I just think it's new and it takes time for people to get their head around it. Main thing is to have an open mind. Some posters seem more concerned with winning an argument or engaging in a peacock-like display of their intellectual plumage than trying to understanding what's happening.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 'technological determinism'. Let me introduce you to 'the inevitability thesis'.@MaxGordon Don't be fooled by technological determinism in the 'digital age'.
Bitcoin and decentralised crypto has been subjected to all manner of critique and attacks (literal and otherwise) over the course of its short life.Just because Bitcoin is digital it does not mean that it cant be subjected to critique.
Time and time again, we see the same mistake. You want to judge a technology that hasn't settled yet. UX/UI are being worked on, layer 2 solutions are being worked on. Ignore all of that if you wish. Nobody has suggested that bitcoin is in an ideal situation today as a transactional currency. However, at least be open to the possibility that there may be further development in that respect.The premise of the Bitcoin whitepaper has failed in its short history.
Whilst I acknowledge its shortcomings, I have and I do.I have at various times held BTC since 2010 and never once have I purchased any good with it.
Is that such a bad thing? That it has a use case as a store of value and it's being 'exploited' through that use case as a hedge? What on earth is wrong with that? It's available for that use case to the individual, a corporation or a government.In fact it seems to be doing the opposite, western capitalism is legitimising BTC for their own gain, see recent articles posted by tecate.
So at this point, you're saying that new tech isn't bad anymore - now its good?What BTC has introduced is the novel technology now called 'Blockchain'. This perhaps has the most benefits and hence Central bank digital currencies are being studied.
On what basis? Why is a digital store of value not useful to society?I don't believe in technological determinism, the success of technology is not purely a result of the technology. There are many social, political, economic and cultural reasons that are more important and require consideration. In my humble opinion BTC has succumbed to capitalism.
Nonsense. You are not open to the potential for further development relative to bitcoin and its eco-system. Nobody has relied upon 'future observation as evidence' here. In my case, I've acknowledged that bitcoin can still fail as a project. However, in following the industry, anyone can see that the technology is being worked on. Maybe those developments will be positive - and maybe they won't. However, what i'm not down with is this approach of saying its not working as intended today - so its done.But as most of the argument here uses 'future' observation as evidence
I was not having a swipe at bitcoin - go easy on the paranoia.Bitcoin is up 60% year to date vs. gold's 25%.
Nonsense. You are not open to the potential for further development relative to bitcoin and its eco-system. Nobody has relied upon 'future observation as evidence' here. In my case, I've acknowledged that bitcoin can still fail as a project. However, in following the industry, anyone can see that the technology is being worked on. Maybe those developments will be positive - and maybe they won't. However, what i'm not down with is this approach of saying its not working as intended today - so its done.
Move away from that charge of technological determinism to that inevitability thesis and its more of a case of..."We create technology first, and then we find its uses."
Lastly (and I really mean it this time)
I bet your own feathers were all of a flutter after that poetic flourish.Some posters seem more concerned with winning an argument or engaging in a peacock-like display of their intellectual plumage than trying to understanding what's happening.
Read the report. A lot of effort into proving bitcoin is an "alternative asset". I for one needed no convincing that it is "alternative", unfortunately there was no attempt to prove it was an asset.Here's a little snippet from a published by Fidelity Investments last week:
"Another consequence of bitcoin entering a more mature and steady stage of its life cycle is that we expect its volatility to decline in tandem, resulting in continued favorable risk-adjusted returns."
Lets call a spade a spade. In this more recent exchange, you suggested you are a 'proponent' of bitcoin. That's not in any way true. There's nothing at all wrong with not being - but let's acknowledge the fact as we find it to be.I have never said the technology underpinning Bitcoin is bad or in fact that Bitcoin is bad.
Another point of clarification. At best, you are no more 'objective' than anyone else with your claim of 'simply critiquing'. You came on here with an accusation regarding my approach to this discussion - you couldn't back it up (because it wasn't true). That said, everyone does have some level of inherent bias, you included.I have simply critiqued it objectively in the context of the social, political and cultural aspects of technology adoption.
CBDCs and Corporate digital money like Libra are nothing like bitcoin or decentralised crypto. I welcome their arrival as they will highlight that very fact as we go forward.The potential benefits are being examined and implemented in the likes of CBDC, and Libra.
That's a misquote. I didn't say not to critique the technology. What I did say was that as someone critiques it, they do so with the acceptance and knowledge that whatever faults are found today may not be true as we go forward.Just as you suggest not to critique a technology that is still evolving,
I'm open to bitcoin not succeeding for a multitude of reasons - that's why I'm on record as saying that bitcoin could still fail.then surely you are open to the fact that the evolution and adoption of the technology may render Bitcoin useless?
This has been a point of discussion within the crypto community over many years already. My personal view is that I don't see how it can't be many things to many different groups. However, if the use case currently centres on store of value - and that can be of benefit in these capitalist markets that it seems you abhor, yet also be useful to individuals for the protection of their wealth on this basis, who cares?the Bitcoin whitepaper preceded to propose a utopian currency free from the perceived manipulation and control of central banks in the advent of the financial crisis. The financial crisis caused by the unrepentant growth of capitalism through free markets and deregulation. I have been involved in bitcoin, more or less from the start, and I personally find it ironic that the legitimisation of BTC has not been through the intended use but as another mechanism for capitalists to make money. The legitimisation of BTC is being gained by the very institutions it was set up to take control away from.
Again, that's not what I said. What I said was that when you critique it, that you understand and acknowledge that your current assessment is not your final assessment - and the things that you find fault with bitcoin today may not be an issue going forward. Practically everyone on the other side of the debate in this discussion fails to do that.You are telling me not to judge a technology because it is evolving
My understanding is changing all the time as this progresses. Like bitcoin itself, it's formative. However, as I see it today, bitcoin will continue to establish itself as a store of value. We will continue to see cycles of price on an iterative basis as price discovery of a finite, nascent asset continues and as adoption (which comes in different guises) continues.what is your 'vision' of where BTC will end up in 5, 10, 50 years?
I think that's exactly the sort of stuff that he was talking about.I bet your own feathers were all of a flutter after that poetic flourish.
In your opinion Dukey - as I've been over this with you plenty of times and I don't know if there's any way of proving such a thing to you specifically (whereas there would be with plenty of others).Read the report. A lot of effort into proving bitcoin is an "alternative asset". I for one needed no convincing that it is "alternative", unfortunately there was no attempt to prove it was an asset.
See above - it's exactly the same point that you're stuck on.Of course this latter speculation would rightly be rubbished on the basis of fundamentals like revenues and profit. With the former there are no such fundamentals and so Fidelity can get away with such outrageous speculations.
The very same - see above. You're not getting past go because you fail to understand the fundamental proposition that bitcoin brings with it.We are nowhere near justifying $200bn market cap, never mind an extra $500bn, based on use as a medium of exchange and we never will be IMHO.
To my point further above - this is not a settled technology so that makes complete sense.Interestingly Fidelity covers this point indirectly by observing that the narrative over bitcoin's role in life is constantly changing.
I'm sure that they're not hanging their hat on that metric alone. However, I can see how in combination with a whole host of other metrics, there's some logic to it. It speaks to network effect.It also points to a rather novel metric for predicting its trajectory - the number of tweets it is attracting.
Lets call a spade a spade. In this more recent exchange, you suggested you are a 'proponent' of bitcoin. That's not in any way true. There's nothing at all wrong with not being - but let's acknowledge the fact as we find it to be.
I detect a rabbit hole. As Fidelity says the narrative keeps changing. But I buy into John Kelleher of Investopedia's view that it is first and last intended as an alternative medium of exchange. A further Fidelity point is the vast number of small "retail" holdings that dominate the space. Their narrative is as variable as Twitter itself, but boils down to one motivation, the hope of making a few bob or maybe even a life changing fortune on a speculatonThe very same - see above. You're not getting past go because you fail to understand the fundamental proposition that bitcoin brings with it.
I think the question should be put to the Indian gentleman himself. Clearly he was not impressed by Fidelity's long winded promo of bitcoin as an alternative asset.Lastly, we didn't get your answer on the Indian conundrum in post #524 above. What would it be Dukey - shove it up yer jacksy or use bitcoin?
Did they actually say that it "keeps" changing, Dukey? I believe that to be wishful thinking on your part.As Fidelity says the narrative keeps changing.
What's the mystery here? This whole thing came up with retail (even if wall street are getting involved now).A further Fidelity point is the vast number of small "retail" holdings that dominate the space.
make a profit? How very dare they! It's nice to see you embrace your inner-Fidel like this.but boils down to one motivation, the hope of making a few bob or maybe even a life changing fortune on a speculaton
boo! (or more accurately, poo!). Even with the prospect of something like this, you resist saying that bitcoin would be preferable. If anyone meets his Dukeness in an airport, be aware that he may be walking funny.I think the question should be put to the Indian gentleman himself.
No they didn't actually say "keeps". Below is what they did say. I know I have you on the ropes when you resort to such pedantry.Did they actually say that it "keeps" changing, Dukey? I believe that to be wishful thinking on your part.
Fidelity said:Another angle on bitcoin’s lack of movement with traditional assets is the absence of an agreed-upon narrative. One of the reasons we kicked off this series was to explore bitcoin’s dynamic narratives. At any given time, the narratives have ranged from bitcoin as a means of payment, a reserve currency for digital assets, a store of value asset, or a portfolio optimization tool, among others.xxiii This lack of consensus could be an important reason why bitcoin has not traded in line with other assets to date. If the lack of consensus on bitcoin’s narrative persists, it may continue to be uncorrelated with all other assets.
Agreed. My expectation was for that price accumulation to play out over the course of years.I don't think any of us expected 2017.
I understand where you're going with this. However, you have to appreciate the nature of this specific thread. i.e. it starts out from the get go as a comparison with gold - in fulfilling that same store of value use case...and that no less within the context of an 'alternative investments' sub-forum.It is only in the last two years through non-technical study. that I have really started to reflect BTC / Blockchain, in terms of social, economic and political contexts. As you rightly point out, I have a bias, but you got it wrong, I am not here to question your faith, I am here to present an alternative view. My personal opinion much of the debate on bitcoin doesn't even ask the right questions. I do have a bias, and in this case, I present a fair view given that I currently would benefit from continued adoption of btc if it meant an appreciation in value.
Firstly, I have been living in the developing world over the course of the past 3 years where the vast majority of people live on minimum wage (€210/month). As you've identified, there are many different facets to this. I think this is a separate discussion entirely worthy of its own thread.Why does the world need BTC as a store of value? Before you jump in with the 'oh it is decentralized, the supply is finite, it can be transferred across boundaries, doesn't need to be stored with a bank'.
Ask yourself, why do we really need it? is it going to change the fact that nearly half the world survive on less than $5.50 a day?
I think its a different conversation albeit a worthy one in its own right. I find myself equally conflicted in that I didn't get involved with bitcoin initially as a speculative asset. That was accidental - albeit that I couldn't possibly ignore it. I believe that there can be two aspects to this. Yes, it's an opportunity for wall street types and others to make $$$ - but I still believe that bitcoin (and decentralised currency generally) have the ability to act as a societal good in so many ways.This is what I want to bring to the conversation. I think it would benefit you from taking a step back and few some of these points. But alas, you will probably just pick a part each of my sentences, without really asking yourself the questions.
'On the ropes', Dukey?No they didn't actually say "keeps". Below is what they did say. I know I have you on the ropes when you resort to such pedantry.
But let's get it in perspective, and not misrepresent its significance. Fidelity point out for example that 3% diversification into bitcoin even at its peak at start of 2018 would have delivered 1% superior performance. Here's how the math works:You realise that bitcoin not being correlated with any other asset is a good thing, right?
Ah dear, throwing in the towel@Duke of Marmalade , your penultimate post is laughable and isn't worthy of a response.
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?