I can certainly help out with that:
Lessons in the pedantic and the obtuse - Volume 2.
I can certainly help out with that:Feel free to suggest an alternative title?
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: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.
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.satoshi and tecate said: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.
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.
So, out of courtesy, you may try answer the question I posed, notwithstanding that I wont necessarily expect to agree with you.
It's certainly not pleasant to watch...Lessons in the pedantic and the obtuse - Volume 2.
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!
You're still just trying to avoid answering mine
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.
Yes, once that fraud was exposed its price, relative to its actual value, transcended into a BOHA (EFSW, NTBTL).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.
So I agree we do not have historical precedents for how BOHAs are priced except for this one.
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 agree with Brendan. I think it would be unsporting to have this level of insight and not capitalise on it.I think you should use your ill-gotten gains to short BTC again.
Yes, we're certainly getting a lesson in pedantics - shame it wasn't an olympic sport.Leo and I were manning the fort but we were being overwhelmed by the pin dancing.
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.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.
So when does it finally die. Can you put a date on it? Is it all out of Lazurus acts?This Lazarus act will probably serve to sustain btc for quite some time.
And if you were to plot that inflation and deflation, it matches (and is definitely comparative to) Bitcoin, is it?Yes, I don't think Tulips ever hit zero, and they currently cost more than zero.
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).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????
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).A steady stream of suckers looking for other suckers.
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.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..
Dramatic, no. Just plenty of diligence by smarter minds in building out the tech quietly.I agree that nothing has dramatically happened to the bitcoin proposition in the last 18 months,
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.Bitcoin is still the same old bitcoin to its believers albeit the proliferation of rival gods has accelerated.
And what emerged out of dotcom? Sheer brilliance.Dotcom was a ridiculously optimistic assessment of its potential.
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.I note that tecate has wisely dropped the currency pretensions of btc.
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.
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?
Yes, we're certainly getting a lesson in pedantics - shame it wasn't an olympic sport.
And if you were to plot that inflation and deflation, it matches (and is definitely comparative to) Bitcoin, is it?
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.I only get pedantic when people make claims they obviously can't substantiate and then use obfuscation to avoid having to admit that.
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?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...
Holland came to dominate that industry for 400 years.
I see that BTC leads as digital gold,
Wolfe Tone claimed that Tulips were an examples of a BOHA, something that never had any value at any point in time
(again)?Why would you even say that?
Of course they had 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
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.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.
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.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).
Market cap is not a measure of supply.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.
Coinrating said:View current prices, exchanges and charts of 7,649 cryptocurrencies.
Oh dear, Shortie syndrome. Big bad politicians and regulators and traditional bankers and, naturally, Zuckerberg.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.
If that is the question, my answer is that I don't know.
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.
So something is only a BOHA after it's already valued at zero?I would define it as something that "has no value"
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.I decided to pull the project given the proliferation (see below). Apologies to all who were waiting in anticipation.
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).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.
How so? Not sure where you're going with this.Market cap is not a measure of supply.
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 aheadOh dear, Shortie syndrome. Big bad politicians and regulators and traditional bankers and, naturally, Zuckerberg.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?