redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
Willing to bet a photo with a shoe on your head if that happens?
Bitcoin: When Manias End
- Thread starter Wilson Grant Fisk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bitcoin btc btc bubble gold
Willing to bet a photo with a shoe on your head if that happens?
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Hm, I guess I'm old-school on the definition of a cryptocurrency. So, unless it solves the BFT problem and is public (i.e. not "only X is allowed to participate in the consensus process"), I don't consider it as such. For example, IOTA isn't BFT and Hashgraph doesn't have a coin. So...
- Jun 10, 2010
- 2,402
- 1,677
Except you don’t need bitcoins for blockchain.
The article sounded like an “I told you so” and while the mania has ended I don’t see bitcoin going away. I didn’t think the mania would have ended so quickly and thought there was more room for speculative growth before we saw this decline. Things have a funny way of repeating themselves and just as you said, people have written off bitcoin many times in the past, it will continue to trudge forward.
Last edited:
redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
Actually Hashgraph has a coin and IOTA not being bft is not the focus here.
The main thing is blockchain does not need a coin to perform whatever practical implementations (actually it will probably hurt blockchain future if it's somehow bound to a cryptocurrency of any sort) (1), and (2) blockchain is an imperfect, early stage raw idea. It will have it's substitutes sooner than later.
And (3) people will never ever ever ever be okay with a global cryptocurency of the type they exist today. It's an almost like Soros like
reflexivity bubble/burst cycling delusion with no value irl at all.
redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
It won't matter though. That's what crypto proponents seem to miss all along. It's not about short term rises nor falls. No. It's about value. Of which crypto haven't had, doesn't have and, by all signs, won't have. It does serve a purpose though. But I'm sure all cryptokiddies here won't have a clue what that purpose is.
LemonAcid
Senior Member
- Jun 22, 2014
- 1,146
- 1,154
The only value crypto offers is "privacy and freedom"...Privacy gave Btc value at first now is just trades that keep his value high...As long there is demand for it it will be right here with us.
redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
Privacy?
And freedom?
Both are so overrated and misunderstood in our days and age it's fkn embarrassing.
Yes it will be here with us, no doubt, and demand will be there for it even years after being proven it worths shit I have no doubts about it, people are sheep...
The article is written without any substance, and the most convincing argument is: "I told you in December this is bubble."
BTC is (in theory) enabling people all around world to participate in global economy without using banks as intermediaries. Sure, you have a painful process of buying in and selling of cryptos using
fiat, but you could always freelance or sell something for BTC and then buy products and services with it.
And that is huge on its own.
BTC is (in theory) enabling people all around world to participate in global economy without using banks as intermediaries. Sure, you have a painful process of buying in and selling of cryptos using
fiat, but you could always freelance or sell something for BTC and then buy products and services with it.
And that is huge on its own.
redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
And you don't see the fallacies in that concept? I don't mean the immediate fallacies, I mean the implicated, deep, inherent to humanity flaws in the concept, rendering it totally useless (to say the least and not insult cryptoproponents awareness of reality straight on).
Sansha Kuvakei
Junior Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 111
- 48
Crypto is a good idea in theory, but in practice, it only holds value as long as people find it valuable. I'm sure there will be many applications inside the major banking systems in the future, but I highly doubt that that individual coins themselves will hold any value.
The real benefit of crypto is the blockchain tech and it's applications in existing payment systems.
The real benefit of crypto is the blockchain tech and it's applications in existing payment systems.
rimvy
Regular Member
- Oct 8, 2017
- 455
- 166
FIAT works exactly like that, as long as people find it valuable, it's have value.
redjebo
Regular Member
- Jul 18, 2015
- 243
- 321
No. Just no.
If a country with great economy, scientists and military able to produce such goods that the rest of the world is interested in and willing to buy from says it's fiat is 1 bn in volume total and it costs 1$ per unit and it's living standard is the same or lower than US', everyone will know it's a fair deal and what's backing it's fiat is a real VALUE.
Crypto produces shit. I have this lkhjfklhkghjyrf coin with lkfgjdlkgjkdfgjkdf POW and I ride the hype successfully enough to have million people pay 1000$ per coin, do my supporters have the same value in their hands as holders of the above mentioned country fiat's? Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Last edited:
- Jul 5, 2011
- 2,535
- 1,313
WOW I am not sure if people are really reading the article or if they are really understanding it, here some important things you need to understand:
a) The site is a well known place for short selling ideas.
b) Short selling is the process to make money when the stock of the company you are shorting goes below a certaing value.
The guy is making a clear case for historical similarities between the dotcom bubble and the prices of the tech stocks and the prices of the cryptos in the current time.
When you are going to proof his hypothesys is wrong you need to make it by giving data that proofs false each one of his arguments, here are some of his arguments:
a) A bubble in any sector is identified when the future cashflow values do not justify the current value (true) , he says there are no cashflow in the cryptocurrencies (true)
b) He explains some of the current cryptocurrencies will dissapear and there will be a consolidation (this has hapenned in many industries example the Internet, there were many search engines and today there are mainly 3)
c) He implicity says that even as a storage unit he prefers gold because it has historical intrinsic value (true)
d) He says that he prefers gold over bitcoin as an alternative to fiat money (opinion, not a fact)
Even I am a crytocurrency lover if we are going to discuss the topic based on the article at least we should debunk his arguments instead of simply become this a screaming contest.
I am just trying to bring more light and less heat to the discussion.
a) The site is a well known place for short selling ideas.
b) Short selling is the process to make money when the stock of the company you are shorting goes below a certaing value.
The guy is making a clear case for historical similarities between the dotcom bubble and the prices of the tech stocks and the prices of the cryptos in the current time.
When you are going to proof his hypothesys is wrong you need to make it by giving data that proofs false each one of his arguments, here are some of his arguments:
a) A bubble in any sector is identified when the future cashflow values do not justify the current value (true) , he says there are no cashflow in the cryptocurrencies (true)
b) He explains some of the current cryptocurrencies will dissapear and there will be a consolidation (this has hapenned in many industries example the Internet, there were many search engines and today there are mainly 3)
c) He implicity says that even as a storage unit he prefers gold because it has historical intrinsic value (true)
d) He says that he prefers gold over bitcoin as an alternative to fiat money (opinion, not a fact)
Even I am a crytocurrency lover if we are going to discuss the topic based on the article at least we should debunk his arguments instead of simply become this a screaming contest.
I am just trying to bring more light and less heat to the discussion.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Where's Hashgraph's coin? So far it's vaporware.
Not being BFT means it's does not guarantee consensus about the ledger under a specific and very adverse set of conditions. That's super critical to have for a currency and that's why BTC was a revolution and boomed - Satoshi was the first to figure out how to make it happen. BTC wasn't the first digital coin but it was the first (let's say) completed one - and the big hole what was missing for completeness was the solution to the BFT. That's why it matters. IOTA and the rest non-BFT ones are of course crypto products buuut they aren't "complete" ones. Doesn't mean they don't "deserve" value - it simply means they can't be robust and complete as currency in the sense that BTC is.
In its essence, you can think of blockchain as an Excel sheet. Excel sheets don't need coins to function. But, if you want an Excel sheet that's really decentralized (and not "kinda") and everyone can read and write to it with a full immutable history, then you need a coin to create the incentives for the stakeholders to support the security of the system.
Blockchain as in "BTC's blockchain + PoW " (and not just the "Excel sheet") is the first ever solution. But it is a full solution. That doesn't mean it can't get optimized or that other solutions to the BFT to act as cryptocurrency can't appear. But the way you put it is like saying "Kobe is a basketball player" - well, yeah, he is. But does that statement capture Kobe's value? Nah.
Never ever ever ever is a big statement. A bit more of a century ago, people weren't ok with women voting. Go another century back and people weren't ok without slaves. What people are ok with can change dramatically with time.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Which is exactly why the article is so cringe-worthy.
Actually, no. A hypothesis is the one that needs to be proven by the one making it. Don't see any proof there - only assertions. We can discuss the proof once the proof has been presented.
That's a platitude for many reasons, but for the sake of simplicity I'll point you now to just one: Where's the statistics that show that, for both Type I and Type II errors considered?
That's an assertion, not a proof for the hypothesis.
Another "not a proof for the hypothesis". As for the "historical intrinsic value" that's laughable for 2 reasons (assuming he said it that way and that's not your phrase).
a) Intrinsic value means what you can do with the product itself. Say the currency is green apples. And say green apples are traded in FOREX for $100. The value of the green apple is $100. The intrinsic value of the green apple are the 50 calories it contains. That's it. Who gives a shit about a value of 50 calories? Now what is the intrinsic value of gold? You can't eat it, you can get warm with it. Whatever "intrinsic" value you find (e.g. I like to look at it) is certainly not worth anything mentionable in comparison to its TRADE value. Trade value is all that matters.
b) There's no thing as a historical intrinsic value as value itself. A chocolate had intrinsic value before it got rotten and you can stretch and call that historical, but what's the point? Yes, it used to be edible but it's not edible now. What's the value of that?
- Jul 5, 2011
- 2,535
- 1,313
No, not really that you do not like the analysis does not make it cringe worthy he is making comparisons based on the historic similarities, nothing wrong with that, the entire history and economics is based on this since you are unable to replicate famines and revolutions for instance, you are just able to analyse the historical context.
No, he is clearly stting his points and you need to prove them false or at least prove the falsehood of your premises.
No need of statistic proof of any kind simple aritmetics if the discount cashflow values of a stock is $100 and it is priced at $200 the stock is overvalued based on that metric, if an entire industry or category follows the same pattern then it is a buble:
Source: https://study.com/academy/lesson/asset-price-bubble-definition-model.html
Fair enough BUT it is an assertion based in historical examples that it may be wrong BUT the weight of the proof is on you SINCE he is clearly explaining his frame work and context of why he is giving this assertion.
Well, well well second thread we find each other in opposite sides of the discussion.......
[/QUOTE]
Nop, not at all gold have intrisic value and the two examples you give are bad, they are commodities that were used as currency but even today their value it is less than gold
source explainng the intrinsec value of gold:
https://www.sbcgold.com/blog/the-intrinsic-value-of-gold-and-silver/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071114/why-gold-has-always-had-value.asp
Even I understand the idea that "intrinsec value" may be a fallacy among commodities is the one that has been broadly accepted and one of the most valuables historically.
Please provide source for your assertions to discusse based on facts and not opinions please.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Comparing with historical similarities is - to put it mildly - epistemologically insane. Doesn't have to do with me liking or not his content because the methodology used is on the same level as astrology. Using the stars to predict the stock exchange isn't more laughable that what he did. In that way, we can call what he did an accomplishment
Now that's a nice bridge for me to give you a quick historical lesson in economics
Back in the very old days, when economics was not even considered a science, there was this school of thought in Germany that was called "the historical school". What those guys did was exactly what you're saying. They compiled tooons of historical data and they were looking for patterns. The belief was that past is a predictor for the future - there are no economic laws, there is no causality that can be investigated, there is a historical progression. So, for one to predict the future, one has to know the past patterns.
The historical school of thought is long dead and gone and (unless we go back to the caves) never to return. Economics is now regarded as a science. Why? Because of methodology. Empirical sciences have methodologies that rely and examine on causality - what we call in daily speak "laws". Laws of physics. Laws of economics. Not historical patterns of physics. If that was so, that "physics" wouldn't even be a science.
The burden of proof of a statement lies with the one making a statement. That's why people publish proofs in journals and not "heeeey guyyyyss, here's what I think - prove me wrong yo"
Sad panda is sad
I'll just quote the argument from the first article because it's so funny how he's tripping with it. "Their value comes from nothing less than their efficacy as a medium of exchange – as a form of money." So where is the problem with that statement?
First of all, let's start with what's right with it. It is absolutely correct that gold/silver have excellently suitable characteristics for ease of trading with them. Totally true.
And now for the catch: When do we use the intrinsic value as an argument? To argue that "even if people don't trade with it, it still has value". Well, if people trade with it, it's TRADE value (what you see in FOREX). If the assumption is that people don't trade with it (i.e. its trade value is in the gutter), what does it matter if it has good characteristics for use in trading?
All the confusion goes away if you substitute the word "intrinsic" with the word "use". Use value. A baseball card has a trade value if you sell it and a use value if you wipe your ass with it. That distinction should be clear now, right?
Assertion of what exactly?
Last edited:
- Jul 5, 2011
- 2,535
- 1,313
Comparing with historical similarities is - to put it mildly - epistemologically insane. Doesn't have to do with me liking or not his content because the methodology used is on the same level as astrology. Using the stars to predict the stock exchange isn't more laughable that what he did. In that way, we can call what he did an accomplishment
Now that's a nice bridge for me to give you a quick historical lesson in economics
Back in the very old days, when economics was not even considered a science, there was this school of thought in Germany that was called "the historical school". What those guys did was exactly what you're saying. They compiled tooons of historical data and they were looking for patterns. The belief was that past is a predictor for the future - there are no economic laws, there is no causality that can be investigated, there is a historical progression. So, for one to predict the future, one has to know the past patterns.
The historical school of thought is long dead and gone and (unless we go back to the caves) never to return. Economics is now regarded as a science. Why? Because of methodology. Empirical sciences have methodologies that rely and examine on causality - what we call in daily speak "laws". Laws of physics. Laws of economics. Not historical patterns of physics. If that was so, that "physics" wouldn't even be a science.
So according with you comparing historical similarities is epistemologically insane? so I guess from your perspective History is not a science, well I guess that all the history departments of the world did not know it, it may be epistemologically limitative BUT that does not make it wrong per se, that is the framework he has decided to use since there is no other way to study crashes, they are very difficult to replicate, specially the part of famine and suicides when it arrives to extreme cases, the point being it does not matter what you think, there is no other tool to compare these situations.... the only way you could refute this would be with a matematical model using all the variables and showing there will be no crash and no bubble, but the model will be wrong since it would not be involving the human factor, so the point stands.
The burden of proof of a statement lies with the one making a statement. That's why people publish proofs in journals and not "heeeey guyyyyss, here's what I think - prove me wrong yo"
His point was clear and it is that "some of the current cryptocurrencies will dissapear and there will be a consolidation (this has hapenned in many industries example the Internet, there were many search engines and today there are mainly 3)"
You could have provided other examples to disprove this but you did not.
And now for the catch: When do we use the intrinsic value as an argument? To argue that "even if people don't trade with it, it still has value". Well, if people trade with it, it's TRADE value (what you see in FOREX). If the assumption is that people don't trade with it (i.e. its trade value is in the gutter), what does it matter if it has good characteristics for use in trading?
All the confusion goes away if you substitute the word "intrinsic" with the word "use". Use value. A baseball card has a trade value if you sell it and a use value if you wipe your ass with it. That distinction should be clear now, right?
You forgot to read the last part of my statement when I took into account all that :
"Even I understand the idea of "intrinsec value" may be a fallacy among commodities gold is the one that has been broadly accepted and the most valuable historically"
and he says there is no better alternative to fiat money than gold, if you think that baseball cards is a better option then you will realize that when you compare the price of baseball cards with the price of gold he is right again, you could provide an example of any other commodity that has more value than gold but you failed to do it, furtheremore his points stands.