So if there were a quintillion times as many bitcoin, it would still be scarcer that Gold.
It's scarce because they're not making any more of it. They're not making any more gold either - giving it its primary value-instilling characteristic - scarcity. The distinction is that bitcoin's scarcity is absolute - gold's is not. If the price of any conventional commodity goes up, supply is more likely to increase. That's not the case when it comes to bitcoin. There continues to be
growing acceptance within conventional finance of its position alongside gold as a store of value, an acknowledgement that it has taken a certain market share away from gold and a belief that it's likely to take more.
Your earlier pyramid claim has been covered comprehensively. If you believe it to be a pyramid scheme, fair enough.
You need to separate the potential future benefits of the blockchain from the clear pump and dump/pyramid scheme characteristics of cryptocurrency.
So blockchain, not bitcoin? I feel like I'm back in 2017.
We looked hard to find any justification to put money into this and can’t find one. It’s a classic speculative bubble and those late to the party will lose their shirt.
People do tend to get out ahead of their skis where tech-based hype cycles are concerned. However, I'd hardly call this a 'classic' speculative bubble. Bitcoin has been through a number of these cycles before. Each time it was written off. Each time, it carried on from where it left off. I'm not aware of the well known classic speculative bubbles of the past that followed that pattern.
There will be more of those events - although they may not be as pronounced where bitcoin is concerned by comparison with crypto generally. I think anyone would be wise to be mindful of any market becoming incredibly frothy - whether its bitcoin, crypto generally or any other market.
Those who argue that it’s different because of some Symantec technicality probably have a stake they are trying to pump.
The opposite could also be said. i.e. those that are not vested in it having not done their homework when they first wrote it off have an interest in perpetuating that original line of thinking and argument that its the same as tulips/ponzis/pyramids, etc.
To write off any merits as semantics doesn't seem reasonable to me. In this instance, there doesn't seem to have been any upside found whatsoever. I'm discounting the 'blockchain not bitcoin' finding as that is akin to suggesting 'intranet not internet' (which was something that played out back in the dot com times). If there's a suggestion that centralised blockchain is beneficial - then that's wayward - as centralised blockchain equals a run of the mill database. If we're talking about decentralised blockchain, then we're talking about one or more of the crypto projects that have been written off in your analysis.
It’s not regulated and when it goes south you will have nobody to blame but yourself. You have been warned
People should be cautious in their approach and do their own due diligence. As I've mentioned many times, I'm fully accepting of the notion that bitcoin could fail (although the idea that it's going to go to zero has become more and more unrealistic to me over the course of these discussions here). I've no doubt that there will be periodic price resets - as there have been in the past.
What I'm not accepting of is the notion that it will go to zero come what may. Several folks here have insisted that there is no conceivable way that bitcoin can continue to develop and continue to succeed. Not to be open to the possibility of its ongoing development/adoption is wayward to my mind.
On the suggestion of 'nobody to blame but yourself', I agree. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly the way it should be. Ordinary people are deprived of the ability to invest in opportunities at a very early stage. Bitcoin/crypto has represented the first occasion when an asset class has been brought up to trillion dollar market status by the sheer will of retail investors/participants. Wall Street didn't have a hand in it - as they've always had in everything else. In the US VCs and accredited investors have the opportunity to invest in projects at an early stage. The ordinary joe is excluded for his own good. People come down on either side of the argument, but my view is that everyone should have the opportunity to invest in whatever they like - and everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. I don't believe in governmental hand holding in that instance. If there is something positive that could be done though, its to teach investment/economy/banking/financial markets basics in our schools. Although maybe that would be
too disruptive...