The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[fpalb]

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

- Krugman

 

[elacsaplau]

When you said it was the greatest load of baloney and that its use was not worth nearly enough to justify its then price (all of 200 smackeroonies!) - we all knew what you meant.

Dan - sure that could mean anything - to be honest, it sounds like a strong buy recommendation to me

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically....."
- Krugman

Of all your posts Fpalb - this is almost the best yet (.....I'm getting a little sick of the quality of them - simply unfair on us lesser mortals!)

 

[Dan Murray]

Keep this post in your database, Dan, as you seem to keep most of my others.

In fairness to Brendan, it was he would provided the link to your 2015 comments for all to see in post 2 of this thread.

What it shows clearly also is that Fpalb is being completely consistent and that he is not, in any way, an "after-timer".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

- Krugman

Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman, he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome. In that quote he is straying somewhat outside his area of expertise despite invoking Metcalfe’s Law. However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency. If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him. But is there even one maverick economist who thinks bitcoin’s current price is justified?

 

[TheBigShort]

Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman, he is a tad infected by Shortie Syndrome.

Shortie Syndrome is spreading;

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/20...e-going-to-be-a-full-scale-cyber-war-in-2018/

"They're starting to lay down ground rules for offensive cyber war, they're laying down red lines in terms of what is unacceptable, whether it's interference in elections, attacking critical national infrastructure or businesses.

"That if, I guess, some of those actions happen that potentially then that may lead to a declaration of war in its own right."

Even the French President Macron and former US presidential candidate Ron Paul are getting in on the act

https://www.rt.com/usa/414931-ron-paul-america-meltdown/

http://travelwirenews.com/that-lead...d-tone-down-iran-rhetoric-says-macron-613205/

Or of course, you can choose to pretend that none of this is actually happening, until it does happen of course. Lets hope it doesn't, but you would be naïve not to notice the increasing tensions occurring globally. The underlying factor of all is the preservation of self-interests, typically defined by control of wealth.

The signals of stock market bubble, bond market bubble, property bubble, fine art, antique & vintage car bubble and cryptocurrency bubble are pointing to economic instability in the near future. Instability breeds conflict.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

B/S trying to keep this on topic, last time we strayed into a S/S fork we got censored.

So let us imagine 2018: Major cyber attack, USA pulls in its horns, and we have (yet another) Islam war. What exactly in this scenario underpins the current value of bitcoin?

 

[TheBigShort]

B/S trying to keep this on topic

The topic is "The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future" (this was BB's title - perhaps a motion to move this topic into "Shooting the breeze" or "Letting off Steam")?.

So let us imagine 2018: Major cyber attack, USA pulls in its horns, and we have (yet another) Islam war. What exactly in this scenario underpins the current value of bitcoin?

It doesn't. It means uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds instability, instability breeds conflict. Conflicts can be, and quite often are , not restricted to borders. The increasing frequency of tensions imply possible conflict across the globe (via cyber warfare, economic war, military war, revolt, political instability, etc).

So where should I hold my money or wealth?

My preference would be gold right now. But psychical gold is impractical for me. I keep a store in goldmoney.com, but I have to trust that party that they are actually holding gold. I have no real means to verify. Property I have but to buy anymore is out of reach.
Fine art, vintage cars, antiques etc are also out of reach for me and I would suspect I would be fleeced in any case if I dipped my toe in it.

I have some money held in stocks but I suspect they will be worst hit if tensions continue to escalate and economic growth slows (I note a report indicating a surge in the price of oil courtesy of events in Iran. How will that effect global trade?).

I keep cash, but I suspect the underlying causes of these tensions are a consequence of the devaluation of fiat currencies, via QE. That said, I will always keep a store of cash savings if I'm wrong.
Crytpocurrency is an option - not without its vulnerabilities, particularly if cyber warfare occurs or if you and BB's predictions come to pass, but online banking could be as vulnerable.

Crypto offers an alternative means to store wealth (as long as people are confident holding it). Bitcoin is the choice of preference, I have some Litecoin too. I could choose from a plethora of others, but I could also choose from a plethora of fiat currencies, stocks, oil paintings, metals, food crops, etc...etc... I've placed a small amount of my disposable income in it - no sleepless nights here.
If it crashes it crashes, it crashes. It means that $600bn in the crypto market moves somewhere else, property perhaps? Stocks?

The underlying point, which I referred to before - I have no issue with central banks or fiat currencies and I wouldn't touch a cryptocurrency if the monetary system being operated was structurally sound. But its not, its corrupted to the core. The system is so vast that it is able to withstand certain levels of fraud and corruption. But when the levels of corruption and fraud and manipulation reach the levels they are at, the system is basically dying a slow death. The consequence of this is that everyone is out for their own self-preservation, including nation states.
If stock markets crash, where will all the QE printed go? If nation states fail? What happens then? If the US dollar loses its status as worlds reserve currency, what happens then?

This is what is underpinning bitcoin for me. Others can explain the mechanics of it.

 

[elacsaplau]

B/S trying to keep this on topic

I actually agree that we should keep this on topic.

The thread is about the psychological and behavioural aspects of this debate. I'm interested in why you can't admit that your comments in 2015 look seriously flawed based on any reasonable use of language. The real point is that after being so wrong for so long how can you be so sure now? That's what I'd like to understand. That's what I would find interesting. It genuinely puzzles me.

As an add-on, you said something yesterday which when challenged you also denied.

Already the wagons are circling.
There is the bullet proof camp who....
There will be the conspiracy theorists who....
There will be those, not unlike the bullet proof camp, who will argue that just because you predicted the right outcome you could not have been certain of it.

Brendan then latched onto this, with:

I had not thought of that, but Dan gives a clear outline of it here in advance.

I then pointed out the logical incoherence of your argument

Of course it's possible to predict the outcome of something without being certain of it.

To which you then replied - surprise, surprise:

It's not me, read the other posts.

It's all a bit baffling for me.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Elac I had to order a year's supply of tins of baked beanz after reading B/S apocalypse.

I had forgotten that I wrote that in 2015. I was quite surprised to find that I am saying now exactly what I said then. That debate seemed to be more about the merits of bitcoin rather than about its price, which is very much at the centre of these latter discussions.

So the issue of the price trajectory didn't arise in the 2015 thread as far as I was concerned. But I will be perfectly honest if it was up for discussion there is no way on this earth I would have predicted, as you may have done, that it would increase a hundredfold in two years. I admit I would have been very seriously wrong.

As to the other point I suppose it does look a bit cryptic. It actually arose because of the earlier comment (gambit) from another poster which Brendan then posted in response to me, a wee bit circular, sorry. What that original post indicated was a pathological fear that Brendan would do a lap of honour if he was proved right. As a pre-emptive defense that poster made it clear that even if Brendan is proved right later that does not mean he is right now, something to do with probability theory, a bit above my head I'm afraid.

 

[TheBigShort]

I had to order a year's supply of tins of baked beanz after reading B/S apocalypse

What apocalypse? There you go again, misrepresenting what was said. Where did I mention apocalypse. I was referring to protecting my own store of wealth via in some small part, the purchase of bitcoin.

You are choosing to ignore, not some conspiratorial theory, but actual events as they are occurring. Good luck with that.
Lets hope there is no apocalypse, I certainly never proclaimed there is to be one. Stocking up on the baked beans though is another useful way of self-preservation.

 

[Dan Murray]

I will be perfectly honest....there is no way on this earth I would have predicted.....that it would increase 50,000% in two years. I admit I would have been very seriously wrong......

Well, the paramedics have been and gone.

2/3rds of people aren't great with percentages, the other 50% aren't much better. Word to the wise - BTC has not increased by 50,000% in two years since the post in question.

Of course, I predict that it's just a matter of time before that milestone is reached..........of that I am absolutely certain.

 

[elacsaplau]

As a pre-emptive defense that poster made it clear that even if Brendan is proved right later that does not mean he is right now

Upon a quick initial scan, I actually welcomed your post and gave it a like. Then, upon second reading, I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.

I think it's time for me to move away again from these threads - there's just too much misrepresentation for my tastes, unfortunately.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Upon a quick initial scan, I actually welcomed your post and gave it a like. Then, upon second reading, I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.

I think it's time for me to move away again from these threads

 

[Dan Murray]

I realised that you are playing a game and continuing to misrepresent what another poster has said and I don't like that at all.

Thanks for de support, Elac - I get it, man.

 

[tecate]

Well actually I was never a great fan of Krugman . . . However he is far more qualified to comment on the validity of bitcoin as a currency. If he was a lone maverick I would dismiss him.

Looks like Krugman's views are in development re. bitcoin.

Krugman states that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.


He's still a crypto skeptic but that's a hell of a turn around and a hell of a statement for him.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Looks like Krugman's views are in development re. bitcoin.

Krugman states that Bitcoin has more utility than gold.


He's still a crypto skeptic but that's a hell of a turn around and a hell of a statement for him.

He certainly still is a skeptic.

“Indeed, eight years after Bitcoin was launched, cryptocurrencies have made very few inroads into actual commerce. A few firms will accept them as payment, but my sense is that this is more about signaling — look at me, I’m cutting-edge! — than about real usefulness. Cryptocurrencies have a large market valuation, but they’re overwhelmingly being held as a speculative play, not because they’re useful as mediums of exchange.”

Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency. I can actually buy a latte with bitcoin. Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.
I would prefer if Krugman was more clearly in the "bag of hot air" camp but then he wouldn't get invited to crypto conferences.

 

[tecate]

He certainly still is a skeptic.

Was never in dispute. However, his current commentary is a long way from his previous - 'putting the monetary system back 300 years' comment.

Even I would agree that it has more utility than gold as a currency.

He referred to the utility of gold - so clearly he was referring to 'store of value' use case rather than transactional use.

Notice how his criterion for success is, like most of us, mainstream adaption, completely at variance with arch zealot AA.

I don't follow? How does A.A.'s view differ exactly? My understanding is that Antonopoulos believes that the future is not FIAT or crypto - but that there will be specific use cases for both. As regards transactional use, my understanding is that he seems to think Lightning Network will work as a solution to Bitcoins scaling problem.

I would prefer if we Krugman was more clearly in the "bag of hot air" camp but then he wouldn't get invited to crypto conferences.

The thought did cross my mind re. the crypto conference invite. However, surely someone of his standing is above that? He can't be that hard up!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Not sure he was referring to store of value utility when comparing gold with bitcoin. If he did imply that bitcoin was a better long term store of value than gold then I fear that he has indeed taken the "crypto conference soup".

My recall of AA's presentation was that he spent considerable time teasing out the audience's criterion for assessment of crypto "success". My understanding was that his view was that mainstream adoption, far from being a measure of success, was even a measure of failure. He wanted it to remain cult. I may have misunderstood him.

 

[Leo]

My recall of AA's presentation was that he spent considerable time teasing out the audience's criterion for assessment of crypto "success".

True, his primary use case for cryptos was in nations run by 'despotic leaders' where there was risk of them shutting down the local banking system and confiscating all assets. He believes that cryptos can play a role for people in such states to put some of their wealth out of reach of the regime. He added that in countries such as Ireland with a functioning banking system, he saw no gain or value in using cryptos.

 

[tecate]

Not sure he was referring to store of value utility when comparing gold with bitcoin. If he did imply that bitcoin was a better long term store of value than gold then I fear that he has indeed taken the "crypto conference soup".

I can't imagine he was referring to anything other than store of value as gold is used in the context of store of value rather than transactional.

True, his primary use case for cryptos was in nations run by 'despotic leaders' where there was risk of them shutting down the local banking system and confiscating all assets. He believes that cryptos can play a role for people in such states to put some of their wealth out of reach of the regime. He added that in countries such as Ireland with a functioning banking system, he saw no gain or value in using cryptos.

Up until recently, I'd be inclined to agree with him. However, I'm thinking that some of the new breed of stablecoins that are coming out would serve people in those situations much better (unless or until btc can get volatility under control).