Hey all:

Now it is a day later....bitcoin is down just a little bit more. At lunch time, bitcoin is being quoted for something like $16,900. Down almost ANOTHER 10% since yesterday's posting.

Other than speculation, what is the use case for Bitcoin? It certainly isn't a currency/money alternative. If you are a merchant taking bitcoin in payment on Monday, your margins on that sale would probably be nothing/negative.

A HUGE problem with Bitcoin is that I think you have to go to an exchange to cash out and get fiat currency. That is, unless you can find somebody with cash DIRECTLY, who wants to get bitcoin. As a seller of bitcoin, you've got tremendous risk of dealing with an exchange. Also, the exchange is going to provide paperwork to governmental agencies. A 3rd party problem, compare that to gold or other precious metals.

Once again, the lower the price goes, the fewer people are going to want to be involved with it. The fewer people involved with it, the lower price goes. The lower the price goes, the fewer people want in....and so on and so on. A vicious circle.

I am kind of surprised bitcoin is trading as high as it is.

From “have fun staying poor” to “it’s kinda fun being poor”. Well, how the turntables!

I wonder if that tarheels clown still feels so confident. Just wait until the real collapse.

Here is the problem with bitcoin:

1) Since it is not a better payment processor than internet transfers or credit cards or debit cards, its use as a currency is not widespread.

2) Not an inflation hedge.

3) Bitcoin holders hold so that they can sell it at a higher price, not use it as a currency.

4) To normies, what the difference between bitcoin and all the other coins? So competition for investor inflows into the crypto space is competitive.

well one is a commodity and the rest are (likely) unregistered securities.

pretty big difference there.

Hiya folks. Does anyone here own a Bahamas based FTX account?

Too late now

The only decent BTC use case was illegal activities. Fentanyl and legal THC has reduced demand for drugs from the internet. Online gambling has been legalized in a lot of jurisdictions.

Bloomberg: FTX Used Imaginary Money to Get Real Money

"But in the final analysis, not all that much actual money was harmed in the making of this debacle, suggests Paul Davies. As with all currencies, crypto’s value is a function of our belief in said value — except old-timey currencies are backed by economies and sometimes nuclear weapons. Crypto’s value is too often backed by wishes and Drakkar Noir fumes. If that and a bunch of ape JPGs go poof, then how much have we lost, really?"

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...l?srnd=premium

Warren Buffett in 2018 on cryptocurrencies:

“It draws in a lot of charlatans where people who are of less-than-stellar character see an opportunity to clip people who are trying to get rich because their neighbor is getting rich buying this stuff that neither one of them understand. It will come to a bad end.”

Bitcoin and Bitcoin only.

https://youtu.be/_gXAEdfIJN4

Nobody answered my question, it was the usual nonsensical "Bitcoin is worth world economy/21000000" followed by some more ambiguous ****. Again, if it is $16k-$17k now and you think it's undervalued, what do you think the real value is, in precise $ amount and why? What metrics do you use to come up with that number? And again, have you ever met a Bitcoin maxi that said "Ok, now Bitcoin is overvalued, thread cautiously"? I have never, it is ALWAYS undervalued.


First time I used ponzi wave is when JohnyBuz described to a T how he sees the next bull run.

BTW, there is not much to learn about Bitcoin in this thread. Last 2 years 99% posts were "HFSP, undervalued, when $500k, you just don't understand, we are still early" on one side and "cult, pyramid scheme, ponzi wave, no use case" on the other side.

We might as well lock the thread for 18 months and come back after next potential bull run aka ponzi wave

Fwiw we already live in a Ponzi scheme with the US dollar ….
People still make money .
Every monetary system end up dead anyway at some point .

Why would it be different with bitcoin if it was a Ponzi scheme ?
If bitcoin could be a « better » Ponzi scheme then the fiat system , what’s wrong with that ?
What r u proposing for ending Ponzi scheme ?

This is what I call Schrödinger's Bitcoin cat, when Bitcoin maxis first strongly deny Bitcoin is a ponzi only to later resort to "ok it is a ponzi so what, everything else is a ponzi" so we end up in this weird spot where Bitcoin is a ponzi and not a ponzi at the same time, aka Schrödinger's cat

On a serious note, there is not a single advantage to Bitcoin over traditional system, no matter how flawed it is. Because the problem is not the FIAT or capitalistic system itself, it's the human greed. Even something with "immaculate conception" like Bitcoin was later heavily manipulated and used as a tool to get some shady individuals absurdly rich.

You really think the fair system for the entire humanity is to just hand 1-2% of worlds economy to Winklevoss twins because their FB settlement was timed perfectly? What did they do to deserve such wealth other than YOLOING at the right time and hitting it big? How is that fair to anyone?

do u really think all rich kids from billionaires parents deserve their fortunes more then the winklevoss twins ?
many people becomes rich for ridicule reasons.
it does not matter on the long run.
that fortune will dissipate over time like any other fortune in the world.

your argument sound more about jealousy then serious arguments about bitcoin defects.

No, I already said current system is not fair. Gates and Buffet sitting on 100b is not fair. How is bitcoin with 0.88 Gini coefficient supposed to fix that? Sounds a lot worse to me.

Your argument about billionaires kids sound more about jealousy for not being born rich then serious argument about current system being flawed.

Hey I was not complaining about unfairness , u were …
But if u want to put it in me it’s fine shrug.

Bitcoin could fix the system because as government print money , the people that make money are the one closest to the money when it goes into the system (cantillon effect),
While simultaneously increasing poverty to the general population by decreasing the value of money ( their wages).

Bitcoin can help in solving this since as government increase the money supply , bitcoin gains value .
If bitcoin was use as a settlement currency
(or a part of a mix of different part of currency settlement like sdr )
instead of the US dollar that obv can manipulated .

Bitcoin could just be a tool that can protect many countries ( its people) from foreign power and domestic governments to screw them troughs the manipulation of the value of money .
That’s all .

Imho it’s worthwhile .
Markets will decide if the gains are worthwhile

k wait, you are ToothSayer?

not surprising I guess.

BTC wasn't designed to fix wealth inequality. It does what it is designed to do, which investors believe provides a lot of value. The value has been explained to you by several different posters. If you disagree, and think it's not valuable, that's fine. I no longer understand what you're hoping to get out of these threads now.

It was designed to be electronic peer-to-peer cash system, it failed at that 5-6 years ago, and you keep repeating the same like it would somehow change the facts.

I also don't understand what you are all trying to get out of these threads circlejerking "when $500k, we are still early, nocoiners will be our slaves" yet here we are.

Maybe if we had more salty nocoiners like me and less relentless shills with laser eyes, poor Kekeke would still own his real estate instead of useless lines of code. There are people out there taking out loans, selling their houses, selling their cars to FOMO in purely based on hype caused by pro crypto threads like this one(ok not this one, the other main Bitcoin one).

You don't see a problem with that?

What if those people had leveraged the same assets to buy TESLA, Amazon, META, Netflix, Google, etc. stock at this time last year? Would you also see a problem with that? Can you cite more than any (one) examples of people actually leveraging all of their assets on crypto (it was like 2 or 3 people in this thread, and no actual evidence was even posted, including Kekeke)? Either way, it's all likely a speculative Ponzi. One just has more use cases than the other, and it's not the one you think.

Even if someone mortgaged their entire net worth on BTC (or even alts) this time last year, you, I, or they don't have an idea if they're right or wrong (as long as they have another financial means of living). The long-term isn't close to being reached, to either the plus or negative side.

PM continues to cite future obstacles for current arguments. I.e. "I also don't understand what you are all trying to get out of these threads circlejerking 'when $500k, we are still early, nocoiners will be our slaves.'" without acknowledging unless BTC is at zero transaction, a growth to something like $500k is always in play.

Sure, they would be wrong to that as well, but I don't think it's comparable.

1. If you shave off the hype, all of mentioned stocks have some underlying value, Amazon cannot go to zero overnight like FTT or Luna.

2. They are all somewhat regulated so relentless shilling is limited. the only reason Musk got into crypto is the lack of regulation, he tried the same stunts with TSLA and got in trouble with SEC.

3. I have never seen Kim Kardashian, Logan Paul or Mat Damon shill AMZN shoving it down your throat, calling you a pussy and loser if you don't buy. Amazon, Tesla, Meta, Netflix or Google were never caught paying youtube influencers six figures to shill their stock.


Did you jus say that crypto has more use case that Tesla or Amazon? How many people in your neighborhood drive a Tesla or use Amazon compared to how many use cryoto every day? Emphasis on use.

PM, first of all, I always appreciate your banter even if I mostly disagree. The same goes for you PZ.

1) FTT went to zero over night because it was a poorly run coin connected to a poorly run exchange. Luna went to zero overnight because it was a poorly run coin and poorly run stablecoin that was manipulated by a poorly run exchange. That's not to say that either situation isn't a major hurdle to improvement for the space, but also to say that the direct damage was limited. There was a lot of collateral damage in crypto value, but it's not like FTT/FTX or LUNA terminated the space, or directly impacted most of the users.

Comparing either to current day Amazon is simply not being fair. Amazon is a flagship stock with a top 5 worldwide market cap. The Amazon market cap is greater than more than the entire crypto space. It's not exactly comparable. There are plenty of respected stocks that can lose 90%+ of value is a relatively short amount of time. Look at Bed, Bath & Beyond. Or Radioshack, Blockbuster, KMart, the Gamestop saga or AMC, etc..

The crypto space is just magnified because there are so many more quick opportunities and quick losses.

2. TESLA might be regulated, but I think the stock value was crushed by Elon's recklessness with regard to the Twitter purchase, plus his necessary TESLA stock liquidations to complete the Twitter purchase. I still think TESLA is a strong company, but the fact that its CEO in Elon can have such an impact on the stock value, is not unlike the impact that a small group of people can have on a strong crypto project.

3. This is just a disingenuous comment, and I'm not going to waste my time disputing it. Common sense should understand that this does not relate to most of the space. There can be bad shills in any industry. When is the last time you saw any of them in a commercial for Bitcoin or Coinbase?

My comment was not to say that crypto as a "company" has more use than Amazon or TESLA as a company, but that holding crypto as an asset does. I can send my BTC anywhere in the world and receive immediate equivalent value, with the click of the mouse. I have to wait for Amazon or TESLA dividends or stock redemption to settle in order to receive immediate value. One can drive demand value with its medium of exchange use case, while the other can't. Amazon and TESLA can only drive value on the "strength" of their companies.

That is refreshing given how hostile crypto maxis can be. Sorry if I was ever a dick to you, I just find all this amusing and I kinda behave the same IRL but it is so obvious I'm joking people take no offense. It probably comes off douchey online.

1) FTT and Luna were near the top of the space, I did not name some ElonsHairyBallsCoin that collapsed overnight, they were both a major player. And it is exactly my point, all of them are run poorly by uneducated and inexperienced kids in their 20s at best or full blown scammers with fraudulent history in TradFi. Or in most cases, both.

2) Elon is the biggest piece of ****/sociopath to ever walk the Earth. The fact Bitcoin bros elevated him to crypto divinity and called him Papa Elon goes to show how little integrity there is in the space where they would glorify Hitler himself if it means pumping their bags. In fact, housenuts had a hard on for Bukele and I've seen people cheering for Putin using BTC to circumvent sanctions.

3) It kinda does relate in my example vs your example. But ok.

I said this before, your are not sending money with crypto. You are sending tokens that other party cannot use before going to hurdles and paying fees to cashout. In some cases and some countries fees are crazy high, up to 10% to get real money out.

Do you have any explanation why Bitcoin maxis say BTC is undervalued and limited in supply yet they spend most of their waking hours trying to convince others to buy? If it is indeed undervalued and limited, don't you want to accumulate as much as possible yourself? Why tell others? If you knew there are 10 condos in Manhattan selling for $50k each would you try to buy them all over time or buy 1 and go to real estate forum and tell others they are suckers if they don't buy?

fwiw PM, actually amazon did went 95% down in the bubble of 2001 right ?

and i bet at least one dude was over leverage thinking amazon or other early tech at that time was to make him a billionaire quickly.
hell at that time the amount of people becoming millionaire and end up bankrupt 6 month later was phenomenal if i remember correctly....
many people were early in 2001 and look 20 years later for those internet tech corporations that succeed .

what u complain is exactly what happen in 2001 and now it is repeated with crypto currency shrug.
And today u use a bias argument taking 2 of the most hype stocks in the last decade and comparing it to bitcoin....come on...
bitcoin like any other corporations can gains more adept over the long run.

one or 2 of those thousands of crypto will probably become an amazing investment and bitcoin seem to be a great candidate shrug.

u got a price as low as in 2017 , do you know many assets today that even after the 2022 difficult year they are still lower then 2017 ?
join us ....