My point is systemic stability is a basic assumption in modern IT systems. Bitcoin is at its heart, an IT systems, so this feature really shouldn't by anything to get too excited about.
I’m not sure the article refers to your IT systems, but i’m sure i must be wrong somewhere.
My point is systemic stability is a basic assumption in modern IT systems. Bitcoin is at its heart, an IT systems, so this feature really shouldn't by anything to get too excited about.
I disagree entirely. In my initial post, I referred to people who still hadn't made up their minds on Bitcoin and by inference, if they have not make up their minds likely they're still in a formative stage in their overall understanding of it (and as the OP, that was my thinking). Furthermore, regarding Bitcoins price instability , even those who don't in reality understand Bitcoin - they are familiar with (price instability). They're reminded of the fact constantly in the media.You chose to respond to a point I made about people with a basic understanding of how Bitcoin works, you then tried to dismiss my point by talking about people who were new to Bitcoin. So I've no problem with anyone disagreeing with or challenging my views, but challenge what I said, not some other point entirely.
The headline sets up the discussion. The clear components of that discussion are Price Volatility and Stability Volatility.It doesn't. The headline is: 'Bitcoin, The Dollar And Facebook's Cryptocurrency: Price Volatility Versus Systemic Volatility'. Nowhere does that even suggest whether such volatility is a good or bad thing.
The article continues in a similar vein. So again, please quote where they have said or suggested it's an issue?
I disagree vehemently.Context is irrelevant. You cannot conclude what my thoughts are if I have not even hinted at them.
Point out to us in your original post on this thread where you found the article to be nothing new "to anyone pushing Bitcoin'?And I stand by that, there is nothing new in there. The systemic stability they refer to is a long standing feature of Bitcoin. I have said it as an interesting (if somewhat one sided) FIAT Vs Bitcoin comparison of a feature, but it should be no surprise to anyone who is pushing Bitcoin.
No way in the world do I or will I agree with you on that. If you were in any way interested in an open discussion, this is not the type of nonsense you'd pursue. Being deliberately obtuse and persnickety doesn't serve an open discussion.I was trying to have an open discussion. You chose to presuppose my view through the use of suggestive formatting, then used the roll eyes in response to your assumption. That doesn't lead to anything constructive.
I don't think anybody is getting excited about that? Why bring it up?
Exactly the point. The article acknowledged Bitcoins issue in terms of price volatility.
To what end? What point are you trying to make here?Please point to where the article states this is an issue?
To what end? What point are you trying to make here?
Feel free to make whatever point you want to make, Leo.To attempt to discuss and challenge a point you have made in this thread.
My point is systemic stability is a basic assumption in modern IT systems.
I wasn't the one who brought it up....
Of the typical AAM'er no. But nothing ever stays the same. Jamie Dimon said it was a fraud and later they launched their own crypto. In recent days, news has emerged that Goldman Sachs are considering the same. Recent months have seen the first pension funds invest in crypto with Fidelity and many other institutions now getting involved. And on another thread in this sub-forum last week, I posted 2x links to Deutsche Bank and Invesco analysts who actively brought up the notion of Bitcoins use as a hedge (something they would have laughed at 12 months ago). Crypto/Bitcoin/Digital Assets may well be a part of an AAM'ers portfolio before they're conscious of it themselves (through their pensions, etc.).
Can you stay on topic and address the central points that the article has raised, or not comment at all?
Excellent article, succinctly demonstrates the value of bitcoin.
Feel free to make whatever point you want to make, Leo.
Pretty selective standards you have there - given that you ignored mine.So you won't answer my question?
Respectfully, I'm not getting dragged down into this nonsense. You did this once before. I have no time for your pedantics.Thanks for allowing me to make my points though, it's nice that I might be able to make a point without others presupposing my opinion to their ends.
You asked a question, I answered your question.
In terms of trading desks, all day long - I agree with you. They don't have to give a fiddlers about what it is or what it does. If they can trade it, they make money. No dispute there. That said, they're seeing demand from their clients who want to gain exposure to it.JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity hedge funds or any other financial institution are not getting involved because they believe in crypto. They are doing it because there is money to be made by the volatility. Trading desks love volatility. It's where they make their money. It is no different to CDO's which then became CDO squared which then became CDO Cubed. Banks saw the money to made and rushed into the product. Didn't make the product any good. Once hedge funds who are supposedly responsible for a lot of the recent price increases got involved, all the main institutions had to get involved to service them. That's very different to actually believing in crypto themselves. Lets see what long positions these banks are holding in crypto. Even now, there are many institutions staying well the hell away from it. Crypto is not an asset class. It is years away before being even thought of as such if it even gets there.
You answered with a falsehood. You made a point, and it was your point, about the stability of IT systems taken as a given. This was never doubted or questioned in the article or in any of the comments here, hence my reason for asking you - why bring it up?
I don't think anybody is getting excited about that? Why bring it up?
There are two answers, a true answer or a false answer. You have provided a false answer already - "I wasnt the one who brought it up...."
I would hazard a guess that the true answer lies somewhere between you not understanding the article or the question.
But to answer your question, as a matter of courtesy, the article demonstrates the value of bitcoin by the stability built into its system.
Pretty selective standards you have there - given that you ignored mine.
Respectfully, I'm not getting dragged down into this nonsense.
It sounds like something you'd hear in a school yard.I asked first.... answer that and I'll then answer any of you questions.
If that's my finding Leo, that's my finding. You're more than within your rights to disagree. You took the discussion down this rabbit hole of pedantics previously (and to add, I'm not saying that was deliberate or malicious on your part). I don't intend to follow you down it a second time - it's simply pernicious to the discussion at hand. I suggest we just reset at simply this. I don't agree that Caitlin Long's Forbes article doesn't bring anything new to the table in the sense that the world and it's wife is familiar with Bitcoin in terms of price volatility but considerably less people appreciate the upside it has on the conventional system in terms of stability volatility.I answered the question you posed in a respectful manner. If you don't want to answer the question, fine, but don't obfuscate and then accuse me of nonsense.