Quote:
Originally Posted by Nooseknot
I step out for a quick hour or so and we've opened the question of whether the whole movement is legitimate.
It's attracted the world best computer programmers and scientists. Has a 120 billion value. Never been down, never been hacked. Every major nation has legitimate exchanges broadcasting a global price for its fiat. Every nation has made statements about its legality and some have made laws (some choose not too). Many major banks have done research reports often favorably.
Many CEOs (Naval Macafee Vinny Ligham Bronson Gates Woz) and hedge fund managers are constantly discussing it in the media. Its 8 or so years old and hasn't been stopped. Coinbase exchange just added 100k new users in a single day.
Bitcoin is crushing usd, on the heels of the imf, and there are more and more economic philosophers that putting forth argument for why it will usurp gold. None of it has to do with an increased transaction capacity, its been explained all along by the alleged creators that it doesn't it.
It comes with 20 years of associated literature. It's all over the media everyday now.
I'm unclear on what we are questioning?
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was founded in 1960. For decades, he was the premier trader on the largest exchanges, the founder of various innovative digital trading technologies at large scale - other brokers actually routed all their orders through him. His fund had a $50 billion value. It had attracted the world's most careful and cautious money holders, and the smartest people in finance thought the fund legitimate. He held all relevant licenses and had passed all the scrutiny of the community for his extraordinary returns. He reliably paid out clients for decades, with a market-beating return - no one ever went bust or lost their money prior to 2007, in fact, they all got rich.
Oh yeah. And it was a pure ponzi that grew to $50 billion and went bust when 2007's financial crisis caused a run for the door.
Enron was an even more pronounced example. The smartest minds and the most respected people in finance talked of it in awe. Said it was a new paradigm that was putting the old, inferior energy markets out of business. Enron had a market cap larger than bitcoin in today's dollars at its peak.
The 2008 GFC is yet another example. The greatest financial experts in the world didn't see it coming, even though it was a certainty from years earlier if you had merely read what constituted CDOs.
So when you quote "the experts" over and over (who, by the way, seem to be all people heavily invested in the ponzi on the lower layers - their and your shameless, lying pumping is what makes it a ponzi), or point to age or market cap or media coverage, I realize you're someone without a mind of your own and that your arguments are paper thin.
I'm trying to discuss this rationally. You're so incredibly intellectually insecure that you've basically turned into a parrot of what the bitcoin pumpers say, not even quoting their arguments but rather saying "all the experts agree with me!!!" When there's a question outside of what you read, you fall apart. For example, you can't answer my question about why the banks or countries would pay trillions of dollars to early holders to buy into bitcoin for high value transfer, when a) they already have reliable high value transfer and b) if they want secure blockchain tech, they can make their own network, better, more secure and and not controlled 60% by China, for 1/1000th of the cost of that.