Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

Duke of Marmalade said:
I wouldn't have expected it but the cult wallowed in making such a find in the DG of the BoE.
Click to expand...
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).

Duke of Marmalade said:
Now I really must escape this rabbit hole before I lose my way out.
Click to expand...
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.



Duke of Marmalade said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
tecate said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Central Banks are also against pyramid schemes.
 
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.
 
@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.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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!

Duke of Marmalade said:
The technology (including lightning) is not UWMB. But the bunch of digital code on a decentralised ledger is utterly worthless make-believe.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
655321 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
Not sure whether it is the best technology, as the first that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
It's something that's commonly misunderstood but it wasn't the first.
Duke of Marmalade said:
though there have been many sharks and whales climbing on board.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Shrimps, Duke - we mustn't forget the Shrimps.

Duke of Marmalade said:
In theory, if markets shut down tomorrow, owners of, say, General Motors shares would still enjoy the future economic returns from that company.
Click to expand...
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.


Duke of Marmalade said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:

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".
 
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.
 
But but but... Bitcoin has Blockchain and is decentralised!
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 said:
and for some odd reason, no one is paying $20,000 for my toe nails, which are in even more limited supply

Brendan
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register