Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

[tecate]

Feel free to suggest an alternative title?

I can certainly help out with that:

Lessons in the pedantic and the obtuse - Volume 2.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Just to help us on our way;

inherent
/ɪnˈhɪər(ə)nt,ɪnˈhɛr(ə)nt/

adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
synonyms: intrinsic, innate, immanent, built-in, inborn, ingrained, deep-rooted; More




Yet the price fluctuation and volatility persists. Is there a BOHA (EFSW,NTBTL), for that is what it is, in the entire history of finance and economics that even remotely resembles the price action of bitcoin?
I haven't come across anything like it, have you?

We truly could be witnessing a re-defining of the terminology that is BOHA! This is truly an exciting time!! Don't you agree?

Unless of course, bitcoin is something other than a BOHA.

I certainly wouldn't contest btc's unique place in financial history. In fact, it is to me uniquely a BOHA. Anglo in its closing days was a gross misrepresentation, the assets were not worth what the auditors said they were. Enron was a fraud. Dotcom was a ridiculously optimistic assessment of its potential. Tulipmania over-estimated the future demand for tulips, but which were themselves real enough. But btc does not seem to be a fraud or a misrepresentation. Btc does exactly what it says on the tin:

As it stands, it (your btc digital entry) has designed in scarcity. It's immutable, borderless and unconfiscatable. It can be transacted peer to peer anywhere in the world.

In common parlance this is screaming "I am a BOHA". So I agree we do not have historical precedents for how BOHAs are priced except for this one. The short history of BOHAs suggests a price ranging from $1 to $20,000 and violently fluctuating in between. So I presume we can all agree that BOHAs have failed miserably in the main aim of its founder which was to become an alternative to FIAT currency. I note that tecate has wisely dropped the currency pretensions of btc. My basic understanding of the human condition is that BOHAs should have an inherent, intrinsic, innate, substantive, real value or worth of zero but this very short and unique price history gives me no pointers as to when that reality will translate to the price. FOMO and greed seem to be able to keep BOHAs afloat for quite a long time.

 

[Leo]

I beg to differ.
Now that I have answered your question, notwithstanding that it is not the answer you wanted, agree with, etc, it is still an answer.

How do you classify shares in these large companies that were producing dividends for years as always being worthless? In post #250 you said 'Of course they had value.' If at any point they had real value, they can't be a BOHA.

So, out of courtesy, you may try answer the question I posed, notwithstanding that I wont necessarily expect to agree with you.

You're still just trying to avoid answering mine, I'll demonstrate courtesy when you oblige.

 

[RedOnion]

Lessons in the pedantic and the obtuse - Volume 2.

It's certainly not pleasant to watch...

 

[WolfeTone]

How do you classify shares in these large companies that were producing dividends for years as always being worthless?

You are asking me more questions now!

 

[Leo]

You are asking me more questions now!

Nope, it's still the same question, yet again you've just failed to answer it.

 

[WolfeTone]

You're still just trying to avoid answering mine

I answered your question. It may not be to your satisfaction, it may not be what wanted to hear, it may not be a lot of things, but an answer it was.
Im guessing you are avoiding answering my question because you dont have an answer for it.
It would certainly appear that way, because there is sufficient numbers of contributors to this discussion and none of them have answered the question either.
In the history of global finance and economics, is there anything as worthless as bitcoin, it being a BOHA (EFSW, NTBTL), that in anyway resembles its price volatility of surges and crashes and surges again, and again?

I suggest that there isnt, but im open to being corrected.
But if there isn't, then surely BOHA is an incorrect classification?

 

[WolfeTone]

In fact, it is to me uniquely a BOHA.

So its different, somehow?

Anglo in its closing days was a gross misrepresentation, the assets were not worth what the auditors said they were.

Yes, once that misrepresentation was exposed its price, relative to its actual value, transcended into a BOHA (EFSW, NTBTL).

Enron was a fraud.

Yes, once that fraud was exposed its price, relative to its actual value, transcended into a BOHA (EFSW, NTBTL).

Dotcom was a ridiculously optimistic assessment of its potential.

Once that irrationality was exposed the price of many dotcoms, relative to their actual value, transcended into B'sOHA

Tulipmania over-estimated the future demand for tulips, but which were themselves real enough.

Once that irrationality was exposed the price of tulips, relative to their actual value collapsed and transcended into BOHA

So I agree we do not have historical precedents for how BOHAs are priced except for this one.

So this time is different, is what you are saying. You, and others here have exposed bitcoin as nothing but a BOHA, but its price, relative to its actual value, is not reflecting the same traits as the previous mentioned examples of Anglo, Enron, Tulips etc...

 

[tecate]

I am also grateful to this site for encouraging me to short btc at 14,500 and subsequently close out at just over 8,000. But I stand ejected, I could never, ever have predicted this Lazarus type bounce back
So whilst I still firmly believe in BOHA I am very reluctant to short again

I think you should use your ill-gotten gains to short BTC again.

I agree with Brendan. I think it would be unsporting to have this level of insight and not capitalise on it.

Leo and I were manning the fort but we were being overwhelmed by the pin dancing.

Yes, we're certainly getting a lesson in pedantics - shame it wasn't an olympic sport.

Whilst this does not float my boat (no more than frog's legs) I have to accept that there appears to be a demand for that kinda thing, albeit the supply of btc lookalikes is in the thousands.

I am sooo disappointed that BTC doesn't get your rocks off for you. However, on a more somber note, it's unfortunate with all that you have learnt here that you can't distinguish that any old token isn't BTC. I'm still waiting for the launch of the much vaunted 'Marmalade Coin' to prove the point. I mean, the only way we could inject value into Marmalade Coin is if you had a total supply of 10 of them and we could all create market demand in this little corner of the web.

This Lazarus act will probably serve to sustain btc for quite some time.

So when does it finally die. Can you put a date on it? Is it all out of Lazurus acts?

Yes, I don't think Tulips ever hit zero, and they currently cost more than zero.

And if you were to plot that inflation and deflation, it matches (and is definitely comparative to) Bitcoin, is it?

It's an interesting question. As Duke has suggested, which I think most would agree, the surge in price is driven by speculation. If not, what's behind the sudden increase in its price? Has there been any reported sudden increase in the usage of BTC to actually buy stuff????

You're assuming that transactional is the only use case for BTC. Digital gold is where its making greater in-roads. I posted links to video snippets of two asset fund managers going out of their way to identify BTC as a hedge (against the backdrop of the trade war and the Fed threatening to drop interest rates).

A steady stream of suckers looking for other suckers.

And yet there isn't such a strong sprinkling of retail 'suckers' on this occasion. I guess these must be institutional 'suckers' then? (and we know that more institutional money has arrived over the past 6 months).

That's assuming we're not witnessing a Dead Cat Bounce, of which history provides multiple examples. There are only so many suckers out there..

How many times does a dead cat bounce down your way exactly? To WT's point, it seems this time its different for dead cat bounces also.

I agree that nothing has dramatically happened to the bitcoin proposition in the last 18 months,

Dramatic, no. Just plenty of diligence by smarter minds in building out the tech quietly.

Bitcoin is still the same old bitcoin to its believers albeit the proliferation of rival gods has accelerated.

Except that's not true at all, is it. In fact, its quite the opposite. This time it's different No.3 - Bitcoin dominance (in terms of market cap) has surged ahead leaving altcoins for dust.

Dotcom was a ridiculously optimistic assessment of its potential.

And what emerged out of dotcom? Sheer brilliance.

I note that tecate has wisely dropped the currency pretensions of btc.

You misunderstand, then. I see that BTC leads as digital gold, first. That does not mean that it won't be used transactionally and just for the record, success on that front does not mean that it needs to usurp a FIAT currency. Other than that, I think FBIcoin will be coming in useful in this role. Naturally, I detest the zuckerberg empire but I'm delighted to see it shake things up in this instance - opening up a new front ...big tech vs. traditional banking and causing politicians and regulators everywhere to choke on their tea. And of course, ultimately it will lead to greater appreciation for real crypto.

 

[Leo]

I answered your question. It may not be to your satisfaction, it may not be what wanted to hear, it may not be a lot of things, but an answer it was.

OK, so your answer is that Tulips, Enron and Anglo are examples of BOHA and there were many other such examples, you also stated these were simultaneously not examples of BOHA, and can't provide real examples that were.

OK, now that we have that sorted, what was your question again? Is it:

In the history of global finance and economics, is there anything as worthless as bitcoin, it being a BOHA (EFSW, NTBTL), that in anyway resembles its price volatility of surges and crashes and surges again, and again?

If that is the question, my answer is that I don't know. I don't claim to be anything close to an expert on the history of such markets.

 

[Leo]

Yes, we're certainly getting a lesson in pedantics - shame it wasn't an olympic sport.

I only get pedantic when people make claims they obviously can't substantiate and then use obfuscation to avoid having to admit that.

And if you were to plot that inflation and deflation, it matches (and is definitely comparative to) Bitcoin, is it?

Nope, but I never claimed it did. Wolfe Tone claimed that Tulips were an examples of a BOHA, something that never had any value at any point in time. I merely pointed out they did, and still do have value. I note he is now trying to redefine the meaning of BOHA to include assets that definitely did have real appreciable value, but due to circumstances such as gross mismanagement or fraud ended up being worthless...

 

[tecate]

I only get pedantic when people make claims they obviously can't substantiate and then use obfuscation to avoid having to admit that.

Whilst I disagree entirely with the latter half of that statement, thank you for at least coming clean on your penchant for pedantry. With that I'd refer you to post #284. If you believe that someone has either misquoted you or hasn't substantiated their claim, maybe it would be less painful for all just to state exactly that rather than endless rounds of ongoing questions. Just a suggestion.

Nope, but I never claimed it did. Wolfe Tone claimed that Tulips were an examples of a BOHA, something that never had any value at any point in time. I merely pointed out they did, and still do have value. I note he is now trying to redefine the meaning of BOHA to include assets that definitely did have real appreciable value, but due to circumstances such as gross mismanagement or fraud ended up being worthless...

I mean, I literally got lost in the endless back and forth but wasn't his point that BTC has proven itself to be completely different in terms of the bubble effect having inflated and deflated multiple times - unlike the others?

Here's another way to come at this. Tulipmania was a clear bubble but at the end of it, Holland came to dominate that industry for 400 years. Dotcom - had positive outcomes. It doesn't mean that people didn't make fortunes and lose their shirts - but bubbles can also form part of the overall process and technological/market progression.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Holland came to dominate that industry for 400 years.

Indeed. But tulip bulbs are still worth pence each. BTC may well come to dominate the Hot Air industry,but that still doesn't make it worth anything.

I see that BTC leads as digital gold,

I wonder why I always feel like a cup of coffee after reading this sort of statement.

 

[WolfeTone]

Speaking of obfuscation

Wolfe Tone claimed that Tulips were an examples of a BOHA, something that never had any value at any point in time

Why would you even say that?

(again)?

Of course they had value.

Clearly I stated that they did have value

But once the premise of that value was found out to be based on nothing more that misleading and/or fraudulent information/accounting/management (whatever you want to call it), that value transformed quickly into a bag of hot air

And went on to further explain my interpretation of what I consider BOHA to mean. Is there a dictionary definition of BOHA? I don't think so, so no redefining on my part.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

However, on a more somber note, it's unfortunate with all that you have learnt here that you can't distinguish that any old token isn't BTC. I'm still waiting for the launch of the much vaunted 'Marmalade Coin' to prove the point. I mean, the only way we could inject value into Marmalade Coin is if you had a total supply of 10 of them and we could all create market demand in this little corner of the web.

I decided to pull the project given the sheer proliferation (see below). Also I had managed to mine 120 Marmalade Coins but unfortunately they were hacked (I suspect the Russians). Apologies to all, including your good self, who were waiting in anticipation. However, given you have nearly 8,000 alternatives, I don't feel too guilty.

You're assuming that transactional is the only use case for BTC. Digital gold is where its making greater in-roads. I posted links to video snippets of two asset fund managers going out of their way to identify BTC as a hedge (against the backdrop of the trade war and the Fed threatening to drop interest rates).

Good, you accept its problematical as a transactional currency. I'm surprised you see the wild volatility as conferring Gold status, though maybe you are right and Gold is that volatile. Though I suggest that for Gold hoarders, its volatility is one of its drawbacks.

Except that's not true at all, is it. In fact, its quite the opposite. This time it's different No.3 - Bitcoin dominance (in terms of market cap) has surged ahead leaving altcoins for dust.

Market cap is not a measure of supply.

View current prices, exchanges and charts of 7,649 cryptocurrencies.​

​

You misunderstand, then. I see that BTC leads as digital gold, first. That does not mean that it won't be used transactionally and just for the record, success on that front does not mean that it needs to usurp a FIAT currency. Other than that, I think FBIcoin will be coming in useful in this role. Naturally, I detest the zuckerberg empire but I'm delighted to see it shake things up in this instance - opening up a new front ...big tech vs. traditional banking and causing politicians and regulators everywhere to choke on their tea. And of course, ultimately it will lead to greater appreciation for real crypto.

Oh dear, Shortie syndrome. Big bad politicians and regulators and traditional bankers and, naturally, Zuckerberg.​

 

[WolfeTone]

If that is the question, my answer is that I don't know.

I don't think anyone knows, probably because common sense would suggest that things that are worthless have no value. And in turn, extremely unlikely to, in anyway shape or form, replicate the price action of bitcoin.
So either bitcoin is the first worthless thing to surge and crash and surge, repetitively, meaning that BOHA may have to be redefined. Or alternatively, more practically, bitcoin is classified as something other than a BOHA.

 

[Leo]

Clearly I stated that they did have value

Yes, you did. What I'm trying to understand is why you gave it as an example of a BOHA, something that has never had any value.

 

[WolfeTone]

Yes, you did. What I'm trying to understand is why you gave it as an example of a BOHA, something that has never had any value.

You are defining BOHA as "something that has never had any value". I never defined BOHA as such. I would define it as something that "has no value", not something that never had value.
If we use your definition then clearly it is wholly inappropriate to bitcoin as lots of people give value to bitcoin. That value currently being reflected in its market price. So by your own reasoning, bitcoin is not a BOHA, as it holds value.

 

[RedOnion]

I would define it as something that "has no value"

So something is only a BOHA after it's already valued at zero?

Troll much?

 

[tecate]

I decided to pull the project given the proliferation (see below). Apologies to all who were waiting in anticipation.

Whilst I'm disappointed as on this AAM stage, I'm convinced it would have been a hit, thanks for proving my point. i.e. that you're wrong in thinking that any old sh1tcoin token is in any way equal to a BTC token.

Good, you accept its problematical as a transactional currency. I'm surprised you see the wild volatility as conferring Gold status, though maybe you are right Gold is that volatile, I don't really follow it.

I don't follow gold either but to my knowledge, gold has had a major peak to trough in recent years, yes. Other than that, see the links to video snippets from an investment banker and asset fund manager (neither with past form or interest shown in BTC) both suggesting that BTC is a legitimate consideration in hedging against the current trade war (on the other thread in this sub-forum). Note that the first pension funds have now blended in digital assets in their portfolio's in the U.S. And understand that we have seen increased institutional buying over the past 6 months (this upward movement has largely been driven from that source).

As regards transactional being problematic, I've always accepted that - due to the inherent price volatility and issues with transaction processing. The former is going to be long term in getting itself sorted out. The latter is making nice steady progress - with news in the past 24 hours of a lightning enabled wallet that facilitates purchases via Lightning Network at Amazon, Whole Foods, Starbucks, Uber and others.

Market cap is not a measure of supply.

How so? Not sure where you're going with this.

Oh dear, Shortie syndrome. Big bad politicians and regulators and traditional bankers and, naturally, Zuckerberg.

Right back at you as regards your views. You want to be a FB fanboy when half the planet have been turned off by their antics - go right ahead
What else are you saying, then? Politicians are angels and bankers never put a foot wrong?

Maybe make some inquiries as to why there was $1 billion worth of coke on J.P. Morgan's ship in Philly.