case for it to be incredibly successful.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> If by investment asset, you mean 'digital gold' or an investment asset in its own right - then I agree. Isn't that a vast use case in and of itself?



I didn't say it isn't a use case, I just said it wasn't the original intention of Satoshi.



tecate said:


> If you have access to it, then you're more likely to use it. If you have the option of buying something and the seller is in a part of the world where it suits them to accept payments in bitcoin, then a potential customer may be more likely to go with it if there's a reduced cost (no credit card fees) and they have access via paypal where they didn't have before - through a platform that they are familiar with/trust (whereas maybe they understand little about bitcoin).



That is a very messy use case for BTC. The power of BTC is that it knows no borders and can be transferred simply, there is no need to insert a middle man (paypal) who will charge a fee. In paypals adoption of BTC it is not targeting the money transfer aspect but the e-commerce area (consumer buying goods and using paypal to complete the transaction). The fact that in paypals largest markets purchasing with BTC triggers a taxable event makes it rather pointless to use. Your example above seems to be geared towards the ebay aspect of paypal, but their business has vastly changed since then. Perhaps it is more prevalent in the US, but nearly every online shop has a 'pay with paypal' button. 

So my point stands that until tax treatment of BTC changes, there is really no benefit to a consumer to use BTC in day to day purchasing over their debit card.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone_ On a utility play I will not be helping myself to that very easy 5%. The pain of losing €1,000 far outweighs the pleasure of winning €50._



My conclusion from that is that you do not actually think 1.05, in this market, represents value. The risk of a 100% sudden and immediate loss in a few short weeks outweighing the reward of an easy 5% return in the same timeframe. Otherwise there is little rationale to your thinking in this regard.

And this is the essence of the using the US election as means to understanding what value is, or is not. There is tendency from yourself and others to hold bitcoin to some standard of a quantifiable and calculated measure of value that is not required for any other product, commodity or service. Even one as uncomplicated as the Betfair market for US Presidency.

The only standard is the market, and an efficient one at that.

As _tecate_ has been at pains to highlight with the commodity of gold, there is no quantifiable calculated method to value gold. There is information - by way of indicators, comparisons, correlations, forecasts, etc that assist market traders in determining whether to buy, sell, hold etc the commodity of gold. Gold is an age old commodity and the information that is used to measure its value has evolved and developed and has become more refined over the centuries. But it is still all a matter of _interpretation _of the available information. It is why the price fluctuates and it is why there are buyers and sellers that pitch prices outside the efficient market price.

Bitcoin is relatively new by comparison. The information used by market participants is much broader I would suggest and in turn contains a higher degree of speculation for sure. But the scale of the market in terms of transaction volume makes it an efficient market.
I use whatever information I think is pertinent and gauge what impact it is, in my opinion, likely to have. For instance, _tecates _Canadian dollar graph above is worth exploring further as it appears to chime very much with my expressed views on this site over the years. In turn, its correlation to bitcoin will, on the face of it, put upward pressure on the price of bitcoin. But that is just my interpretation.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Where it differs from betfair is that on betfair the fors and againsts have equal presence.



Im not sure this is correct either. I assume you are talking about monetary presence? As it is impossible to determine the number of participants on either side. If you take my lay bet in isolation at 1.06. If I lay the price for €500 I am liable to pay €30. So there is €500 sitting on one side of the bet while only €30 on the other side....its the definition of 1.06.
If there was equal presence in monetary terms on both sides of the market the price would be even money.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> I didn't say it isn't a use case, I just said it wasn't the original intention of Satoshi.


Sure, no problem. A lot has been made of that by others here. However, its quite normal when it comes to innovation that something may set out on a different trajectory as people seek to use the tech/innovation for different purposes.



Dublinbay12 said:


> That is a very messy use case for BTC.


Paypal is just a channel - but I see what you mean. I'm far from a fan of paypal. However, this can play out well for bitcoin. Whatever initial touchpoint people have had with bitcoin, its rarely by the most efficient means. My hope would be that Paypal's platform introduces a whole raft of new people to bitcoin. If they break their duck on it via paypal - to me, that's a big deal. In the longer run, I'd hope those same people move on from paypal and use it outside of the paypal platform. 



Dublinbay12 said:


> So my point stands that until tax treatment of BTC changes, there is really no benefit to a consumer to use BTC in day to day purchasing over their debit card.


No problem - that can get itself ironed out whilst bitcoin is currently establishing itself as a bona fide store of value.

You were vested in btc to some extent from what I recall. I'd imagine you had some rationale for being vested in it. What is/was that rationale?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> My conclusion from that is that you do not actually think 1.05, in this market, represents value.


Not on my utility curve anyway, I hate betting odds on.  Clearly there are big boys on Betfair who don't mind very short odds and whose utility curves are neutral.



> There is tendency from yourself and others to hold bitcoin to some standard of a quantifiable and calculated measure


Not just me. John Kelleher, seeking some anchor for value targets long term penetration as a medium of exchange.   Even your good self has come up with a metric for valuing it.  I think most players don't bother with such pedantry, to them it is a price that moves and therefore scope to win or lose money.



> As _tecate_ has been at pains to highlight with the commodity of gold, there is no quantifiable calculated method to value gold. There is information - by way of indicators, comparisons, correlations, forecasts, etc that assist market traders in determining whether to buy, sell, hold etc the commodity of gold. Gold is an age old commodity and the information that is used to measure its value has evolved and developed and has become more refined over the centuries. But it is still all a matter of _interpretation _of the available information. It is why the price fluctuates and it is why there are buyers and sellers that pitch prices outside the efficient market price.


I agree there is no objective method for putting a price on gold.  It is not part of my argument that one needs such an objective method.  I'm with John Kelleher (sorry but it is my central point) store of value cannot exist long term without having some utility hat to hang on.  Bitcoin has only one possible utility and that is as a medium of exchange.  Trustless, censorship free, travels long distances even by satellite (according to @tecate) are not utilities.



> Im not sure this is correct either. I assume you are talking about monetary presence? As it is impossible to determine the number of participants on either side.


I didn't explain the point very well.  On Betfair all the participants have equal opportunity to buy or lay.  On bitcoin everybody can buy but only a very very small minority who already hold bitcoin can sell - seems a tad lopsided to me.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm with John Kelleher (sorry but it is my central point) store of value cannot exist long term without having some utility hat to hang on.



And that is your perogative to go with him. I don't necessarily disagree, but where we part ways is on expectation for the moment of realisation that BTC has fulfilled its promise of becoming a widely used medium of exchange, or not.
Kelleher is not definitive on when that moment will arrive. You appear to dismiss any chance of it ever occuring. I anticipate that it has a more than reasonable prospect. I'm more bullish about it today than ever.
My perception of bitcoin at the last peak was that it was huge, about to make a breakthrough to mainstream adoption. When the crash came I did panic somewhat and took a parachute jump.
With bitcoin nearing it's peak price again, my perception this time around, somewhat more knowledgeable of the whole concept, is that bitcoin is still relatively tiny. It has a long, long way to go to achieve mainstream adoption as a MoE, but I would be more confident of its potential now than ever.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> On Betfair all the participants have equal opportunity to buy or lay. On bitcoin everybody can buy but only a very very small minority who already hold bitcoin can sell - seems a tad lopsided to me.



Can't let you away with this Duke. There are no buyers without sellers, vice-versa.
You seem to be implying that the bitcoin market is inefficient with too few sellers and many, many buyers?
I would argue that the capital market of $300bn + it is an efficient market of buyers and sellers.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Can't let you away with this Duke. There are no buyers without sellers, vice-versa.
> You seem to be implying that the bitcoin market is inefficient with too few sellers and many, many buyers?
> I would argue that the capital market of $300bn + it is an efficient market of buyers and sellers.


I might have this wrong, but you have not talked me out of the point yet.  Of course there are equal actual buyers and sellers.  What I am arguing is that there are far more people in a position to buy than there are in a position to sell.
Take the Mona Lisa.  Lots of folk would like to buy the ML.  Indeed at the prices that these things go for lots of people would like to sell the ML.  But only one person is in a position to sell the ML and can therefore more or less name their price.
I am not sure that means the bitcoin market is inefficient, it means that the supply and demand dynamic is very lopsided.  And it is not really a point about its scarcity, which is merely a function of where Satoshi put the decimal point. This is true whilst there is almost any demand and clearly at this point there is. But some day (don't ask me when) the satoshi will drop and there will be NO demand ergo the price will collapse.

Of course similar arguments could be made about individual shares.  However, most shares do not stand in isolation and there are well accepted tools for deciding whether a particular share is over or under priced compared to its peers.  There is also a very active derivatives market which can serve sellers who do not own the shares.  This is one of the main arguments for derivative markets, they lead to equal availability of buyers and sellers.  I don't think the bitcoin derivatives market has achieved that status yet.

_Update:  I Googled "how many bitcoin holders" and I get that there are over 700,000 who own at least 1 BTC.  So I suppose that does supply a critical mass of potential sellers so this is probably a rabbit hole._


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So I suppose that does supply a critical mass of potential sellers so this is probably a rabbit hole



Agreed.

More interesting is your reversion to JK comments on investopedia to endorse your own views on bitcoin utility. As mentioned I don't necessarily disagree with the view expressed rather I require some understanding as to what the point of reckoning will be to realise this view. Obviously trying to time the market is futile but I would suggest a substantial and sustained period of non-adoption, or next to, as a prospective tipping point in returning bitcoin to zero?
There is no real sign of that at the moment and in my view unlikely to be given the current state of Central Bank interference in money supply.

What I didn't realise about JK article in investopedia until this evening was that he goes full circle in his assumptions. Not only giving reasons why bitcoin could return to zero but also making assumptions and estimates of how its price could go to $514,000!

Kelleher applies a simple model (and wisely applying the quote "All models are wrong. some are useful") of calculating bitcoin price through bitcoin penetrating 15% of global money supply divided by 21m bitcoin.
If such an adoption rate were to materialise I would suggest the volatility to have greatly dissipated, thus making bitcoin acceptable and mainstream, fulfilling its utility of a MoE.

This is similar to my own simple calculation except I think Kelleher is too generous.
I'm cognisant that the global economy of the human race, including nation states and corporations, is indebted to the tune of 3 times more it actually values itself. For an artificially constructed system it really is a derisory position to be in. I would expect that a great deal of that money supply will eventually be destroyed and I also limit bitcoin to a modest 2% of the money supply.

It is this precarious position of the monetary system, combined with rapid advances in technology in everything from food, medicine and healthcare, education, transport, communication, to the adoption of widespread environmentally sustainable approaches in industry and agriculture, that will radically overhaul the way of life for practically everyone on the planet in the coming decades.

Politics will try to interfere to manipulate the economic forces that emanate from these radical changes as it always does. There will be winners and losers, as there always are.
In the midst of all this Bitcoin will offer an opportunity for everyone and anyone to obtain a degree of financial and economic autonomy as a means to protect against this political interference and manipulation. I price bitcoin at $34,500 over next 18-24months.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@WolfeTone you use the word adoption.  I would put current adoption as a medium of exchange as being zero. So when you say there is currently adoption I presume you mean as a store of value or as a speculative vehicle.  In JK’s logic this is cart before the horse and is ultimately unsustainable unless it becomes underpinned by MOE adoption.
Even if folk lose faith in their local currency I can never see bitcoin being adopted in any meaningful way as a MOE.  Your 2% would be a very high rate of adoption possibly on a par with sterling which has over 60 million people using it as their day to day transactional currency.  15% is silly.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would put current adoption as a medium of exchange as being zero



It's not quite zero but in the grand scheme of things it is at micro levels. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So when you say there is currently adoption I presume you mean as a store of value or as a speculative vehicle. In JK’s logic this is cart before the horse and is ultimately unsustainable _unless_ it becomes underpinned by MOE adoption.



I'm do not dismiss this view but again I refer to when the point of reckoning will emerge that will act as the catalyst to returning bitcoin to zero? Impossible to gauge, although I wholly accept that this is a possibility. 
But as it stands of today I do think that point is moving further away rather than closer. 

There is also the diffusion of innovation theory, a cursory application of this theory to bitcoin and the parallels to mainstream adoption over the long-term are there to see. 
Time, is a critical unquantifiable determinant.


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> It's not quite zero but in the grand scheme of things it is at micro levels.


There's no doubt but that BTC is much further along with a store of value / 'digital gold' use case rather than micro-payments. However, crypto and bitcoin is very much on the minds of payments networks. It's  a matter of speculation but some point to the commencement of Paypal's bitcoin offering with this increase in demand and thus price being more than just a coincidence.
Time will tell but I think a much longer time horizon is needed to see what impact it can make from a payments perspective. It's being argued that bitcoin needs to be actively used as a means of exchange before it can act as a store of value. I think that it establishing itself as a store of value can in some ways be helpful to it establishing itself as a means of exchange.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> ...store of value can in some ways be helpful to it establishing itself as a means of exchange.


Absolutely, I think that is called bootstrapping.  And certainly Satoshi was keenly aware that his bitcoin needed some form of utility/intrinsic/store of value to make it work as a medium of exchange which was its intended purpose.  That is why gold was the primitive choice for MOE, its basic attraction to the human senses was a natural bootstrap, but I don't want to go down the gold rabbit hole.
In his/her thought piece Satoshi suggested that some folk regarding it as a collectors item would serve as the bootstrap - seemed a bit far fetched to me.  S/he settled for the rather circular argument that if folk started to use it as a MOE then that of itself would be the utility to bootstrap it as an MOE.  Kelleher develops this theme and argues that ultimately the only utility value that bitcoin can have is as an MOE and the only way it can be a sustainable store of value is if it has the underpin of this utility value.
According to my interpretation of JK's argument today's bitcoin price can only be explained as being a speculation that it will ultimately make the grade as an MOE.  I suspect that many of the folk dabbling in bitcoin do not bother themselves with such considerations and are simply climbing on a bandwagon out of FOMO.  (Not saying you fall into that camp.)


----------



## tecate

Your point /position is very clear by now, Dukey.  I'm open to all outcomes but to me, evidence points increasingly towards bitcoin establishing itself as a store of value.

2020 has been most notable for the number of influencial folk from the conventional world who have come out and confirmed a similar belief. Yesterday the CIO of Blackrock (one of the world's largest asset managers) came out and said that crypto is here to stay and that bitcoin can replace gold as a store of value. A few days prior to that, Deutsche Bank confirmed that they're seeing a preference for bitcoin rather than gold from their younger customers.



			
				Dukey said:
			
		

> I suspect that many of the folk dabbling in bitcoin do not bother themselves with such considerations and are simply climbing on a bandwagon out of FOMO. (Not saying you fall into that camp.)


This uptick seems quite different to 2017. I'm not seeing much in the way of euphoria. There's much less 'dumb money' being added to the market and there's no ICO craze in play.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I suspect that many of the folk dabbling in bitcoin do not bother themselves with such considerations and are simply climbing on a bandwagon out of FOMO.



I don't get that sense, for sure elements of it are there but it's hard to imagine that €300bn market is being sustained primarily by FOMO. 
One of the hallmarks of speculative euphoria is an accompanying media frenzy. In 2017 bitcoin was making headlines all over. It still does, but to a much lesser extent.


----------



## tecate

In an interview earlier today on CNBC, Paypal CEO Dan Schulman spoke to....

1. The inherent value of crypto:

_“All forms of money are based on trust and set values that come from that trust.” _

&

2. Its utility:

_"Early next year, we’re going to allow cryptocurrencies to be a funding source for any transaction happening on all 28 million of our merchants. And that will significantly bolster the utility of cryptocurrencies.”_

Meanwhile, over on Bloomberg, the CIO of Saxo Bank stated that:

_"We have to focus on the fact that crypto has become a real valid sort of alternative for safe keeping. . . These people want to live in a different system to what we do. . . They trust something else . . . Increasingly we're going to see more and more people like my age group getting involved with that as a safe haven as well"._


----------



## SGWidow

WolfeTone said:


> I don't doubt that is a reasonable interpretation and for sure the crowd dynamic does not always call it right. But this is what represents value. The interpretation of information and putting a price on it or exploiting the price of the market. I hope you capitalised on it.



Wolfetone,

I really enjoy your posts. I think that you might be a little crazy...…..but in a nice way!

I have money on deposit earning zilch. The temptation to receive 10 plus years interest (at 1.07) within a few weeks is getting to me!!

What should a rationale investor do?

Is rationality in play when a * b > 1, where:

a = Probability of outcome?
b = Value of outcome

In simple terms, if I think that Biden is 98% sure to be the next POSUM, the sum is
0.98 * 1.07 = 1.05_ish_

What I'm wondering is that here I have a positive expected outcome but people would think I'm mad to go for it whereas folk who bet in bookies (who can count) do so on the basis of a negative expected outcome?

Does it boil down to self-delusion?
What is logical behaviour?
When does the expected outcome for Biden to win the election become compelling (that's what we are betting on, isn't it - as opposed to him surviving/remaining healthy until January)?
Am I just looking for some excitement in these weird times?

Apologies to Tecate and others - not directly related to Bitcoin - although arguably there's some overlap. Also, it crystallises the essence of the investment decision of getting the balance right between maximising return with acceptable risk.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

“Nouriel Roubini” said:
			
		

> 13% down. Most manipulated asset ever. As I said the higher it goes the harder it will fall. FOMO-salivating retail suckers hoodwinked by manipulative whales will get shafted as in 2018!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Duke

Is there any evidence of manipulation?  I know it's supposedly limited in supply, but how do they manipulate it? 

Sure they talk it up, but that is different. 

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone

SGWidow said:


> I think that you might be a little crazy...…..but in a nice way!



Always happy to receive a backhanded compliment... I think?    



SGWidow said:


> What should a rationale investor do?



@SGWidow you should be aware that any rational analysis of my bets in the US Presidential market could only consider that I have been wholly irrational in my betting punts - in hindsight of course. 
The only rational thing to do is not gamble what you are not prepared to lose. 

Considering bitcoin, my forecast is that it is heading to $34k over the medium term. It is taking a bit of a battering last couple of days.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Duke
> 
> Is there any evidence of manipulation?  I know it's supposedly limited in supply, but how do they manipulate it?
> 
> Sure they talk it up, but that is different.
> 
> Brendan


I don't know whether Roubini (courtesy @tecate ) has any evidence of manipulation.  But certainly if a market can be manipulated it will be manipulated.  
A buys from B; B buys back from A - creating false price history.  The major stock exchanges are heavily regulated to root such manipulation with full historic transparency of trades.  By its nature bitcoin does not have that transparency.  Any manipulation will be accompanied by a ramping up of the narrative at the same time.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't know whether Roubini (courtesy @tecate ) has any evidence of manipulation.


Nouriel finds himself in a difficult position.  He's backed himself into a corner and can see the crystalisation of that 'fax machine' moment. Hence his attempt to extract himself via the acknowledgement that bitcoin is a store of value a couple of weeks back (having been wrong on bitcoin as early as 2013 and having said it would go to zero a couple of years ago).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But certainly if a market can be manipulated it will be manipulated.


You've nailed it, Dukey. Manipulation isn't exclusive to this market. It existed long before its existence. Ask George Soros and the Bank of England.
When you zoom out, bitcoins market cap is just a drop in the ocean. As it expands, market manipulation is going to be much harder to achieve.


----------



## DazedInPontoon

Duke of Marmalade said:


> “Nouriel Roubini” said:
> 
> 13% down. Most manipulated asset ever. As I said the higher it goes the harder it will fall. FOMO-salivating retail suckers hoodwinked by manipulative whales will get shafted as in 2018!
Click to expand...


Though I've been following this thread, I haven't read any of the linked Nouriel Roubini stuff, I expect anyone who sees the price behaviour since October which is about 80% up and then a 13% correction and takes away from it that bitcoin has "crashed again" is working backwards from the outcome they want and not forwards from the data.

(and for the record, my money is where my mouth is on this. This was a standard correction, in fact maybe not even enough of one, back to 14k would not surprise me. There may be a short or long battle to convincingly breach 20k, but I think it's high likely it will be breached in anywhere from 1 month to a year, but I would expect sooner rather than later. And when it does I expect it will run well beyond it.)


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> You've nailed it, Dukey. Manipulation isn't exclusive to this market. It existed long before its existence. Ask George Soros and the Bank of England.
> When you zoom out, bitcoins market cap is just a drop in the ocean. As it expands, market manipulation is going to be much harder to achieve.



This is true and the solution for longer-established markets to stop manipulation is through additional centralized control implemented via regulation. As bitcoin is unregulated and the barrier to entry for establishing an exchange is much lower, manipulation is rife or even just stability of the market is lesser. There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price), and also more recently the algos reacitng to an April Fools joke causing a spike. 

So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated it will need to find other means to stop manipulation.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> This is true and the solution for longer-established markets to stop manipulation is through additional centralized control implemented via regulation. As bitcoin is unregulated and the barrier to entry for establishing an exchange is much lower, manipulation is rife or even just stability of the market is lesser.


Within reason. I'd imagine expanding the market will help more. Regulation of centralised entities (exchanges) I don't have so much issue with - as long as there isn't overreach. There are going to be a few years of battles on that front going forward.



Dublinbay12 said:


> There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price),


I don't like the Bitfinex/Tether setup simply because the possibility is there for bad practice. That said, what has been proven other than that they held 70% reserves as a result of having funds frozen through no fault of their own?  



Dublinbay12 said:


> and also more recently the algos reacitng to an April Fools joke causing a spike.


Is that not just symptomatic of a tiny market? Otherwise, how does regulation fix this?



Dublinbay12 said:


> So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated it will need to find other means to stop manipulation.


The two worlds are colliding to an extent so there will be various attempts at regulation - that's ongoing. Other than that, market grows and there's much less opportunity to manipulate.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Within reason. I'd imagine expanding the market will help more. Regulation of centralised entities (exchanges) I don't have so much issue with - as long as there isn't overreach. There are going to be a few years of battles on that front going forward.



In my opinion, it is an incorrect assumption to believe that a larger market will solve infrastructure weaknesses. It will not or else we would not see a need for regulation of trading activity in the financial markets right? As an example, I've played with crypto derivatives and the platforms and level of sophistication are nothing compared to institutional trading platforms, there were clear arbitrage opportunities available. 



tecate said:


> Is that not just symptomatic of a tiny market? Otherwise, how does regulation fix this?



No, it is symptomatic of poor or unsophisticated/weak market infrastructure, advanced markets experience  'flash crashes' and usually there is a regulator to report to and subsequent changes. Regulation forces a lot of controls or market infrastructure that would otherwise not be built. In a previous life, I have seen institutions wrapped on the wrists by regulators for shortcomings and forced to spend to fix the issue.


----------



## tecate

@Dublinbay12 : I don't have a problem with regulation so long as it doesn't go too far. I don't know where or when you were trading crypto derivatives but there's a CME crypto futures market. They're as professional as you can get although a buddy of mine suggested he wouldn't avail of said market as he didn't like the trading fees. That said, trading fees and infrastructure has improved in crypto since a few years ago. It will need to do so again - it's an iterative process. I would have thought the market growing would bring that about to an extent.

Circling this back to Nouriel's manipulation mention, I don't know what he expects in a nascent/emerging/unregulated market. Google "market manipulation" + "gold" and we see another example that the crypto space doesn't in any way have exclusivity when it comes to such bad practice. Kettle calling pot black from Nouriel.


----------



## tecate

Just published by Bloomberg: _ 'Bitcoin Fights Back With Power, Speed and Millions of Users'_
The piece speaks to bitcoin's growing network effect, hash rate and market depth.

Meanwhile, $270 billion asset manager Guggenheim Funds Trust has filed an amendment with the SEC to allow its $5 billion Macro Opportunities Fund to have the option of gaining a 10% exposure to BTC.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> @Dublinbay12 : I don't have a problem with regulation so long as it doesn't go too far. I don't know where or when you were trading crypto derivatives but there's a CME crypto futures market. They're as professional as you can get although a buddy of mine suggested he wouldn't avail of said market as he didn't like the trading fees. That said, trading fees and infrastructure has improved in crypto since a few years ago. It will need to do so again - it's an iterative process. I would have thought the market growing would bring that about to an extent.
> 
> Circling this back to Nouriel's manipulation mention, I don't know what he expects in a nascent/emerging/unregulated market. Google "market manipulation" + "gold" and we see another example that the crypto space doesn't in any way have exclusivity when it comes to such bad practice. Kettle calling pot black from Nouriel.



What regulation is too far? Regulation is aimed to protect the market and participants. 

I have used BitMex and Deribit to play around with options / derivatives on crypto markets on a crypto platforms. CME Futures are cash settled so somewhat removed from the actual crypto market, it is a product in the established markets that references the price of Bitcoin, and not dissimilar to pork belly futures. However, CME is a regulated entity and futures a regulated market, but the main crypto exchanges and the physical trading of crypto is not at the same level of regulation and thus the market infrastructure is weaker. 

It is a straight forward fact that the Crypto Market is less advanced than Financial Markets.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> What regulation is too far?


 FATF travel rule and stuff of that nature...aside from the fact it simply won't work. And building on that, regulation that has been designed for an old paradigm and has no place when it comes to a completely new paradigm. The modern day equivalent of the red flag act of 1865....measures that lack understanding of the technology and innovation at hand and apply regulation that destroys that innovation.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Regulation is aimed to protect the market and participants.


Indeed it is. A lot of the time, it can and does achieve exactly that. That doesn't mean that it does so all of the time or that it can't go too far into nanny-state mode (or misunderstand or be unsympathetic to the fintech at hand - as I alluded to above).



Dublinbay12 said:


> However, CME is a regulated entity and futures a regulated market


That's why I suggested it to you. If you want a similar regulatory standard and physically settled, have you tried Bakkt?



Dublinbay12 said:


> It is a straight forward fact that the Crypto Market is less advanced than Financial Markets.


Just in case there's a suggestion that this was being disputed, it wasn't. We're talking about the comparison of a market developed over an age vs. one that's finding its feet. It couldn't possibly be any other way. To expect it to develop any other way is also wayward.

You never did confirm - what was your rationale for holding/speculating on/investing in/trading bitcoin?


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> FATF travel rule and stuff of that nature...aside from the fact it simply won't work. And building on that, regulation that has been designed for an old paradigm and has no place when it comes to a completely new paradigm. The modern day equivalent of the red flag act of 1865....measures that lack understanding of the technology and innovation at hand and apply regulation that destroys that innovation.
> 
> 
> Indeed it is. A lot of the time, it can and does achieve exactly that. That doesn't mean that it does so all of the time or that it can't go too far into nanny-state mode (or misunderstand or be unsympathetic to the fintech at hand - as I alluded to above).
> 
> 
> That's why I suggested it to you. If you want a similar regulatory standard and physically settled, have you tried Bakkt?
> 
> Just in case there's a suggestion that this was being disputed, it wasn't. We're talking about the comparison of a market developed over an age vs. one that's finding its feet. It couldn't possibly be any other way. To expect it to develop any other way is also wayward.



You are missing the point I made.........The CME Futures have little to do with the actual Crypto Market Infrastructure on which I was speaking to. They are cashed settled products that reference the price of Bitcoin, no crypto exchanges are made when purchasing it is USD. 

I am left confused on your position, as your first point above makes you seem very anti-regulation and saying regulation can destroy innovation. Yet you point to BTC gaining legitimacy through the likes of CME and BAKKT. However, these are regulated entities and that is a contrast against your position on regulation. 

The simple point you have not disproved is that a larger market does not mean a better market. The key way to reduce fraud, stability, arbitrage opportunities is through regulation as proven in the financial markets. 



tecate said:


> You never did confirm - what was your rationale for holding/speculating on/investing in/trading bitcoin?



This has no relevance to this discussion.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> You are missing the point I made.........The CME Futures have little to do with the actual Crypto Market Infrastructure on which I was speaking to. They are cashed settled products that reference the price of Bitcoin, no crypto exchanges are made when purchasing it is USD.


I disagree. Clearly they're far from the same thing - its not a physically settled product - but its relevant to the entire sector. 



Dublinbay12 said:


> I am left confused on your position, as your first point above makes you seem very anti-regulation and saying regulation can destroy innovation. Yet you point to BTC gaining legitimacy through the likes of CME and BAKKT. However, these are regulated entities and that is a contrast against your position on regulation.


Sorry for your troubles - but all I can say is that you re-read my previous post.  In short, regulation can be good and it can also be very bad - it depends on the specifics. Perhaps you think its ok to accept any old regulation that's applied. That's not my position.



Dublinbay12 said:


> The simple point you have not disproved is that a larger market does not mean a better market. The key way to reduce fraud, stability, arbitrage opportunities is through regulation as proven in the financial markets.


I didnt suggest either/or. Other than that, I disagree - market size helps.



Dublinbay12 said:


> This has no relevance to this discussion.


It has every relevance but I don't mind if you don't answer. To my mind, it clarifies plenty based on previous discussion.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> I disagree. Clearly they're far from the same thing - its not a physically settled product - but its relevant to the entire sector.
> 
> 
> Sorry for your troubles - but all I can say is that you re-read my previous post.  In short, regulation can be good and it can also be very bad - it depends on the specifics. Perhaps you think its ok to accept any old regulation that's applied. That's not my position.
> 
> 
> I didnt suggest either/or. Other than that, I disagree - market size helps.
> 
> 
> It has every relevance but I don't mind if you don't answer. To my mind, it clarifies plenty based on previous discussion.



Why is it relevant? If anything it is a bad thing, institutions can now access price exposure to BTC without having to interact with the Crypto ecosystem.

I really don't understand how my investment strategy in BTC has any relevance to a discussion on the weaknesses of the cryptocurrency market infrastructure? If anything from our discussions I have a lot more knowledge on the market infrastructure of both real markets and BTC than you do. 

Regulation can be good it can be bad....get off the fence! We are speaking about a particular type of regulation that has been put in place in financial markets to stop market manipulation, you either think it is good or you don't?


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> If anything it is a bad thing, institutions can now access price exposure to BTC without having to interact with the Crypto ecosystem.


It's not ideal but it's  a case of stepping stones. You yourself have told us that market infrastructure is weak. It allows participants to filter into the sector.



Dublinbay12 said:


> If anything from our discussions I have a lot more knowledge on the market infrastructure of both real markets and BTC than you do.


That's wonderful.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Regulation can be good it can be bad....get off the fence! We are speaking about a particular type of regulation that has been put in place in financial markets to stop market manipulation, you either think it is good or you don't?


What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.
I am not going to suggest that every individual regulation is good because it's simply not true.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> It's not ideal but it's  a case of stepping stones. You yourself have told us that market infrastructure is weak. It allows participants to filter into the sector.
> 
> That's wonderful.
> 
> What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.
> I am not going to suggest that every individual regulation is good because it's simply not true.



You are ignoring the question......do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation? It is a simple question.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> You are ignoring the question......do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation? It is a simple question.


Firstly, I've answered you question. I've stated that regulation can be good and regulation can be bad. Unlike you, I'd be inclined to examine each individual regulation on its specific merits. That's where this nonsense stops.  As I have suggested twice already, you're determined to find a point of conflict.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Firstly, I've answered you question. I've stated that regulation can be good and regulation can be bad. Unlike you, I'd be inclined to examine each individual regulation on its specific merits. That's where this nonsense stops.  As I have suggested twice already, you're determined to find a point of conflict.



Tecate, you didn't answer the question, you just dodged it. It is impossible to have a rational discourse with you on the topic, either you pull a 'time will tell' or middle of the road answer like regulation is good and regulation is bad. It is laughable that a few hours earlier you were posting that regulation destroys innovation. I just don't think you clearly understand the market dynamics. 

I am out.


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price),



Surely its the regulation of exchanges that you are talking about here? I would have absolutely no issue with exchanges being regulated to the same extent as financial markets. If I'm understanding you correctly, that is not regulation of bitcoin just regulation of the exchanges and the market participants.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> It is impossible to have a rational discourse with you on the topic,


Take a look in the mirror - from the guy that has set out with the objective of conflict and nothing else.



Dublinbay12 said:


> either you pull a 'time will tell' or middle of the road answer like regulation is good and regulation is bad.


Another guy who one minute says I'm not answering his questions and in the next breath, confirms that he feels that I am answering his questions but he doesn't like the answers.



Dublinbay12 said:


> It is laughable that a few hours earlier you were posting that regulation destroys innovation.


I've never claimed to be any expert on regulation, development, financial markets or anything else unlike yourself. Here you are misrepresenting what I said. Secondly, for the guy that tells us he's an expert, if he knows so much, how is it he doesn't know that regulation has the potential to stymie innovation is a view expressed repeatedly by a range of commentators in the sector?

Other than that, more double standards. The (inaccurate) suggestion I'm not answering his questions - yet my questions are not relevant. During the course of these discussions you've claimed to be more amenable to bitcoin than other naysayers here - you've then claimed to be 'neutra'l' and capable of being objective unlike the rest of us. Yet, where have you recognised any positives in the bitcoin proposition? My question to you (why you invested in bitcoin) was entirely relevant on that basis.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> Surely its the regulation of exchanges that you are talking about here? I would have absolutely no issue with exchanges being regulated to the same extent as financial markets. If I'm understanding you correctly, that is not regulation of bitcoin just regulation of the exchanges and the market participants.



I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges. For reference, my the below is the original point I made, and that comment in my opinion has not been disproven or any evidence provided that the market getting larger will stop it. My honest opinion is that without regulation of the participants that fraud and other issues such as market manipulation will ever be eradicated. 

_"This is true and the solution for longer-established markets to stop manipulation is through additional centralized control implemented via regulation. As bitcoin is unregulated and the barrier to entry for establishing an exchange is much lower, manipulation is rife or even just stability of the market is lesser. There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price), and also more recently the algos reacitng to an April Fools joke causing a spike.

So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated it will need to find other means to stop manipulation."_


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges.





Dublinbay12 said:


> So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated



I think you are combing regulation of markets and exchanges with regulation of bitcoin? As you say, bitcoin is unregulated...I dont see any need for any change in that score. If market participants are going to buy and sell across exchanges, then why not regulate the exchanges, I don't see any issue there. Apologies if I am misconstruing your overall point.


----------



## Leo

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, you didn't answer the question, you just dodged it.



I'm afraid that is tecate's well worn pattern when faced with a question they either can't or don't want to answer!


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> I think you are combing regulation of markets and exchanges with regulation of bitcoin? As you say, bitcoin is unregulated...I dont see any need for any change in that score. If market participants are going to buy and sell across exchanges, then why not regulate the exchanges, I don't see any issue there. Apologies if I am misconstruing your overall point.



I should say 'Bitcoin Market'


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.


I don't detect any conflict in Dublinbay12's post, s/he's merely saying to get of the fence and s/he's correct.

The conflict I _do_ detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....

Time and again you resort to personal attacks when someone challenges your wishy-washy arguments and/or your dodging of questions.

For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383
"_do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?_"

Why can't you answer the question???


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> I should say 'Bitcoin Market'



Sorry, still not getting it...are you are talking about regulating peer-to-peer transfers? Or market buying and selling? Or both? I can see advantages to regulating exchanges such as Coinbase for sure. 
I'm not sure how you would regulate peer-to-peer transfers, and in all honesty, I do not see how such transfers lead to price manipulation in any sort of grand scale. Albeit, I am open to correction and willing to learn.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> I'm afraid that is tecate's well worn pattern when faced with a question they either can't or don't want to answer!


As agreed upon by a quorum of bitcoin naysayers. That stands up alright. 



Dublinbay12 said:


> I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges.


These have been ongoing discussions on the topic as a whole. My question is entirely relevant given the tact you're taking here.



Firefly said:


> I don't detect any conflict in Dublinbay12's post, s/he's merely saying to get of the fence and s/he's correct.


conflict of interest much Firefly?  He's in no way right. Only an utter moron would suggest that ANY regulation is good. I've acknowledged that regulation can be good and it can be bad. There are many well regarded people in the industry that hold that view.



Firefly said:


> The conflict I _do_ detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....


See above. 



Firefly said:


> The conflict I _do_ detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....


Maybe dust off the dictionary and figure out the meaning of the word 'objectivity' - it's very much lacking.



Firefly said:


> For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383
> "_do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?_"


You're a spokesman for dublinbay12 now?




Firefly said:


> For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383]
> Why can't you answer the question???


I did answer the question.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> As agreed upon by a quorum of bitcoin naysayers. That stands up alright.



It's clear to anyone reading these pages. Can you tell me now how I can send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection yet?


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> It's clear to anyone reading these pages.


That we have a gaggle of bitcoin naysayers getting frustrated and reaching a contrived quorum? Yes, I believe it is clear, Leo.  



Leo said:


> Can you tell me now how I can send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection yet?


Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> He's in no way right.
> 
> Only an utter moron would suggest that ANY regulation is good. I've acknowledged that regulation can be good and it can be bad.


I can same that some bacteria are good and some are bad, but that doesn't tell us anything. It's non-specific and wishy-washy



tecate said:


> I did answer the question.


I beg to differ....you were asked a *specific* question, which I see you have conveniently removed from my quote. But here it is again:

_"Do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?"_

Where have you answered this question?


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.



Says the Almighty!!!!


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.



No, just like your evading Dublinbay12's questions that might expose your lack of understanding, you responded to my question many times, but you have continued to refuse to back up your claim and answer the question.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I can same that some bacteria are good and some are bad, but that doesn't tell us anything. It's non-specific and wishy-washy


You can state that and I wouldn't jump down your throat. 
I was asked for an example and I gave one. Other than that, I'm not going to say something that's untrue. It's completely moronic what you're going on with here. Are you seriously suggesting that ALL regulations can be assumed to be good!? No wonder your gaggle of bitcoin naysayers don't get bitcoin!



Firefly said:


> Says the Almighty!!!!


Ah, I see. I have to consent to this nonsense in your wayward opinion?  I don't firefly - why don't you join @Leo - I won't be answering any of your questions going forward.   


Leo said:


> No, just like your evading Dublinbay12's questions that might expose your lack of understanding, you responded to my question many times, but you have continued to refuse to back up your claim and answer the question.


I don't care what you're obsessed with Leo. I've told you many times - I vehemently disagree - and that's where it stops.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> You can state that and I wouldn't jump down your throat.


You're quite the dramatist really!



tecate said:


> It's completely moronic what you're going on with here.


Asking you to answer a question that you said you have answered, but haven't? Pot / kettle again



tecate said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that ALL regulations can be assumed to be good!?


Where have I suggested that?



tecate said:


> No wonder your gaggle of bitcoin naysayers don't get bitcoin!


I am not a bitcoin naysayer. I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminals



tecate said:


> Ah, I see. I have to consent to this nonsense in your wayward opinion?


I never said you had to consent to anything.  Why are you trolling a thread so close to your heart? 



tecate said:


> I won't be answering any of your questions going forward.


But you never did anyway


----------



## DublinHead54

@tecate has sunk to the lowest form discourse by attacking the person when they no longer have the capacity to engage in conversation. It is truly laughable that they do not see how they are twisting the words to try and save whatever face they have left. I actually used to think you had a solid understanding of Bitcoin, but I think your knowledge stretches only as far as whatever article you can find on google. I really think you lack the ability to rationalize Bitcoin as a technology. 

Honestly, you've wasted so much time on here, as through however many posts in response to me over the last few days, the best you can come up with is 'regulation is good and bad', a complete nonsense. The point I added to this conversation is that regulation is needed for the bitcoin trading market to stop arbitrage, support stability and limit fraud. When faced with that you come up with 'regulation is good and bad'....I think you could give our politicians some advice!

Anyway, I don't engage with people who are unable to handle criticism of a topic, so by all means feel free to respond, but I will not be engaging with you on this topic any longer.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> You're quite the dramatist really!


A great addition to the discussion. Thanks for your service.



Firefly said:


> Asking you to answer a question that you said you have answered, but haven't? Pot / kettle again


Aside from the inconvenient truth - question has long since been answered. 



Firefly said:


> Where have I suggested that?


It's implicit.



Firefly said:


> I am not a bitcoin naysayer. I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminals


Anything that you can tar and feather it with - understood.



Firefly said:


> never said you had to consent to anything.


Then why the inappropriate comment.



Firefly said:


> But you never did anyway


That's a blatant lie.


----------



## WolfeTone

Firefly said:


> I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminals



I have heard this before, I have never been convinced of it. Bitcoin does not compare to cash when it comes to criminal enterprise. For sure there may be some use cases, but cash is king in the criminal world. As has often been pointed out here, bitcoins use as a MoE is not great.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> @tecate has sunk to the lowest form discourse by attacking the person when they no longer have the capacity to engage in conversation.


That's where the rest of you take this - time and time again. I called it from the get go - you were determined to find conflict - that was your only interest here.



Dublinbay12 said:


> It is truly laughable that they do not see how they are twisting the words to try and save whatever face they have left. I actually used to think you had a solid understanding of Bitcoin, but I think your knowledge stretches only as far as whatever article you can find on google. I really think you lack the ability to rationalize Bitcoin as a technology.


I know. I really struggle to reach your level of intellect.   



Dublinbay12 said:


> Honestly, you've wasted so much time on here, as through however many posts in response to me over the last few days,


You don't like my responses - yeah, I've heard that a few times. Just coincidence that it comes from bitcoin naysayers.



Dublinbay12 said:


> When faced with that you come up with 'regulation is good and bad'....


The implicit suggestion is that regulation is good regardless  of what specific regulations we're talking about.  That is completely and utterly moronic.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Anyway, I don't engage with people who are unable to handle criticism of a topic,


I don't tend to mesh well with the arrogant - that's a certainty.



Dublinbay12 said:


> so by all means feel free to respond


Gee, thanks.



Dublinbay12 said:


> but I will not be engaging with you on this topic any longer.


Very best of luck to you.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> I have heard this before, I have never been convinced of it. Bitcoin does not compare to cash when it comes to criminal enterprise. For sure there may be some use cases, but cash is king in the criminal world. As has often been pointed out here, bitcoins use as a MoE is not great.



BTC does not offer as much privacy as cash. So the question to ask is why is a decentralized currency that operates outside of the financial system is not the preferred currency of criminals?


(Tecate....this point is directed at WolfeTone and not you)


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> BTC does not offer as much privacy as cash.


Which is why cash is the clear choice of criminals - not bitcoin.



Dublinbay12 said:


> (Tecate....this point is directed at WolfeTone and not you)


It's an open discussion. If you'd like to PM WolfeTone, have at it.


----------



## WolfeTone

Dublinbay12 said:


> So the question to ask is why is a decentralized currency that operates outside of the financial system is not the preferred currency of criminals?



Well my theory on that is this - the primary driver for getting involved in criminality is at one end of the scale to get out of poverty, or at the other end of the scale indulge in the trappings of vast wealth.
At either end of the scale, cash is king for use as a medium of exchange and as you mention, privacy. Bitcoin falls well short as a MoE, so it makes little to zero sense to use it for criminal endeavours.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> Well my theory on that is this - the primary driver for getting involved in criminality is at one end of the scale to get out of poverty, or at the other end of the scale indulge in the trappings of vast wealth.
> At either end of the scale, cash is king for use as a medium of exchange and as you mention, privacy. Bitcoin falls well short as a MoE, so it makes little to zero sense to use it for criminal endeavours.



Yes that makes sense, although BTC is still used for some criminality (Dark Web, Silk Road) etc. However, given the reach of Cash vs BTC plus the technical learning curve it makes sense that cash has remained king.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> I vehemently disagree - and that's where it stops.



So you can't back up your claim, or admit you actually don't understand the technology that underpins all this.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> So you can't back up your claim, or admit you actually don't understand the technology that underpins all this.


Take your nonsense to someone else, Leo - I'm not buying the manure you're selling.


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Take your nonsense to someone else, Leo - I'm not buying the manure your selling.



So go on then, explain how someone can send bitcoin over a satellite service without the need for an internet connection?  You're the one trying to sell nonsense, I just called out on it.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> So go on then, explain how someone can send bitcoin over a satellite service without the need for an internet connection?  You're the one trying to sell nonsense, I just called out on it.


Your question was answered - and beyond that, you no longer have question privileges. A child needs to be treated as such .


----------



## Leo

tecate said:


> Your question was answered - and beyond that



It was repeatedly avoided, but never directly answered.


----------



## DublinHead54

@Leo it is not worth your time any longer, there is a clear lack of understanding and when faced with that truth the poster would rather attack the person. Over the last few days this has been proven again and again, nobody is allowed to contribute an opinion that disagrees with the shallow understanding of a novel technology or they will suffer a personal attack and be chastised as a 'naysayer'.

This is the classic rhetoric of people that lack an ability to look at the bigger picture rather than simply technology as a solution. This entire topic reminds me of this classic article on Innovation by Jill Lepore.









						What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong
					

Clayton M. Christensen’s popular theory of disruption is founded on panic, anxiety, and shaky evidence.




					www.newyorker.com
				




I took some time to reflect on the responses over the last few days, and I am not sure why we are actually asking questions to Tecate, as there is a clear lack of understanding outside of Bitcoin to adequately further any discussion. THe most annoying part of this discourse is the fall back response of stating uncertainties as certainities...'ah the market is growing and this will solve all the issues', 'oh the technology is new it will take time'. Unfortunately, that is not really an effective argument.

p.s I expect to be hit with some sarky response.


----------



## tecate

Leo said:


> It was repeatedly avoided, but never directly answered.


Leo, your social capital with me is sub-zero - so you can keep repeating the same thing over and over. I responded to your query - you're not happy with the answer - that now becomes your issue. Any questions that you're putting to me are likely to be ignored from here on in - due to the attitude you present with and the disingenuous approach you're taking here. The same goes for your fellow travelers.


Dublinbay12 said:


> @Leo it is not worth your time any longer, there is a clear lack of understanding and when faced with that truth the poster would rather attack the person.


The origin of personal attacks lie with yourself and your fellow bitcoin naysayers (and despite what you once claimed, that's precisely what you are).



Dublinbay12 said:


> Over the last few days this has been proven again and again, nobody is allowed to contribute an opinion that disagrees with the shallow understanding of a novel technology or they will suffer a personal attack and be chastised as a 'naysayer'.


The 'last few days' provides an excellent example of what's at play here. It was brought to your attention repeatedly that there was no conflict - but you were hell bent on finding it.  And the point upon which you (and your co-travelers) found it is priceless.

I was repeatedly chastised for taking the approach that regulation is oftentimes good - but cannot be relied upon to always be so - that individual regulations need to be assessed on their merits  - that it must be ensured that innovation is nurtured and not stymied.

That was my position and that remained (and remains) my view and position - when I was repeatedly told I hadn't answered. Apparently that's 'sitting on the fence'!  The crystal clear take away is that I was being badgered to confirm that regulation can only be good when nobody with any credibility could ever make such a statement.

I have never once suggested that I am any form of oracle on this subject over the course of over  three years of discussion. However, you have on two occasions. And yet this is the guy who's implicit in suggesting that regulation can only be good and it can't harm the development of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. I have NO tolerance for arrogance regardless of how well versed someone is in a subject - that's not an excuse. For a guy who claims oracle status, how then has it escaped your attention that a long, long list of very well regarded people in the industry have flagged exactly what I referred to with regard to crypto and regulation? Given what you claim, you should be embarrassed.

Whilst we're on the subject, your insult in terms of the allegation that my input involves cursory google searches has zero credibility. I know the strength and depth of the time and energy I've put into this subject area. Had I listened to the 'advice' or views that were emanating from your co-travelers - or more recently yourself  I'd be down life changing amounts of $ in the case of every single one of the past three years.

The reality is that this sub-forum has been partisan and frustrated with attempts to drown me out, you go with this contrivance (that I haven't answered questions when I have - yet you don't apply your own standards to yourselves). You and your merry band can agree amongst yourselves - don't think for a second I care - because I don't. Given your behaviour, you don't have and will never have my respect. What I do care about is that people who come here to gain an understanding of the subject have access to both sides of the debate. Exactly that. I don't care what conclusions they reach - so long as they have the info to make their own decision.

Now, I think it's crystal clear to everyone. I won't be brow beaten. You can continue on with this - your'e not bothering me one bit. But you are disrupting the ability of others to form their own opinion.

That's my position - just so that we're clear.


----------



## DublinHead54

@tecate do you honestly believe that you are a victim? Every opinion I have produced on this subject has been met with the starkest criticism from yourself. You are so narrow-minded that if you actually took the time to reread the stance you are exhibiting on Regulation is no different to mine, you just jumped to a conclusion that my regulation comment was negative. Please clarify

I think I have mentioned that I have personally been invested in cryptos for a decade and worked on professional projects, so if you want to go down a d*** measuring about life-changing sums of money that is your prerogative.

However, the utility of BTC and the cryptocurrency market as an investment vehicle is an entirely different subject to the utility of BTC. Much like I can buy a share in Manchester United on the stock market, but it doesn't mean I have to support them.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> @tecate do you honestly believe that you are a victim?


You give yourself far more credit than reality permits you - I'm no-one's 'victim'. That said, my post and the points raised stand.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Every opinion I have produced on this subject has been met with the starkest criticism from yourself.


Incorrect. Every opinion has been met with my own opinion.  Last time I checked, we're all entitled to one.



Dublinbay12 said:


> You are so narrow-minded


Don't pretend for a second that you know the first thing about me - let alone contrive conclusions to fit your world view.



Dublinbay12 said:


> if you actually took the time to reread the stance you are exhibiting on Regulation is no different to mine, you just jumped to a conclusion that my regulation comment was negative. Please clarify


It's you that needs to re-read. On several occasions I pointed out that there was no such conflict in play  - but you persisted with it.  I was astonished at the new depths of stupidity evidenced up to yesterday. You had every opportunity to correct that but you did no such thing. Now when its underscored you have no choice. I'll repeat again - only  a moron would suggest that blanket regulation (irrespective of the detail) could be good for the development of crypto and blockchain. Youcan wriggle this way or that but it's implicit in what you were driving at and what you were badgering me with. You did nothing to correct that - nor did you do so when @Firefly came to your support with precisely that.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I think I have mentioned that I have personally been invested in cryptos for a decade and worked on professional projects, so if you want to go down a d*** measuring about life-changing sums of money that is your prerogative.


Ah, I see. Now you're claiming I started with the d*** measuring. I did no such thing.  Over the course of three years, find me a post of mine that lords it over someone on the basis of my knowledge of the subject?  You were the one that started with that - you're basically suggesting that simply on the back of that, my opinion doesn't count.
As I outlined, I can't abide arrogance. I'm sure you have your own base of knowledge - but anyone who presents with arrogance - I'd sooner take the longer road and figure things out from normal people.



Dublinbay12 said:


> However, the utility of BTC and the cryptocurrency market as an investment vehicle is an entirely different subject to the utility of BTC.


Clearly, there's a direct connection between the two in one form or another.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> It's you that needs to re-read. On several occasions I pointed out that there was no such conflict in play  - but you persisted with it.  I was astonished at the new depths of stupidity evidenced up to yesterday. You had every opportunity to correct that but you did no such thing. Now when its underscored you have no choice. I'll repeat again - only  a moron would suggest that blanket regulation (irrespective of the detail) could be good for the development of crypto and blockchain. Youcan wriggle this way or that but it's implicit in what you were driving at and what you were badgering me with. You did nothing to correct that - nor did you do so when @Firefly came to your support with precisely that.



Tecate please be so kind as to point out where I have ever said that I am a proponent of blanket regulation? I have included my very first comment on the topic below. My comments were always on the back of a specific topic, I will clarify that when I said Bitcoin in the below I was referring to Bitcoin trading ecosystem, which should have been clear in subsequent posts. You clearly do not have a deep understanding of Financial Market regulation and how it protects participants and are leaning towards any regulation of the crypto market is to stymie innovation, which is frankly wrong.

_This is true and the solution for longer-established markets to stop manipulation is through additional centralized control implemented via regulation. As bitcoin is unregulated and the barrier to entry for establishing an exchange is much lower, manipulation is rife or even just stability of the market is lesser. There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price), and also more recently the algos reacitng to an April Fools joke causing a spike.

So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated it will need to find other means to stop manipulation._




tecate said:


> Ah, I see. Now you're claiming I started with the d*** measuring. I did no such thing.



See below for the cavalier boasting of the life-changing sums of money you have made in your most recent post.



tecate said:


> I know the strength and depth of the time and energy I've put into this subject area. Had I listened to the 'advice' or views that were emanating from your co-travelers - or more recently yourself *I'd be down life changing amounts of $ *in the case of every single one of the past three years.





tecate said:


> Clearly, there's a direct connection between the two in one form or another.



If this is true, and I am an investor, then how can you accuse me of being a naysayer?


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate please be so kind as to point out where I have ever said that I am a proponent of blanket regulation? I have included my very first comment on the topic below. My comments were always on the back of a specific topic, I will clarify that when I said Bitcoin in the below I was referring to Bitcoin trading ecosystem, which should have been clear in subsequent posts.


As regards requests from here on out - go fish. That kindness has been expended given what you and your co-travelers are about here.
However, I will say this. It's implicit when taken in the context of the discussion as a whole as it pertained to regulation over the past two days.
What puts that further beyond doubt is your support of the other two carnival workers - who pitched in on your behalf. If you agreed with me, why didn't you post "i agree"?  If that was too much for you to stomach, why didn't you correct them? You can try to wriggle out of this as much as you want - it's patently obvious.



Dublinbay12 said:


> You clearly do not have a deep understanding of Financial Market regulation and how it protects participants and are leaning towards any regulation of the crypto market is to stymie innovation, which is frankly wrong.


What would be helpful to your assertion here is if that's what I actually stated - it's not. I said that regulation for the most part can and oftentimes is - good. I added that that's not always the case and that care has to be taken to ensure that regulation is sympathetic to the innovation on hand. Worldwide, there are plenty of examples of wayward regulation as it pertains to crypto/blockchain. Now, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on regulation but there's no need to be to figure those basics out.



Dublinbay12 said:


> See below for the cavalier boasting of the life-changing sums of money you have made in your most recent post.


Oh, no you don't! I brought that up in direct response to sustained declarations of your superior knowledge whilst ridiculing mine. It took me three years to get to that - and only when provoked by your arrogant outbursts.  There are well over 1000 posts of mine here - all pertaining to this subject area.  Find me a post where I lord it over other discussion participants on the basis of me claiming to have superior knowledge. You're here two minutes and there are a few such examples.



Dublinbay12 said:


> If this is true, and I am an investor, then how can you accuse me of being a naysayer?


You were invited a number of times to set out your rationale - and initially ignored that  - then refused to do so. Between that and your behaviour, your interaction with some others here - and your commentary on the subject in general, it's clear enough.  No further clarification is required - It's no longer of interest to me (ergo, there's no mystery in it any more).


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> As regards requests from here on out - go fish. That kindness has been expended given what you and your co-travelers are about here.
> However, I will say this. It's implicit when taken in the context of the discussion as a whole as it pertained to regulation over the past two days.
> What puts that further beyond doubt is your support of the other two carnival workers - who pitched in on your behalf. If you agreed with me, why didn't you post "i agree"?  If that was too much for you to stomach, why didn't you correct them? You can try to wriggle out of this as much as you want - it's patently obvious.



Excuse me, as you pointed out yesterday this is a free forum and other contributors are free to post what they like. I have no control over what or how others interpret your attacks, and it is certainly not my response to clarify.

I introduced the topic of regulation in the specific context of the market infrastructure, you added some wishy washy statement that  regulation can be good and bad, that's great and should be painfully obvious to everyone that I didn't feel the need to mention it. Your claims that I propose 'blanket regulation' should be easily provable, but now at the third time you've finally admitted that you've said it was 'implied', I'll accept that as you admitting. So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?



tecate said:


> What would be helpful to your assertion here is if that's what I actually stated - it's not. I said that regulation for the most part can and oftentimes is - good. I added that that's not always the case and that care has to be taken to ensure that regulation is sympathetic to the innovation on hand. Worldwide, there are plenty of examples of wayward regulation as it pertains to crypto/blockchain. Now, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on regulation but there's no need to be to figure those basics out.



That is painfully obvious your lack of expertise, even now you are talking about regulation of crypto at the macroeconomic level whereas the only comments I have made are regulation as it pertains to the financial market infrastructure. It is ok if you don't know about there was just no need to try and argue on a different topic.



tecate said:


> Oh, no you don't! I brought that up in direct response to sustained declarations of your superior knowledge whilst ridiculing mine. It took me three years to get to that - and only when provoked by your arrogant outbursts.  There are well over 1000 posts of mine here - all pertaining to this subject area.  Find me a post where I lord it over other discussion participants on the basis of me claiming to have superior knowledge. You're here two minutes and there are a few such examples.



Tecate, wise up, you tried to ascertain your knowledge on the topic of by boasting about how much money you have made. It has nothing to do with any comments I or anyone else has made. Own your own statements please. I have still not seen anything from you that doesn't suggest I have more rounded understanding of crypto.




tecate said:


> You were invited a number of times to set out your rationale - and initially ignored that  - then refused to do so. Between that and your behaviour, your interaction with some others here - and your commentary on the subject in general, it's clear enough.  No further clarification is required - It's no longer of interest to me (ergo, there's no mystery in it any more).



This is a lie, I set it out the previous discussion with you. However, what relevance does my overall stance on BTC have to do with the topic I have discussed here. You have already admitted you agreed with my stance on regulation. Why are you hellbent on categorizing people as 'naysayers', is that the only way you can rationalize your own views? If I am a naysayer, what does that make you? As it would then suggest that you are just blindly following bitcoin.


----------



## WolfeTone

Regulation of bitcoin markets good, regulation of bitcoin bad.


----------



## DublinHead54

WolfeTone said:


> Regulation of bitcoin markets good, regulation of bitcoin bad.



Careful now or you'll be accused of being a naysayer.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Excuse me, as you pointed out yesterday this is a free forum and other contributors are free to post what they like. I have no control over what or how others interpret your attacks, and it is certainly not my response to clarify.


A couple of things. Yesterday, you were instructing me not to post. That's not whats at play here. I don't give a fiddlers what way you respond. However, I'm demonstrating what course of action you chose (as in the disingenuous one). 
As regards the 'attacks', when people started getting frustrated because they couldn't drown me out - the attacks came thereafter - at me - not from me. You can twist that whichever way you want but that's the truth of it.



Dublinbay12 said:


> and it is certainly not my response to clarify.


Indeed - and nor did it suit your purposes. But you have time to sledge me (not necessarily the points I raise but me personally) - go figure.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I introduced the topic of regulation in the specific context of the market infrastructure,


Ego much? I'm under no obligation to meet your requirements. 



Dublinbay12 said:


> you added some wishy washy statement that  regulation can be good and bad,


You can continue with the insults all day long - water off a ducks back.



Dublinbay12 said:


> that's great and should be painfully obvious to everyone that I didn't feel the need to mention it.


No, it should most certainly not. Again, more of the arrogance.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Your claims that I propose 'blanket regulation' should be easily provable, but now at the third time you've finally admitted that you've said it was 'implied', I'll accept that as you admitting. So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?


Firstly, there is no 'third time' - I wasn't pressed on the subject - I volunteered my take on your actions/inactions relative to this specific discussion.



Dublinbay12 said:


> So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?


Because that's a blatant lie - you made no such point until an hour ago.



Dublinbay12 said:


> That is painfully obvious your lack of expertise, even now you are talking about regulation of crypto at the macroeconomic level whereas the only comments I have made are regulation as it pertains to the financial market infrastructure. It is ok if you don't know about there was just no need to try and argue on a different topic.


And again, here we have it. Time and time again, I'm accused of 'personal attacks' - and here you are with the 'lack of expertise' charge. Just in case it wasn't clear, arrogance I have no time for. Other than that, what you post is your own doings. What I choose to post is my own business but be as obtuse as you wish in trying to justify your behaviour here.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, wise up,


Mind your manners.



Dublinbay12 said:


> you tried to ascertain your knowledge on the topic of by boasting about how much money you have made. It has nothing to do with any comments I or anyone else has made.


It had everything to do with your comments and was a direct response to the arrogance on display here. 1,000 posts on here and I never tried to denigrate another poster on the basis of having uber-knowlege. You're on here two minutes and I can cite several examples. My statement was in direct response to your reprehensible comments.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Own your own statements please.


Have a care for your own wayward statements and doings here.



Dublinbay12 said:


> This is a lie,


Damn straight its a lie  - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.



Dublinbay12 said:


> However, what relevance does my overall stance on BTC have to do with the topic I have discussed here. You have already admitted you agreed with my stance on regulation. Why are you hellbent on categorizing people as 'naysayers', is that the only way you can rationalize your own views? If I am a naysayer, what does that make you? As it would then suggest that you are just blindly following bitcoin.


Quite the opposite. You came on here some weeks ago suggesting that you had no bias and were approaching the topic as a neutral - alleging that I wasn't. I have consistently pointed out pros and cons with bitcoin. I have repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that it may fail or succeed. That's not the approach I see in those that I include in the 'naysayer' category.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Damn straight its a lie  - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.



This forum doesn't lie, say what you may but you misinterpreted my comments and when challenged you started with insults, and then boasting. It is not arrogant to point out after working for 20 years in financial regulation, that I have more knowledge on the topic.

Until you can separate 'BTC position' and ability to critically assess a forum post you are going to continue to have these tantrums and resort to insults, I really hope in real life you don't act like that. I will continue when in my opinion you make incorrect statements critically assess them and respond. Otherwise this forum will just be you posting articles about BTC dominance.

I am not sure why you need to keep bringing up false claims and trying to distract from the topic on hand.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> Damn straight its a lie  - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite. You came on here some weeks ago suggesting that you had no bias and were approaching the topic as a neutral - alleging that I wasn't. I have consistently pointed out pros and cons with bitcoin. I have repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that it may fail or succeed. That's not the approach I see in those that I include in the 'naysayer' category.



I am not a fan of being called a liar especially when the claim is completely unfounded. The below is taken from a post in which I presented by stance on Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology as a direct response to Tecates request. 


_"As I have mentioned, the political, economic and cultural issues are as important as the technology itself, so there will be varying adoption across the globe. My first point is I don't believe BTC will be used as a currency, it will become some form of digital store of value, whether that store of value becomes $1 or $50k, I have no clue.

In terms of Blockchain Technology, there are lots of interesting Proof of Concepts being proposed, but currently we aren't seeing a whole lot of adoption, I think the cost of implementation for corporations will out weigh the benefits.

The most interesting area is CBDC and Decentralized Finance. Central Banks have the biggest impact on us day to day, so they have the power to force adoption of digital assets (most money is already digital). I am excited by the concept of programmable money, for example, the stimulus checks for Covid in the US could have been delivered digitally and programmed to be only spent in certain areas of the economy. This gives another tool in the monetary tool box for Central Banks, and also goes towards moving towards a platform economy. It asks important questions around the role of Financial Intermediaries etc.

DeFI, is probably the coolest idea around at the minute and we are seeing lots of people benefit from it, I am working on a project currently in DeFi."_


@tecate you have zero credibility from now on in my opinion.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> This forum doesn't lie,


For sure - people can interpret it themselves. Just don't delude yourself that everyone shares your opinion (just in case you believe your own bs).



Dublinbay12 said:


> Until you can separate 'BTC position' and ability to critically assess a forum post you are going to continue to have these tantrums and resort to insults


Sounds like you're giving yourself a self-talk there. Lets hope its helpful to you.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I will continue when in my opinion you make incorrect statements critically assess them and respond. Otherwise this forum will just be you posting articles about BTC dominance.


Right back at you.



Dublinbay12 said:


> I am not sure why you need to keep bringing up false claims and trying to distract from the topic on hand.


Long since called it. The only ones pulling down free and open discussion is yourself and your fellow travelers.




Dublinbay12 said:


> I am not a fan of being called a liar especially when the claim is completely unfounded.


Perhaps if you'd be honest for a second you would't have to deal with it.  Here we have another example....->



Dublinbay12 said:


> The below is taken from a post in which I presented by stance on Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology as a direct response to Tecates request.


On several other occasions, I asked you specifically for your rationale specific to bitcoin itself  - not CBDCs or blockchain technology generally.  You ignored that request first time round and second time round you said it wasn't relevant.


----------



## DublinHead54

tecate said:


> On several other occasions, I asked you specifically for your rationale specific to bitcoin itself  - not CBDCs or blockchain technology generally.  You ignored that request first time round and second time round you said it wasn't relevant.



and still after being presented with cold hard facts that disprove your allegations you continue. 

@Brendan Burgess in light of this, I suggest the thread gets closed.


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> and still after being presented with cold hard facts that disprove your allegations you continue.


You've done no such thing. You've taken a snippet of an alternate part of the discourse and passed that off. You were specifically asked for your rationale with regard to bitcoin on a number of other occasions - not CDBCs or blockchain technology in general.

The point is that you say you're neutral but the evidence doesn't suggest that. You've been on here trashing the notion of decentralisation - which is at the very core of the more recent development of crypto.


----------

