# What split between Bitcoin and Etherium



## IndianaJones (14 Jul 2021)

Just wondering what way would you split a Bitcoin/Etherium investment if you were just starting out?


----------



## Firefly (14 Jul 2021)

IndianaJones said:


> Just wondering what way would you split a Bitcoin/Etherium investment if you were just starting out?


Tough one....I'd probably flip a Satoshi


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Jul 2021)

If I were worried about my future wealth, I would not be gambling at all. 






						My salary is going to be halved very soon due to loss of shift pay
					

Im with my currently employer for 13 years. Because of shift and oncall payment I've been earning 60-75k every year in that period . Its been decided in work that we wont needed on shift or do oncall any more which means within 6 months ill be back on days earning 39k. Im resigned to the fact Im...



					www.askaboutmoney.com
				




Brendan


----------



## tecate (17 Jul 2021)

IndianaJones said:


> Just wondering what way would you split a Bitcoin/Etherium investment if you were just starting out?


It depends on what your thoughts are on the outcome for both projects. Bitcoin is decentralised money and a decentralised store of value. Ethereum is pursuing the decentralisation of finance. There are those who believe that far greater disruptive potential will come from Ethereum. i've seen some move to a portfolio with a higher ETH weighting than BTC over recent months. That said, there are bitcoin-centric decentralised finance projects being developed also like Sovryn and Stacks. Additionally, Jack Dorsey's Square came out yesterday and said it is creating a separate open-developer  platform to facilitate bitcoin-based decentralised financial services.

As regards any claims of this being gambling, would taking a position in Amazon in 2005 be gambling? If the appropriate position size is taken, then it's not gambling.


----------



## Marc (17 Jul 2021)

IndianaJones said:


> Just wondering what way would you split a Bitcoin/Etherium investment if you were just starting out?


None at all and none at all

It’s gambling not investing because it has no expected return because it has no intrinsic value


----------



## tecate (17 Jul 2021)

Marc said:


> None at all and none at all


The very definition of gambling - no diversification to include exposure to an asset that has produced an average return of 213% pa over the course of its 12 years.


----------



## Tickle (17 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> The very definition of gambling - no diversification to include exposure to an asset that has produced an average return of 213% pa over the course of its 12 years.


Past performance etc...


----------



## tecate (17 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Past performance etc...


Past performance, etc indeed. However, the suggestion is to summarily ignore the principal assets in a brand new asset class with zero allocation. Given the asymmetric risk, a portfolio allocation of up to 5% seems reasonable. Nobody gets wiped out if it fails to perform.


----------



## Tickle (18 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Given the assemetric risk, a portfolio allocation of up to 5% seems reasonable. Nobody gets wiped out if it fails to perform.


Nay, 5% is far too much given the level of risk. Burning the 5% in cash for heat, or eating the 5% in cash for nutrition would be a better use for the money, IMO.


----------



## tecate (18 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Nay, 5% is far too much given the level of risk. Burning the 5% in cash for heat, or eating the 5% in cash for nutrition would be a better use for the money, IMO.


Again, you're suggesting a zero percent allocation to an asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years.  Furthermore, you're completely ignoring the asymmetric nature of that risk. In no way do I agree.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Burning the 5% in cash for heat, or eating the 5% in cash for nutrition would be a better use for the money, IMO.



Just apply that thinking at any point over the last 12yrs and see how silly it is.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Just apply that thinking at any point over the last 12yrs and see how silly it is.


Easy to say that in hindsight. We invest today for future returns, not for past returns.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> We invest today for future returns, not for past returns.



True, but given what you know from hindsight it does appear to be silly.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

We know a lot about Tulip mania in the early 17th century. Would you recommend investing in Tulips now because of their phenomenal growth in the past?


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> We know a lot about Tulip mania in the early 17th century. Would you recommend investing in Tulips now because of their phenomenal growth in the past?


By bringing up 'tulipmania' you betray the fact that you know next to nothing about what you refer to. Hardly anyone runs with the tulipmania comparison anymore - for good reason. The comparison is entirely wayward.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> By bringing up 'tulipmania' you betray the fact that you know next to nothing about what you refer to. Hardly anyone runs with the tulipmania comparison anymore - for good reason. The comparison is entirely wayward.


I asked a straight-up question. I made no comparison.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> I asked a straight-up question. I made no comparison.


It's a quasi comparision. Anyone that understands the fundamentals of what makes for sound money and  what makes for a decent store of value wouldn't utter the word 'tulipmania' in a discussion relative to bitcoin - end of.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> We know a lot about Tulip mania in the early 17th century. Would you recommend investing in Tulips now because of their phenomenal growth in the past?



No, because we also know of its phenomenal crash which never recovered off the floor. Unlike bitcoin, which has repeatedly recovered from price crashes and gone onto new all time highs.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Anyone that understands the fundamentals of what makes for sound money and  what makes for a decent store of value wouldn't utter the word 'tulipmania' in a discussion relative to bitcoin - end of.


Because you say so.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> ... bitcoin, which has repeatedly recovered from price crashes and gone onto new all time highs.


Until the time that it doesn't. This is why I wouldn't recommend it as an investment for the future. It's totally reliant on people pumping up the value through hype. It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Because you say so.


You're the one that tars it with the tulipmania jibe. If you're big enough to make the claim, then you should be big and bold enough to defend your position and tell us in what earthly way tulips were a good store of value or money. 



Tickle said:


> Until the time that it doesn't. This is why I wouldn't recommend it as an investment for the future. It's totally reliant on people pumping up the value through hype. It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.


oh dear - more homework to be done. Another wayward term from a number of years ago. Tell me, where are the offices of the masterminds behind this 'ponzi'??....because that's the nature of a ponzi scheme right - its organised and set out as such from the get go.

Its testament to the nature of people that there are hype cycles where innovation and new tech are concerned. However, in no way do I agree that bitcoin is reliant on 'people pumping up the value'.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Until the time that it doesn't. This is why I wouldn't recommend it as an investment for the future.



You can say that about anything. 




Tickle said:


> It's totally reliant on people pumping up the value through hype. It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.



If its a Ponzi scheme its only the only Ponzi scheme in history that once the price crashes into freefall has recovered again to new all times highs. 
A characteristic that is alien to Ponzi schemes. 

If its a Ponzi scheme who is operating it? 

Arguably, the US $ debt market is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time, operated by Federal Reserve, US govt and US military.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Wolfie

If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias. 

So despite tecate's "end of" comment, tulipmania and the dot.com boom are entirely relevant to the discussion of Bitcoin. 

The reason why manias like Bitcoin keep recurring, is because people forget about them, or say "this time it's different"

Brendan


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Wolfie
> 
> If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.
> 
> ...



Brendan, analogies have to be looked at for what they are. In the case of the dot com boom I've always maintained that you're absolutely right to bring that into the discussion. What you've always failed to acknowledge though - is the wave of innovation that came out of it. You've always presented it - in purely negative terms. 
In the case of tulipmania, the inference is that there was nothing of substance behind the tulip craze and there's nothing of substance behind crypto/bitcoin. That's wayward. If someone disagrees, all they have to do is look at the recognised attributes of money and of a store of value to determine that tulips don't even enter the discussion whereas bitcoin most certainly does. 
That doesn't mean its perfect or that its beyond criticism but it does mean that the tulipania analogy is wayward. The dot com boom implicated hype with plenty of substance. Tulipmania was incredibly short lived - implicating hype and zero substance.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Tecate

Manias are manias. 

I am having the same discussion with you as I had with others  during the dot.com mania.  The other side just won't listen. They derided any reference to tulips. 

The tulip maniacs dismissed all criticism just as the BTC maniacs do. This time is no different. 

The main lesson that you and Wolfie need to learn is that the past is a great guide.  Really clever people like you and Wolfie fall victim to irrational manias.   When BTC falls to zero, you will be scratching your head "How did I believe all that nonsense?". 

Brendan


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> ...the nature of a ponzi scheme right - *its organised *and set out as such from the get go.


Ah come on now, Bitcoin's main selling point is that it is a decentralised ponzi scheme. It is being pumped up by those who have bought in to it. Herd mentality and fear of missing out is feeding the scheme and blowing it's worth out of proportion. You can continue to shout down at people who don't buy into it.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Tecate
> 
> Manias are manias.
> 
> ...



I see zero progression in your take on this Brendan since 2017. You've once again ignored what I put to you in my last post. I'll ask again. Do you accept that a whole raft of life-changing innovation emerged out of the dot com era?  Why do you never acknowledge that? 

With regard to hype cycles, I've repeatedly acknowledged that markets of this nature get over-exuberant. I've stepped out of the market on that basis on a number of occasions. I've also repeatedly stated that the vast majority of decentralised blockchain projects will simply vapourize. People over estimate what can be achieved in 1 year and underestimate what can be achieved in 10. 

You could take a completely different perspective here and acknowledge that there's something of substance at the heart of this. Given that to be the case and given what we know about hype cycles, you could choose to engage positively in figuring out what would be a safe strategy for someone to gain exposure to this as it develops. You'll note that the engagement with others here was on the basis of a suggestion of limiting exposure to no more than 5% of overall portfolio. Anyone who would engage positively on the subject to my mind would explore items of that nature....not this doubling and tripling down with mention of ponzi schemes!

As regards the 'how did i believe all this nonsense'? - what on earth are you referring to?  What would you have been referring to back in dot com era times? What we don't have acceptance of here from you is that there is innovation at hand - you have consistently denied that.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> the vast majority of decentralised blockchain projects will simply vapourize


But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> You'll note that the engagement with others here was on the basis of a suggestion of limiting exposure to no more than 5% of overall portfolio. Anyone who would engage positively on the subject to my mind would explore items of that nature....not this doubling and tripling down with mention of ponzi schemes!


Your basis for that, given on this thread, is solely the assertion that "the asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years". That does not seem very well thought out.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Ah come on now, Bitcoin's main selling point is that it is a decentralised ponzi scheme. It is being pumped up by those who have bought in to it. Herd mentality and fear of missing out is feeding the scheme and blowing it's worth out of proportion. You can continue to shout down at people who don't buy into it.


You can continue to embarrass yourself with this all day long - and I say embarrass yourself because by its very definition, a ponzi scheme is an organised, centralised, orchestrated manipulation to willfully relieve people of their funds. And now you're claiming that bitcoin is a  'decentralised' ponzi - it's complete clown college stuff. And as regards what you call 'shout down at people', I call that calling people on their bs.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

I think the concept and mechanics of a ponzi scheme are well known, however, just because you say that it has to be organised, doesn't make the description any less apt. A description based on its characteristics. Which you cannot see or refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.


There isn't even the remotest chance of having anything close to an intelligent discussion on the subject given that you acknowledge no positive attribute in any project.


Tickle said:


> Your basis for that, given on this thread, is solely the assertion that "the asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years". That does not seem very well thought out.


No, it's not. I've posted here on the subject over the course of 4 years - and my thesis re. bitcoin extends beyond what you claim.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> I think the concept and mechanics of a ponzi scheme are well known, however, just because you say that it has to be organised, doesn't make the description any less apt. A description based on its characteristics. Which you cannot see or refuse to acknowledge.


 It's a complete and utter fabrication. The definition of a ponzi scheme in no way fits - but what your saying is yeah you're right but I'm going to tar and feather it with that label regardless.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> It's a complete and utter fabrication. The definition of a ponzi scheme in no way fits - but what your saying is yeah you're right but I'm going to tar and feather it with that label regardless.


No, what I am saying is that a comparisons can be made without semantics. And fixating on semantics to refute is ignoring the bigger picture.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> ...suggesting a zero percent allocation to an asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years.


I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.



Brendan, I'm not dismissing the 'mania', clearly Bitcoin’s meteoric rise from 0 to $5k, then $3k to $20k, then $3k to $60k is phenomenal. 
I'm simply making the distinction that ponzi schemes, when they go bust go bust for good. They only ever resurface if they are packaged as another product/investment vehicle etc

Bitcoin price action is not too dissimilar to other assets that are subject to price volatility over time, property, oil, gold etc. 

No doubt Bitcoin’s greater volatility is a consequence of its establishment as a new asset class. I sense this volatility will reduce over time.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> No, what I am saying is that a comparisons can be made without semantics. And fixating on semantics to refute is ignoring the bigger picture.


Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).


Tickle said:


> I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong.


You've already been proven wrong. What's even more concerning is that you fail to see the potential upside of the assemetric risk that bitcoin represents right now without having to go overboard in terms of overall portfolio risk.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I sense this volatility will reduce over time.



You are correct.

When it falls to zero, the volatility will be zero.

Brendan


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> You fail to see the potential upside of the assemetric risk that bitcoin represents right now without having to go overboard im terms of overall portfolio risk.


Tell us some more about the potential downsides. You seem to have no problems overstating the upsides, and you are completely dismissive of views that you don't agree with.




> Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).


You are only using the semantics that suit your agenda and you are ignoring the characteristics that are similar.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

The ponzi scheme argument is a non argument. 

If you define a ponzi scheme as an organised scheme, then it's not a ponzi scheme.

If you define it as something where people pay a lot of money for nothing in the hope that a greater fool will pay more for it, then it's a ponzi scheme.



Brendan


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You are correct.
> 
> When it falls to zero, the volatility will be zero.
> 
> Brendan


And when will this BTC = $0 event happen Brendan?  Back in 2017 you had an inkling but you don't any longer. Did you make the same prediction re. the dot com era? I ask as you have not uttered ONE single positive re. that wave of innovation. I agree that we have hype cycles - what I don't agree with is this notion that you just ignore an entire wave of innovation on the basis of that. That's moronic.


Tickle said:


> Tell us some more about the potential downsides. You seem to have no problems overstating the upsides, and you are completely dismissive of views that you don't agree with.


What are the potential downsides of any investment that would find itself towards the riskier end of the spectrum? And of course continue to fail to acknowledge the importance of position size within that - which is where all of this started.
I am not 'completely dismissive' of critique. However, critique that is disingenuous or just plain wrong I will challenge. I provide my rationale for anything I challenge - I suggest that you do the same - rather than finding fault with me personally in challenging what you've expressed.



Tickle said:


> You are only using the semantics that suit your agenda and you are ignoring the characteristics that are similar.


Incorrect. What I'm doing is calling you out on a lie! A ponzi scheme is a premeditated and calculated con organised by a central entity. What you're effectively saying is that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. That is factually incorrect - and facts may be an inconvenience to you but they're important to me. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> The ponzi scheme argument is a non argument.
> 
> If you define a ponzi scheme as an organised scheme, then it's not a ponzi scheme.
> 
> If you define it as something where people pay a lot of money for nothing in the hope that a greater fool will pay more for it, then it's a ponzi scheme.


See above, Brendan. Truth and facts matter. Switch on CNBC right now. I don't care at what point you do so but I can guarantee that someone is talking up their book. Yet you wouldn't dare say that they're part of a ponzi scheme. You wouldn't because they would sue the daylights out of you - and rightly so. 
There is NO defense for the use of that tar and feathering/labelling because by its very definition, its entirely inaccurate. If there was a degree of honesty in this regard, those claiming ponzi could choose to allege that market participants in the space talk up their book. I don't have any issue with that but of course its entirely different. Labelling bitcoin as a ponzi is an out and out lie - that's the difference.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> What you're effectively saying is that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme.


Woah woah, I never said that.



> There is NO defense for the use of that tar and feathering/labelling because by its very definition, its entirely inaccurate



A fool's argument.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Woah woah, I never said that.


Keep tying yourself up in knots. By its very definition, a ponzi scheme is a premeditated con. You stated that bitcoin is the greatest ponzi known to man.


Tickle said:


> A fool's argument.


Ah, I see. This is where I've been getting it so wrong. Apparently I'm sooo wrong to insist on accuracy and said accuracy in this instance means that claims that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme get thrown out unceremoniously. But that accuracy you say is 'semantic's' - because it stands directly in the way of your desire to mislead on the subject.  For that, you say I've taken up 'a fools argument'. Instructive.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

Yet you keep refusing to recognise any of the characteristics of a ponzi scheme that exist in bitcoin. Instead you are ducking and diving over semantics. I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that. And you know that but you continue to dance around that fact because it's the basis of your rebuttle.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Yet you keep refusing to recognise any of the characteristics of a ponzi scheme that exist in bitcoin. Instead you are ducking and diving over semantics. I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that. And you know that but you continue to dance around that fact.


Incorrect. What I'm doing is challenging the lie that you've presented with. You say that facts and truth don't matter - I say that they very much do.  Facts and truth are not 'semantics'. 
You can choose to do a couple of things - 
1. carry on with this ponzi lie
OR
2. you could take the view that your belief is that many bitcoiners talk up their own book.

I don't have any issue with the latter - but in no way will I let you go unchallenged on the former as it's a lie. You think there's no difference but there's a world of difference


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> When it falls to zero, the volatility will be zero.



Yes, like everything else.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

> You say that facts and truth don't matter -


But I never said that?


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> But I never said that?


Your sustained claim of 'semantics' speaks to precisely that.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.





Tickle said:


> I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that



What exactly are you saying? 

How was the largest ponzi scheme known to man established, if it was never established as a Ponzi scheme to begin with?


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Your sustained claim of 'semantics' speaks to precisely that.





WolfeTone said:


> What exactly are you saying?
> 
> How was the largest ponzi scheme known to man established, if it was never established as a Ponzi scheme to begin with?


The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know


----------



## DublinHead54 (22 Jul 2021)

It is only a Ponzi scheme if you get left holding a bag of hot air , but not when you have zero average cost eh?

Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme. Maybe their views are formed by their direct experience with Bitcoin, positive and negative. But neither can concretely prove it either way, although I bet Tecate will give it a good go. 

Ponzi schemes only get found out when they fall apart, they can be extremely elaborate or extremely simple.

I don't personally think Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, but that doesn't mean the value of it won't drop or rise significantly and doesn't stop people being conned out of money.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know


Take a long hard look at what YOU are choosing to conveniently ignore....i.e. that the only way that a ponzi scheme comes to exist is as a direct consequence of a premeditated con. But as I have continually put to you, you want to tar and feather bitcoin negatively - in full knowledge that what you're claiming is a lie. That's the reality.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme.



Tecate's argument appears to be... 

_A Ponzi Scheme is defined as  A fraudulent scheme where earlier investors are paid with the money taken from new investors, giving the impression that the scheme is a viable investment. 

But, because it wasn't designed from the start as a fraud...

It's not a Ponzi Scheme

Therefore anyone who describes it as Ponzi Scheme is wrong on this issue and every other issue to do with BTC._

It's just that we don't have a word for a scheme like BTC which was not set up as a fraud, but which has all the other characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme. 

People like tecate and Wolfie believe that something which is completely worthless has value. 
The people who get out on time will make lots of money
But the later entrants will lose a lot. 

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know



Aha! A cryptic clue... I love a good riddle. 

In the mean time, how was the largest ponzi scheme known to man established, if it was never established as a Ponzi scheme to begin with?


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme. Maybe their views are formed by their direct experience with Bitcoin, positive and negative. But neither can concretely prove it either way, although I bet Tecate will give it a good go.


I agree that he can make any crazy claim he wants. However, as regards nobody being able to definitively prove or disprove either way, on that I disagree. There's a definition for the term 'ponzi scheme'. Central to that definition is a recognition that a ponzi scheme is a premeditated, calculated con. Tickle can claim that such definitive detail is 'semantics' all he wants - but he's factually incorrect to do so. There is no grey area here.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's just that we don't have a word for a scheme like BTC which was not set up as a fraud, but which has all the other characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme.


Ah, yes Brendan! So the term 'Ponzi Scheme' in NO WAY fits in this instance. And apparently accuracy here is just such an inconvenience  - semantics no less. Tell you what, we know that people conjure up the most negative of images when presented with the phrase 'ponzi scheme' - and I really want to double and triple down on the hating here.  So why shouldn't we be disingenuous and lie to people - its for the greater good here given that bitcoin and decentralised crypto  is pure evil.

Still waiting for a response on the dot com era, Brendan.  I'm sure at any moment now you're going to acknowledge that wave of life changing innovation, right? And tell me, there was no way to invest in that innovative wave in any safe manner - that's what you've been telling us all these years, right?


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Ponzi schemes only get found out when they fall apart, they can be extremely elaborate or extremely simple.



But it has been found out. @Tickle says its the largest ponzi scheme known to man. He just won't/can't explain how or why it is a Ponzi scheme. In fact he throws some doubt on his assertion that it is a ponzi scheme



Tickle said:


> I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that.



So it wasn't established as a ponzi scheme but morphed into a ponzi scheme? How?


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> I agree that he can make any crazy claim he wants. However, as regards nobody being able to definitively prove or disprove either way, on that I disagree. There's a definition for the term 'ponzi scheme'. Central to that definition is a recognition that a ponzi scheme is a premediated, calculated con. Tickle can claim that such definitive detail is 'semantics' all he wants - but he's factually incorrect to do so. There is no grey area here.





tecate said:


> Ah, yes Brendan! So the term 'Ponzi Scheme' in NO WAY fits in this instance. And apparently accuracy here is just such an inconvenience  - semantics no less. Tell you what, we know that people conjure up the most negative of images when presented with the phrase 'ponzi scheme' - and I really want to double and triple down on the hating here.  So why shouldn't we be disingenuous and lie to people - its for the greater good here given that bitcoin and decentralised crypto  is pure evil.




Incorrigible, ignorant and insular comments. You refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme. You are only here to push a one-sided pro-scheme view. I've asked you what the disadvantages are specifically and you fobbed it off. Calling it as one sees it is not a lie. Your absolute refusal is downright dangerous.


You sound like you would be content with it being called a "Ponzi-like" scheme.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> Incorrigible, ignorant and insular comments. You refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme.


Again with the lies.  You didn't stop at saying that bitcoin was similar to a ponzi scheme (which is also completely inaccurate).  You said that bitcoin IS a ponzi. Anyone that's capable of using a dictionary will be able to figure out your lie in no time.



Tickle said:


> You are only here to push a one-sided pro-scheme view.



I've acknowledged a whole host of shortcomings relative to bitcoin and decentralised crypto here over the course of 4 years. You on the other hand couldn't point to ONE single positive. Ergo, you know what I think of your wayward claim.





Tickle said:


> I've asked you what the disadvantages are specifically and you fobbed it off.


Do we have to endure more lies? You asked and I answered. I don't give a fiddlers if you're displeased with that answer.



Tickle said:


> Calling it as one sees it is not a lie.


Purposefully labeling something with a term that is definitively incorrect is a blatant lie and disception.




Tickle said:


> Your absolute refusal is downright dangerous.


My refusal to be complicit in a lie is dangerous?  Every day is a school day but I won't be backing you up in your lie - thanks all the same.


----------



## Tickle (22 Jul 2021)

The dodging and dancing around here would give Michael Flatley a run for his money. Thread has descended into farce. Come for the financial advice and stay for the comedy.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> The dodging and dancing around here would give Michael Flatley a run for his money. Thread has descended into farce. Come for the financial advice and stay for the comedy.


The only one 'dodging' here is you. You've tried your best to justify a blatant untruth. You could choose to acknowledge that its simply inaccurate and incorrect to label bitcoin with the term 'ponzi scheme' ...but i guess that doesn't suit your purposes, right?


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> You refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme



I don't that is fair. Anyone familiar with @tecate posts know that s/he has acknowledged that bitcoin could, like myself, crash to zero. We have also acknowledged that its meteoric price rise has characteristics of a 'mania', but this is no different to other asset classes such as property for instance.

I see a long future ahead for bitcoin. What price it will be at, no-one knows for certain - except people like yourself who regard it as the largest ponzi scheme known to man and its price will go to zero, or next to. Only you are all shy in forecasting when this will be.

To date, all calls of bitcoins demise over the last decade have been wrong, quite emphatically so.
And in that regard, it would be somewhat refreshing if for once those who call Bitcoin’s demise before now actually acknowledged how wrong they have been.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Tickle said:


> You sound like you would be content with it being called a "Ponzi-like" scheme.



Excellent idea as it carries the warning to others that they will  lose all their money if they get caught by it.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Excellent idea as it carries the warning to others that they will  lose all their money if they get caught by it.


Why stop there? Why not suggest that its the work of the devil? 

Tell me, when a VC invests in a startup and that startup fails and they lose all their money, is that then ponzi-like? What of the Lebanese pound - is it a ponzi-like scheme ran by the Lebanese central bank?


----------



## DublinHead54 (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Tecate's argument appears to be...
> 
> _A Ponzi Scheme is defined as  A fraudulent scheme where earlier investors are paid with the money taken from new investors, giving the impression that the scheme is a viable investment.
> 
> ...



Brendan,

I may be wrong but I don't think all Ponzi schemes have to start out as a Ponzi scheme. Look at probably one of the most famous, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and I'm pretty sure that started out as a legitimate business. I do agree on how you describe Tecates approach at defending his position, he is a master of picking an irrelevant point to deflect answering questions. 

Regarding Bitcoin, Tecate can never prove it isn't a Ponzi scheme with certainy. 'Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along. However unlikely Tecate cannot prove this isn't a possibility. 

To borrow one of theirs and wolfetones favourite deflection mechanism....
Only time will tell.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> I may be wrong but I don't think all Ponzi schemes have to start out as a Ponzi scheme. Look at probably one of the most famous, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and I'm pretty sure that started out as a legitimate business. I do agree on how you describe Tecates approach at defending his position, he is a master of picking an irrelevant point to deflect answering questions.
> 
> Regarding Bitcoin, Tecate can never prove it isn't a Ponzi scheme with certainy. 'Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along. However unlikely Tecate cannot prove this isn't a possibility.
> 
> ...


I'm not 'defending my position'. I'm calling out a blatant lie. You were corrected on this once - only to restate the same nonsense. By its very definition, a ponzi scheme is an orchestrated con that requires a specific premeditated plan. There is no grey area - the definition of a ponzi scheme is crystal clear. Anyone that continues with this nonsense is declaring black to be white. But hey, maybe its something you and the gals can discuss at the next 'business luncheon'.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along. However unlikely Tecate cannot prove this isn't a possibility.



Like, Wizard of Oz?


----------



## DublinHead54 (22 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> I'm not 'defending my position'. I'm calling out a blatant lie. You were corrected on this once - only to restate the same nonsense. By its very definition, a ponzi scheme is an orchestrated con that requires a specific premeditated plan. There is no grey area - the definition of a ponzi scheme is crystal clear. Anyone that continues with this nonsense is declaring black to be white. But hey, maybe its something you and the gals can discuss at the next 'business luncheon'.



Tecate, the only thing that is crystal clear is how wrong you are. But this is what I've come to expect, you're credibility reduces with each of your posts. 

In fact I'm sure if you decided black was white and white was black you'd argue it until the cows come home. 

I've stated a few points on Ponzi schemes and I disagree with how you are applying your 'definition' of a Ponzi scheme but you are so blind to others opinions that you are no longer even able to entertain debate and simply go down the route of insults.

But Tecate you surely can't be blind to the fact that you can't prove with certainty that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. This is even more true given the definition of a Ponzi scheme that you are holding everyone to, that is unless you are Satoshi himself? Are we going to have a big reveal? 

Lastly, there is no place for discrimination anywhere in this day and age and your comment regarding 'the gals' is inexcusable. So I won't be engaging with anyone who thinks it that way. 

I think you should delete that comment.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> there is no place for discrimination anywhere in this day and age and your comment regarding 'the gals' is inexcusable.



I must be out of touch as well.  It's not an expression I use, but I hadn't realised that it was not PC anymore.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Maybe I am not too far out of touch

Here is an article which wants to use "gals" to replace "girls" when referring to women just as guys refers to men. 





__





						I Am Gal, Hear Me Roar
					

It's time to reclaim the female version of "guy."




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## DublinHead54 (22 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I must be out of touch as well.  It's not an expression I use, but I hadn't realised that it was not PC anymore.
> 
> Brendan



I wasn't referring to use of the word gals as inexcusable. I was referring to the stereotype that was insinuated that females wouldn't be able to discuss complex topics. 

No doubt Tecate will argue his way out of it, but it is clear what they were insinuating.


----------



## tecate (22 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Tecate, the only thing that is crystal clear is how wrong you are. But this is what I've come to expect, you're credibility reduces with each of your posts.


As we well know, all that is of interest to you is to try and contrive to find some sort of ground (anything will do, right?) to demonstrate how 'wrong' I am - and not a genuine, open discussion of the actual subject. Let me be very clear here. I know that your big ego ,has taken a pasting and that's something that you struggle with. That's a personal issue of yours - and not one that I plan on being a problem of mine - in so far as I can help it.




Dublinbay12 said:


> I've stated a few points on Ponzi schemes and I disagree with how you are applying your 'definition' of a Ponzi scheme but you are so blind to others opinions that you are no longer even able to entertain debate and simply go down the route of insults.


It's not 'my definition'. Check any definition of a ponzi scheme and its as I described it. I challenge you to find a definition that varies. As regards 'insults', the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.



Dublinbay12 said:


> Lastly, there is no place for discrimination anywhere in this day and age and your comment regarding 'the gals' is inexcusable. So I won't be engaging with anyone who thinks it that way.



Discrimination is it? I mean in principal, there isn't a discriminatory bone in my body - wait, maybe there's the odd exception.  Oh yea, arrogant types - they tend to suffer in my presence. Is that bad?




Dublinbay12 said:


> I think you should delete that comment.



Have a word with the powers that be - maybe you can have me silenced permanently. However, given as I once told you - I wouldn't send you down the shops - I doubt I'm going to start taking advice on my postings from you today if that's all the same to you.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2021)

Guys

I know we are on Page 4 so it's descended into the usual sort of stuff, but try not to personalise the attacks. And if you are attacked personally, don't respond in kind, just ignore it.

Brendan


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> As we well know, all that is of interest to you is to try and contrive to find some sort of ground (anything will do, right?) to demonstrate how 'wrong' I am - and not a genuine, open discussion of the actual subject. Let me be very clear here. I know that your big ego ,has taken a pasting and that's something that you struggle with. That's a personal issue of yours - and not one that I plan on being a problem of mine - in so far as I can help it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I honestly have no idea where you come up with this stuff Tecate. Everytime I try and engage in a conversation about cryptocurrency you descend into personal attacks.

Personally I think you ruin Cryptocurrency discussion on this forum, we are four pages into another echo chamber. Brendan summed up your approach to discourse on the subject perfectly. 

for the last three pages you've done nothing to engage in a debt but instead personally attacked and badgered people in an attempt to silence them.

i stated I don't think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme but have rightly said that others can have that opinion and that can be motivated by their own personal experience. That's their right and ultimately you can't prove that Bitcoin won't end up being a Ponzi scheme.

So for the last time, can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?

This is an internet forum, I have no ego when it comes to cryptocurrency, so feel free to continue with your insults, sticks and stones and all that.

Actually don't waste your time responding you've already, this thread has already descended into the usual echo chamber and there is no point continuing.


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> I honestly have no idea where you come up with this stuff Tecate. Everytime I try and engage in a conversation about cryptocurrency you descend into personal attacks.


Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Over the course of the past 7 months, every utterance from you  in my direction was precisely that - a personal attack.  Well, if those are the rules of engagement on AAM, on we go. 




Dublinbay12 said:


> Personally I think you ruin Cryptocurrency discussion on this forum, we are four pages into another echo chamber. Brendan summed up your approach to discourse on the subject perfectly.


Personally, I think YOU ruin crypto discussion on this forum. Delighted you've found a friend - maybe you can call on him to censor me when you can't handle the discussion any longer as you did in December 2020.



Dublinbay12 said:


> for the last three pages you've done nothing to engage in a debt but instead personally attacked and badgered people in an attempt to silence them.



Such is your immature approach to discussion. Recently you naively instructed us that you would arrive at the one truth. Unlike you, I have no issue in disagreement. However, the whole point of an exchange of ideas is that participants take the opportunity to expand on their thoughts on the subject. If I don't agree, I'll say so and I'll expand on precisely why I don't. You on the other hand talk of a need to 'concede' - it betrays a 'need to win' mentality where discussion is concerned. That's not in any way conducive to learning or developing the discussion.



Dublinbay12 said:


> So for the last time, can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?



Let me get this straight. You have no evidence to your claim and feel that because there is no evidence to the contrary, then its ok to tar and feather bitcoin with the 'ponzi' label. Yeah, that's incredibly equitable alright - NOT.




Dublinbay12 said:


> This is an internet forum, I have no ego when it comes to cryptocurrency, so feel free to continue with your insults, sticks and stones and all that.


I beg to differ. In 2020 - mid discussion, you informed me that yours was the one truth as you 'worked in the industry' or some such and I didn't. If that's the sort of nonsense you have to resort to in a discussion, I pity you.




Dublinbay12 said:


> Actually don't waste your time responding you've already, this thread has already descended into the usual echo chamber and there is no point continuing.


Oh no - you goaded me into responses between your deliberate mis-interpretation of what I stated, other various complaints about why I wouldn't engage in discussion with you - along with ongoing and sustained personal attacks. Well, congratuations - you have my complete and utter attention from here on in. On deliberate misinterpretation, we had this gem yesterday - "_I wasn't referring to use of the word gals as inexcusable. I was referring to the stereotype that was insinuated that females wouldn't be able to discuss complex topics._"
The lengths you will go to. There is nobody else on the planet that could read what I stated and take up such an interpretation. It's telling as to where your mind is at. I guess I shouldn't be expecting a crimbo card from you this year. 

Other than that, you have an interesting assessment of what makes for an 'echo-chamber'. AAM has been majority crypto-naysayer in approach from the outset. Of course, being a special individual, you installed yourself as a 'neutral' who reckons he holds btc - and yet over the course of your entire engagement here, never once have you obliged in providing any of us with an insight into why you (allegedly) hold bitcoin. You can ask that of others and they've obliged but when others have asked that of you, you say its not relevant. Go figure.


----------



## DazedInPontoon (23 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?


A Ponzi scheme is where a central operator commits fraud by lying about where the source of returns come from.

Bitcoin has no central operator, no lies (since the code is open source) and it doesn't generate returns to lie about anyway.


----------



## DazedInPontoon (23 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along.


Satoshi could come out of hiding and cash in any coins they mined or bought, but it would be no different than anyone else doing so (except that presumably Satoshi has a  large holding). That doesn't make it a scam (and still nothing like a Ponzi) as Satoshi is the same as any other participant in the system, they didn't get coins for free they either mined or bought them just like any one else.


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

DazedInPontoon said:


> A Ponzi scheme is where a central operator commits fraud by lying about where the source of returns come from.
> 
> Bitcoin has no central operator, no lies (since the code is open source) and it doesn't generate returns to lie about anyway.



Bitcoin has a creator....can you prove they haven't set this out as an elaborate Ponzi Scheme?

I've already stated I don't think it is a ponzi scheme, but can admit there are Ponzi like qualities. I am illustrating that Tickle had the right to call it a ponzi scheme, as much as those who believe it not to be. Neither can prove it to certainty, only time will tell.


----------



## DazedInPontoon (23 Jul 2021)

A creator is not the same as a central operator



> but can admit there are Ponzi like qualities.



As I've said, it's zero for three on the things needed for a Ponzi scheme, so no.

If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Over the course of the past 7 months, every utterance from you  in my direction was precisely that - a personal attack.  Well, if those are the rules of engagement on AAM, on we go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tecate, you have a great memory, so don't you remember when I specifically outlined my stance on BTC at your behest in 2020? I can't remember everything I wrote on an internet forum 18 months ago, and my opinion may have changed now and I'll accept it if I made incorrect statements historically. 

You are right, I have worked in the industry, and I have spent time in academic research on cryptocurrencies, so I apologize if the tone in which I expel sounds arrogant when it comes to my knowledge. What is of my annoyance is that you say you want to debate but you only want to debate on your terms. For example, this is a thread about splitting an investment between Ethereum and Bitcoin, there are those that have said it is gambling, there are those called it a ponzi scheme and there are those that say it isn't a ponzi scheme. You have got hung up on somebodys 'attack' of the ponzi scheme specifically on the definition of a ponzi scheme for 4 pages. That is not a sign of somebody willing to engage in a debate. 

My case in point I said it isn't a ponzi scheme, but I am not blind that people can perceive it that way either from the media they read or their own negative experiences with Bitcoin. Yet you choose personal attacks, using inexcusable discriminatory remarks to try and discredit my opinion completely bypassing the topic at hand. 

So if that is want you want to do....I'll ask you....why should people not listen to my opinion on Bitcoin?


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

DazedInPontoon said:


> If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.


Well, don't feel you need to go home empty-handed. See posts #14-27 for 'tulipmania' discussion.


----------



## seamless (23 Jul 2021)

I am a little puzzled by the Ponzi assertions around Bitcoin. Everything about the tech and algorithms is freely available for scrutiny.  The source code to run a full Bitcoin node on any laptop is freely available here - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin - and can be picked over by any interested party. If you really want to know *exactly* how this works, you can (if you put the effort in ).


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

DazedInPontoon said:


> A creator is not the same as a central operator
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, I don't think its a Ponzi Scheme and I don't discount your opinion, I'm merely highlighting that nobody can prove with 100% certainty. It is with this that people should be accepting of others opinions and views on the topics. The perception of it being a ponzi scheme is directly influenced by ones own experience with Bitcoin If you invest at $30 and sell at $60k you aren't going to think it is a ponzi scheme, if you invest at $60k and sell at $30k you will more likely listen to the narrative that it is a ponzi scheme. 

This idea should not be new to those that have had some involvement in cryptocurrency, specifically on crypto twitter. There is language used that draws comparisons to ponzi schemes.....'bag holders'...'bag of air'...'whale'...'REKT'...'Hodlers'.


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> What is of my annoyance is that you say you want to debate but you only want to debate on your terms. For example, this is a thread about splitting an investment between Ethereum and Bitcoin, there are those that have said it is gambling, there are those called it a ponzi scheme and there are those that say it isn't a ponzi scheme. You have got hung up on somebodys 'attack' of the ponzi scheme specifically on the definition of a ponzi scheme for 4 pages. That is not a sign of somebody willing to engage in a debate.


There's a fundamental disconnect then in terms of what you and I deem to be debate. The beauty of an open forum is that anyone can chime in. Every single participant can expect to have any claims or views well and truly challenged out in the open. We all have our views and we also have views that are steeped in bias and prejudice. Lets take the example at hand - the ponzi scheme claim. I've made my counter claims. Any other participant can see claim and counterclaim. That's the outcome of the discussion. The individual makes up their own mind. That is discussion and that is debate. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to engage in debate. You may think that there has to be an agreement at the end of it, there doesn't.




Dublinbay12 said:


> My case in point I said it isn't a ponzi scheme, but I am not blind that people can perceive it that way either from the media they read or their own negative experiences with Bitcoin.


Well, here's another aspect to consider. Someone can be fundamentally opposed to bitcoin and grab at any old thing (knowing it to be untrue) and try and tar and feather it - and so, maybe those perceptions among the general public are based on same. I'm not down with misinformation - whether intentional or accidental - and I will challenge it and make no apologies for that.




Dublinbay12 said:


> Yet you choose personal attacks, using inexcusable discriminatory remarks to try and discredit my opinion completely bypassing the topic at hand.


Firstly on personal attacks, you'll get no sympathy from me. You've goaded the hell out of me for the past 7 months and despite going out of my way not to engage with you, you've contrived at every turn to personally attack. Well, be aware that my approach to discussion is to 2x the way I'm treated - so if you decide to go that route from this point onwards, you'll be spending a lot more of your time on AAM. Entirely up to yourself.




Dublinbay12 said:


> So if that is want you want to do....I'll ask you....why should people not listen to my opinion on Bitcoin?


We're back to your total misunderstanding of the nature of discussion. Where have I said that people shouldn't listen to your opinion? How can anyone form their own opinion if they were only to listen to one side of a story? Secondly, what power have I ever had to deprive you of your ability to express your opinion here. Last time I noticed, I didn't have mod powers to delete posts.


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> We're back to your total misunderstanding of the nature of discussion. Where have I said that people shouldn't listen to your opinion? How can anyone form their own opinion if they were only to listen to one side of a story? Secondly, what power have I ever had to deprive you of your ability to express your opinion here. Last time I noticed, I didn't have mod powers to delete posts.



If you are not trying to discredit my opinion, why are you dragging up points from 2020 into this conversation? If you are not trying to discourage me, what is with the constant personal attacks?


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> If you are not trying to discredit my opinion, why are you dragging up points from 2020 into this conversation? If you are not trying to discourage me, what is with the constant personal attacks?


Firstly on the notion of 'discrediting someone's opinion' - at the end of the day, your opinion is your opinion. Maybe someone will chime in and you think  bs - i don't agree or maybe you think they may have a point. If there's to be any value to a discussion, anyone should want every single point critiqued/challenged. Isnt that the whole point?

As regards the rest of what you state above, see my previous post - then run a search on your own posts with keyword 'tecate' - and come back and tell me that you have not engaged in personal attack after personal attack. Other than that, over the course of 7 months, I worked with the notion of not engaging with you whatsoever - so if I wasn't engaging with you, where were the personal attacks exactly?


----------



## DublinHead54 (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Firstly on the notion of 'discrediting someone's opinion' - at the end of the day, your opinion is your opinion. Maybe someone will chime in and you think  bs - i don't agree or maybe you think they may have a point. If there's to be any value to a discussion, anyone should want every single point critiqued/challenged. Isnt that the whole point?



What does bringing up comments from 2020 on a different topic have to do with critiquing my opinion on the current topic? You are seeking constantly to bucket me into the category of a bitcoin naysayer as a means to discredit my opinion. If you want to critique and challenge every single point, why don't you actually challenge and critique the points I have stated here rather than drudging up something from somewhere else. For example, I stated at the outset I don't believe Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, and I've asked you if you can prove with certainty, I've also raised the example of the Maddoff ponzi scheme. All of these points have been conveniently excluded from your approach. 



tecate said:


> As regards the rest of what you state above, see my previous post - then run a search on your own posts with keyword 'tecate' - and come back and tell me that you have not engaged in personal attack after personal attack. Other than that, over the course of 7 months, I worked with the notion of not engaging with you whatsoever - so if I wasn't engaging with you, where were the personal attacks exactly?



Tecate, there may have been times where I have lost the run of myself, but I don't believe I have ever personally attacked you. I am sorry if I have, but your claims that every post from me to yourself is a personal attack, I don't buy it. Also if you are claiming you have never personally attacked me, there is no point continuing.


----------



## Tickle (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Fed up with this 'dark web' nonsense.  Firstly, who gives a fiddlers - let people buy what the hell they want and they can deal with Law Enforcement thereafter - that's their problem.   All of these people use cash, cars, etc. etc. - are we to ban them too?  or *tar and feather bitcoin*?  The idea that more people proportionately use bitcoin for illicit purposes than cash is semantics.  A savage amount of cash is used for a multitude of illegal purposes day in, day out.  In any event, those dark web people you're talking about (if they're not using usd or euro) are using monero now (given that it is truly anonymous whereas bitcoin isn't.)


Broken record.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jul 2021)

I'd go 100% bitcoin 0% Ethereum.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jul 2021)

I originally gave this thread a miss as its Title was most uninviting.  I see that _Wolfie _has now answered the Title.  But I now see that I was missing pure entertainment.
In my satoshi's worth I will not be expressing a personal view but rather interpreting what I believe would be the views of Professor Roubini, the gal who predicted the credit crunch etc.
He describes phenomena such as pump and dump, price manipulation, whales etc. but I don't think he has called it a Ponzi scheme because it does not tick all the boxes to be so indicted.  Maybe it should be called a Tulip scheme though that to @tecate would be like saying "pope" in the presence of Ian Paisley and in any event tulips actually did and still do have value.  Maybe it should be called a Muskie scheme but that would be in danger of getting a legal rocket up the rear end.  Maybe a Whaley scheme.
But I actually think that @tecate would be comfortable with describing it as a dotcom scheme.  With hindsight dotcom had a big difference with Tulipmania - there was the germ of a correct speculation there.  The new technology has indeed transformed the world and has led to some enormous increases in certain assets, maybe not all or even a high proportion of the original stars but the premise behind dotcom was not entirely wrong.
As I understand the gal @tecate sees parallels between crypto/blockchain technology and dotcom.  The parallel goes that there will be many many losers and failures amongst the early players but there will be one or two monster winners.  I would tend to agree that IF this parallel is borne out bitcoin is the strong favourite to be one of the big winners.  It may not have the best platform but it has a huge edge in its network adoption.
BUT, I am with Professor Roubini.  The parallel will be proven false.


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

Dang, you're getting good at this stuff, Dukey.  

Brendan has made the comparison with the dot com era on multiple occasions from the point of view of mania/hype cycle/over-exuberance - and I agree with him on that all day long.  What I have not seen from him or anyone else here is an acknowledgement that the existence of a hype cycle doesn't mean that someone shouldn't have pursued a means of gaining exposure to that dot com wave of innovation from an investment perspective. The analogy is fitting from the perspective of risk/reward. You could have ended up with shares in pets.com or amazon.com. The same is true here - there is variance between crypto projects and there are all the other risk factors - including regulatory risk, etc.
That's why I can't see why someone couldn't be skeptical in general about the innovation at hand and yet still find reasonably acceptable the notion of limited exposure (lets say up to 5%) against the backdrop of an otherwise balanced portfolio.
The mentality amongst many here seems to be this is a nothing burger yet over the timeframe of these discussions - these past 4 years - the evidence points to ongoing development, adoption and growth.



			
				Tickle said:
			
		

> Broken Record


Broken record indeed - from the guy that has dredged up retro-fud not seen since 5+ years ago when practically everyone else has long since abandoned the wayward ponzi and tulipmania claims.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> That's why I can't see why someone couldn't be skeptical in general about the innovation at hand and yet still find reasonably acceptable the notion of limited exposure (lets say up to 5%) against the backdrop of an otherwise balanced portfolio.



This has a ring of reasonableness about it, but it's misleading.

If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio into gold, it's reasonable, but I will decline. 

If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio on Tecate's Folly in the 3.30 in Newmarket, I will decline. But you will point out the asymmetrical return at 20/1, but I will still decline.

If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio into something which is worth nothing because there is hype about it and it might well rise before falling to zero, again, I will decline.

Brendan


----------



## Tickle (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> ...ongoing development, adoption and growth.


You can build a sandcastle on sand, but not a house. A house will (eventually) collapse if built on sand.


----------



## tecate (23 Jul 2021)

@Brendan - ok, fair enough. It's as I suspected - you continue to believe there is nothing of substance here. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, be aware that the dot com era faced a whole plethora of objections back then. Now people think, of course - it makes complete sense - but there was a range of commentary saying it was a nothing burger (including from the renowned fax machine guy).

But lets take a step back. Lets say that its the dot com thats playing out right now - and unlike decentralised blockchain, you're onboard and believe that there's major substance. You told us that you were blue in the face railing against investment back then due to the existence of mania. I fully acknowledge the existence of a hype cycle back then (just as I do where crypto is concerned). If it was playing out right now, what would you deem to be a reasonable approach if someone wanted to gain exposure to that innovative wave despite the various stages of a hype cycle?


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I understand the gal @tecate sees parallels between crypto/blockchain technology and dotcom. The parallel goes that there will be many many losers and failures amongst the early players but there will be one or two monster winners._* I would tend to agree that IF this parallel is borne out bitcoin is the strong favourite to be one of the big winners.*_




I know it is hot outside so aside from any mirage type effects I can only see the mere pondering of this prospective outcome as a seismic shift in Dukes thinking.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I know it is hot outside so aside from any mirage type effects I can only see the mere pondering of this prospective outcome as a seismic shift in Dukes thinking.


The big (actually CAP) two letter word is IF.  Similarly. I believe that IF there is a God she is an RC.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The big (actually CAP) two letter word is IF.  Similarly. I believe that IF there is a God she is an RC.



Yes, and you have opened the door for it being possible. 
Look what happened when people started to wonder IF there was a God!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jul 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, and you have opened the door for it being possible.
> Look what happened when people started to wonder IF there was a God!


I hope you don't take it as a buy signal.  I would hate to have that on my conscience.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> You told us that you were blue in the face railing against investment back then due to the existence of mania.



Hi tecate

I was an early adopter of the internet and did not rail against investment back then.

I railed against investment at the prices. 

Companies which had little prospect of ever making money were selling for multiples of their turnover.   A company's share price would rise for no reason. To make the shares affordable, they would be split in two - and guess what? The share price would double instead of halving.  I remember a friend of mine saying about a company he had invested in - "one more share split and I will be a millionaire." There was no telling him that the share price was wrong.  A company would add .com to its name, and its share price would double. You could not talk to the faithful. They dismissed anyone with investments in the likes of CRH or Ryanair as dinosaurs.  The arguments put forward were not unlike yours.  "The number of BTC being mined is reducing, so the supply is reducing." Once you believe, you believe everything even that black is white.  It's real Alice through the Looking Glass stuff.



Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Jul 2021)

tecate said:


> Lets say that its the dot com thats playing out right now - ... If it was playing out right now, what would you deem to be a reasonable approach if someone wanted to gain exposure to that innovative wave despite the various stages of a hype cycle?



Very very difficult to answer this.

In some stocks,  there is a dot.com bubble playing out now.

Take Uber - I just can't see how it will ever make a profit.  It's a fantastic service. So I would find it very hard to take a punt on it.

Coinbase floated recently?  It looks like an interesting company. I only read bits about it but it seems like it might or might not make money.  It made $320m in 2020 But it's valued at $85 billion. If it doubles its profits every year for 10 years, then it would be worth that. But if it crashes when BTC crashes, it will be worth virtually nothing.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Jul 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I hope you don't take it as a buy signal.  I would hate to have that on my conscience.



Yes and no. I'm thinking the trajectory for bitcoin is that there are much, much more bitcoin skeptics, or simply uninformed, out there that will over time take a dip down the bitcoin rabbit-hole than there are bitcoin believers who will have a sudden loss of faith. 
When you think of it like that, there is definitely a buy signal in there.


----------



## tecate (24 Jul 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio into something which is worth nothing because there is hype about it and it might well rise before falling to zero, again, I will decline.


Just so that there's no misunderstanding, I don't and have never suggested that anyone take a position because of hype - quite the opposite. Over the course of four years of discussion, there have been periods when very little interest has been shown in bitcoin.


Brendan Burgess said:


> I was an early adopter of the internet and did not rail against investment back then.
> I railed against investment at the prices.


Ok, well that seems like a very reasonable approach.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Companies which had little prospect of ever making money were selling for multiples of their turnover.   A company's share price would rise for no reason.


We had that in the conventional markets relative to blockchain. A company listed on one of the conventional markets changed its name to include the name 'blockchain' in 2018 - having nothing to do with blockchain. It's price went up. That's an example of sheer stupidity - and not a reflection on the technology.



Brendan Burgess said:


> To make the shares affordable, they would be split in two - and guess what? The share price would double instead of halving.  I remember a friend of mine saying about a company he had invested in - "one more share split and I will be a millionaire." There was no telling him that the share price was wrong.  A company would add .com to its name, and its share price would double.


Again, no disagreement - that's completely irrational.



Brendan Burgess said:


> You could not talk to the faithful. They dismissed anyone with investments in the likes of CRH or Ryanair as dinosaurs.  The arguments put forward were not unlike yours.


Just to be clear, over the course of four years here, I've never seen anyone suggest that traditional investment in equities was/is a waste of time - myself included.



Brendan Burgess said:


> "The number of BTC being mined is reducing, so the supply is reducing."


Yeah, I recall your difficulty in understanding this. The BTC supply schedule is set out so as the mining reward is reduced by 50% every four years (approximately). Against a backdrop where there has been growing demand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the significance (bearing in mind that miners have to offload btc periodically in order to finance substantial operational costs.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Take Uber - I just can't see how it will ever make a profit.  It's a fantastic service. So I would find it very hard to take a punt on it.


I agree.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Coinbase floated recently?  It looks like an interesting company. I only read bits about it but it seems like it might or might not make money.  It made $320m in 2020 But it's valued at $85 billion. If it doubles its profits every year for 10 years, then it would be worth that. But if it crashes when BTC crashes, it will be worth virtually nothing.


Valuation assessment aside, I doubt coinbase would ever be an appropriate investment for you given your thesis on bitcoin.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Once you believe, you believe everything even that black is white. It's real Alice through the Looking Glass stuff.


And this is the crux of your position and the point of conflict. Your assessment is that this thing can't possibly have any value as it has no intrinsic value. The dot com boom/bust played out between 1995 and 2002 - rising by 400% - with a 78% reset by the end of the period. It's effectively one boom and one bust.
Tulipmania - which I maintain is a completely ill-fitting analogy given that tulips possess little to no advantage when it comes to the characteristics of a store of value or means of exchange - played out over the course of 3 months. Again, one boom, one bust.

By contrast, bitcoin has been on the go since 2009 and has suffered a whole host of drops greater than 78% - and yet, over the course of its history, it continues to develop along the adoption curve, step by step. Valuation continues to go up and to the right when you zoom out and look at its development over the duration.
We live in a world where digitisation is growing at pace (particularly post-covid). As a decentralised network upon which other services can be secured and built on, my contention is that you've been too quick to dismiss the notion of btc actually possessing some intrinsic value. As a settlement layer, it can achieve instant settlement globally with no counterparty risk.

Is there no point at which you will acknowledge that you may have gotten this wrong?  I've always maintained that there is a chance that my thesis as regards how this plays out may be wrong - and I'm open to the possibility of bitcoin failing (albeit that over the course of the past 4 years, I've seen that risk diminishing). In the Duke's case, he says he would acknowledge that its here to stay if Roubini concedes. What's your own view in this regard? You maintain its destination is a $0 valuation - only the timeframe remains a variable. If bitcoin market cap was to hit $2 trillion, would you still hold the same view?


----------



## tecate (27 Jul 2021)

..


----------

