# Price Alert: Bitcoin heading toward €10,000



## WolfeTone

Pensions hit with negative interest on cash

The Economist: Beware the lure of free money

Goldman Sachs warns US Dollar status as reserve currency at risk

Even the most ardent supporters of the centralised command banking system must surely acknowledge that all is not well? 
The corruption of the monetary system has entered its core, its foundations, and it is now only a matter of time before a financial re-set is required.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This is the dream scenario of the cultists, what they always warned us would happen.
And yet bitcoin is only about half its previous high.


----------



## lledlledlled

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the dream scenario of the cultists, what they always warned us would happen.
> And yet bitcoin is only about half its previous high.



It ain't worth zero either, which was the strong suggestion on this site


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the dream scenario of the cultists, what they always warned us would happen.



Oh dear Duke, you really need to come out of the trenches one day. 
The 'dream scenario' would be for the global monetary system to operate without corruption, fraudulent malpractice that destroys the hard earned wealth of working people. 
The faith of billions has been placed in Central Banks because, well, they are independent of corrupt governments. Central Banks would never print money like Zimbabwe, or tax wealth through negative interest rates. 
I think, if you are looking for cultists, it is those who hold blind faith in Central Banks. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And yet bitcoin is only about half its previous high



Yes, as of today.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> ...that destroys the hard earned wealth of working people.
> ...or tax wealth through negative interest rates.


_Theo _you should form a political party, call it For Everybody in the Audience.  When making a speech to the local working man's club wax lyrical about the destruction of their hard earned wealth and next evening when being hosted by IBEC demonise the destruction of their easy earned wealth.
It has been commented in this parish before that there is something of a generational imbalance in society.  I agree and very low interest rates is helping to correct that imbalance IMHO.
I note that it only took 4 posts for the Tecate Principle* to demonstrate itself.

* _Tecate Principle: the longer a thread on bitcoin proceeds the probability of Zimbabwe being mentioned approaches 1._


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Theo _you should form a political party, call it For Everybody in the Audience. When making a speech to the local working man's club wax lyrical about the destruction of their hard earned wealth and next evening when being hosted by IBEC demonise the destruction of their easy earned wealth.



Nah, that's why we handed control of the monetary system to Central Banks - to avoid political interference in it. 

I'm tempted to ask where, how or why you have come to this 'generational imbalance' theory, but then again... perhaps not.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that it only took 4 posts for the Tecate Principle* to demonstrate itself.



How long will it be before the bitcoin-will return-to-zero principle is mentioned ?

In any case, you demonstrate an innate capacity to avoid the views, news and articles presented by esteemed and established mainstream media as presented at the top of this thread and instead, revert to narrow pitch of AAM battlegrounds.

The title of thread notes a surge in the price increase of bitcoin, similar to the 'Bitcoin (digital gold) crashing' thread noted a sudden drop in the price.

Both OP subsequently made reference to prevailing economic conditions.

Is there a connection between an increasing bitcoin price and the free money/negative interest rates highlighted in the mainstream media articles above?

In my opinion, I would suggest there is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> In any case, you demonstrate an innate capacity to avoid the views, news and articles presented by esteemed and established mainstream media as presented at the top of this thread and instead, revert to narrow pitch of AAM battlegrounds.


I'll admit I didn't read the links first time round, I have since corrected that (albeit Charlie Weston was mostly behind a paywall).  Your use of the word "corruption" inclined me not to take your OP seriously.  Humans are frail, that is our condition, the Economist podcast highlights this by covering economic developments over the last century.  My sense is that at least in the West the powers that be are doing their best to address these unprecedented developments - this is not Zimbabwe.

A few takeaways for me from those interesting links in OP.
I was of the view that the ordinary punter is safe from negative interest rates because she can hoard hard cash.  The Economist podcast makes this point but the counter point is also made that the authorities could put big penalties on re-entry of the hard cash into the financial system.  Never thought of that one - made me think what would I do with my savings if interest rates were -4% p.a. However, I remain of the view that this is a very unlikely development.
On the main point of OP it is clear that there could hardly be a more uncertain set of circumstances for the current financial system.  No wonder Gold is on a roll.  Bitcoin is on a bit of a roll too because for many the whole rationale for bitcoin is the potential collapse of the financial system - unlikely in my view, but with such unprecedented interventions certainly enough ammunition for the doomsayers.  The surprise is, as I said, that bitcoin is still only about half of what it was 2 years ago.  Hard to see it making the €1m mark predicted by the more enthusiastic cultists.

I note that markets expect US inflation to be 1.6% p.a. over the next 10 years, meaning real interest rates are about -2%p.a.  I can see why that is underpinning a surge in the Gold price.  My central projection would be that over the next 10 years we will indeed see inflation of about 2% p.a.  but that the huge interventions will have been slowly unwound - the system will have survived.  That would leave the price of Gold largely untouched but would herald the drop to zero of bitcoin.  Bitcoin's status as digital gold is not based on its inflation hedge but on a belief by the cultists that the mainstream financial system will crash and burn and bitcoin will rise phoenix like form its ashes.  For bitcoin cultists now is the time they have been waiting for - if it doesn't happen now it won't happen.


----------



## WolfeTone

Ok, the Zimbabwe reference is purely in the context of how governments or central banks (depending on the prevailing political ideology of the day) react when the monetary system that they are charged with managing starts to collapse.
Zimbabwe - one of the most recent examples and hence its frequent referencing, is a microscopic economy in the round, was duly sanctioned by worlds powers of US, EU etc inducing the inflationary effect on its economy for trying to pretend its economy was worth more than it actually was through the corrupt, sorry, 'frail' practices of money printing.
Having embarked on the same practice themselves through QE, it is most inconceivable that the US, ECB, UK and Japan would impose sanctions on themselves, or inconceivable that any other power would have the wherewithal, or suicidal tendency to try impose economic sanctions.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My sense is that at least in the West the powers that be are doing their best to address these unprecedented developments - this is not Zimbabwe.



They are doing what they believe is in their best interests, for sure. It does not mean they will succeed in resucitating the monetary system to anything near a transparent, robust, functioning system. I honestly wish them well, but it is my view that everything they are doing is short-term plastering. Long-term, if prevailing economic theory surrounding money printing is anyway accurate, serious damage is being wilfully imposed on global economic affairs by our trusted but 'frail' financial institutions.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> what would I do with my savings if interest rates were -4% p.a. However, I remain of the view that this is a very unlikely development.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Economist podcast makes this point but the counter point is also made that the authorities could put big penalties on re-entry of the hard cash into the financial system.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that markets expect US inflation to be 1.6% p.a. over the next 10 years, meaning real interest rates are about -2%p.a. I can see why that is underpinning a surge in the Gold price.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> My central projection would be that over the next 10 years we will indeed see inflation of about 2% p.a. but that the huge interventions will have been slowly unwound - the system will have survived.




There is a lot to unpack in there, so I will try to summarize.
I get a sense that there is an absence of the unknown factor in your views. That there is, from prevailing economic theory mathematical and quantitatively applicable formulae than can be applied at any given time to confidentially repair and steer the good ship 'global economy' back to safer waters. And that you have full confidence in our CB's and in Western government interventions to get the job done.

I'm on the other side of that equation. I have little confidence that the tools available are adequate, proven, or even if so, will ever be applied in such way as to avoid the erosion of confidence in the system.

I bought a house in 2002. I fixed the mortgage rate because of the prevailing economic analysis of impending interest rate rises. I continued to fix each 5yr period because the mantra was always the same - interests rates are low, or going lower, but for how long? The longer lower interest rates prevailed, then it would be a case of sooner rather than later that they would rise and mortgage holders would be in for a nasty shock.
18yrs later, not only has the dreaded spike in interest rates not materialised, but we are now into negative territory.

So I have come to the realisation, that regardless of CB's, government interventions (they can't even get inflation to 2%) etc, that economic forces are beyond their control. They may be able to interfere, alter, impact such forces to some extent, but it is sandbags against a rising tide.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Having embarked on the same practice (as Zimbabwe) themselves through QE, it is most inconceivable that the US, ECB, UK and Japan...


You persist in comparing Mugabe's hyperinflationary printing of money to fund his expenditure with the monetization of long term assets which has had no inflationary impact and which is largely judged to have been relatively successful in stabilising the world monetary system.  It would be a rabbit hole for me to attempt to correct your misunderstanding of the profound differences here.





> They are doing what they believe is in their best interests, for sure. It does not mean they will succeed in resucitating the monetary system to anything near a transparent, robust, functioning system. I honestly wish them well, but it is my view that everything they are doing is short-term plastering. Long-term, if prevailing economic theory surrounding money printing is anyway accurate, serious damage is being wilfully imposed on global economic affairs by our trusted but 'frail' financial institutions.


We're in the realms of speculation here.  Despite your "honest wish" for the system to work out well you seem certain that it will all crash and burn.  I share that honest wish, but am more confident that things will not turn out nearly as bad as you believe.  But even if I was of your conviction there is no way that I would see salvation in bitcoin - maybe Gold.

Anyway, to address OP directly, if I was a bitcoin cultist I would be feeling very frustrated at the moment.  With everything apparently in alignment for a Global Zimbabwe Moment, I can only set my sights on €10k when it was nearly twice that a couple of years ago.


----------



## WolfeTone

Ok, I will desist in using Zimbabwe as a reference for comparing the imposition of economic sanctions and the consequences of money printing on one regime against the non-imposition of direct sanctions on other regimes that print money to inflate assets prices and the balance sheets of insolvent banks as futile.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> the monetization of long term assets which has had no inflationary impact and which is largely judged to have been relatively successful in stabilising the world monetary system.



When it comes general prices across the economy you are correct, alternatively what occurred was to stop the deflationary effect of the 2008 crash? One person's inflation is another's deflation, perhaps?
There is more than one way to ski*n a cat.

The overall point, which ever way you look at things, everything that the prevailing economic ideology of free-market enterprise, risk and reward, were thrown out the window following the 2008 crash.
The rules that underpin the system are bankrupt.
In 2010, when countries on the 'periphery' of the eurozone went bankrupt they were bailed out subject to the imposition of austere policies imposed - a form of economic sanction.
In 2020, when the whole global economy is tanking, we are borrowing 30bn from the same collapsing global economy!
When the pillars of EU and Eurozone are also feeling the heat, a bailout for all countries - no austere policies here now, just a large dollop of solidarity between us all is apparently all we need.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of it, simply expressing the view that the ideology upon which the rules are made are bankrupt. We are now in the realm of make-it-up-as-you-go-along, and for me that is not a recipe for a sustainable, functioning system. It becomes harder to value anything, this is not sustainable. 

I appreciate that there are a lot of outlandish predictions about bitcoin. You are not short of incorrectly associating me with such predictions also, despite it pointed out to you that I have made no such predictions.

In fact, on plenty of occasions I have said bitcoin could return to zero. I have said, I have no idea what price it will go to.
I have a small amount of bitcoin, reflecting my reservations that it is anything like claims you incorrectly associate me with.

I do think it has value, I do think it offers anyone with an Internet connection an opportunity to preserve some of their wealth against the decaying monetary system and its institutions. Currently that value is priced in the market at near €10,000 per bitcoin. And given the increasing prevalence of viewpoints pertaining to the fragility of the monetary system, I'd expect it to go a lot higher.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the dream scenario of the cultists, what they always warned us would happen.


So long as you maintain this emotive (and inaccurate) 'cultist' narrative, you'll never be able to look at this objectively.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> And yet bitcoin is only about half its previous high.


You're cherry picking to support a specific narrative. Bitcoin has put in higher lows in practically every year since its existence.  If you want to use price and nothing else as a metric of its success or otherwise, then I would say that's a more equitable starting point.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> It has been commented in this parish before that there is something of a generational imbalance in society.  I agree and very low interest rates is helping to correct that imbalance IMHO.


It's not just a generational imbalance. It's also determined by place/position. The Quantitative Easing/'money printer go 'brrrr' monetary policy that you are in favour of brings about greater inequality.  That was shown with its use immediately after the last financial crisis. It's been shown again right now. The Cantillon Effect demonstrates that those closest to that free money faucet benefit disproportionately by comparison with the rest of us.
As regards low interest rates, they've been shown to be part of the problem - contributing towards greater inequality. As covid has played out, 45 million Americans lost their jobs whilst within the same time-frame, that country's billionaires made an additional $575 billion.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that it only took 4 posts for the Tecate Principle* to demonstrate itself.
> * _Tecate Principle: the longer a thread on bitcoin proceeds the probability of Zimbabwe being mentioned approaches 1._


It doesn't surprise me that this triggers you given that it destroys the notion that you put forward i.e. that central banks and governments are infallible. By the way, Zimbabwe is but just one example. The most recent example has been Lebanon where people have had their wealth vapourised before their eyes through central bank mismanagement.
When debating the merits of bitcoin (with its pre-programmed and totally transparent monetary policy baked in) vs. the ongoing tinkering of central banks, it would make for a totally incomplete consideration of the subject to exclude instances of central bank/government mismanagement. The fact is that central banks can make mistakes - they do all the time. Governments time and time again interfere with the work of a central bank for their own selfish reasons.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Your use of the word "corruption" inclined me not to take your OP seriously.  Humans are frail, that is our condition, the Economist podcast highlights this by covering economic developments over the last century.


So with that 'fraility', you're effectively saying that people inherently can't be trusted.  That's front and centre to the entire debate. Bitcoin as a financial technology has been criticised here - on the basis that there's not much to it technologically. That're quite right to say that. It's just a ledger.  Yet despite that, it does something fundamental.  It facilitates transparency and it has been designed to be trustless in nature. There's an assumed lack of trust.  With that, its monetary policy is pre-programmed and baked in from the get go.  Everyone is aware of how it has been pre-programmed.  Everyone is aware that no one entity controls it and that it can't be tampered with.  Nobody can 'print' more of it, nobody can change interest rates relative to it.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My sense is that at least in the West the powers that be are doing their best to address these unprecedented developments - this is not Zimbabwe.


And this right here is a fundamental mistake on your part. You've got myopic Dougal 'far away' syndrome on this. Zimbabwe is just one example. At any given time there is a list of countries who have mismanaged their sovereign currencies. Lebanon is the most recent example and it's not the banana republic that Zimbabwe is (and nor were there sanctions implicated).
It's foolish to think that central bankers closer to home can't make mistakes and get it wrong. We have had examples - with the Greeks/Cypriots having had to take a haircut on their savings not so many years ago. We've had the Euro come close to collapse around that time and we have speculation that it could be similarly challenged over the next few years.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was of the view that the ordinary punter is safe from negative interest rates because she can hoard hard cash.


The examples given in Wolfie's links refer to the application of negative interest rates relative to pension funds.  Those guys are not going to keep money under the mattress. So...whomever is party to those pension funds is already paying the price for negative interest rates.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> On the main point of OP it is clear that there could hardly be a more uncertain set of circumstances for the current financial system. No wonder Gold is on a roll. Bitcoin is on a bit of a roll too


Other way round...gold is on 'a bit of a roll' (up 30% since the start of the year) whereas bitcoin is on a roll (up 55% since the beginning of the year).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> because for many the whole rationale for bitcoin is the potential collapse of the financial system - unlikely in my view, but with such unprecedented interventions certainly enough ammunition for the doomsayers.


You are clinging on to this ideology - that things are just black or white - that it's a zero sum game.  I'm sure there are a minority of people that want to tear down the current system in its entirety and throw it out completely. However, nobody has presented here with that argument and it's not the majority view in crypto circles - far from it.
Both can find a place in the world - and in actual fact, any sane person should want cryptocurrencies to be there as a plan b for any country's citizens.  Who said that one entity should have a monopoly on money?  We know that monopolies are bad for society.  If both corporate and decentralised digital currencies develop further, they could very well act as a counter-balance to fraud or populist decision making leading to sovereign currency mismanagement.  If Governments/CBs know that people could simply switch if they blatantly mismanage, they may make a better fist of managing the national currency.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The surprise is, as I said, that bitcoin is still only about half of what it was 2 years ago. Hard to see it making the €1m mark predicted by the more enthusiastic cultists.


Cherry picking one pricing snapshot to meet your own narrative. Everyone agreed that the market had overheated and gotten ahead of itself (at that particular point in time) in late 2017. It's not something that's specific to bitcoin/crypto. I'm still the wrong side (price wise) of a house purchase 15 years later - but you wouldn't go round telling people that it's foolish for anyone to buy property on the back of that, would you?

And the cultist thing - sure, I'll call you out on it once more.  The only thing that's clear from your postings on this topic here is that you are the 'cultist'.  You have never once acknowledged one single positive characteristic of decentralised digital currency. That's in no way credible (whatever someone's overall assessment is of crypto) and it makes you the cultist here.
On that subject, you called the Head of Equities at a leading global Investment Bank a 'cultist' for advising his clients to buy some gold/bitcoin a couple of months ago. Earlier this week, Ari Wald of investment bank Oppenheimer ($230 billion assets under management) made a similar recommendation for gold/bitcoin. He comes from a conservative investment bank and there's little in the way of commentary from him on Bitcoin prior to 2020. Does his recommendation make him a cultist too?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My central projection would be that over the next 10 years we will indeed see inflation of about 2% p.a. but that the huge interventions will have been slowly unwound - the system will have survived.


What is 'your central projection' based on? Hopium? I mean, it may work out that way but we have no earthly way of knowing that.  We are in uncharted territory - we've never seen this level of money printing - it's unprecedented. The US has printed off more $ in the month of June than in the first two centuries of the existence of the country.
You speak of 'interventions being slowly unwound'. How can you have that expectation when they never unwound those interventions from the last financial crisis in 2008 (Q.E. and low interest rates)??



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That would leave the price of Gold largely untouched but would herald the drop to zero of bitcoin.


That's such nonsense and it betrays a complete lack of pragmatism in your weighing up of bitcoin (ergo, the real cultist here is you). People are bailing in en-masse to gold over the past 6 months as a hedge.  Of course, it won't be 'untouched' if economies return to something nearing normality.
The drop to zero of bitcoin is something that you dream of - rather than it being a likely outcome. Yours is the politicised 'cultist' view here.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bitcoin's status as digital gold is not based on its inflation hedge but on a belief by the cultists that the mainstream financial system will crash and burn and bitcoin will rise phoenix like form its ashes. For bitcoin cultists now is the time they have been waiting for - if it doesn't happen now it won't happen.


This now or never mantra is nonsense. The current economic backdrop is particularly prescient in the context of bitcoin right now. It's good that people are beginning to question 'what is money' and can we just print it off at will. You speak of unwinding - how does this - US Debt Clock - get unwound?

Bitcoin is here to stay. You can ignore Gresham's Law, Amara's Law and the Lindy Effect all you want but that would be and is a mistake.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Currently that value is priced in the market at near €10,000 per bitcoin. And given the increasing prevalence of viewpoints pertaining to the fragility of the monetary system, I'd expect it to go a lot higher.


There is an argument that bitcoin is letting down its proponents, at least any that bought near $20k.  Here they are brimful of "I told you so's" - money is being printed for fiscal purposes, government debt is being monetized, even GS has a contrarian view that the US dollar is dead meat.  This should be Chucky ar La for bitcoiners and yet they haven't even seen €10k yet.

Interesting comment about "making-it-up-as-we-go-along".  It does look that way, but as the podcast explains it has been like that for 100 years.  Maybe that is economics for you - it makes itself up as you go along.  100 years ago two completely opposite socio economic models were vying for global supremacy.  The planned version failed spectacularly and the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" version has come out on top.
We see in the podcast diametrically opposing views on the role of negative interest rates.  The fact that economics is so inconclusive is why chancers like David McWilliams can get away with "swallow the disinfectant" silver bullet panaceas.

Also what about the dog that isn't barking?  As your OP indicates there are certainly big questions over the direction of fiscal/monetary policy and yet I do not hear of any mainstream economists jumping on the good ship bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> if I was a bitcoin cultist I would be feeling very frustrated at the moment.  With everything apparently in alignment for a Global Zimbabwe Moment, I can only set my sights on €10k when it was nearly twice that a couple of years ago.


If you are a bitcoin proponent right now, you will have seen further in-roads being made by bitcoin and the broader digital assets space week on week. Its current market price represents a 57% gain for me - I don't think I'd classify myself as 'frustrated'.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is an argument that bitcoin is letting down its proponents, at least any that bought near $20k.


There is an argument that you're talking through your prejudiced backside. Why cherrypick an at the peak price and then pick on bitcoin exclusively?  What about Celtic Tiger property?  What about Oil this year?  What about the markets in March? Time and time again, I've heard them rattling on - on CNBC saying that the conventional markets are no more predictable than crypto. 
We are all grown adults. We make decisions and we take responsibility for them. If you decide to speculate on bitcoin, stonks, gold, property, FX - that's on you. But to single out bitcoin is disingenuous.
And yet despite what you say, bitcoin remains the best investment of the past decade, of 2019 and thus far in 2020. You can scream bloody blue murder and it doesn't change that fact.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Here they are brimful of "I told you so's" - money is being printed for fiscal purposes, government debt is being monetized, even GS has a contrarian view that the US dollar is dead meat. This should be Chucky ar La for bitcoiners and yet they haven't even seen €10k yet.


And bitcoin being up 55% in 2020 isn't enough for you? Yeah, I'm sure they're very very unhappy!
There were a lot of short positions that got liquidated in the past week though - i'm sure that must hurt.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Also what about the dog that isn't barking? As your OP indicates there are certainly big questions over the direction of fiscal/monetary policy and yet I do not hear of any mainstream economists jumping on the good ship bitcoin.


You might need to escape the echo chamber you currently find yourself in to start with. There are plenty of economists that are either onboard or coming round with regard to the proposition that bitcoin offers. However, from previous discussions, it seems that you narrow that consideration to Keynesian economists so there's unlikely to be any awakening anytime soon.
You remember those big BTC numbers you've alluded to - who do you think will be bailing in to BTC at that stage some years from now? Have a look round the room.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is an argument that bitcoin is letting down its proponents, at least any that bought near $20k



Yes, of course. No different to any other investment thst is worth less than the price paid for. 
I don't really get this point. I was of the impression that you considered bitcoin to have no, or very little value. This comment seems to suggest that you think it does have some value, just nowhere near its historic $20k price tag. Maybe I'm misconstruing your point? 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe that is economics for you - it makes itself up as you go along.



Yeh, to an extent... but allow some latitude between considered and scholarly argument that have developed over the generations and the type of off-the-cuff 'whatever it takes' application of economic policy. 
I mean, if Paschal had rocked up to Dáil before COVID and said he was going to borrow €30bn, not to spend but to hold in reserve as a buffer against an economic collapse, then I don't he would have made it past the loony asylum. He could have argued that in the event of global meltdown, every other country in the world would be looking to borrow and according to the prevailing economic theory, if countries are facing deep recession and looking to borrow, interest rates would go sky high as the risk of repayment increases. 
Of course as we can see, that hasn't happened. Because there is no risk anymore. There is as much money available to every country now, as much as their respective central banks think needs to be printed. 

I'm sorry, but I missed the part when this became the prevailing economic theory of our governments? I was under the impression that there are housing shortages because its too expensive to build, or waiting lists in health because of cost? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The planned version failed spectacularly and the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" version has come out on top.



For who? 
For the accountants and financiers who can point to a piece of paper they says the books are balanced, we made a profit? 
Or for Joe soap citizen, who increasingly can smell the bull. 
COVID is exposing the facade behind the economic and political theory that promotes artificial industries like finance for their real inherent value... which going by stock prices of a lot of financial institutions, is not an awful lot. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I do not hear of any mainstream economists jumping on the good ship bitcoin.



Nor will you, not until after it becomes mainstream. Economists hold little value in determining future events. They are best to analyse how past events occurred.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Well we want to avoid diving down old rabbit holes so I will only address new clarifications or points directly related to OP.





tecate said:


> It doesn't surprise me that this triggers you given that it destroys the notion that you put forward i.e. that central banks and governments are infallible.


I do not at all think CBs are infallible, they have admitted to many mistakes.  But I do believe that they are the experts and that in the West they are generally on my side.  I hope they get it broadly right. Do you?





> It facilitates transparency and it has been designed to be trustless in nature. There's an assumed lack of trust.  With that, its monetary policy is pre-programmed and baked in from the get go.  Everyone is aware of how it has been pre-programmed.  Everyone is aware that no one entity controls it and that it can't be tampered with.  Nobody can 'print' more of it, nobody can change interest rates relative to it.


It relies on one big trust - that some people will continue to value it despite it having no tangible link to something of inherent value.  You never seem to think that a problem.  If bitcoin was linked to something, anything even copper, I'd be filling my boots with it.


> It's foolish to think that central bankers closer to home can't make mistakes and get it wrong.


I certainly don't think that and (see above) they have admitted to their mistakes.  But so long as their heart in in the right place (my interests) I have to trust them to get it broadly right.  Inflation is the guy I fear and he has been put in his box for quite a while now.  I still fear him - but a crypto currency linked to hot air will not assuage that fear. 





> The examples given in Wolfie's links refer to the application of negative interest rates relative to pension funds.  Those guys are not going to keep money under the mattress. So...whomever is party to those pension funds is already paying the price for negative interest rates.


Absolutely.  



> Other way round...gold is on 'a bit of a roll' (up 30% since the start of the year) whereas bitcoin is on a roll (up 55% since the beginning of the year).


  I am not sure on this point but is Gold on a long time high against the dollar?  Bitcoin certainly isn't.  Bitcoin is so volatile it will always have extreme movements.




> You are clinging on to this ideology - that things are just black or white - that it's a zero sum game.  I'm sure there are a minority of people that want to tear down the current system in its entirety and throw it out completely.


 Yes that's what I mean by the cultists.  I am not sure that AAM is cultist immune.  One sees extreme leftie world views often cited by those defending crypto.  Not accusing you.



> You have never once acknowledged one single positive characteristic of decentralised digital currency.


Your not watching my lips.  If bitcoin had a link to some intrinsic value it would at once be a very beneficial thing and a very dangerous thing.  I would certainly be having a piece of it in current times.



> What is 'your central projection' based on? Hopium?


 A bit of that and also a bit of Trustium.  Economic/monetary management in the West hasn't done bad by me so far - I hope and trust they will continue to serve my interests.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, of course. No different to any other investment thst is worth less than the price paid for.
> I don't really get this point. I was of the impression that you considered bitcoin to have no, or very little value.


Semantics I think.  Bitcoin has a price.  That is an incontrovertible fact.  Let's just say that I believe that it has no worth or intrinsic value and that will decide its ultimate price/value.  
Now some folk do think it has "value", that's why it has a price.  The justifications that I have seen put forward for that value/price seem far more valid (don't agree with them) now, basically that Fiat and indeed our whole economic order is a house of cards, has never seen a more favourable backdrop.  And yet bitcoin can hardly recover 50% of its "price/value" of just 2 years ago.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I do not at all think CBs are infallible, they have admitted to many mistakes.  But I do believe that they are the experts and that in the West they are generally on my side.  I hope they get it broadly right. Do you?


Indeed I do - but the fact remains that bitcoin would never have even been conceived if they (and governments) were getting it right consistently. I believe in giving them one excellent incentive not to screw it up or steal from people - competition. This notion that only one entity can issue money has to go.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It relies on one big trust - that some people will continue to value it despite it having no tangible link to something of inherent value.  You never seem to think that a problem.  If bitcoin was linked to something, anything even copper, I'd be filling my boots with it.


What you don't seem to understand and/or acknowledge is that the confidence in it comes in the fact that it can't be tampered with.  It's pre-programmed and it's transparent in terms of how its set out eg. fixed supply, issuance, etc. That's where it gets its credibility and power.
Other than that, it takes a shed load of energy to mint bitcoin.  It's the energy standard that Henry Ford first floated back in the day.

If bitcoin was 'backed' by gold, etc. - it would be centralised.  That would completely destroy the proposition. Satoshi built on the work of others.  This is effectively what happened to e-gold - the government came and confiscated the gold - and it was toast. However, if that's what floats your boat, I can point you in the right direction.  There are cryptocurrencies backed by gold if you say that's what you see as progress.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But so long as their heart in in the right place (my interests) I have to trust them to get it broadly right. Inflation is the guy I fear and he has been put in his box for quite a while now. I still fear him - but a crypto currency linked to hot air will not assuage that fear.


You misunderstand the proposition on hand if you continue with the 'hot air' jibe. At best it's double standards as you are quite happy with FIAT which is backed by nothing.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not sure on this point but is Gold on a long time high against the dollar? Bitcoin certainly isn't. Bitcoin is so volatile it will always have extreme movements.


Bitcoin is up 55% year to date vs. gold's 30%. I think that's pretty clear.  As regards volatility - it's been done to death but you know I've provided proof here previously that bitcoin is already going through a process of reduced volatility year-on-year.  It's a process that will continue over many years to come.
The irony is that you are accepting of gold in this context yet in the 70s gold was just as volatile as bitcoin.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes that's what I mean by the cultists. I am not sure that AAM is cultist immune. One sees extreme leftie world views often cited by those defending crypto. Not accusing you.


You can accuse away - at the end of the day, this is someone's opinion - and everyone is entitled to one. If you are saying that sort of stance has been taken here on AAM - i'm not aware of it.
On the leftie notion, that's interesting.  Zoom out - and look at crypto globally and you'll see that 'lefties' are rarely associated with crypto - quite the opposite. As Brendan mentioned to you one time on this subject, if they were lefties - they'd be looking for more regulation - not less.  Just so that we're quite clear - there is one thing in terms of regulation that I DO want torn down - and that's this KYC/AML sham.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Your not watching my lips. If bitcoin had a link to some intrinsic value it would at once be a very beneficial thing and a very dangerous thing. I would certainly be having a piece of it in current times.


You've got that far once before - but I still maintain that you have never acknowledged any of its positive characteristics.  If you believe there are positive characteristics to it, what are they?
As for the backing, I can point you towards a crypto with gold backing - but understand that the minute you do something like that, it changes many other characteristics of that digital currency.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> A bit of that and also a bit of Trustium. Economic/monetary management in the West hasn't done bad by me so far - I hope and trust they will continue to serve my interests.


I'm quite happy to acknowledge that by and large sovereign money has served society well. However, in one of your posts previously you alluded to the evolution of money. Bitcoin is very much part of that evolution.
Other than that, you and I have been more fortunate than others. Bitcoin is not to be assessed just through Irish eyes. There are 10s of millions of people living in countries who have had their wealth stolen from them via deliberate sovereign currency fraudulence and mismanagement.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Semantics I think.  Bitcoin has a price.  That is an incontrovertible fact.  Let's just say that I believe that it has no worth or intrinsic value and that will decide its ultimate price/value.


The industrial use of gold makes up 10%.  The other 90% is as a store of value use case. It's not much different - especially as we are moving to utility that the bitcoin network is starting to provide (dApps being built on top of it; other blockchains being secured by it, etc.).
If the price of gold has little correlation to its actual physical use, why don't you present with the very same issue in relation to it as you do with bitcoin? Why is fiat money acceptable to you on the same basis?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And yet bitcoin can hardly recover 50% of its "price/value" of just 2 years ago.


You're fixated on the December 2017 peak.  Why? And if it reached $20,000 tomorrow, I suppose you'd say that its volatile? It's far, far harder to figure it out this year than any other, but thus far, the build up in price on bitcoin is pretty organic....not some hyped up pump.

Also, this conventional monetary experiment that we are living through - that can play out in different ways (inflation, deflation, etc. - or both at different points).  The debt that's been amassed can play out over a longer period.  The 'stimulus' can play out over longer periods.  What are we to expect to happen in the short term if they're doling out free money?

I think it's unreasonable to judge this from this point right here - in the same way as on the 'digital gold' thread, it was premature to discount bitcoin (and it still is).


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And yet bitcoin can hardly recover 50% of its "price/value" of just 2 years ago.



So no chance of bitcoin price experiencing irrational exuberance back then? 
As _tectate _points out, you can pick any random point of price change to suit the narrative. 
Here's another one, bitcoin is nearly 400% higher than it was 3yrs ago, or 1,000% higher than it was 3.5yrs ago. 

None of that matters, or "past performance is not indicative of future returns" ....or something like that. 
This thread reflects an increasing acceptance amongst mainstream economic thought that all is not well within the prevailing monetary system. That interest rates are the preserve of an institution, for them to adjust in accordance with their economic and political doctrine exposes a fundamental flaw. Interest rates are an economic force, determined by prevailing economic conditions, not by an over-arching centralised command institution. 

That bitcoin offers an option to put wealth outside of that system is my view. I accept others don't see it that way.


----------



## WolfeTone

Bitcoin is at €10,015.69. 
Anyone fancy shorting it?


----------



## Colm Fagan

Guys
I don't know a thing about bitcoin, so forgive the naivety of my question.
I understand that bitcoin can be viewed either as an investment or as a replacement for conventional currencies.  If I consider it as an investment, I want it to increase in value by as much and as quickly as possible.  If I consider it as a currency, I want it to have a reasonably stable value, so that I can know with reasonable confidence how many loaves of bread I can buy for a bitcoin or how many bitcoins it will cost me to buy a car (definitely not a Tesla in my case!).  How can these apparently conflicting objectives be reconciled?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Bitcoin is at €10,015.69.
> Anyone fancy shorting it?





			
				Yahoo said:
			
		

> *Bitcoin and Ethereum crash by more than 12% in 6 minutes as more than $1B of positions gets liquidated*



_Good tip Wolfie_


----------



## tecate

Colm Fagan said:


> Guys
> I don't know a thing about bitcoin, so forgive the naivety of my question.
> I understand that bitcoin can be viewed either as an investment or as a replacement for conventional currencies.  If I consider it as an investment, I want it to increase in value by as much and as quickly as possible.  If I consider it as a currency, I want it to have a reasonably stable value, so that I can know with reasonable confidence how many loaves of bread I can buy for a bitcoin or how many bitcoins it will cost me to buy a car (definitely not a Tesla in my case!).  How can these apparently conflicting objectives be reconciled?


Hi Colm.  I'd be inclined to think of it as another option that sits alongside conventional currencies rather than a replacement (but views differ on that too). Your point is well made and absolutely valid.

Gold isn't easily divisible anyway but lets just assume for the sake of argument that it is.  In theory then, it should make for a good means of exchange.  However, if people were to try to use it as a means of exchange in the 70s, it would have been incredibly volatile - something that destroys utility as a means of exchange. From the start of that decade until its close, gold had risen 2,300%. Within that, it had seen spikes and corrections in the double digits.

My point is that gold was incredibly volatile then - as bitcoin is now. Were it somehow divisible back then, then it would be equally challenged as bitcoin is today for use as a medium of exchange due to volatility. Yet it is much more stable today (save more recent months but that's more to do with the weakness of fiat currencies than an issue with gold itself).

Rome wasn't build in a day and we can't expect something that is the cornerstone of civilisation (money and the exchange of value) to be turned upside down just like that. Bitcoin is an immature asset - that is formative in the role of a store of value, digital gold and a hedge against fiat currency in its own right. There's speculative interest in it as a consequence of that.  The technology is being improved upon, the infrastructure is being built out, regulation is getting teased out, etc.  Adoption will continue - and the expectation is that the overall bitcoin market cap ($207 billion) will expand.  As it expands and as it settles, that market will be far harder to move.  It should be far less volatile. That process is already in play. Over it's 11 years, bitcoin volatility has been reducing.  It has a long way to go - but that's a process that is expected to play out over years.

For right now, some people accept bitcoin payments on the basis that they understand and are happy to deal with that volatility.  I appreciate that there are practicalities in trade where that's just not feasible. However, if we were to accept that bitcoin will first achieve that store of value use case as a separate asset in its own right alongside gold, then it also brings extra features to the table.  It's easily divisible, it's possible to self custody, it's portable and it can be transacted in real time on a peer to peer basis - with both parties being present or the other party being the other side of the planet. If we accept that it's going to be around and continue to be around and be used in that way, businesses may increasingly decide to accept it through services such as Bitpay.  Bitpay and others offer the vendor the option to convert bitcoin sales revenue to fiat if they prefer.

I'd much rather that they don't convert it back - but there are other reasons besides volatility as to why there's a need for that (paying suppliers and others in fiat).  However, I'm quite happy to see this type of mechanism as a form of bootstrapping to broaden the bitcoin economy. Over the last 18 months, we're also seeing a plethora of crypto credit and debit cards hit the market. Again, I'd prefer if there wasn't a need - but being realistic, it's necessary to have this - it's a positive thing. Bitcoin was borne into a world that has had fiat in place for years.  Although it's a parallel, separate system, those of us that want to see it expand can't ignore the existing fiat system.  It's helpful if there are abilities to exchange between the two for a time at least - in order to grow this.

Vijay Boyapati explains how this process is likely to pan out going forward - far better than I can articulate.  You can find his scribblings here - it's well worth the read in coming to a conclusion on the question that you've posed.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Good tip Wolfie_


No drama here that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum. It's an example of a small $200 billion market being moved.  That is in no way unique to bitcoin - it speaks to market size. As bitcoin market cap expands, that - alongside volatility generally - will dissipate. As it stands today, bitcoin is still 60% up year to date.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Good tip Wolfie



Yeh, but did you take it up?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

WolfeTone said:


> Yeh, but did you take it up?


Unfortunately not. I couldn’t tell whether it was a tip or a challenge.  I see now it was a tip.  I hope you filled your boots.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Unfortunately not. I couldn’t tell whether it was a tip or a challenge.  I see now it was a tip.  I hope you filled your boots.



No not this time, I think I read somewhere of someones strategy to short bitcoin at €10,000? 
They would be up a few bob today. 

The last time I offered my position on bitcoin was in the 'Bitcoin (digital gold) crashing' thread. 
On the 14th March 2020, when bitcoin was priced circa €4,500, I wrote;



WolfeTone said:


> The magic Fiat money trees are in season.
> Bitcoin, is still 45% up year on year. Not bad in the midst of a pending economic crisis.
> *Time to buy some more.*



Not for the first time has the value of my bitcoin holding doubled.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Colm Fagan said:


> Guys
> I don't know a thing about bitcoin, so forgive the naivety of my question.
> I understand that bitcoin can be viewed either as an investment or as a replacement for conventional currencies.  If I consider it as an investment, I want it to increase in value by as much and as quickly as possible.  If I consider it as a currency, I want it to have a reasonably stable value, so that I can know with reasonable confidence how many loaves of bread I can buy for a bitcoin or how many bitcoins it will cost me to buy a car (definitely not a Tesla in my case!).  How can these apparently conflicting objectives be reconciled?


Colm, we should split "investment" into two categories (a) speculative and (b) store of value.  We have right here on AAM living examples of both varieties.  _Wolfie _admits that bitcoin could go to zero but he is bullish that it will shoot the lights out.  He has, in his own words, a small punt on that happening.  _Wolfie _is a speculator, which might jar a little with his _Shortie _world view. _tecate _on the other hand is an out and out "store of value" man (apologies for not being gender neutral).
Figures from the MSO show that over 98% of bitcoin trades are speculative.  This is surely unique.  Every asset has to some degree a speculative aspect e.g. Gold, but can an entity sustain a price indefinitely on speculation alone?
For the answer to this we look to one of _tecate's _favourite reference sources.  John Kelleher of Investopedia is a bitcoin evangelist but the following reflection of his is right on the money so far as I am concerned.





			
				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.


I note your requirement for a working currency - which is essentially short term price stability.  Bitcoin does not aspire to that role, which must be the preserve of centralised FIAT and is economy specific - thus dollars do not serve Brits well as a currency.  When Kelleher talks about bitcoin being a medium of exchange I think he essentially means a medium for exchanging FIAT but without the perceived drawbacks of exchanging FIAT directly, which seem to revolve around its transparency or what the cultists call its censorship.


----------



## Colm Fagan

Thanks to @WolfeTone and @Duke of Marmalade for your replies.
I understand the aspiration for bitcoin to become a recognised currency, to sit alongside fiat currencies (and presumably other crypocurrencies?).  If and when it does achieve that status, however, I don't see why anyone would want to 'invest' in it.  To me, it's akin to stuffing jam jars and shoe boxes filled with €2 coins into every cupboard and cubbyhole in the house.  It makes no sense.  Far better to invest in something real that will generate profits and pay a dividend every year.  For much the same reason, I don't see any value in gold as an investment.  In gold's case, however, I do see the logic in putting some aside in case Armageddon happens and we have to revert to stone age society. In that case, having some gold to melt down and use to pay for necessary provisions makes some sense.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note your requirement for a working currency - which is essentially short term price stability.



And in the event that the working currency of US$ or € stop working? 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> thus dollars do not serve Brits well as a currency.



Arguably, the dollar is not serving Americans as well as it used to.


----------



## WolfeTone

Colm Fagan said:


> In that case, having some gold to melt down and use to pay for necessary provisions makes some sense.



I think perhaps you are missing a fundamental trait of bitcoin. 
In a digital, internet age,  there is no need for cumbersome tasks of holding gold and melting it down when instead you could trade bitcoin.


----------



## Colm Fagan

WolfeTone said:


> In a digital, internet age, there is no need for cumbersome tasks of holding gold and melting it down


I was thinking of Armageddon.  If society as we know it collapses, anything depending on the internet will have no value.  Gold will.


----------



## WolfeTone

Colm Fagan said:


> I was thinking of Armageddon.  If society as we know it collapses, anything depending on the internet will have no value.  Gold will.



Well, if we go by the literal meaning of 'Armageddon' then gold will have no value either. 
If we are talking about societal and economic collapses, as is frequent throughout history, I'm not sure why it is considered that the Internet will necessarily collapse with also.


----------



## Colm Fagan

I've just finished a book by Robert Harris called "The Second Sleep" .  If you read that, you'll know what I mean about the possibility of there being no internet in future.  
Anyway, my comment about gold being of value in an Armageddon scenario was just incidental.  My main point is that, if bitcoin ever gets to being a widely accepted currency, one that holds its value reasonably well over time, neither inflating or deflating, then there's no point in hoarding it.


----------



## WolfeTone

Colm Fagan said:


> My main point is that, if bitcoin ever gets to being a widely accepted currency, one that holds its value reasonably well over time, neither inflating or deflating, then there's no point in hoarding it.



Well yes, of course. But it is susceptible to inflation and deflation. 
If you were minded to think that it could inflate against the euro, or dollar, why wouldn't you hoard it?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Figures from the MSO show that over 98% of bitcoin trades are speculative.  This is surely unique.


The makey-upey statistic?  I wouldn't say it's unique per se Dukey but it certainly has your stamp on it. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Every asset has to some degree a speculative aspect e.g. Gold, but can an entity sustain a price indefinitely on speculation alone?


Here's a real stat. 10% of gold's use is industrial - leaving a price that in no way reflects that industrial use and 90% use split between speculative interest and store of value use case. It's going to be a difficulty to tease apart speculative trades from more wholesome store of value use.  However, here's something of interest for you.  Appox. 11 million BTC have not moved in over a year.  Seems more indicative of store of value than speculative trading.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> For the answer to this we look to one of _tecate's _favourite reference sources. John Kelleher of Investopedia is a bitcoin evangelist but the following reflection of his is right on the money so far as I am concerned


John Kelleher was introduced to discussions here by his Dukeness.  At that point, he was alright in his book and wasn't a bitcoin evangelist.  It wasn't until later when Dukey found that John's scriblings didn't support his world view that John fell off Dukey's Crimbo Card List.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> ....but the following reflection of his is right on the money so far as I am concerned


Indeed it is when you continue to quote it out of context and leave out parts. Kelleher's article in its entirety states that gold is king as regards store of value yet gold cannot be used and is not used as a medium of exchange. Ergo bitcoin doesn't have to establish itself as a medium of exchange first - in order to initially mature as a store of value.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note your requirement for a working currency - which is essentially short term price stability. Bitcoin does not aspire to that role


It certainly does aspire to that role.  Over the course of its eleven years, bitcoin volatility has been reducing year on year.  Granted it has a ways to go - and that process is going to take many more years - but it will get there.  It's logical that as its market capitalisation expands and as it matures as an asset, price volatility will drop.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> which must be the preserve of centralised FIAT and is economy specific


I disagree.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> When Kelleher talks about bitcoin being a medium of exchange I think he essentially means a medium for exchanging FIAT but without the perceived drawbacks of exchanging FIAT directly, which seem to revolve around its transparency or what the cultists call its censorship.


Please point out where he states that (because he says no such thing).
A currency is censorship resistant if nobody can prevent you from exchanging it and nobody can confiscate it.



Colm Fagan said:


> I understand the aspiration for bitcoin to become a recognised currency, to sit alongside fiat currencies (and presumably other crypocurrencies?).  If and when it does achieve that status, however, I don't see why anyone would want to 'invest' in it.


.
So, bitcoin is an immature asset - it's coming of age right now.  With that, there is volatility and there is price discovery.  It's a fixed cap currency and naturally as it's adopted, demand will drive price upwards. So right now there is a unique opportunity to get a decent return on investment.

American billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones came out earlier this year and stated that he was taking a position in bitcoin as it represented a good hedge against fiat currency and the potential for 'a great monetary inflation'.  You can find his letter to investors . In it, he says that bitcoin reminds him of gold in the 1970s when the first gold futures/derivatives products hit the market.  Gold was highly volatile during that decade (like bitcoin is today) and the monetary metal increased in value some 2,300% over the course of the decade. Now it's a settled asset and not as interesting - albeit that it still acts as a hedge.
His point is that bitcoin is where gold was in the 70s.  Once it matures as an asset and possibly becomes a recognised means of exchange, it's unlikely to be volatile and it's unlikely to represent an investment in which you would expect to see major gains.  Like gold, it will still be a hedge against the traditional markets and fiat currency.  Like gold, it can be expected to hold its value - rather than have value eroded through inflation.  It's at that point I'm in agreement with you - it's not all that interesting as an investment - although useful to still keep a percentage of your portfolio in it (in the same way as people do with gold)....as a hedge. However, it also outdoes gold at that point too - as it's portable, easier to self custody, divisible and digital (meaning that it can be transacted easily from party A to party B with ease - regardless of where they are in the world). It's also easily verifiable  (note the 83 tonnes of fake/counterfeit gold that was discovered in China a few weeks ago) and peer to peer censorship resistant money that can't be confiscated.



Colm Fagan said:


> In gold's case, however, I do see the logic in putting some aside in case Armageddon happens and we have to revert to stone age society. In that case, having some gold to melt down and use to pay for necessary provisions makes some sense.


In monetary or economic collapse, I believe both gold and bitcoin serve a purpose.  At an 'armageddon' level where society has completely fallen apart - I think guns are going to be far more useful to people in that situation than either gold/bitcoin.


Colm Fagan said:


> I was thinking of Armageddon.  If society as we know it collapses, anything depending on the internet will have no value.  Gold will.


Bitcoin doesn't depend on the internet.  If the internet vanishes tomorrow, anyone can still transact bitcoin via satellite. If one person in a community has access to either a genny or a few solar panels and a sat receiver, then bitcoin can be transacted.  Bitcoin can also be transacted by short wave radio, and by sms if there was still a mobile network running or someone managed to get one working.  We're a few years away from it, in the future we'll have mesh networks - which are peer to peer networks rather than centralised networks.  Bitcoin can be transacted via mesh networks also.


----------



## Colm Fagan

What's the value in hoarding my wealth, irrespective of whether it's in bitcoins, in gold, or in jam jars full of fiat currency?  I would much prefer to invest in businesses that can be expected to hold their value in real terms over time as well as delivering a regular income.   If I'm more risk-averse, I will lend it on terms that I expect will reward me for forgoing consumption.   There is no reward, nor should there be a reward, for hoarding just for the sake of hoarding.  That is true, irrespective of whether the savings are hoarded in fiat currency, in bitcoin or in gold.


----------



## tecate

Colm Fagan said:


> What's the value in hoarding my wealth, irrespective of whether it's in bitcoins, in gold, or in jam jars full of fiat currency?


Your bitcoin and gold will retain their value.  Your fiat on the other hand will be stealthily eroded away by inflation and currency debasement.


Colm Fagan said:


> I would much prefer to invest in businesses that can be expected to hold their value in real terms over time as well as delivering a regular income.   If I'm more risk-averse, I will lend it on terms that I expect will reward me for forgoing consumption.   There is no reward, nor should there be a reward, for hoarding just for the sake of hoarding.  That is true, irrespective of whether the savings are hoarded in fiat currency, in bitcoin or in gold.


So let me understand this correctly Colm.  When gold increased 2,300% over the course of the 1970s, there would have been no value in holding it? And as a follow up, what do you think the folks that contribute to the $9 trillion market cap of gold are playing at exactly?


----------



## WolfeTone

Colm Fagan said:


> There is no reward, nor should there be a reward, for hoarding just for the sake of hoarding.



True, but I asked 



WolfeTone said:


> If you were minded to think that it could inflate against the euro, or dollar, why wouldn't you hoard it?


----------



## Colm Fagan

@WolfeTone @tecate 
You are both being disingenuous, which I find disconcerting.   I like honest discussions, where all participants want to uncover the truth.  That was my objective when joining this discussion.  
For example:


tecate said:


> When gold increased 2,300% over the course of the 1970s, there would have been no value in holding it?


I checked gold prices since the 1970's.  The price was artificially pegged to the dollar until August 15 1971.  Naturally, the uncoupling had a massive impact on the price, as I'm sure you know well.
From looking at some charts, I see that the price peaked at around $2,000 an ounce at end 1979.  It then fell to around $1,000 by the mid-1980's.  It is now back close to $2,000 an ounce.  If I had put my dollars into a savings account in 1985, earning 4% a year (which, incidentally, is much less than I would have got if I had put my money in the stock market), my initial deposit of $1,000 would be now worth around $4,000, thanks to compound interest.   That paints a very different picture, and a far truer one, I  submit, than the one you're trying to paint.    I'm sure you know that too. 
@WolfeTone , you quoted one sentence from my post, omitting the next one, which was integral to my argument.  Was the omission deliberate?  Here is what I actually wrote (with the second sentence in bold this time round):


Colm Fagan said:


> There is no reward, nor should there be a reward, for hoarding just for the sake of hoarding. *That is true, irrespective of whether the savings are hoarded in fiat currency, in bitcoin or in gold.*


I don't believe in hoarding money, period.  To repeat, it doesn't matter in what currency it's hoarded.  I prefer to put it to work, earning interest, dividends or capital growth.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> John Kelleher was introduced to discussions here by his Dukeness.


 Yes, I accept the clarification.  





> At that point, he was alright in his book and wasn't a bitcoin evangelist.  It wasn't until later when Dukey found that John's scriblings didn't support his world view that John fell off Dukey's Crimbo Card List.


Incorrect.  I had read his whole Investopedia piece.  It was the fact that he was such an evangelist, pure _tecate_, that impressed me so much with that key paragraph.  Which I summarise as _"bitcoin will not make it as a long term store of value if it does not make it as a medium of exchange"._  This was an ideal opportunity for me to "quote scripture". The following doesn't quite tell me where you stand on this key point.





> Indeed it is when you continue to quote it out of context and leave out parts. Kelleher's article in its entirety states that gold is king as regards store of value yet gold cannot be used and is not used as a medium of exchange. Ergo bitcoin doesn't have to establish itself as a medium of exchange first - in order to initially mature as a store of value.


"first", "initially"?  Can you answer yes or no do you agree with the above JK's key point?  It does not need contextualising.  It does not state that in general terms being a store of value is predicated on being a medium of exchange.  Gold, precious stones, jewellery in general, fine art, real estate etc.  are all counter examples.  But JK is stating in no uncertain terms that the conditionality *does *apply to bitcoin.  I 100% agree with him and for what its worth the greatest evangelist of them all, Satoshi,  made this clear in his/her/their Gospel (aka White Paper).



> I disagree.
> Please point out where he states that (because he says no such thing).


  I'm speculating.  Does JK mean my making it as a "medium of exchange" that a critical mass of folk directly price and negotiate their goods and services in bitcoin?  For example will employers be offering bitcoin salaries to attract employees?  Or does he mean that folk will still negotiate and price in their fiat currency but use bitcoin as the medium of exchange for consummating deals?  Which do you think he means?  Which version do you think bitcoin will attain?

.


----------



## tecate

Colm Fagan said:


> You are both being disingenuous, which I find disconcerting.


This is the first time that we've interacted in one of these discussions @Colm Fagan and what's disgusting is that you should make such an allegation. That reflects on you - not on me.



Colm Fagan said:


> I like honest discussions, where all participants want to uncover the truth.


I won't hold back my disgust Colm.  It doesn't set you in a good light.  I approach these discussions with a view towards learning and open discussion of a topic that I'm deeply interested in.  I stand over every single post that I've made here - including my last post which you make accusations of dishonesty about.  If you have a grain of decency, you'll roll back on that assertion.



Colm Fagan said:


> I checked gold prices since the 1970's.  The price was artificially pegged to the dollar until August 15 1971.  Naturally, the uncoupling had a massive impact on the price, as I'm sure you know well.


Firstly, how are you sure that I know well it was important where the price of gold was concerned?  Secondly, what of it if it did have an impact?  Quite the opposite in fact.  It makes my point - and to not mention such a thing would only weaken the argument I put forward.  I'm comparing an extraordinary period for gold with an extraordinary period for bitcoin.  It's entirely fitting and suitable to be examined.  I outlined explicitly an extraordinary event in the '70s relative to gold (the introduction of gold futures and derivatives). You were left under no illusions but that my understanding was the period was an extraordinary one where gold was concerned. Not itemising the USD coming off the gold standard in '71 doesn't in any way take away from that.  Furthermore, it doesn't in any way make me 'dishonest' in this discussion.

If you are saying that the rampant money printing began in '71 and gold being hard money responded to that, then that actually supports my position.  If I was trying to dishonestly hide the fact, I would have been doing myself a disservice (because it supports the very point I set out to make).

I provided you with  on the matter.  Clearly, you either ignored it or couldn't be bothered to take the time to read it.

Here's a snippet of what he had to say:

_"Bitcoin reminds me of gold when I first got into the business in 1976. *Gold had just been productized as a futures instrument (like Bitcoin recently) *and had enjoyed a heck of a bull market, almost tripling in price. It then corrected almost 50% in nearly two years similar to Bitcoin’s 28
-month 80% correction!"_

Clearly there were three major events relative to gold in that decade.  From the very outset, I referred to one of them (the introduction of gold futures and derivatives).  Tudor Jones doesn't mention anything about  the USD coming off the gold standard.  Is he to come in for a charge of dishonesty also? He does mention that the 70s was a time when fiat currencies suffered from high inflation. He also points to the similarity of gold in the 70s with regard to volatility - the very same volatility we see with bitcoin today. He refers to the productization of gold - the very same productization that is happening with bitcoin right now.

He refers to gold and the 70s as being an extraordinary period.  He likens it to bitcoin - as clearly bitcoin is in an extraordinary period as it proves itself and comes to the fore. You'll also note the economic backdrop we have right now - with rampant money printing the likes of which we have never seen.  The Fed printed more monopoly money in the month of June ( '2 Centuries of Debt in One Month' ) than was issued in the first 2 centuries of the existence of the United States.  Tudor Jones' thesis is very much taking into account these conditions as a backdrop to gold and bitcoin.

You say that you prefer to invest in companies that bring about growth through their trading activities - and that you don't favour gold nor bitcoin on this basis.  I acknowledged your point.  However, I pointed to the fact that I don't expect there to be major opportunities to make gains on Bitcoin once it has been established as a digital asset.

You point to the performance of gold in the '80s and with that you completely miss the point.  Gold was being productized in the 70s against a backdrop of inflation, money printing and the dropping of the gold standard.  Bitcoin is coming of age right now.  It has a fixed cap supply.  If it achieves adoption - whether that be as a store of value/digital gold/hedge against fiat currencies or further down the road as a means of exchange/transactional money, it's reasonable to assume that such demand will create pressure on its price. Volatility is a bad feature for a means of exchange. However, it provides a great opportunity for those that wish to trade bitcoin.  I see it as a temporary one off event - albeit that it will need to play out over a number of years.  Eventually, when bitcoin matures, I believe it will be as boring as gold.

It's on that basis, we have the comparison with gold in the 70s and it's on that basis, that I asked you the following:

_"When gold increased 2,300% over the course of the 1970s, there would have been no value in holding it?"_

I also asked you this:  _ "What do you think the folks that contribute to the $9 trillion market cap of gold are playing at exactly?  Why is there a market for gold to the value of $9 trillion dollars if you say that it's pointless?"_



Colm Fagan said:


> I don't believe in hoarding money, period. To repeat, it doesn't matter in what currency it's hoarded. I prefer to put it to work, earning interest, dividends or capital growth.


And in the 1970s you would have missed out on a gain of 2,300% in the appreciation of gold with that stance.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I had read his whole Investopedia piece.  It was the fact that he was such an evangelist, pure _tecate_, that impressed me so much with that key paragraph.


You cherry picked a particular point from his article - and used it without a citation to the author or the article itself (thinking that nobody could check it) - knowing that you were taking it out of context from what Kelleher stated in the rest of the article.  It's only once you were called out on this that suddenly you were critical of Kelleher - only then was he an 'evangelist'.  You then proceeded to try your best to pull apart other points that he had made in the article (i.e. the ones that didn't support your world view).



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can you answer yes or no do you agree with the above JK's key point?  It does not need contextualising.


We've been through this many times.  You insist on repeating it again and again.  My answer is and always will be the same.  You are taking it out of context.  Your point at the time was that bitcoin can't succeed as a store of value because it has to establish itself as a medium of exchange first.  What you conveniently leave out is Kellehers acknowledgement that gold isn't and can't be a medium of exchange yet it is a well established store of value.  That's verifiable proof that an asset can become a store of value without first becoming a means of exchange if at all!

You can waste people's time here and ask me another 100 times if you wish Duke but my answer will be exactly as I've set out above and each and every time you've put it to me.


----------



## WolfeTone

Colm Fagan said:


> You are both being disingenuous,



Well I respectfully reject that.

This is your main point



Colm Fagan said:


> My main point is that, if bitcoin ever gets to being a widely accepted currency, one that holds its value reasonably well over time, neither inflating or deflating, then there's no point in hoarding it.



To which I agreed.

I merely pointed out to you however that bitcoin _does currently _inflate and deflate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> What you conveniently leave out is Kellehers acknowledgement that gold isn't and can't be a medium of exchange yet it is a well established store of value.  That's verifiable proof that an asset can become a store of value without first becoming a means of exchange if at all!


Okay you are refusing to answer.  This time I will have the last word.  Of course, an asset can become a store of value without being a medium of exchange.  Did you even read my counter examples, gold, precious stones, jewellery in general, fine art, real estate etc.?
The absolutely key point which JK makes is that bitcoin cannot be in this category.  It's role as a store of value stands or falls on its use as a medium of exchange.  It is not a subtle point and I feel sure you understand it, but clearly you will never, ever admit it.


----------



## elacsaplau

WolfeTone said:


> Well, if we go by the literal meaning of 'Armageddon' then gold will have no value either.



Wolfie,

Is this your best yet?


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Okay you are refusing to answer.


I very much have answered - each and every time - including in my last post.  You're taking it out of context by extracting one single statement with no regard for Kelleher's admission that gold has become a store of value without having a hope of ever becoming a medium of exchange.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not a subtle point and I feel sure you understand it, but clearly you will never, ever admit it.


You're trying to force me into a response that I vehemently disagree with. That's the reality Duke - but believe what you want.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You're taking it out of context by extracting one single statement with no regard for Kelleher's admission that gold has become a store of value without having a hope of ever becoming a medium of exchange.


I really am tearing my hair out.  That is the whole point.  He points out that* bitcoin is not like gold in this respect*.  Bitcoin cannot pull off gold's transition from medium of exchange to store of value because it's *use as a store of value is 100% dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange*.  I think you disagree with him.  I think you believe that bitcoin can become a gold, a work of art, a piece of jewellery, something with a store of value but with nada utility as a medium of exchange.  JK profoundly disagrees with you and I agree 100% with him on this aspect.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I really am tearing my hair out.  That is the whole point.  He points out that bitcoin is not like gold in this respect.  Bitcoin cannot pull off gold's transition from medium of exchange to store of value because it's use as a store of value is 100% dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange.  I think you disagree with him.  I think you believe that bitcoin can become a gold, a work of art, a piece of jewellery, something with a store of value but with nada utility as a medium of exchange.  JK profoundly disagrees with you and I agree 100% with him on this aspect.


I told you already - you want to repeat the same thing over and over again, it will elicit the same answer.  The part that you conveniently left out is that Kelleher acknowledges gold is a store of value yet it isn't a medium of exchange.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> it will *illicit *the same answer.


I suppose that sums up your answer.  JK is stating in very certain terms that bitcoin cannot follow gold in that respect. Its store of value stands or falls on its acceptance as a medium of exchange,  I am going to ask _Wolfie_, realising he is a hostile witness, does he agree with JK when he says





			
				JK 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.


It doesn't need any context.  But if you want context Google John Kelleher Investopedia.  You may make a straight statement that you disagree with JK, that's fair enough, _tecate _ducks making any such statement.  We simply then have that you disagree with JK on this point whilst I agree with him.  That just leads to a "agree to disagree" situation, which is fair enough.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I suppose that sums up your answer.


My answer was and will be that Kelleher acknowledged that gold has become a store of value without acting as a means of exchange.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That just leads to a "agree to disagree" situation, which is fair enough.


That's perfectly fine.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> My answer was and will be that Kelleher acknowledged that gold has become a store of value without acting as a means of exchange.


I think I know your position but correct me if I am wrong.  You believe that bitcoin can, like gold, be a store of value without being a medium of exchange.  This is in direct contradiction of JK's very clearly stated view that bitcoin, unlike gold, cannot be a long term store of value unless it becomes a credible medium of exchange.  You fundamentally disagree with JK on that point.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think I know your position but correct me if I am wrong.  You believe that bitcoin can, like gold, be a store of value without being a medium of exchange.  This is in direct contradiction of JK's very clearly stated view that bitcoin, unlike gold, cannot be a long term store of value unless it becomes a credible medium of exchange.  You fundamentally disagree with JK on that point.


I have no earthly idea why you want to labour this. Even if you did cherry pick that snippet from it, Kelleher's article is decent. However, it's an opinion in which he makes that statement whilst at the same time acknowledging a contradiction i.e. that gold functions perfectly fine as a store of value without being a medium of exchange. There are many opinions on the topic.  I had long since provided you with another that clearly set out a need for bitcoin to first establish itself as a store of value and much later, establish itself as  a medium of exchange.  I could go and get you another 15 such opinions but I don't see the point because at this stage it's been done to death.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Colm Fagan said:


> @WolfeTone @tecate
> You are both being disingenuous, which I find disconcerting.   I like honest discussions, where all participants want to uncover the truth.  That was my objective when joining this discussion.


Colm, you make a very good point which is new to the debate.  But you are nigh eve if you expected your honesty to be reciprocated.  You are up against a cult.


----------



## Colm Fagan

Thanks Duke.  I've realised that, which is why I've disengaged.    I suggest you do the same.  You're wasting your time.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Colm, you make a very good point which is new to the debate. But you are nigh eve if you expected your honesty to be reciprocated. You are up against a cult.





Colm Fagan said:


> Thanks Duke. I've realised that, which is why I've disengaged. I suggest you do the same. You're wasting your time.



This is just a cop out.

I've have highlighted Mr Fagans main point (in his own words), to which I agreed.
If I agree with his comment, which cult am I part of?


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> This is just a cop out.


You're being quite generous at that, Wolfie. Only pond life goes around making unfounded allegations of dishonesty. 



WolfeTone said:


> If I agree with his comment, which cult am I part of?


We shouldn't be too surprised by the tar and feathering, Wolfie.  Gold bugs got this treatment for years.  In that rant, the writer bemoans the fact that what's wrong with gold is the type of people who invest in it. He also refers to a 'cult' and there are countless such references thrown in the direction of gold bugs.  And yet family offices, high net worth individuals, pension funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds & governments, institutional investors generally - together with retail investors - all invest in gold.  They do so to diversify their portfolios and as a hedge. That rationale and those participants all make up the $9 trillion dollar gold sector.  That's a $9 trillion cult!

Whilst I'll always challenge the tar and feathering (as it's simply wrong), on the flip side I couldn't give a fiddlers. Digital assets are coming of age and they bring their own unique properties to the table. Bitcoin is at the heart of that. Those who have not taken the time to understand it, are too stuck in their ways to be open to it or are politically motivated against it can scream blue bloody murder.  It will make no difference.  It's coming of age and it's here to stay.

Claims have been made here that it's now do or die for bitcoin.  Either it benefits from this rampant money printing or it's done for.  I don't believe that - it will be around after this crisis regardless.  That's also the view of US Congressman Tom Emmer.  In a recent interview he said:

_"As we come out of this crisis, bitcoin ain't going away.  It's going to get stronger"_. . . _"You just watch, it has value, when something has value, people are going to take risks and it's going to advance." _

Emmer is one of a number of forward thinking politicians in the US where bitcoin and digital assets are concerned.


----------



## Gus1970

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Colm, you make a very good point which is new to the debate. But you are nigh eve if you expected your honesty to be reciprocated. You are up against a cult.



I believe that every time a group of people start believing into something (be it technology, politics, religion etc.) there are elements of cultism associated to the fact that humans have an innate desire for being right about something, simply because this makes us feel good (it's nature, it is ok). 
The problem about using the "cult" argument about a topic is the fact that we equate every person that has an opinion to the people that present cultist behaviours. This is unfair to the people that have made their research, have evaluated pros and cons, have made a risk assessment and have decided to bet on the fact they are right. These people are also willing to learn more about the topic so that if they missed somethign they can make a correction bet.

Often people resort to the cult argument when they are not able to understand what that belief really is. For example, I was born a catholic and while growing up i was exposed to events that made me distance myself from it. I have tried to express my opinions with religious people and I have heard their explanations for the events, but something was always missing, something didn't sound right to me.

I know a lot of people that went through very similar situations that call catholicism a cult. 

I don't.

I believe that I am not able to perceive and understand some things that other people perceive and understand. My life went one way and I abandoned catholicism. Does it mean that I am right and they are wrong? Absolutely not. It simply means that through my research and life experiences I have matured a belief that is different than the one the other people have for reasons i will never know.

If on a subject we are on opposing beliefs and don't start from a point of fallibility (i.e. I might be wrong about this), the conversation is pointless.
Instead of being a conversation where options are expressed and reflected upon, it becomes an exercise of nit picking at what other people say and using the linguistic techniques in order to prove our point or disprove what the other person is saying. This very quickly becomes an exercise of oratory rhetoric.

Throughout the years I found that a constructive approach to a conversation is the Socratic way that from wikipedia is "...a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions."

This approach MUST start with the knowledge that we don't know and want to discover. It doesn't start with assertions like "Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble" or "bitcoin is a cult"

How do we find out what approach we are using? Very simple. If when we start an argument we ask ourselves, "am i trying to indoctrinate or to discover?" we will know what we are doing.

I am the smartest man in Athens because i know that I know nothing

Gus

P.S. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the magnificent efforts of the frequent posters. Your use of all the possible logical fallacies is fascinating, but without the presumption of fallibility they remain an exercise in written rhetoric.


----------



## WolfeTone

tecate said:


> He also refers to a 'cult'



Yes, and the thing is, is that the common factor underlying  of these discussions is whether bitcoin has any value or not and if so, how is the price of that measured.

The persistent 'cult' references are clearly an attempt to try demean the point of view of others and debase the discussion.
Regardless of anyone's views on bitcoin being a cult or not, this irreverence wholly fails to grasp that many, many cults (if that what bitcoin is) do have value. Be it large Christian Church cults or fringe cults, in which case the _BOHA _argument falls flat on it face.
This of course has been pointed out to the _Duke_ and in recent times, in his words admitted that he had lost his conviction that bitcoin would return to zero anytime soon.

Flinging out accusations of 'disingenuous' to posters on a topic where the accuser admits in his opening sentence to having no clue about the subject matter really is the pot calling the kettle. Instead, I'm advised to read some sc-fi novel that sets the scene of an age without the internet some 800yrs from now!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Hi guys, switch off your auto Like button, it's me


----------



## WolfeTone

The personal savings rate in US has, unsurprisingly, shot up from average 7.9% to 23% from the period of March this year, according to this stat

US personal savings rate 

If this is reflected across most Western economies it would suggest to me that in the event of full re-opening of economies there will be, combined with increases in government spending across the globe, a surge in demand. 
Will this demand bring forth an inflationary effect? 

On the other hand, considering the pervasiveness of Covid19 is the global financial system hurtling itself toward a liquidity trap? With increasing savings, lower demand and money printing and government borrowing at record highs, is everything that could go wrong lining up to go wrong? 

Options to keep (some of) your wealth outside this system have never been needed more imo.


----------



## tecate

WolfeTone said:


> The personal savings rate in US has, unsurprisingly, shot up from average 7.9% to 23% from the period of March this year, according to this stat
> It would suggest to me that in the event of full re-opening of economies there will be, combined with increases in government spending across the globe, a surge in demand. Will this demand bring forth an inflationary effect?
> 
> Options to keep (some of) your wealth outside this system have never been needed more imo.


And it seems that some recipients of those free money cheques did opt to put some of their wealth outside the system. Following the first round of stimulus, some of the leading crypto exchanges indicated an uptick in deposits to the value of $1,200. The Democrats & Republicans are thrashing out a second round of stimulus and it seems odds on that this will include free money cheques.

You would imagine that the pandemic would leave the average person in a worse position. However, disposable income in 2020 is far more than in 2019.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This has been a truly disappointing thread.  Past incarnations have descended to The Cult vs The  Duke.  This time round Colm Fagan's insightful questions were a breath of fresh air.  One notes that unlike the rest of us Colm is not anonymous.  He is in fact a well respected financial commentator, and his participation should have been most welcome.

Unfortunately, within a few posts The Cult had descended on him with the most lengthy, incomprehensible diatribes to the point where he naturally decided he was having no more of this.

Then we get a pompous lecture on cults with faux protestations of tolerance - "I might think catholicism is a load of bull but I still respect catholics" vomit.  All to love and kisses from the cult community and its hurlers on the ditch.

I am taking Colm's advice and getting off stage.


----------



## tecate

@Gus1970 :  Thank you for taking the time and consideration to write this post.  It's truly the most enlightening (and particularly poignant) thing I've read on this section of AAM for quite some time.


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am taking Colm's advice and getting off stage.



I left the Auto Like on for you!


----------



## WolfeTone

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Past incarnations have descended to The Cult vs The Duke.



Your OP on this thread



Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the dream scenario of the cultists,


 

From the get-go you were determined to drag it into the mire... Well done!


----------



## elacsaplau

Indeed, Wolfie

The pot the black kettle calling?

Regarding the second part of the post in question - whilst it is true that BTC is not at its all time high (quelle surprise), it's about 50 times more than the said poster first proclaimed BTC to be baloney back in 2015. Yes - a cumulative increase of 5,000%! Yikes! At this stage, we are entering into "Platini is not a great player" territory - [one of my dad's favourite stories - slightly before my time.]


----------



## WolfeTone

elacsaplau said:


> "Platini is not a great player"





How about, 
"You can't win anything with kids" - Alan Hansen

or

"I can't believe Leicester appointed Ranieri" - Dietmar Hanann suggesting Leicester faced relegation when instead they won Premier League. 
In fairness to Hamann, Leicester did indeed face relegation the following season under Ranieri. 

For my own part I onced proclaimed that Sinamon Pongalle _(who?)_ would be the next Ronaldinho


----------



## elacsaplau

Dietmar Johann Wolfgang "Didi" Hamann.............

Is there where the Wolf really comes from?

Also, how about at 200 or so bucks (read: 0.02 BTC!), TSLA is way over-priced?!


----------



## Gus1970

Colm Fagan said:


> Guys
> I don't know a thing about bitcoin, so forgive the naivety of my question.
> I understand that bitcoin can be viewed either as an investment or as a replacement for conventional currencies.  If I consider it as an investment, I want it to increase in value by as much and as quickly as possible.  If I consider it as a currency, I want it to have a reasonably stable value, so that I can know with reasonable confidence how many loaves of bread I can buy for a bitcoin or how many bitcoins it will cost me to buy a car (definitely not a Tesla in my case!).  How can these apparently conflicting objectives be reconciled?



Hi Colm, 

Bitcoin is a new asset class and until today it has been used both as a currency and as an investment. By adopters.

Bitcoin is in it’s infancy compared to traditional currencies and investments and we are still in a development and discovery phase.

I don’t know what bitcoin will be in 10-20 years, nobody does, my suggestion is not to touch it until you understand it more deeply and can make your own conclusions.

Best regards,

Gus


----------



## tecate

Dublinbay12 said:


> Buy Bitcoin


It would certainly seem like someone is taking your advice -> LINK

This is the reason why Paypal is looking at introducing crypto to its platform:





Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Square is a bitcoin proponent.  No doubt he had a hand in bitcoin being introduced to Square's CashApp in 2018. That decision is making quite a difference to Square's bottom line.


That's before we consider the amount of bitcoin that's being hoovered up by Grayscale Bitcoin Trust each week.  Grayscale now has $5 billion worth of bitcoin under management.


----------

