Why is Bitcoin "digital gold" crashing right now?

[MaxGordon]

I have a recollection that you were outed previously by the Tesla is a BOHA man?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have a recollection that you were outed previously by the Tesla is a BOHA man?

???

 

[DublinHead54]

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.

Tecate, much like you, that decision is mine, as such I choose not to engage.

 

[tecate]

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]

I have a recollection that you were outed previously by the Tesla is a BOHA man?

Mistaken identity, I’m afraid, Max. Anyway you got your knee jerk clap on the back from @tecate.

 

[DublinHead54]

Good choice - why go searching for something that doesn't exist.

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.

 

[tecate]

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?

It's entirely relevant. You go on about me being one-sided when that's not the case and I've proven it not to be the case via previous posts (in identifying issues/shortcomings with bitcoin).
Secondly, how was it a 'last word dig' when it turns out I was right on the money - in which case you should have been straight with your answer.
I've seen no evidence that you are a 'proponent' of bitcoin - I was surprised when you used that descriptor a few days ago. Benefiting from trading bitcoin doesn't make anyone a proponent. I've come across many folks who are entirely cynical about blockchain/crypto and trade it.
You say that consideration of the positive facets of bitcoin are not relevant to the discussion. Why then take me to task (wrongly as it turns out) for not outlining the shortcomings of bitcoin?

This is how in my opinion (waiting for the attack) your posts over the last 3 pages have come across.

A couple of posts ago, you claim I was 'attacking the poster' when it's yourself that has done this. Worse still, you made that accusation having not had the decency to read the thread. Taking things to another level of bad behaviour, you don't have the fibre to fess up and acknowledge that I have cited/acknowledged all manner of shortcomings of bitcoin once it has been pointed out to you.

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.

For a guy who reckons he takes a step back, those must be very small steps. You accused me of cherry-picking - and that's what you're doing here yourself. In answering your question, I outlined two related elements as to how bitcoin could be useful in the developing world. Store of value was one (which you wrongly claim isn't relevant) and remittances/money transfer was another.
Secondly, where did I say that bitcoin is the only solution? You're getting ahead of yourself (see my references to your wayward assumptions and mind-reading in previous posts).

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.

Here you go trying to set this narrowly defined parameter as a couple others have leaned on over the course of discussions here. So if it's not fulfilling what's set out strictly in the whitepaper, then there's nothing to discuss? That's nonsense.
From the Inevitability Thesis -> "we create technology first and then we find its uses".
You're not the only one to write it off on the basis that it isn't being used this very day for the use case described in the whitepaper. How wayward can you get than to write off a technology on that basis and secondly to do so when it's still being developed.
It makes complete sense that it goes forward with a store of value use case, establishes itself in that role, grows market cap and adoption year on year and thus reduces volatility. As that volatility declines and as UX/UI improves and layer 2 solutions provide a fix for scalability/cost/speed - that original use case can potentially be revisited.

As usual, feel free to decipher each sentence line by line. I just hope that you can come to accept my opinion.

I respected your opinion prior to the point where you came after me and the integrity of my posts without having a care to read what I'd written in its entirety. You accused me of only bringing up plus points re. bitcoin - then proceeded to enlighten us with examples of its shortcomings - only to find that they were items that I'd brought up long before you.
Despite what you say, you never presented here in any way as a bitcoin 'proponent'. My recollection is that you said initially that you expected it to fail ultimately.

 

[DublinHead54]

Tecate,

Perhaps I should have been clearer, I was a proponent of BTC, I am a proponent of Blockchain. That does not mean I do not have criticisms for both. I hope that clarifies for you enough that you can push past your approach and discuss the points I have actually raised. I am approaching this at a different angle, don't you agree? You believe in the 'inevitability thesis based on Max Kranzbergs 6 laws of technology (you've posted it multiple times). I don't believe this theory and point to (Postmans 5 points on technological change) as some of the literature I have engaged with and agree with. Again it is totally fine that we have different opinions.

If you feel that, I am attacking you, it is not personal, I am trying to add a non-technological aspect to the conversation, unless you don't want that? It is fair to say that your identifications of BTC flaws have mostly been technological (prior to my involved in the thread)? If not please provide links to the posts in the 27 pages. I would hope you would find it acceptable that on a forum people will read the first few pages and go to the last.

Lastly, the below is not an example of cherry-picking, and I am not accusing you of cherry-picking, you have posted articles that serve to enhance your stance and refute others, which is fine but it is not a rounded review of all literature. My comment on the below was pointing out in an example you provided that BTC is not the only solution.

For a guy who reckons he takes a step back, those must be very small steps. You accused me of cherry-picking - and that's what you're doing here yourself. In answering your question, I outlined two related elements as to how bitcoin could be useful in the developing world. Store of value was one (which you wrongly claim isn't relevant) and remittances/money transfer was another.
Secondly, where did I say that bitcoin is the only solution? You're getting ahead of yourself (see my references to your wayward assumptions and mind-reading in previous posts).

I am not going to respond any further with you, as by now you have not actually provided any substance to discuss the points I have brought to the table. Instead you appear fixated on how I can be a proponent when also critiquing....I think that was the third post in a row you have made the same comment.

Good Luck Tecate.

 

[tecate]

Perhaps I should have been clearer, I was a proponent of BTC, I am a proponent of Blockchain.

I appreciate you clearing that up - you're not a proponent of bitcoin.

I hope that clarifies for you enough that you can push past your approach and discuss the points I have actually raised.

To be clear, it's central to your original claim (that you're a bitcoin proponent when you're not) and to the accusation that you proceeded with. Just so there's no misunderstanding, anyone making accusations will have to prove them as far as I'm concerned.

I am approaching this at a different angle, don't you agree?

By setting out (wrongly) with an accusation? Yes, you could say that.

You believe in the 'inevitability thesis based on Max Kranzbergs 6 laws of technology (you've posted it multiple times). I don't believe this theory and point to (Postmans 5 points on technological change) as some of the literature I have engaged with and agree with. Again it is totally fine that we have different opinions.

Agreed.

If you feel that, I am attacking you, it is not personal, I am trying to add a non-technological aspect to the conversation, unless you don't want that? It is fair to say that your identifications of BTC flaws have mostly been technological (prior to my involved in the thread)?

Then leave the personal attack aside and simply discuss the tech at hand - that would be my view. That's what we're supposed to be doing here.

It is fair to say that your identifications of BTC flaws have mostly been technological (prior to my involved in the thread)?

That depends on what you feel you've specifically added in terms of an actual/tangible flaw.

I would hope you would find it acceptable that on a forum people will read the first few pages and go to the last.

Not if you're attacking the poster, not so much (and certainly not in this instance where what went before was relevant to your accusation based on later posts). I can live with it if you correct yourself when points raised in previous pages are pointed out to you - but that didn't happen either.

Lastly, the below is not an example of cherry-picking, and I am not accusing you of cherry-picking, you have posted articles that serve to enhance your stance and refute others, which is fine but it is not a rounded review of all literature.

That's incorrect.

My comment on the below was pointing out in an example you provided that BTC is not the only solution.

I agree that it's not the only potential solution for that use case. - I never suggested otherwise. They're not the same solutions though. Bitcoin establishing itself as a store of value has context with regard to its use/potential use for remittances/money transfers.

by now you have not actually provided any substance to discuss the points I have brought to the table.

I disagree.

Instead you appear fixated on how I can be a proponent when also critiquing....I think that was the third post in a row you have made the same comment.

And it finally resulted in you correcting yourself - i.e. that you're not a proponent of bitcoin. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if you were straight up on that - from the get go.

 

[MaxGordon]

Mistaken identity, I’m afraid, Max.

You had me going there for awhile.

Not sure why the denials unless a long river is your knee jerk reaction.

The thing is....once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Tecate, much like you, that decision is mine, as such I choose not to engage.

If you ever get to read those 27 pages you will discover that @tecate is the king of the cherry pickers. She quotes selectively from any reports, some of which are clearly above his comprehensibility (doesn't stop him/her).
Most infamous was the selective illustration of how John Kelleher of Investopedia rated bitcoin as a store of value. When I pointed out that John's primary assumption in making this assessment was that bitcoin would achieve its mission of being an alternative medium of exchange s/he had the audacity to accuse me of cherry picking.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It's at 10,128.96 euro at the moment, hardly crashing!

Ironically, this is bad news for bitcoin cultists. Bitcoin is displaying a volatility far, far, removed from its aim of being an accepted medium of exchange. It is a plaything for small time retail punters who are easily convinced that the end of the world is nigh. In fact given the very favourable backdrop for that narrative it is really rather surprising that Bitcoin is still almost 40% below its peak.

 

[WolfeTone]

It is a plaything for small time retail punters who are easily convinced that the end of the world is nigh.

Have to hand it to you Duke, you are certainly dogged.
But just to entertain that notion for a moment (again)....the end of the world, or in your typically preferred lexicon "Armageddon"....is there not a market for this? I think since biblical times, this concept has been sold, and re-sold to the public, and in no small doses either. There is value in that.

So perhaps others are seeing a value in bitcoin, as a concept to keep money outside conventional monetary system using a new technology called blockchain? It may not be your cup of tea but you can't deny it hasn't provoked your interest and occupied your time here.

 

[DublinHead54]

I appreciate you clearing that up - you're not a proponent of bitcoin.

To be clear, it's central to your original claim (that you're a bitcoin proponent when you're not) and to the accusation that you proceeded with. Just so there's no misunderstanding, anyone making accusations will have to prove them as far as I'm concerned.


By setting out (wrongly) with an accusation? Yes, you could say that.


Agreed.

Then leave the personal attack aside and simply discuss the tech at hand - that would be my view. That's what we're supposed to be doing here.

That depends on what you feel you've specifically added in terms of an actual/tangible flaw.

Not if you're attacking the poster, not so much (and certainly not in this instance where what went before was relevant to your accusation based on later posts). I can live with it if you correct yourself when points raised in previous pages are pointed out to you - but that didn't happen either.

That's incorrect.
I agree that it's not the only potential solution for that use case. - I never suggested otherwise. They're not the same solutions though. Bitcoin establishing itself as a store of value has context with regard to its use/potential use for remittances/money transfers.

I disagree.
And it finally resulted in you correcting yourself - i.e. that you're not a proponent of bitcoin. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if you were straight up on that - from the get go.

This has actually gotten to be quite hilarious. Please explain what factual issue with Bitcoin I have gotten wrong?

If you want to talk about the tech stop referring to future developments as your get out clause.

Unless you've discovered a crystal ball? Maybe I'll take that approach in discourse going forward.

I would happily bet you 10 BTC that whatever stance you take today will fail to become reality.

 

[DublinHead54]

Ironically, this is bad news for bitcoin cultists. Bitcoin is displaying a volatility far, far, removed from its aim of being an accepted medium of exchange. It is a plaything for small time retail punters who are easily convinced that the end of the world is nigh. In fact given the very favourable backdrop for that narrative it is really rather surprising that Bitcoin is still almost 40% below its peak.

What I note is that once you make a reference for example cherry picking, tecates approach is to accuse the poster of the same. his/her approach is to attack the person and their beliefs as a reason why their point is wrong. I don't think they believe somebody can be neutral on a topic.

This entire thread is laughable at this stage. Looking forward to Tecates impending accusations.

 

[MaxGordon]

It may not be your cup of tea but you can't deny it.......

See that's where you're wrong, WolfeTone!

He is a topper at denying things until, that is, the goose is cooked, the cat debagged. Then silence. Not even a "you was right, Max"....

 

[tecate]

some of which are clearly above his comprehensibility (doesn't stop him/her).

Kneel before the great Duke and his latin prose.
Whilst it might oil yer ego, it did nothing for your cause.

Most infamous was the selective illustration of how John Kelleher of Investopedia rated bitcoin as a store of value. When I pointed out that John's primary assumption in making this assessment was that bitcoin would achieve its mission of being an alternative medium of exchange s/he had the audacity to accuse me of cherry picking.

It's there for all to see - people can scroll back and check for themselves. There's a difference between a well founded claim and one that's vapourware.

Please explain what factual issue with Bitcoin I have gotten wrong?

Eh, you quoted my entire post. What are you referring to specifically?

If you want to talk about the tech stop referring to future developments as your get out clause.

If you have a specific issue - then lets hear it. Otherwise, you can place your instructions the same place his dukeness places his gold in when travelling internationally.

What I note is that once you make a reference for example cherry picking, tecates approach is to accuse the poster of the same. his/her approach is to attack the person and their beliefs as a reason why their point is wrong.

Some claims are well-founded, some are not.

This entire thread is laughable at this stage.

You've certainly made an impression - I'll give you that.

Unless you've discovered a crystal ball? Maybe I'll take that approach in discourse going forward.

I think you have the carnival market cornered with your mystic mind reading already (albeit more as a 'performance art' rather than a thing of accuracy).

I don't think they believe somebody can be neutral on a topic.

HA! You think you're fooling anyone? The 'bitcoin proponent'.

I would happily bet you 10 BTC that whatever stance you take today will fail to become reality.

I had hoped for a better quality of discussion - so in that sense, it's just as well I didn't see this earlier. On the flipside, we have btc bobbling around $12K so it could be worse. And clearly, this thread confirms that there will be laggards paying top dollar for BTC in the time ahead (so thank you :-D ).

 

[DublinHead54]

Tecate,

You made a comment that we should trust Fidelity's opinion on Bitcoin because they have $7 trillion AUM. However,, the creation of BTC in part came as a response to the lack of trust in Financial Institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis (Link). I have seen it referenced in this thread the pro that BTC is 'trustless', so I find it ironic that the very institutions that shouldn't be trusted in the eyes of Bitcoin, are the institutions you trust to legitimize BTC. Quite a conundrum, and I recognise you've got yourself ok with that due to earlier posts.

I tend to favour academic literature on the topic of Blockchain / BTC. Medium posts / articles by institutions are inherently biased, for example, Fidelity has a vested interest through their custody business of promoting the success of BTC.

The evidence exists today, there has been very little institutional pickup. I don't really see this changing in the near term, I can comment from experience as I was involved in the rollout of the CME Futures and there was very little appetite on Wall Street. Most of the interest came from Main street, and this was during the peak of 2017. Futures are non-deliverable so just a cash product but are a good indicator of the institutionalization of BTC, the volume history shows they have largely gone nowhere since inception. Maybe this will change but the evidence thus far suggests it won't.

Can you please explain to me why you do not think I am a BTC proponent? Let me be clear.....I am a proponent of the returns BTC has provided and continues to provide, but I am not a proponent of the vision. In particular and rightly as you have accepted the problems that BTC aims to solve doesn't need BTC to solve them.

As an Example (not cherry-picking), often sighted is the cheap money transfer anywhere in the world and the ripoff fees. I agree that given it is a global currency it is not affected by borders, and that is positive. However, what is often cited is Western Union and workers sending money back home, what is the real problem there? It isn't a technological problem, it is the legal problem of illegal immigrants and illegal work. I worked in the US legally for many years and often transferred money back to GBP / EUR, I never had to use Western Union and continually the fees got cheaper (Transfer wise / Worldfirst). BTC would be quicker, but ultimately today that trade would still be USD --> BTC --> EUR, so you have to weigh up the volatility risk vs the fees paid to go straight from USD --> EUR. Anyway, the point being BTC may allow illegal immigrants to send money home cheaper but it does not solve the problem. I would also summize that as illegal immigrants are taking advantage of, if they were to start using BTC they would be taking advantage of as they would still require to convert for example $ to BTC.

So the question I want to ask you, is why do you want BTC support the exploitation of illegal workers?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@Dublinbay12
Excellent post. I have referenced several times the almost complete absence of endorsement from mainstream economic thinking. @tecate rebuffs by calling them Keynesians ( a four letter word in his worldview) and reminding us of Krugman's Fax Machine moment (I did laugh at that one). Now you confirm from experience that Wall Street aren't buying either. I had a closed mind on bitcoin as soon as I read the White Paper - the argument that bitcoin would get intrinsic value if enough people thought it had was oh so contrived. You clearly have had an open mind but have lost the faith (maybe that's a bit overkill).
This is a playground for retail punters who are easily lured by pictures of gold bitcoins and talk of blockchain technology.
Indeed how ironic that @tecate seems to regard Fidelity as almost infallible. These are but 2 highly irresponsible speculations from their Director of Research into Digital Assets.
1) If only 1% of bonds migrated to bitcoin its market cap would rise from $200bn to $500bn
2) If it could catch only 10% of the Alternative Assets market it would rise to $1.6trn.
I know she has a Level 2 in CFA but don't tell me she hasn't a vested interest in stoking enthusiasm for bitcoin in a niche segment of Fidelity's client base.
John Kelleher (cited by none other than @tecate) is a big fan of bitcoin but he realises that the project will ultimately only succeed if it achieves Satoshi's prediction of being generally accepted as a medium of exchange. IMHO it will never happen.

 

[MaxGordon]

Hey Duke,

Is that a knee jerk clap for Dublin Bay Prawns or is it a different type of clap?

I thought that you wood come out swinging - it seems not. I pride myself on my accuracy - can you confirm that I was not mistaken please?

I would like to know when you read the White Paper. Please answer it without the usual bluster, equivocation, et cetera.