Not at all, your Dukeness - I meant what I said.Ah dear, throwing in the towel
Why is Bitcoin "digital gold" crashing right now?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Ah, the cheapest form of wit!
I note that you never concede a point, I am sure the feeling is mutual. But let me try one more time.
A 3% bitcoin diversification would have delivered a 1% superior return from 1/1/18 despite bitcoin having a bad performance over that period. Do you accept that this paradox is not a demonstration of the benefit of diversification, regardless of Fidelity's suggestion that it is.
As a hint bear these points in mind:
Diversification does not enhance performance, it reduces risk, that is generally accepted.
The perversity of the outcome is a mathematical quirk of the rebalancing which would have been the opposite if bitcoin had followed the opposite path.
Wit wasn't the purpose but I won't worry if it is (or it's perceived to be) a by-product in this instance. Based on a couple of years worth of Duke-ism's, I'm not inclined to even get into it with you on this occasion.
Provide a link to where you acknowledged good facets of bitcoin or decentralised cryptocurrency. I'll acknowledge or cite issues myself with bitcoin or crypto - and I can provide ample links to where I've done exactly that.
What on earth are you going on about, Duke? That's why I was right the first time - you're telling a company that has 7 trillion under management that you know better? Granted they may have skín in the game but they're Fidelity....vs. your track record on this subject? I go back to my original answer. Maybe you can go work for Fidelity and show them the error of their ways. I won't be investing (my time) today (on this nonsense) - I'M OUT.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,092
First page
This sums up the discussion. There is a difference between allowing new information to change previously held beliefs, and simply changing your argument based on new information. For me the points are further discredited by posts 'attacking the person' rather than the point they make. In this case @WolfeTone highlighted a valid point in Fidelitys research, and instead of addressing it the response chose to attack the person.
'On the ropes', Dukey?
Overall they're still not painting the very same picture as you're contriving to do, Dukey. You realise that bitcoin not being correlated with any other asset is a good thing, right? Other than that, I know from your past scribblings that you think its a mortal sin that bitcoin is not on point first and foremost with a transactional currency use case this very day as opposed to a store of value use case. I think that's plain wrong.
This sums up the discussion. There is a difference between allowing new information to change previously held beliefs, and simply changing your argument based on new information. For me the points are further discredited by posts 'attacking the person' rather than the point they make. In this case @WolfeTone highlighted a valid point in Fidelitys research, and instead of addressing it the response chose to attack the person.
I didn't engage with WolfeTone on any such thing.
Secondly, this 'criticism' comes from someone who has no problem making accusations based on this thread - when later he comes back and tells us he hasn't read any of it. Even on pointing that out, a normal person would have apologised.
And as regards the poster that you mean't to cite, I have been indulging said poster for three years - and what I've read from said poster is not in any way in line with someone who is interested in an open discussion. Whilst having indulged him over the course of 3 years, I neither have the time nor the inclination to indulge him today - nor is it in any way clear to me what he's rabbiting on about.
The reality is quite the opposite. Taking the main protagonists from the bitcoin-skeptic side of the house, how many of those individuals can link to a previous post where they proclaimed a couple of facets of bitcoin that are positive - including yourself.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
I don't think folk should quote from reports they don't understand. I was making a fairly basic critique of the Fidelity exhibits but clearly that was way above poor @tecate's head.
Also I personally do not subscribe to the doctrine of the infallibility of the employees of 7trn organisations.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,092
Tecate, I don't profuse to have read in depth the 27 preceding pages, but I have been a long term monitor of yours and Dukes (I meant to reference him) back and forth on the subject. It looks like you agree that you can't have an objective discussion with him. I am not sure why you are seeking an apology? I have pointed out your unrelented backing of Bitcoin, it is fair to say that despite you recognizing the current weaknesses you still firmly believe that they will be resolved? A majority of your posts throughout the thread is on how BTC is changing and adapting and fixing any issues, we don't need to get in the nuanced details.
I will point out that you posted a quote from Fidelity as evidence to support your post, Duke posted a quote from the same article to support his post, but the subsequent posts reads as if that makes him irrational and not worthy a response.
This thread has decayed into delusion.
Before either of you go any further, link to a post where either of you recognised facets that are positive in your view(in terms of bitcoin)
Ive said it many times - there's no credibility in anyone presenting and just sledging crypto/btc without a single recognition of any merit in it whatsoever.
In your particular case, as a 'proponent' of btc (not), that should be easy.
As regards responding to his Dukeness, im under no such obligation - last i checked, that decision was mine. That doesn't mean that he 'has me on the ropes'. That statement alone justifies my decision not to engage with him on this occasion.
The suggestion to bring bitcoin into the investment mix doesn't just lie with Fidelity -
There are many bright(er) minds that share that view. I've looked at their rationale and it makes sense to me. Its not awash with anyone's ego.
Your accusation is without merit - and made in ignorance having not even read the thread. How is my backing unrelenting when i have - on numerous occasions - made reference to btc shortcomings? You made a big deal about some of those shortcomings only to find that id brought them up previously.
I don't give a fiddlers what the two of you think - changing your opinions isn't something that interests me.
Ive said it many times - there's no credibility in anyone presenting and just sledging crypto/btc without a single recognition of any merit in it whatsoever.
In your particular case, as a 'proponent' of btc (not), that should be easy.
As regards responding to his Dukeness, im under no such obligation - last i checked, that decision was mine. That doesn't mean that he 'has me on the ropes'. That statement alone justifies my decision not to engage with him on this occasion.
The suggestion to bring bitcoin into the investment mix doesn't just lie with Fidelity -
There are many bright(er) minds that share that view. I've looked at their rationale and it makes sense to me. Its not awash with anyone's ego.
Your accusation is without merit - and made in ignorance having not even read the thread. How is my backing unrelenting when i have - on numerous occasions - made reference to btc shortcomings? You made a big deal about some of those shortcomings only to find that id brought them up previously.
I don't give a fiddlers what the two of you think - changing your opinions isn't something that interests me.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Yep. The mind boggles.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Heck how many times have I stated that if bitcoin represented intrinsic value it is an incredible technological achievement. But it is digital boha, all mainstream economists agree.
Or is it, all economists who you agree with are mainstream and those who dont necessarily agree are fringe cultists?
Last edited:
How many times? Hardly ever if at all - and the times that you may have gotten close were half hearted as a result of having been called out on it.
Only a couple of hours ago, you couldn't even bring yourself to admit that traveling through borders with btc would be preferable to shoving a kilo of gold up yer posterior. That says it all really.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
I took you up on that. I connected with Ria Bhutoria on LinkedIn. Her top academic boast is a pass at Level 2 of the CFA. Hardly Nobel Prize stuff but then you scoff at NP winners, not backed by 7trn$. Anyway this is the comment I posted to her.
If a 7trn$ outfit appoints a relatively junior person as Director of Research into Digital Assets do not expect objective treatment.“The Duke on LinkedIn” said:
It occurs to me that you can source my real name my looking up the above comment, I’ve no problem with that.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
???
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,092
Tecate, much like you, that decision is mine, as such I choose not to engage.
Good choice - why go searching for something that doesn't exist.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Mistaken identity, I’m afraid, Max. Anyway you got your knee jerk clap on the back from @tecate.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,092
Tecate, I am sure there are other ways to massage your ego, there is no need to resort to 'last word digs' it does nothing to show you as a well-reasoned person.
To set the record straight, I intentionally never outlined why I was a proponent of Bitcoin, as that was not the subject of this discourse. So you got me there, but I am not sure what that contributes to any of your argument? You are you surely blind to your own ability to constructively discuss this topic any longer. In the short time I have engaged, all I have seen is that your counterargument to anybody voicing an opinion against yours is either; 'Any current issue with bitcoin will be fixed in future thus your point is irrelevant', or a failure to engage on relevant points in particular by @Duke of Marmalade because he is intentionally trying to goad you.
This is how in my opinion (waiting for the attack) your posts over the last 3 pages have come across.
I will leave you with this. You described a situation in the country you are living in with money transfers, if you think Bitcoin is the only solution to that problem then that is our main difference. I don't believe in technology as the only solution and believe cultural, economic, and political issues have as much if not more impact as technology.
You don't believe that, and guess what?............ that is ok. I am not going to lose sleep over it, we are all entitled to our own opinions which are of course subject to change.
However, I haven't (yet) seen you post any real credible evidence to change my opinion that BTC and its developments over the last 10 years are going to obtain the original goal of the whitepaper.
As usual, feel free to decipher each sentence line by line. I just hope that you can come to accept my opinion.
- Status