# Bitcoin. Is it a deliberate con ?



## cremeegg

It is often said that there can ever be only 21 million Bitcoin in existence. This prompts people to say that it cannot be devalued like other currencies by printing more money, once the 21 million is reached.

However a bit coin is composed of 10^8 base units called satoshis. These are not just subdivisions of the base unit, they are base unit of which bitcoin is a product.

from stackexchange.com _"Miners aren't awarded millions of "pieces": their accounts are just credited with an integer number of BTC base units ("satoshis")."_

The total number of satoshis which can come into existence is therefore 2.1 by 10^15. Compare this with the number of USD in existence (using M2, cash and checking deposits, savings deposits, money market securities, mutual funds and other time deposits, as the definition of money) which is 1 by 10^10.

In other words there are 200,000 *TIMES* more satoshi in existence than USD. So while bitcoin cannot be devalued indefinitely, there is lots of scope.


----------



## fpalb

Did you know you can divide a dollar or euro in 100 cents and get 100 times your money?

And wait until you hear about stock splits!


----------



## cremeegg

fpalb said:


> Did you know you can divide a dollar or euro in 100 cents and get 100 times your money?
> 
> And wait until you hear about stock splits!



Yes I did. And that is the point, everyone knows that.

I think I raise a serious objection to Bitcoin, the fact that rather that being limited in amount it is in fact thousands of times more plentiful that USD, and a serious question about the integrity of its sponsors in that they highlight the limited amount in existence, whereas that limit is illusory.


----------



## fpalb

It's not the fact that it's limited in usable units that's the point, it's that dividing it into more units does not dilute anyone's share. If I own 1 bitcoin,  I have 1/21 millionth of the supply, regardless of what sub-divided unit of bitcoin you use to measure. I have 1000 millibits, or 10,000,000 satoshis. I actually wish we could hurry up and move to a smaller unit already, because the most commonly used unit being at 15k doesn't make sense, it's like measuring gold by the kilogram.

In short, bitcoin could do with a stock split.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I don’t think you are right there _cremeegg_.  I think if you own one BTC you can be sure that the entire universe of BTC will never exceed 21m times your holding.

As I understand it the BTC community can agree to increase the supply but you are (pretty well) assured that you will get your fair share of that increase as with share splits.  And of course you definitely get your fair share of any process that stops regarding the BTC as the primary unit but regards some decimal fraction of BTC as the primary unit.

This post crossed with _fpalb_.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

However I do agree that rather too much is made of the artificial limit.  There are alt coins whose protocol allows for unlimited supply.  This is a fascinating subject I must say.


----------



## fpalb

Satoshi's game theory is underrated. How do you launch a monetary system with an initial value of zero and get it to critical mass? How do you establish any initial value at all or get people to care about it until it is worth something. It's chicken and egg. Fixed supply and front loaded distribution encourages and rewards the early adopters and helps bootstrap the system.

How is an alt-coin with unlimited supply going to bootstrap itself?


----------



## cremeegg

If I have a €10 banknote I own one trillionth of the total value of the euro. (Best stat I can find for Euro M2 is 10 trillion). Now tomorrow the ECB can issue more Euro and I get diluted. This is seen as a problem by the crypto currency enthusiasts. However the value of Eurozone out put is also increasing so I own a smaller share of a bigger pot. If the CB over does it we get inflation, if the CB under does it or does it too slowly we get deflation. This is how successful fiat currencies work. 

Bitcoin enthusiasts tell us that they cannot be diluted. And for holders of Bitcoin that is true. What they do not tell you is that Bitcoin is set up to be almost endlessly subdividable. Such a currency if widely adopted would return us to feudalism. Bitcoin holders like feudal landlords owning everything with no incentive to spend it. After all there are only 21 million bitcoin why spend them.


----------



## fpalb

cremeegg said:


> If I have a €10 banknote I own one trillionth of the total value of the euro. (Best stat I can find for Euro M2 is 10 trillion). Now tomorrow the ECB can issue more Euro and I get diluted. This is seen as a problem by the crypto currency enthusiasts. However the value of Eurozone out put is also increasing so I own a smaller share of a bigger pot. If the CB over does it we get inflation, if the CB under does it or does it too slowly we get deflation. This is how successful fiat currencies work.


The problem is that they inflate way more than they deflate, and many times they inflate a lot. I'm not entirely knocking fiat, having a relatively low volatility is useful for pricing things, and keeping wages steady etc. It works well if the central bank don't create too much too quickly and banks don't go bust due to reckless lending and regulators do their jobs to help ensure the previous two things don't happen. Unfortunately there's no guarantee about those things, as we've seen.



cremeegg said:


> Bitcoin enthusiasts tell us that they cannot be diluted. And for holders of Bitcoin that is true. What they do not tell you is that Bitcoin is set up to be almost endlessly subdividable. Such a currency if widely adopted would return us to feudalism. Bitcoin holders like feudal landlords owning everything with no incentive to spend it. After all there are only 21 million bitcoin why spend them.


Because if you never spend it you might as well never have had it. It's the same reason people buy deflationary goods now even though they know they'll be cheaper next year. 
I agree though that the world en-mass adopting a deflationary money would be.... interesting to say the least.

On that note you could argue that we've suffered some bad opposite consequences from inflationary money - you have no incentive to save it, you better spend before it loses more value, and you better borrow as much as you can as soon as you can, because it'll be easier to pay back in future when it's worth less. So everyone is incentivised to go into debt instead of save for a rainy day.


----------



## noproblem

If i'm still alive in 5 years time this crazy world may well be madder but where will bitcoin be? Nobody can say. Wish I was the finder of that laptop found in garbage which had a lot of bitcoin encrypted on it. SELL, SELL, SELL, SELL


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:


> Satoshi's game theory is underrated. How do you launch a monetary system with an initial value of zero and get it to critical mass? How do you establish any initial value at all or get people to care about it until it is worth something. It's chicken and egg. Fixed supply and front loaded distribution encourages and rewards the early adopters and helps bootstrap the system.
> 
> How is an alt-coin with unlimited supply going to bootstrap itself?


Heck I don’t know.  As I said before this BTC thing is like Quantum Mechanics.  It defies common sense.  It defies common sense to me that an entry in a ledger with no other meaning has value just because it exists or just because it records an earlier transaction. Arguing that it’s scarcity gives it value is applying common sense but since the whole concept fundamentally abandons common sense why can’t we abandon the scarcity requirement as well.  Some folk think you can anyway; not me as I am too set in my ways to have the courage to abandon common sense in the first place.

But as I say I am fascinated by the subject, not really because of its technology but what an insight it is into the human mindset, even better than tulips.


----------



## TheBigShort

I have summed up (in my own head) three points that are persuding me more and more of the viability of bitcoin.

1. Technology. Im pretty much lost when it comes to understanding the intricate detail, the terminology, etc...etc...But I am satisfied that there is broad based consensus among the tech heads, no small part to the discussions on this site, to ensure that this is not some elaborate con.
Too much time and energy is being invested by the tech community in this area that at this point, any glich or fundamental flaw in the technology would have been exposed by now.
In fact technological problems are, do emerge, but so far, they have done little to deter the bitcoins advance. That provides confidence.

2. Bitcoin v gold.

Aside from all the debate comparing the two, one aspect that I havent seen considered much is that gold is not, and was not, traditionally available to the peasantry or lower classes in any significant form. It was out of reach for most and hoarded by wealthiest in society - today central governments and central banks hoard the lions share of gold.
Bitcoin however is available to anyone with a smart phone.
Bitcoin can now act as a re-balancing mechanism of central bank and government interference in the monetary system.
As fiat currencies devalue and deflate, bitcoin can act as a store of value, in particular to those who typically suffer most when governments confiscate or central banks devalue.

3. Its the end of the world as we know it

I may be somewhat a lone wolf in this regard, but I believe the 2008 monetary collapse was prelude for even more turbelent times. The central banks are engaged in massive monetary stimulus via asset buying programs, if you are not in that club, or not likely to be a beneficiary of that club, you need alternative way of protecting yourself.
Bitcoin offers that potential.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

B/S at €15000 per unit the peasantry have hardly more access to BTC than they do to gold.  In fact they do need a Smartphone to hold BTC, all they need to hold gold is a wrist or a finger

One of the huge leaps in our financial infrastructure was the recognition that the constraints of the gold standard were a main cause of the Great Depression.  The idea of a currency managed by society (notice I don’t say governments as your faith holds these to be evil) to actually suit the needs of growing economic output was a huge leap in civilization. 

You state that fiat currencies devalue and deflate.  You obviously enjoy name calling but in fact these two are opposites, it’s like calling Kim thin and fat at the same time (you would never do that I know, Kim is perfect).

As to the 2008 monetary collapse 2008 has led to the most stable period we have seen for fiat currencies, in fact even too stable for the monetary authorities who are trying hard to bring back a wee bit of devaluation.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> notice I don’t say governments as your faith holds these to be evil)


Au contraire, governments are gold to socialists...big government, small industry and all that. It's the central banks set up to make the rich richer that are evil



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You state that fiat currencies devalue and deflate.  You obviously enjoy name calling but in fact these two are opposites, it’s like calling Kim thin and fat at the same time (you would never do that I know, Kim is perfect).


Duke, how I LOL'd !!!!


----------



## cremeegg

On that note you could argue that we've suffered some bad opposite consequences from inflationary money - you have no incentive to save it, you better spend before it loses more value, and you better borrow as much as you can as soon as you can, because it'll be easier to pay back in future when it's worth less. So everyone is incentivised to go into debt instead of save for a rainy day.[/QUOTE]



Exactly. If people didn’t spend,  money wouldn’t go around and we would all be poorer.

If you want to store value buy property or tins of beans.

If you are really expecting inflation borrow to buy property.


----------



## TheBigShort

Dukie, I think that is somewhat of a stretch to lay the blame of the Great Depression because of the Gold standard. Without diverting topic, a booming economy in the twenties, lax lending practices by banks,  a stock market bubble and a feel-good o"this time is different" may have also contributed?
I mean, there was no gold standard in 2008 leading to the Great Recession was there?

As for stable currencies since 2008, its as almost Ireland and Greece going bankrupt didnt happen, or that Portugal or Spain were never on the brink?
Its as almost the threatened collapse of the euro passed you by?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You state that fiat currencies devalue and deflate. You obviously enjoy name calling but in fact these two are opposites



Perhaps my bad again for not conveying my point.
If you wake up in the morning and the government has devalued the currency (as happened with the punt), your currency has been devalued against assets.

The monetarists in central banks have always argued that the control and application of appropriate interests rates was the most effective weapon in controlling inflation and keeping it in check.
Now they are trying to use inflation, through QE, to control where they want  interest rates to be! - its like they are wearing their trousers back to front!!

As for gold watches and rings, for sure that's wealth, and if I want to increase my holding I can have three gold watches, six rings, five chains. If I want to decrease my holding I just need to pop down to the nearest pop-up "We Buy Gold" shop for a good ol' haggle ( or a 75% devaluation).
On the otherhand, with my smartphone, I can increase/decrease my holding of Bitcoin at any given time of day. I don't even need to buy or sell a whole unit of Bitcoin (unlike a gold watch or ring) I can buy / sell part of a Bitcoin.


----------



## BreadKettle

This is the most bizarre reason to call BTC a scam that I've seen yet


----------



## PaddyBloggit

The Wolf of Wall Street is calling it a scam:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5185485/Wolf-Wall-Street-says-Bitcoin-huge-scam.html


----------



## TheBigShort

PaddyBloggit said:


> The Wolf of Wall Street is calling it a scam:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5185485/Wolf-Wall-Street-says-Bitcoin-huge-scam.html



He is not actually. He is saying the price and its current surge is a scam. At no point does he say bitcoin is a scam. In fact, the interviewer presents the notion that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and he doesnt deny it. 
Its the price rally which he believes is a scam. He may be right.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Excellent link Paddy.  There can be no doubt where this all finishes up.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Excellent link Paddy.  There can be no doubt where this all finishes up.




Where? 

Im not being funny or anything, but when I bought bitcoin at €2,350, the word bubble was being tossed around then too. Now its €16,000. 
If it crashes, as The Wolf says it will, will it crash to €5,000, €4,000, €3,000 etc...all the way to zero?
Unfortunately The Wolf is not clear on this. In fact, when the interviewer suggests crypto currencies are here to stay, The Wolf avoids a direct answer.


----------



## BreadKettle

TheBigShort said:


> Where?
> 
> Im not being funny or anything, but when I bought bitcoin at €2,350, the word bubble was being tossed around then too. Now its €16,000.
> If it crashes, as The Wolf says it will, will it crash to €5,000, €4,000, €3,000 etc...all the way to zero?
> Unfortunately The Wolf is not clear on this. In fact, when the interviewer suggests crypto currencies are here to stay, The Wolf avoids a direct answer.



It was in a bubble when it went from $50 to $250 in 2013 too.  It crashes, corrects, recovers, moves on.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

BreadKettle said:


> It crashes, corrects, recovers, moves on.



Past performance is no indication of future performance, especially when the underlying "asset" is a bag of hot air. 

It may well fall and recover, but at some stage, it must fall to zero and not recover.  Once confidence is gone, it will be impossible to recover. The transaction role of cryptocurrency will probably be taken over by some other crypto not subject to such volatility.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> The transaction role of cryptocurrency will probably be taken over by some other crypto not subject to such volatility.



Perhaps, but inherent in your comment is value. 
If there is no value in crypto, its hard to see anything replacing anything. It will just return to zero.


----------



## john luc

the only real value I can see is possible the block chain technology. I'm not sure if owning a Bitcoin even gives you any connected ownership of this technology. As I see it this Bitcoin craze is all nonsense and when the confidence slips and people begin to doubt then the fall will be so quick that even trying to cash out will be hard.


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> The transaction role of cryptocurrency will probably be taken over by some other crypto not subject to such volatility.



I can see (limited) uses for a cryptocurrency. As a central tenet is that it is in limited supply, I could see it revalue to the price of gold (or a fraction/ multiple of it).


----------



## Leo

john luc said:


> I'm not sure if owning a Bitcoin even gives you any connected ownership of this technology.



None whatsoever. It's all open-source and free for all, so there are no royalty or intellectual property strategy plays here.


----------



## Firefly

Leo said:


> It's all open-source and free for all, so there are no royalty or intellectual property strategy plays here.



As someone who works more and more with open source technologies I do like this part I must confess. The only thing I would say is that, as bad as they are, there is a certain comfort in knowing that the ECB is backing the Euro when it comes to my money. Whether rightly or wrongly we saw in 2008 the lengths the EU/ECB, US etc went to to ensure the stability of the FIAT money system.


----------



## cremeegg

Leo said:


> None whatsoever. It's all open-source and free for all, so there are no royalty or intellectual property strategy plays here.



The idea that bitcoin is open source, like the idea that it is limited in supply is true but misleading.

Linux is open source, anyone can develop it and use it for their own purposes. You cannot, mining aside, use bitcoin to buy stuff unless you pay for the bitcoin.


----------



## Slim

There is an interesting documentary I watched on Netflix at the weekend, called Banking on Bitcoin. It explained to a large extent, what Bitcoin and Blockchain is, how it works but, more interestingly, how the large banks are putting a lot of resources in exploring how they can adopt and use BTC and other blockchain technology to use to their benefit. The upshot is, in my view, that while it may be overpriced, BTC and similar is here to stay and will be incorporated into the banking architecture before long.


----------



## Leo

cremeegg said:


> The idea that bitcoin is open source, like the idea that it is limited in supply is true but misleading.



I don't think anyone said bitcoin is open source. The question I replied to asked about blockchain technology.


----------



## fpalb

Firefly said:


> there is a certain comfort in knowing that the ECB is backing the Euro when it comes to my money. Whether rightly or wrongly we saw in 2008 the lengths the EU/ECB, US etc went to to ensure the stability of the FIAT money system.



I'm going to go with 'wrongly', as they ensured the stability by subjecting me to austerity even then though I've never even taken a bank loan and had no personal contribution to the failure of the system.

Privatised profits but socialised losses. Why? because the banks were too big to fail. OK, I get it the banks fail, no one can get their money, no one can get paid, because we are dependent for modern day-to-day currency use on private institutions that incur systemic risk to themselves via loans.

Seems to me like the right solution would be to no longer make us dependent on those institutions so that if they fail, they can be let fail and the consequences of that would fall on their executives, investors and perhaps customers, but not on me should I not choose to be in any of those groups.

I also don't have much confidence that the problems that Greece or Spain or Italy were having with their economies are fixed or the can was just kicked further on, are we going to be surprised if it all resurfaces again soon? I'm open to being educated on this if someone knows more than I do.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:


> I'm going to go with 'wrongly', as they ensured the stability by subjecting me to austerity even then though I've never even taken a bank loan and had no personal contribution to the failure of the system.
> 
> Privatised profits but socialised losses. Why? because the banks were too big to fail. OK, I get it the banks fail, no one can get their money, no one can get paid, because we are dependent for modern day-to-day currency use on private institutions that incur systemic risk to themselves via loans.
> 
> Seems to me like the right solution would be to no longer make us dependent on those institutions so that if they fail, they can be let fail and the consequences of that would fall on their executives, investors and perhaps customers, but not on me should I not choose to be in any of those groups.
> 
> I also don't have much confidence that the problems that Greece or Spain or Italy were having with their economies are fixed or the can was just kicked further on, are we going to be surprised if it all resurfaces again soon? I'm open to being educated on this if someone knows more than I do.


That is disappointing _fpalb_ - I had no idea you were a paid up member of Shortie Syndrome, so much of what you said hitherto-fore was common sense

You say you are a big loser from austerity.  The only significant losers from austerity were the public servants.


----------



## fpalb

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You say you are a big loser from austerity.  The only significant losers from austerity were the public servants.



You really believe that? It's an extreme view for me to feel aggrieved that the cost of the bank failures was socialised?

Fun thought experiment: everyone here should add up the extra USC they paid due to austerity, work out how much bitcoin it could have bought you at the time, and how much it would be worth to you now. There's the upper limit on your opportunity cost  
Less fun thought experiment: work out how many people suffered or died either directly or indirectly due to public service funding cuts.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The only significant losers from austerity were the public servants.



Actually, in your admirable, but somewhat in-vain, attempt to get your head around bitcoin and crypto etc, you should look beyond Ireland to get a better understanding of austerity.
The consequences of austerity, as has been mentioned, are causing political uncertainty and upheaval. But if you choose to ignore this, demean it as 'Shortie Syndrome', or whatever, you are simply deluding yourself and devaluing the impact of austere measures primarily triggered by the _global_ 2008 financial crisis.
On the other hand, there were those who were not effected, whose wealth increased, perhaps this is where we are?


----------



## john luc

how would we fare if the primary monatory system was crypto currency. As a long term self employed I was hit hard by this financial crisis with for me the most gauling one was getting my annual pension statement showing how much it lost with a final line at the bottom showing how much the government was stealing to pay their unearned pension. but if there was only crypto currency we might all have lost everything.


----------



## BreadKettle

Brendan Burgess said:


> Past performance is no indication of future performance



What would you say is a better indicator of future performance, past performance, or the advice of a person experienced in their bubbles bursting but without any notion whatsoever of the asset in question ?

I will go with the former.


----------



## Merowig

fpalb said:


> You really believe that? It's an extreme view for me to feel aggrieved that the cost of the bank failures was socialised?
> 
> Fun thought experiment: everyone here should add up the extra USC they paid due to austerity, work out how much bitcoin it could have bought you at the time, and how much it would be worth to you now. There's the upper limit on your opportunity cost
> Less fun thought experiment: work out how many people suffered or died either directly or indirectly due to public service funding cuts.



Do you think increasing debt was a solution/possibility?


----------



## fpalb

No, I'm not saying I had a better solution, there was no easy way out once the damage was done... I'm saying that I am open to, and motivated to seek out, alternatives to help avoid a repeat in future, and I don't think that should be considered an extreme position.


----------



## Firefly

Merowig said:


> Austerity means you leave within your means, you do not borrow to finance your lifestyle. What is wrong with that?


Have you lost your mind? Ever seen those L'Oréal ads? We're worth it dude. We don't have to live within our means. 

We can borrow, after all "that's what governments do"


----------



## Merowig

Firefly said:


> Have you lost your mind? Ever seen those L'Oréal ads? We're worth it dude. We don't have to live within our means.
> 
> We can borrow, after all "that's what governments do"


I am German so debt avoidance is part of my DNA


----------



## Firefly

fpalb said:


> No, I'm not saying I had a better solution, there was no easy way out once the damage was done... I'm saying that I am open to, and motivated to seek out, alternatives to help avoid a repeat in future, and I don't think that should be considered an extreme position.



We had a very weak hand as we were borrowing as a country all through the CT and needed to borrow much more post Sept 2008 to maintain the dole, old age pensions and permanent public sector workers. Living beyond our means in the truest sense.

If you compare the Irish "living on the never-never" with that of Estonia (who came out of decades of socialism/communism) the difference couldn't be more stark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Estonia#The_impact_of_the_financial_crisis_of_2008

_On July 2009, Estonian VAT was increased from 18% to 20%.[33] On 9 August 2011, just days after Standard & Poor's downgraded the credit rating of the United States, it raised Estonia's rating from A to AA-. Among the factors S&P cited as contributing to its decision was confidence in Estonia's ability to "sustain strong economic growth."[34]

For Estonia, the late-2000s recession was comparatively easier to weather, because Estonia's budget has consistently been kept balanced, and this meant that Estonia's public debt relative to the country's GDP has remained one of the lowest in Europe._

The answer is obvious to me - we should aim as a country to eradicate all dependence on debt. Then we have control of our own destiny.


----------



## Firefly

Merowig said:


> I am German so debt avoidance is part of my DNA



I must be part German too!


----------



## fpalb

Firefly said:


> The answer is obvious to me - we should aim as a country to eradicate all dependence on debt. Then we have control of our own destiny.



That would be amazing! but it won't happen will it? as soon as they can politicians will spend as much possible buying voters, like they did before. I figure the austerity was done as a last resort, if the government could have avoided it by borrowing more they would have - they had to be forced by the EU, right?


----------



## Easeler

Firefly said:


> I must be part German too!


A bit off topic I worked with a German company on a building project, learned a lot from them, they wouldn't wast a screw,  very little waste ,paddy would have a skip full.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:


> You really believe that? It's an extreme view for me to feel aggrieved that the cost of the bank failures was socialised?
> 
> Fun thought experiment: everyone here should add up the extra USC they paid due to austerity, work out how much bitcoin it could have bought you at the time, and how much it would be worth to you now. There's the upper limit on your opportunity cost
> Less fun thought experiment: work out how many people suffered or died either directly or indirectly due to public service funding cuts.


Oh dear I seem to have triggered a "Big A" Fork in the thread.

The government has spent more on services than it took in taxes over those years.  That is not austerity at the national level.

It will always be the case that but for borrowing that little bit more some folk die.

The bitcoin thought experiment has many variations.  If the people of Ireland had become the biggest hoarders of bitcoin on the planet my guess is that Satoshi would have cashed in her chips by now and the bubble would have burst (as it inevitably will per Paul Krugman et al).  How many people would have died as a result of diverting all that money into tulips?


----------



## Firefly

fpalb said:


> That would be amazing! but it won't happen will it? as soon as they can politicians will spend as much possible buying voters, like they did before. I figure the austerity was done as a last resort, if the government could have avoided it by borrowing more they would have - they had to be forced by the EU, right?



Agree. When the Troika came in I sighed a sigh of relief. We are still bound by EU rules and that makes me happy. 

You should read that link on Estonia, it's fascinating. Can you imagine if we didn't have to spend almost the same amount of money each year financing our national debt (not reducing mind, just financing!) as we spend on education, what kind of a country we could have?

I am always reminded of the marches in the streets about "bailing out the banks". Such bailouts represent a whopping 20% of our national debt. The rest was Paddy living beyond his means. 

Aaaaanyway, back to Bitcoin!


----------



## fpalb

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The government has spent more on services than it took in taxes over those years.  That is not austerity at the national level.


In small part due to the debt we have to service. What would a thread about ireland in the moneymakeover forum look like 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The bitcoin thought experiment has many variations.  If the people of Ireland had become the biggest hoarders of bitcoin on the planet my guess is that Satoshi would have cashed in her chips by now and the bubble would have burst (as it inevitably will per Paul Krugman et al).  How many people would have died as a result of diverting all that money into tulips?


You're suggesting a variation I've never mentioned and that I don't support. I'm also not advising anyone buy bitcoin right now.

I suspect Satoshi will never move those coins or they would have already by now, I mean what are they waiting for?


----------



## Firefly

fpalb said:


> In small part due to the debt we have to service. What would a thread about ireland in the moneymakeover forum look like



Now, that would be fun! I'm tempted, very tempted!!!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

fpalb said:


> In small part due to the debt we have to service. What would a thread about ireland in the moneymakeover forum look like


I said it spent more on services than it took in taxes.  I thought it was clear that I was excluding debt servicing.  Please don't become like _Water and Black Tea _where everything has to be semantically perfect


----------



## fpalb

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I said it spent more on services than it took in taxes.  I thought it was clear that I was excluding debt servicing.  Please don't become like _Water and Black Tea _where everything has to be semantically perfect


sorry! my fault on that one.


----------



## cremeegg

Having just discovered that bitcoin can be forked, I am more convinced than ever that it is a scam. Forking is being discussed, maybe explained on a bitcoin cash thread.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

cremeegg said:


> Having just discovered that bitcoin can be forked, I am more convinced than ever that it is a scam. Forking is being discussed, maybe explained on a bitcoin cash thread.


Only a matter of time till someone takes a knife to it


----------



## cremeegg

Small, far away.

Bitcoin, bitcoin fork.


----------



## Firefly

cremeegg said:


> Forking is being discussed, maybe explained on a bitcoin cash thread.



Will "Forking" be the new "Twerking?


----------



## Leo

I see Emil Oldenberg has sold all his [broken link removed], switching to bitcoin cash instead. Is this him predicting the start of the end of Bitcoin or more an endorsement of bitcoin cash being more viable as a currency and so has a better change of short term growth?


----------



## jman0war

Entitled CEO that feels he _knows what's best_.


----------



## Leo

I'd wager he knows the crypto space a lot better than anyone here. His points on transaction fees and lead times are quite valid, without those being addresses, bitcoin will never be viable as a currency.


----------



## TheBigShort

Merowig said:


> Austerity means you live within your means, you do not borrow to finance your lifestyle. What is wrong with that?



I would take a different view. I consider austerity to be the consequence of living beyond your means. Prosperity is attainable by living within your means.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Having just discovered that bitcoin can be forked, I am more convinced than ever that it is a scam. Forking is being discussed, maybe explained on a bitcoin cash thread.



That was somewhat my sentiment last June just after buying bitcoin for first time. My initial reaction 'gimme back my money!". But  then I went to the sources that I relied on that persuaded me to buy BTC in first place - the tech heads.
While I couldnt get my head around the terminology, there was no prevailing sentiment of fear or panic or that this could kill crypto. The opposite in fact, more a case of this was something that just had to happen and it was time to get on with it.
In my lay mans head way of thinking, I compare it to a car manufacturer recalling a model because the airbag wasnt fitted properly (accepting that this might be way off track!)
That was last June, there was a fork in July and another in Oct.

I should add, there was very little speculation about what it would do to the price also. I found this refreshing, discussions were focus based on the technical effects.


----------



## jman0war

Leo said:


> I'd wager he knows the crypto space a lot better than anyone here. His points on transaction fees and lead times are quite valid, without those being addresses, bitcoin will never be viable as a currency.


Actually in order for bitcoin or bitcoin cash to be sustainable, it will require transaction fees as eventually the cap on the number of coins issued will be reached.
Currently the cost of running and securing the network is largely being paid for by coin generation (mining reward).
But that's not a permanent state.
When all the coins have been mined, how will the network operate?
There won't be any coin reward to keep miners mining.

Those aren't my musings, but come from the core developers.
Have a read of this:  https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/the-three-economic-eras-of-bitcoin-d43bf0cf058a
Roger Ver and some other CEO's built their companies in that 1st era.
If they were as knowledgeable about bitcoin as you suggest, they must have foreseen the inevitability that 'free transactions' were not sustainable.

Infact, going back to the early days:   2010 Hal Finney explained the problem of network scaling and said that a Layer 2 solution is required.


> Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

This is a WIP, but a lot of developer time hereto been wasted on forks.


----------



## TheBigShort

See, its this level of discussion that jman0war fpalb and others with the links attached that provide me with confidence that all this is beyond an elaborate scam.
Its clear they are intelligent and have insights to the whole crypto space, including the problems it has and is facing, and are not merely cheerleaders for a new fangled gadget. 

On the other hand, the detractors of bitcoin etc seem to be founded on the notion that if they dont understand it, therefore it is worthless. 

Im open to persuasion either way and will act in what I perceive to my self-interest. At this juncture, its firmly in the camp of embracing cryptocurrencies.


----------



## john luc

I would not agree with you on this. The fact that supporters of Bitcoin are making good points on how wonderful this is does not mean it is wonderful. I have spent the last month reading here and elsewhere and despite the passion for support for this I cannot really see how this will not finally end badly.


----------



## Conan

At least with the Tulip bubble, one got a tulip. 
There is nothing backing Bitcoin. It is simply the stupid trading with the deluded.


----------



## TheBigShort

john luc said:


> I would not agree with you on this. The fact that supporters of Bitcoin are making good points on how wonderful this is does not mean it is wonderful. I have spent the last month reading here and elsewhere and despite the passion for support for this I cannot really see how this will not finally end badly.



I would recommend avoiding, or at least dividing commentary that says 'bitcoin is wonderful and will make you rich' and commentary that is focused based on the technical issues. Even if you cant get your head around a lot of it (like me) you can develop a sense of the prevailing sentiment. 
The point is, bitcoin will fail not because it is worthless now, but because something superior emerges or a fundamental flaw is unearthed in the interim.
For sure, the price may fall back somewhat and people will lose out, but equally the price could advance more.


----------



## TheBigShort

Conan said:


> At least with the Tulip bubble, one got a tulip.
> There is nothing backing Bitcoin. It is simply the stupid trading with the deluded.



See, its this level of thinking that convinces me that detractors have little to offer. Should I decide to sell my bitcoin on this sentiment, or should I buy on what I have been opening my mind to and its potential?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, the detractors of bitcoin etc seem to be founded on the notion that if they dont understand it, therefore it is worthless.


Not me.  Before I got involved in this forum I would say I had next to 0% understanding of its nuts and bolts.  I was very skeptical of its tulip like price growth but gave it the benefit of the doubt that there was some substance behind it all as a currency once the price stabilised.

But the more I have learnt, much of it from some very informed AAM contributors but also from other searches, and now that my understanding is approaching 10% I just have to keep pinching myself.

Over 1,000 lookalikes,
Bitcoin herself starting to produce clones at an exponential rate,
miners solving gigantic trial and error brain dead puzzles,
any economists I can source all saying it is a bubble,
a hedge fund supporter advising no more than 1% of liquid net worth in BTC,
same guy saying there is a non trivial chance that the price will go to zero,
Branson saying as a gimmick that he will accept BTC for his space travel but would cash them in;

well any niggling thoughts that I originally harboured that there must be something to this have totally vanished.

Maybe it's a case of a little knowledge is a bad thing

The fact B/S that all this has opened your mind goes some way to explain why you are so susceptible to some of the most cuckoo geopolitical conspiracy theories.


----------



## Dan Murray

john luc said:


> I would not agree with you on this.



Hi John,

I would disagree with your disagreement!

My understanding of The Big Short's central point was that he was encouraged and comforted by the calibre of post and poster on the "pro-bitcoin" side and that such posts compared well when contrasted with "the other side". I concur with this view.

Whether BTC ends well is a related but separate point. In this regard, TBS specifically says that he is "open to persuasion either way" - which again is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt INEO.


----------



## john luc

if you believe in it then rock on. I don' want to be a negative but it' just not for me


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Over 1,000 lookalikes, Bitcoin herself starting to produce clones at an exponential rate, any economists I can source all saying it is a bubble;



It may well be a bubble, certainly looks like one. That doesnt mean it hasnt value, that it doesnt have longevity.
Property, stocks, etc can go into bubbles. A price correction occurs, and we move on.
Ive listed the 180 different fiat currencies currently in circulation in another topic. This is the tip if the iceberg, thousands of fiat currencies have come and gone.
In my time on this planet we had the £IR punt, first pegged to stg, then free-floating, devalued 3?4? times? And now the Euro, destined to be a leading world currency providing stability to our economy. Within a decade or so, the country was bankrupt.


----------



## jman0war

Have you heard of the Pineapple Fund?
It's a bitcoin charity.
Probably not worthy of mainstream reporting i guess.

http://pineapplefund.org/


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The fact B/S that all this has opened your mind goes some way to explain why you are so susceptible to some of the most cuckoo geopolitical conspiracy theories.





Which ones? I might actually open a thread on that "Cukoo Geopolitical Conspiracy Theories and their effects on the price of Turnip"!​


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

B/S maybe you are not aware of the experiences of a certain German scientist.  His name was Dr Frankenstein.  He developed a most amazing technology capable of producing a human like monster.  His peers, rightly, marveled at this amazing fete of technology - many even posited usefulness for its end product.

The ignorant populace didn't understand a thing about the technology but they decided fairly unanimously that they did not like the product.  Ok some did marvel at the technology and suggested that it might have useful purposes, perhaps curing some diseases.

The moral is that no matter how wonderful the technology the end product can only attain value in its own right.  A secure anonymous transferable entry in a de-centralised computer ledger has no value.


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> B/S maybe you are not aware of the experiences of a certain German scientist.  His name was Dr Frankenstein.



I would be surprised if TBS is aware of any such German. 

I would respectfully refer you to this link....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frankenstein


----------



## jman0war

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The moral is that no matter how wonderful the technology the end product can only attain value in its own right.  A secure anonymous transferable entry in a de-centralised computer ledger has no value.


Perhaps you are not familiar with Subjective Theory of Value.

_The *subjective theory of value* is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor necessary to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends._


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dan Murray said:


> I would be surprised if TBS is aware of any such German.
> 
> I would respectfully refer you to this link....
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frankenstein


Jayz Dan,  I keep falling for your gambits, so Dr Frankenstein was an Italian.  Eppur si muove my point stands.


----------



## TheBigShort

I have a pretty extensive record collection, of vinyl and cd's collected over the last 30yrs (ive lost count). These days most of them are stored in attic and kept in good condition. I have an emotional attachment to them and it would take someone in the order of €10,000+ before I would even consider off-loading them.
On the other hand, there are no rarities or anything like that, other than a lot are on vinyl. Realistically the market value is probably in the region of €500. Even still, to find a buyer might take some time. A second hand record store, or ebay etc, would be best option. But anyone buying to sell as 2nd stock is probably not going to offer more than €150 for the lot.
My wife, on yet another hand, does not share my taste in music much, and would gladly pay €50 to anyone to get shot of the lot.


----------



## Dan Murray

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz Dan,  I keep falling for your gambits, so Dr Frankenstein was an Italian.  Eppur si muove my point stands.



So you make a mistake, I point it out to you respectfully and this is a gambit on my behalf? Interesting characterisation, beats Banagher anyway.

I was just correcting the record - wouldn't want any misinformation to appear in a BTC related thread? 

Warning: Multiple gambit alerts 

Speaking of misinformation, you do know that Frankenstein was not a doctor and considered himself Swiss?

So, apart from not being German, not being Italian and not being a doctor........what have the Romans ever done for us?!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

jman0war said:


> Perhaps you are not familiar with Subjective Theory of Value.
> 
> _The *subjective theory of value* is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor necessary to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends._


Okay I should have qualified my statement by using "_ultimate _value".  Clearly there are those who currently place a value on BTC "_for the achievement of his desired ends"  _those desired ends being to sell it later to someone who places a higher value on it, but heck we have had plenty of discussion as to whether this is sustainable in the absence of ultimate or intrinsic value.


----------



## Leo

jman0war said:


> Actually in order for bitcoin or bitcoin cash to be sustainable, it will require transaction fees as eventually the cap on the number of coins issued will be reached. ...
> If they were as knowledgeable about bitcoin as you suggest, they must have foreseen the inevitability that 'free transactions' were not sustainable.



Neither I nor the article suggested there could ever be a scenario where there are no transaction fees. Miners already receive transaction fees alongside the potential bonus of mining new bitcoin. The problem is the scale of those fees mean will remain too expensive for smaller transactions. When the mining reward ends, transaction fees aren't likely to drop. The average transaction fee hit $41.619 yesterday. 

That, the lengthening transaction times and the scaling issue you mention mean bitcoin is a long way off ever becoming usable as a currency. It'll take a lot of forks and other significant changes to the architecture to move from the current theoretical maximum of ~7 transactions per second (currently only reaching 3-4) to match Visa's ~50,000 tps.  Achieving consensus in the bitcoin community to support such changes is proving difficult, and may ultimately be its downfall.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> those desired ends being to sell it later to someone who places a higher value on it,



Isnt that the same for any investment in property, shares, art, antique collections etc?

Personally I'm of the thinking that it can act as a store of value against fluctuating values of currency - like gold and silver should do.
But those markets are manipulated and corrupted.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/central-banks-have-been-buying-gold-with-a-vengeance-2016-09-19
https://www.ft.com/content/08cafa70-e24f-11e3-a829-00144feabdc0
[broken link removed]

I think that is what has got the G20 and IMF starting to look at this whole thing now. Unless of course I'm reading media reports as some sort of crazy conspiracy theory

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...gulate-bitcoin-to-clamp-down-on-illegal-risks

I don't recall the G20 getting this concerned about property bubbles or stock market bubbles? I am of course speculating and open to the notion that I'm well wide of the mark.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...y-says-no-evidence-of-gold-price-rigging.html


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> See, its this level of discussion that jman0war fpalb and others with the links attached that provide me with confidence that all this is beyond an elaborate scam.
> Its clear they are intelligent and have insights to the whole crypto space, including the problems it has and is facing, and are not merely cheerleaders for a new fangled gadget.



You have obviously never been closely involved in a bubble before. This is what makes a bubble successful.

Global Crossing, (previously the fastest maker of billionaires), Colt Telecommunications, Retail Decisions, Baltimore Technologies.

The people who advocated these shares were all better informed than any economist about the market and the products involved. They were themselves, or drew on the knowledge of, highly specialised engineers. No one could disagree with them.

Accountants responded to the success of these companies which seemed to defy previous metrics by developing a new language of accountancy. (EBITDA anyone ?).

And in that case they were not wrong, about the engineering. The infrastructure that Global Crossing built is still in use today, indeed it was in the press during the week. They were totally wrong about the valuation however. Most of the above companies ceased to exist, they were all devalued more than 90%.

Bitcoin will fall to a negligible level because the price has been caught up in a bubble.

Bitcoin will fall to zero if as I suspect that is what it is worth.



TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, the detractors of bitcoin etc seem to be founded on the notion that if they dont understand it, therefore it is worthless.



I dont understand how the differential in a car works. That does not stop me from understanding the value of a car.

I fault a number of posters (here's looking at you Duke) for following the bitcoin enthusiasts down the rabbit hole.

The minutiae, fascinating as I agree they are, don't matter. Either bitcoin offers some new service of value or it does not. If it does either it becomes sucessfully established or it does not.

It seems to me that bitcoin offers nothing of value. Not a means of exchange, not a store of value. I started a thread "Does anyone actually use bitcoin to pay for things" the answer is a clear, No.  The price is too volatile for a store of value.

If it does come to be recognised as offering something of value, will it succeed in becoming established (think Betamax). I think not. The forking thing will undermine its reputation, central banks will kill it, there are too many competitors.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

cremeegg

What a superb post. I particularly like the Baltimore Technologies comments and the image of the Duke chasing The Big Short down a rabbit hole. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> The transaction role of cryptocurrency will probably be taken oiver by some other crypto



Im getting mixed messages from those who are detractors of bitcoin. On the one hand they declare it to be worthless, or next to worthless. On the other hand, comments like the above suggest that the concept of cryptocurrency is here to stay. Its just that bitcoin is not the one that will prevail?
So can I take it that the position here is that bitcoin is worthless,  but that crypto has value?
If so, I would be interested in learning the basis of that view.




TheBigShort said:


> It may well be a bubble, certainly looks like one. That doesnt mean it hasnt value, that it doesnt have longevity.





cremeegg said:


> You have obviously never been closely involved in a bubble before





cremeegg said:


> Bitcoin will fall to zero if as I suspect that is what it is worth.



Suspecting something and knowing something are two different things. I suspect the international monetary system corrupted beyond repair. I would have job convincing most of that right now.



cremeegg said:


> Either bitcoin offers some new service of value or it does not. If it does either it becomes sucessfully established or it does not



Like myself, you appear open to persuasion either way. This differs from other absolutist positions (apparent positions).



cremeegg said:


> It seems to me that bitcoin offers nothing of value. Not a means of exchange, not a store of value. I started a thread "Does anyone actually use bitcoin to pay for things" the answer is a clear, No. The price is too volatile for a store of value.



I agree that as a means of exchange it has not been successful , yet. But it still has that potential.
As a store of value, I disagree.



cremeegg said:


> If it does come to be recognised as offering something of value, will it succeed in becoming established (think Betamax). I think not. The forking thing will undermine its reputation, central banks will kill it, there are too many competitors.



Perhaps, time will tell.



Brendan Burgess said:


> What a superb post.



A good post certainly, as at least a logical, if unconvincing, viewpoint has been offered. This is somewhat refreshing from blanket absolutist positions declaring bitcoin to be worthless based on nothing but, somewhat ironically, hot air.


----------



## Conan

Reading the various posts has been fascinating. It seems to me that by its very nature, the Blockchain underpin is based on the theory that the relationship of crypto- currencies is in inverse proportion to a put-call on the gold v Yen trade. Even allowing for the 25% drop in value today, the high degree of correlation between the fiat currencies and those seeking alpha (romeo?) leads one to conclude that a lower level of attribution should be anticipated for Bitcoin futures. 
I fully accept that whether viewed as a time-weighted instrument or one of pure speculation, the prognosis for bitcoin must be viewed through the lense of a narrowing inverse yield curve. Looking at the current 10year bond yield versus the projected inflation numbers, it is indeed a cause of concern. 
In a market seeking rotation to rotation, the current valuation metric must be a catalyst for reviewing the Catalonian Debt market. And when you add Brexit, any sharp re-pricing in Equities can only move the dial upwards. So whether Bitcoin or Ethrium, based on the Subjective Theory of Value, the mining numbers as recently published by RTZ suggest that Satoshi has definitely gone underground.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Conan said:


> Reading the various posts has been fascinating. It seems to me that by its very nature, the Blockchain underpin is based on the theory that the relationship of crypto- currencies is in inverse proportion to a put-call on the gold v Yen trade. Even allowing for the 25% drop in value today, the high degree of correlation between the fiat currencies and those seeking alpha (romeo?) leads one to conclude that a lower level of attribution should be anticipated for Bitcoin futures.
> I fully accept that whether viewed as a time-weighted instrument or one of pure speculation, the prognosis for bitcoin must be viewed through the lense of a narrowing inverse yield curve. Looking at the current 10year bond yield versus the projected inflation numbers, it is indeed a cause of concern.
> In a market seeking rotation to rotation, the current valuation metric must be a catalyst for reviewing the Catalonian Debt market. And when you add Brexit, any sharp re-pricing in Equities can only move the dial upwards. So whether Bitcoin or Ethrium, based on the Subjective Theory of Value, the mining numbers as recently published by RTZ suggest that Satoshi has definitely gone underground.



In case any people new to this have any trouble following Conan's incisive analysis, I translated it into French using Google Translate and then back again into English and it came up with the following: 

"What goes up must come down" 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> What goes up must come down"



But by how much Brendan, all the way to zero? Can you translate that from Conans post?


----------



## jman0war

Bitcoin has had fairly regular price drops of 25 and 30% before.
Any particular reason to believe this time is different?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I think that "a lower level of attribution" is a euphemism for a drop to zero. 

But some of Conan's replies, and this one in particular, are often vague and difficult to interpret. 

So the faithful could interpret it as meaning that he expects Bitcoin to double in value.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

jman0war said:


> Bitcoin has had fairly regular price drops of 25 and 30% before.
> Any particular reason to believe this time is different?



Hi jman

Bitcoin is worthless. 

At some stage it will fall to zero. 

You are quite right that it might not be this time. It could be just a "correction", and it may resume an upward trend tomorrow before it eventually crashes to zero. 

What is different this time is that it is from a higher figure - $20,000.  

It's possible that the opening of futures markets may well hasten its correct valuation.  People can now sell it short which was not really possible on a serious exchange up until this week.

Brendan


----------



## BreadKettle

Brendan Burgess said:


> People can now sell it short which *was not really possible on a serious exchange up until this week.*



Opinions are ok, they can be written off once the listener realises you don't know what you're talking about, but in the interests of integrity you really shouldn't state things that are completely incorrect as fact.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> I agree that as a means of exchange it has not been successful , yet. But it still has that potential.
> As a store of value, I disagree.


You certainly have opened your mind. You are probably the only person on the planet who thinks bitcoin is a store of value.


----------



## jman0war

From what I'm reading Bitcoin is only up +1200% this year now.
Shocking stuff.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

BreadKettle said:


> in the interests of integrity you really shouldn't state things that are completely incorrect as fact.



Hi BK 

If I have stated something which is factually incorrect, please correct it and provide a link to it. 

I learn from my mistakes. 

Brendan


----------



## jman0war

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi BK
> 
> If I have stated something which is factually incorrect, please correct it and provide a link to it.
> 
> I learn from my mistakes.
> 
> Brendan


BitMex allowed traders to short since a long time.


----------



## BreadKettle

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi BK
> 
> If I have stated something which is factually incorrect, please correct it and provide a link to it.
> 
> I learn from my mistakes.
> 
> Brendan



Sorry - I refer to the ability to short, Bitfinex and Kraken amongst others have offered margin trading BTC/USD pairs for some time. Kraken does BTC/EUR too. You can withdraw in fiat on those two as well so you don't need to get your hands too dirty handling those worthless bitcoins (and if you can handle it there is Bitmex too for x100 leverage).

Note Krakens engine is struggling a bit under the current volume. That notwithstanding I would consider these exchanges pretty serious, daily volume in the billions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You certainly have opened your mind. You are probably the only person on the planet who thinks bitcoin is a store of value.



You appear to not to be paying attention to anything on these bitcoin threads, let alone to anything that is happening in the world outside your own comfort zone.
Why is that?


----------



## TheBigShort

There it is again, that unexplained conflicting message;



Brendan Burgess said:


> The transaction role of cryptocurrency will probably be taken over by some other crypto not subject to such volatility.





Brendan Burgess said:


> Bitcoin is worthless.
> 
> At some stage it will fall to zero.



Bitcoin is doomed to failure, but crytpocurrency has a future. Anything particular crypto? Bcash? Litecoin?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess said:


> People can now sell it short which was not really possible on a serious exchange up until this week.





BreadKettle said:


> Sorry - I refer to the ability to short, Bitfinex and Kraken amongst others have offered margin trading BTC/USD pairs for some time. Kraken does BTC/EUR too.



So I have said nothing wrong.  For the first time, people can short Bitcoin on a serious exchange. Even with the CME, there are concerns that a winning bet on shorting Bitcoin would be met.  So there is no point in taking the risk on these other Bitcoin based exchanges.

Since writing that first post, I see that IG Index is doing CFDs and I will look into them. 

Brendan


----------



## BreadKettle

Brendan Burgess said:


> So I have said nothing wrong.  For the first time, people can short Bitcoin on a serious exchange. Even with the CME, there are concerns that a winning bet on shorting Bitcoin would be met.  So there is no point in taking the risk on these other Bitcoin based exchanges.
> 
> Since writing that first post, I see that IG Index is doing CFDs and I will look into them.
> 
> Brendan



That just makes no sense at all. Today and last night alone during the correction, there was literally millions made by shorting Bitcoin on those exchanges. What exactly is the concern, who is it shares this concern about shorts not being paid out on the exchanges I listed?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi BK 

I said a "serious exchange". There was no serious exchange doing futures on Bitcoin until this week. 

The fact that people made millions on short term gambles on Bitcoin on Bitcoin exchanges is irrelevant.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

BK

Anyone who shorts Bitcoin based on a day or a week is taking a silly gamble. ( I have put a small short-term bet on with Betfair for the craic.)



Brendan Burgess said:


> It's possible that the opening of futures markets may well hasten its correct valuation. People can now sell it short which was not really possible on a serious exchange up until this week.



It's likely that the availability of longer term futures on a serious exchange may well attract institutions or hedge funds who want to short it. 

Having said that, the vast bulk of the futures are also short-term.



Brendan


----------



## RichInSpirit

The source of Bitcoin is a bit of a mystery.
I think it could be the NSA in the United States that developed and launched it. Just my own conspiracy theory.


----------

