Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

[tecate]

I wouldn't have expected it but the cult wallowed in making such a find in the DG of the BoE.

Correction - go back and re-read that discussion. I said that I didn't much care generally what CB'ers come out with - but seeing as he had said what he had, I'd seek your views on the subject (seeing as you worship these guys in a blind faith kind of way).

Now I really must escape this rabbit hole before I lose my way out.

And there it is right there! This is as clear as night and day - 100% ideological objection to BTC and 0% pragmatism on display.
All you had to say was - I believe it will never happen - but if it got to that point, then sure. Because what could your possible objection be at that point? I'm assuming none because you came back with nothing except for trying to slither out from under the question entirely.
You could have said that Bitcoin is neutral - and that has some merit - even if you think its fantasy it could ever reach those levels in the first place. But you can't bring yourself to recognise a single positive.

Doesn't look great for its chances of being the World's reserve currency, which is the current rabbit hole which I thought I had escaped from.

Riddle me this. What has been running through the minds of the 'people in authority' in India when they've gone and unbanned Bitcoin each of those times? Why on earth would they do such a thing, Duke? Didn't you say that they said it was 'make believe'? Why then was it unbanned each time as fast as it was banned?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

You could have said that Bitcoin is neutral - and that has some merit - even if you think its fantasy it could ever reach those levels in the first place. But you can't bring yourself to recognise a single positive.

You keep saying this. And I keep telling you that I accept that its technology does everything it claims and is quite clever - though not Nobel Prize material. I haven't aligned with the spurious criticisms like its energy usage.
But I do have a big negative. It is all founded on an utterly worthless make-believe.

 

[tecate]

You keep saying this. And I keep telling you that I accept that its technology does everything it claims and is quite clever - though not Nobel Prize material. I haven't aligned with the spurious criticisms like its energy usage.
But I do have a big negative. It is all founded on an utterly worthless make-believe.

Ok, so if its 'utterly worthless make-believe' , why could you possibly get upset with Sharma's musing re. reserve currency? An 'utterly worthless make-believe' Bitcoin couldn't possibly become less volatile and reach a trillion dollar market cap, right? So why are you so animated on the subject?

Why is the Fed wasting time and resources on research papers on the lightning network - when it's as clear as night and day that the whole thing is utterly worthless make-believe? You've made it clear that I'm a degenerate cultist - so there's no helping me. But then, why is the likes of Sharma saying what he's saying?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The technology (including lightning) is not UWMB. But the bunch of digital code on a decentralised ledger is utterly worthless make-believe.
You know that is what I have been saying so that is my last word on this subject.

 

[time to plan]

@Duke of Marmalade : India has banned bitcoin, unbanned bitcoin, banned bitcoin, unbanned bitcoin, banned bitcoin, unbanned bitcoin. Probably by the time that I've finished this post, they'll have banned it and unbanned it again. And another thing - you're talking about the comments of the Indian Central Bank!
There isn't a central bank in the world that hasn't come out with bile and vitriol where Bitcoin is concerned. And that's entirely logical. Government is about control - bitcoin is about taking some of that control (where it implicates personal wealth/money), decentralising it and taking it away from government and putting it in the hands of everyone. The default position of most in centralised governance is to be opposed to that (although giving it further thought some may come round to understanding that they wont be able to control it at all if they go up against it or that it can be a force for good...assuming of course that a force for good is seen as a feature - plenty of self serving interests in government).
That's before we get to banks/bankers - because this wave of innovation is going to play havoc with retail banking. And then we get to central bankers - it's completely the opposite to what they're involved with - it shows them up for the incompetent alchemists that they are. How would you possibly expect a central banker to have any good thing to say about Bitcoin? And yet, 95% of the time, it's these academic cronies that you've been depending on - to form your views (you've literally said that whatever view on BTC they express, you will blindly follow).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1492532830328532992

As regards the likes of Sharma managing $95 billion in the private sector, I certainly think it matters. I said I don't think there's much point in talking about Bitcoin as a global reserve currency as it has a world of adoption/development, etc to achieve before that ever becomes a realistic option. But if you want to talk about it, fine. Answer me this - if Bitcoin reached a trillion dollar market cap and if Bitcoin became much less volatile (exactly as Sharma talked about) - in those circumstances, would you still throw your toys out of the pram re. Bitcoin being a global reserve currency?

Central Banks are also against pyramid schemes.

 

[Defacto]

I find this thread hilarious....

What is utterly worthless make-believe is the US dollar / British Pound, in fact, all Fiat currencies are utterly worthless make-believe when you realise how currency is created.

The removal of the gold standard back in 1971 heralded the creation of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme - the US Dollar.

All Fiat currency is literally created out of this air and is backed by nothing. Fiat currencies only have value because the government maintains that value; there is no utility to fiat money in itself.

They cannot keep printing magic "money" that is utterly worthless. The house of cards has to crumble at some stage.

The following countries were subjected to hyperinflation and currency failures at some stage.

Peru, Russia, Zaire, Hungary, Germany, Zimbabwe, Greece, China, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Bolivia, Angola, France, Turkey, Georgia, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Chile, Belarus, Romania, Bosnia.

What makes you believe that the dollar wont suffer the same fate. They literally have to continue printing dollars / creating debt or the Ponzi scheme will blow up in their faces.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@Defacto Welcome to these parts. You have argued well that fiat is UWMB. Certainly not going down the very deep rabbit hole to explain that it is a tad more complicated than that.
You will note that the subject of this thread is not in fact fiat. But by the arguments you have put forward if you think the US$ is UWMB you must think bitcoin is UWMB in spades.

 

[tecate]

@Defacto You have argued well that fiat is UWMB. Certainly not going down the very deep rabbit hole to explain that it is a tad more complicated than that.

How is it more complicated? It's backed by nothing. I can find you a clip from 60 minutes with Bernanke literally stating that they simply add some zeros on a database et voila!

The technology (including lightning) is not UWMB. But the bunch of digital code on a decentralised ledger is utterly worthless make-believe.

I think I've got it now. So the decentralised technology is wonderful - but we dare not use it on a decentralised ledger because the moment its decentralised it's utterly worthless make-believe?

So if decentralised tech is a Ferrari, we should take the wheels off it and stick it up on blocks because a decentralised ledger is utterly worthless make-believe?
Or maybe intranet would be a better example. Stick some info up on some web pages and put a walled garden around it for ultimate control. You wouldn't know what nefarious things people would be getting up to if there wasn't a perimeter fence around it.

Did I get it right? Have I bolded out the right bits?

 

[Defacto]

Thanks Duke. I've been a long time lurker.

You're quite right that the subject of this thread is not fiat but I had to highlight it just the same.. And yes, it is a very deep rabbit hole which we won't go down (in this thread at least).

Tecate is correct. Bernanke's first ever interview after the crash, he actually admits they create it with digits on a database... It's on youtube somewhere if you care to look it up.

I'm relatively new to the cryptosphere and am still learning.

I believe Satoshi, whoever he/she/they, were/are developed Bitcoin as a direct response the crash and had a vision to create a peer to peer payment system that didn't rely on third party confirmation. That way, banks didn't need to be involved in each and every transaction.

Did it work? Yes.

Do I think it has utility? Yes.

Is it the best blockchain? I don't think so.

Do I think it is UWMB? No.

But I think blockchain technolog as a whole is a fascinating concept that can genuinely change things for the better. It is still in it's infancy and use cases will only grow given time. Blockchain will power web3.

People didn't "get" the interent when it arrived, until the couldn't live without it.

People don't "get" blockchain now. Will we live in a future where we can't live without it? Only time will tell...

I know one thing for sure the financial system and Central Banks will throw every obstacle to stymie its adoption as it threatens their very existance.

Full discloure - I do not hold Bitcoin. I do have a portfolio of Alt coins.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Okay, that is your opinion. If you have been "lurking" you will know mine so after 31 pages I will refrain from repeating my points.

 

[tecate]

Bernanke's first ever interview after the crash, he actually admits they create it with digits on a database... It's on youtube somewhere if you care to look it up.

 

[655321]

Most cryptos except for bitcoin are generally Ponzi schemes. I'd probably agree with 99% of @Duke of Marmalade's posts if he was talking about alt coins.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Most cryptos except for bitcoin are generally Ponzi schemes. I'd probably agree with 99% of @Duke of Marmalade's posts if he was talking about alt coins.

I think bitcoin is amongst the most "respectable" of the cryptos. Not sure whether it is the best technology, as the first that seems unlikely. It appears to be winning hands down on adoption.
The Ponzi debate comes up a lot. I do not for one minute believe that Satoshi launched bitcoin as a fraud though there have been many sharks and whales climbing on board. Many of the other 10,000 look like frauds to me.
But it does have the essential feature of Ponzi, your value when you pay to climb on board is entirely dependent on there being someone in the future prepared to pay you to take your place. In theory, if markets shut down tomorrow, owners of, say, General Motors shares would still enjoy the future economic returns from that company.

 

[tecate]

Not sure whether it is the best technology, as the first that seems unlikely.

It's something that's commonly misunderstood but it wasn't the first.

though there have been many sharks and whales climbing on board.

Don't forget the Shrimps, Duke - we mustn't forget the Shrimps.

In theory, if markets shut down tomorrow, owners of, say, General Motors shares would still enjoy the future economic returns from that company.

So essentially what you're saying is if both Bitcoin and General Motors fail entirely tomorrow, you will be out of pocket in both cases.

your value when you pay to climb on board is entirely dependent on there being someone in the future prepared to pay you to take your place.

Right on. So let's apply that then to equity stocks....in consideration of the following ->

"The reality is equities have only been more expensive than today 7% of the time in the history of markets" (h/t to Mark Yusko).

 

[655321]

I think bitcoin is amongst the most "respectable" of the cryptos. Not sure whether it is the best technology, as the first that seems unlikely. It appears to be winning hands down on adoption.
The Ponzi debate comes up a lot. I do not for one minute believe that Satoshi launched bitcoin as a fraud though there have been many sharks and whales climbing on board. Many of the other 10,000 look like frauds to me.
But it does have the essential feature of Ponzi, your value when you pay to climb on board is entirely dependent on there being someone in the future prepared to pay you to take your place. In theory, if markets shut down tomorrow, owners of, say, General Motors shares would still enjoy the future economic returns from that company.

Most other cryptos have a figurehead, a board or a steering committee. They've almost 100% had a pre-mine (a certain % of coins are owned by the creator) before anyone was publically allowed on board or else they have an unlimited amount of coins.

Bitcoin is a technology. It's not the flashiest tech but it's elegant and fair.

This is a pretty good article re it being a ponzi scheme.

Why Bitcoin is Not a Ponzi Scheme: Point by Point

Lyn Alden compares and contrasts Bitcoin to systems that have Ponzi-like characteristics, to see if the claim that Bitcin is a ponzi holds up.

www.swanbitcoin.com

I'd also recommend the book "The Bitcoin Standard."

Full disclosure: I previously held bitcoin years ago, no longer do. I retain an interest in the subject.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Most other cryptos have a figurehead, a board or a steering committee. They've almost 100% had a pre-mine (a certain % of coins are owned by the creator) before anyone was publically allowed on board or else they have an unlimited amount of coins.

Bitcoin is a technology. It's not the flashiest tech but it's elegant and fair.

This is a pretty good article re it being a ponzi scheme.

Why Bitcoin is Not a Ponzi Scheme: Point by Point

Lyn Alden compares and contrasts Bitcoin to systems that have Ponzi-like characteristics, to see if the claim that Bitcin is a ponzi holds up.

www.swanbitcoin.com

I'd also recommend the book "The Bitcoin Standard."

Full disclosure: I previously held bitcoin years ago, no longer do. I retain an interest in the subject.

Read that link. As I said I am not accusing Satoshi of being a crook - jayz, nobody could be that clever, make a ledger of digital entries out of nothing which in 12 years would be trading at 1 trillion $
It has the Ponzi characteristic of relying on a flow of future investors prepared to pay for the digital entries even though they have no economic substance (the Chinese call it utterly worthless, the Indians call it make-believe, other authorities warn it could go to zero). It is not a mortal sin, so maybe the derogatory term is not justified.
And yes fiat is Ponzi in a sort of sense. The only reason people hold fiat (and very few hold large quantities for long) is that they expect people in the short to medium term future to provide goods and services in exchange for it. They are warned that holding it long term is not to be recommended as its very producers target to reduce its purchasing power by 2% p.a. They have the comfort that the apparatus of state is applied to ensure a reasonable stability in its purchasing power.
Some (maybe most) people hold bitcoin as a store of value or more accurately as an object of speculation - that makes it a very dangerous "Ponzi".

 

[655321]

I'd compare bitcoin more to gold. That's really what it's replacing.

Fiat has it's own problems. We've bought into the idea though so we have to accept it. I don't think comparing it to bitcoin helps conceptually.

Alt coins, defi and all that nonsense are actually a contagion. Most crypto is a rug pull. Even etherium is just a scheme, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The big thing people don't get with bitcoin is that there is a limited supply, a public ledger, and it's trustless (no chargebacks.) Also, people don't get that a bitcoin is divisible to six figures.

There is no doubt it is made up money. But all money is. Gold isn't actually worth what it costs.

Bitcoin is a commodity. The rest are securities.

I do get your point but I think you may have a eureka moment eventually when someone more clever than me explains it.

 

[time to plan]

@Defacto Welcome to these parts. You have argued well that fiat is UWMB. Certainly not going down the very deep rabbit hole to explain that it is a tad more complicated than that.
You will note that the subject of this thread is not in fact fiat. But by the arguments you have put forward if you think the US$ is UWMB you must think bitcoin is UWMB in spades.

But but but... Bitcoin has Blockchain and is decentralised!

I think bitcoin is amongst the most "respectable" of the cryptos. Not sure whether it is the best technology, as the first that seems unlikely. It appears to be winning hands down on adoption.
The Ponzi debate comes up a lot. I do not for one minute believe that Satoshi launched bitcoin as a fraud though there have been many sharks and whales climbing on board. Many of the other 10,000 look like frauds to me.
But it does have the essential feature of Ponzi, your value when you pay to climb on board is entirely dependent on there being someone in the future prepared to pay you to take your place. In theory, if markets shut down tomorrow, owners of, say, General Motors shares would still enjoy the future economic returns from that company.

BTC is not a ponzi but it is similar to a pyramid scheme in its nature if not the intent behind it. It’s value derives solely from the greater fool that a seller can sell to.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The big thing people don't get with bitcoin is that there is a limited supply,

and for some odd reason, no one is paying $20,000 for my toe nails, which are in even more limited supply

Brendan

 

[655321]

and for some odd reason, no one is paying $20,000 for my toe nails, which are in even more limited supply

Brendan

Pretty facetious analogy but let's run with it...

Your toesnails do not have an enumerated total supply. If you cut them they grow back. The more you cut them, the more they grow. Your toenails are more like crypto than bitcoin as they have no utility except for protecting your toes from knocks. If there was a trustless ledger of every transaction involving your toenails then your toenails may be worth something but they don't and worse your toenails are centralised because they are YOUR toenails and that is a central point of failure.

I have zero worries about a Brendan Burgess Toenail Mania.