I promised myself not to waste any more time on this but since you force me.$20K - 50% probability (and the second time you've reached the wrong conclusion on $20K)
I put my hands up. These were finger in the air.$30K - 75% probability
$50K - 95% probability
LOL of course you can't Brendan. I'm well informed on this because you've been telling me this for five and a half years already!...and in that time, its unit price keeps going up!You can't calculate the price of BTC because it has no value.
Yes, of course. They're stupid and you're an oracle. And of course you'll get cross if I ask you when its going to zero...but I think my progression of that query on the last occasion was more than reasonable. Could you at least round it down to the nearest decade? Because if you can't then you've been proven wrong - it will have held significant value over a large chunk of the average Joe's lifespan.I thought I could predict the limits of the stupidity of the BTC advocates, but I was wrong. the stupidity appears unlimited.
Incredibly open minded. So someone presents with a different view to your own so that is sufficient license to label it as ridiculous. Your argument is out of control. Those 'stupid' people that you've referred to have previously driven BTC to become a one trillion dollar asset. It's not reasonable to declare as per an absolutist statement that it couldn't eventually multiply that market value. That's something that you could say is highly unlikely but its not something you could possibly say with certainty that it would never happen. It's beyond your control (because of all the stupid people).That other guy did a ridiculous calculation Whatever way you look at that it is a forecast. He set out a lower limit and an upper limit.
The Duke is doing a deep internet search to see if Allen has any parking fines or speeding tickets as if he has then there'll be no need to consider anything contained within what he wrote at all re Bitcoin valuation modelling. (I'm pretty sure he's not vaxxed Duke, so you could start there).Boy do I have the perfect article to link for this conversation: https://allenfarrington.medium.com/modeling-bitcoin-value-with-vibes-99eca0997c5f
The trajectory of bitcoin since 2017 has truly surprised me. But I am as convinced as ever that it is a nonsense and take considerable comfort that nobody in the Nobel ranks or indeed Warren Buffet have waivered one iota in their dismissal of it.
I am glad you are a followerIn this debate, I've seen this tactic employed by Duke several times.......if it's good enuff for the specialist thought leaders, it's good enuff for me.
I'm more interested in climate change that cryptos and I was looking at old debates on this site and guess what, not so long ago at all, when it came to global warming, Duke wasn't in the least convinced by what the specialist thought leaders were telling us.
In essence, the Duke's position is I'll respect the thought leaders when their thinking is right. You got to admire the consistency of approach - very scientific!
the Duke's position is I'll respect the thought leaders when their thinking is right.
Fact Check Result -> Incorrect.There is overwhelming consensus (except Saylor) amongst the experts that bitcoin is BOHA.
That's a very unfair trap you set for @tecate. He fell for it hook line and sinker. Laughing at his response was a cruel twist.Boy do I have the perfect article to link for this conversation: https://allenfarrington.medium.com/modeling-bitcoin-value-with-vibes-99eca0997c5f
Ladies first Duke. Tell us how you really feel.Was it the "wibble wobble factor"? Or maybe the fact that "the core of the thesis is that bitcoin will finish up as the only money in the world".
I'm sure he is. But please confirm for @tecate's sake that this was a massive spoof. Do you really want him making a fool of himself after dark telling the dinner party that a sophisticated model using wibble wabble factors predicts within a 3% error that bitcoin will end up as the only money in the world and possibly (AF was less sure on this) the only asset of value in the world.The amazing thing is, AF is actually a bitcoiner
Yes Duke - because suggesting a need to point that out would be the most important thing here (if it were true). What a wholesome approach you have to the topic.I'm sure he is. But please confirm for @tecate's sake that this was a massive spoof.
It wasn't I who posted the silly spoof. If you want a wholesome approach ask @DazedInPontoon not to be trying to make a fool out of you. I see he still hasn't done the honourable thing and said "it's only a joke", leaving you probably believing in half of it.Yes Duke - because suggesting a need to point that out would be the most important thing here (if it were true). What a wholesome approach you have to the topic.
Are you five Duke? Childishness. I know its important for you to believe that I was unaware (which explains much about the nature of these discussions) but that wasn't the case. I know far more about the context/background to Farrington having posted that (grounded in current debate/discussion within crypto circles) than you do.leaving you probably believing in half of it.
Talk about double standards. You now claim that you knew it was a spoof all along and yet you played along with a lot of nonsense about me claiming he was a no vaxxer and something about parking fines. You think that was a wholesome approach? You think that was adult (rather than childish)?Are you five Duke? Childishness. I know its important for you to believe that I was unaware (which explains much about the nature of these discussions) but that wasn't the case. I know far more about the context/background to Farrington having posted that (grounded in current debate/discussion within crypto circles) that you do.
That's my commentary on your last post Duke. I have no commentary to make whatsoever on the fairytale post that follows yours!
Right Duke - of course. The 'now' exists in that sentence due to some wishful thinking on your part.You now claim that you knew it was a spoof all along
See the last cited write-up that you 'appraised' by ignoring the entire thrust of what he wrote to try and home in on something that you think you can present to people in such as a way as to undermine the entire thing (I pity anyone who pays heed to you in that regard). 4 or 5 times I drew your attention to this - but you kept on going and didn't consider the main thrust of what he wrote and - as I explicitly pointed out - that was the whole point of my posting it in the first place. Wholesome? It's the furthest thing from wholesome. If you had a genuine interest in understanding more about this subject you'd have willingly reviewed that. But - as per your previous admission - the only thing you're pursuing here is any which way to put Bitcoin down. So don't talk about 'wholesome' Duke.yet you played along with a lot of nonsense about me claiming he was a no vaxxer and something about parking fines. You think that was a wholesome approach.
He made a calculation based on certain assumptions - which he stated explicitly - before discussing said calculations. As I clarified earlier and as I've always said during these discussions, such forecasts are uninteresting. And because its uninteresting and the fact I've other things to be getting on with, you think Farrington doesn't believe that BTC price is going to accumulate over time? I don't know if he's engaged with an actual prediction but he certainly believes in the asset.The spoof culminates with the punchline that bitcoins is going to $12m. lol, lol, lol. What's so funny? You had posted a piece which gave a scenario where it went to $11m and it didn't seem to me that he was deliberately pulling our leg.
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?