Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

tecate

You can't calculate the price of BTC because it has no value.

The value is zero. The eventual price will be zero.

I thought I could predict the limits of the stupidity of the BTC advocates, but I was wrong. the stupidity appears unlimited.

That other guy did a ridiculous calculation

1690140516297.png

Whatever way you look at that it is a forecast. He set out a lower limit and an upper limit.

Brendan
 
tecate said:
$20K - 50% probability (and the second time you've reached the wrong conclusion on $20K)
Click to expand...
I promised myself not to waste any more time on this but since you force me.
I took the log of 21 million and divided it by the atomic weight of gold and multiplied by the square root of Janet Yellen's weight in kilos. A bit pseudo scientific I admit but as justifiable as the musings of Gignard.
tecate said:
$30K - 75% probability
$50K - 95% probability
Click to expand...
I put my hands up. These were finger in the air.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You can't calculate the price of BTC because it has no value.
Click to expand...
LOL of course you can't Brendan. I'm well informed on this because you've been telling me this for five and a half years already!...and in that time, its unit price keeps going up! ;)

Brendan Burgess said:
I thought I could predict the limits of the stupidity of the BTC advocates, but I was wrong. the stupidity appears unlimited.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. They're stupid and you're an oracle. And of course you'll get cross if I ask you when its going to zero...but I think my progression of that query on the last occasion was more than reasonable. Could you at least round it down to the nearest decade? Because if you can't then you've been proven wrong - it will have held significant value over a large chunk of the average Joe's lifespan.

Brendan Burgess said:
That other guy did a ridiculous calculation Whatever way you look at that it is a forecast. He set out a lower limit and an upper limit.
Click to expand...
Incredibly open minded. So someone presents with a different view to your own so that is sufficient license to label it as ridiculous. Your argument is out of control. Those 'stupid' people that you've referred to have previously driven BTC to become a one trillion dollar asset. It's not reasonable to declare as per an absolutist statement that it couldn't eventually multiply that market value. That's something that you could say is highly unlikely but its not something you could possibly say with certainty that it would never happen. It's beyond your control (because of all the stupid people).

It's quite simple. He worked on an assumption that you oppose and presented calculations based on that assumption. Yourself and the Duke might be getting yer knickers in a twist over that but there's no drama in sight.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
The trajectory of bitcoin since 2017 has truly surprised me. But I am as convinced as ever that it is a nonsense and take considerable comfort that nobody in the Nobel ranks or indeed Warren Buffet have waivered one iota in their dismissal of it.
Click to expand...

In this debate, I've seen this tactic employed by Duke several times.......if it's good enuff for the specialist thought leaders, it's good enuff for me.

I'm more interested in climate change that cryptos and I was looking at old debates on this site and guess what, not so long ago at all, when it came to global warming, Duke wasn't in the least convinced by what the specialist thought leaders were telling us.

In essence, the Duke's position is I'll respect the thought leaders when their thinking is right. You got to admire the consistency of approach - very scientific!
 
JimmyB99 said:
In this debate, I've seen this tactic employed by Duke several times.......if it's good enuff for the specialist thought leaders, it's good enuff for me.

I'm more interested in climate change that cryptos and I was looking at old debates on this site and guess what, not so long ago at all, when it came to global warming, Duke wasn't in the least convinced by what the specialist thought leaders were telling us.

In essence, the Duke's position is I'll respect the thought leaders when their thinking is right. You got to admire the consistency of approach - very scientific!
Click to expand...
I am glad you are a follower :)
Danger of going off topic. I absolutely believe in climate change. It is a scientific fact. I believe that human activity is contributing somewhat to that but recognise there is dispute amongst the experts as to how much - who am I to add to that conjecture? But I am not convinced by the "end of the world" type predictions and there is far from consensus amongst the experts on that. David Quinn in yesterday's Sindo states my position to a tee.
Back on topic, do you think that "it is an extremely conservative scenario that sees bitcoin reach $500,000"?
 
JimmyB99 said:
the Duke's position is I'll respect the thought leaders when their thinking is right.
Click to expand...

Hi Jimmy

I wouldn't pay much attention to a climate scientist's view on BTC just as I would not pay much attention to the Duke's views on climate change.

I would listen to climate scientists on climate and financial experts on BTC.

The Duke knows a lot about finance - I don't know if he knows anything about climate science.

Brendan
 
I know SFA about climate science. When the experts have consensus as they do on some aspects, no way do I disagree. When it comes to the realm of wild Thornberg style speculation I feel as qualified as the next gal to have a view.
There is overwhelming consensus (except Saylor) amongst the experts that bitcoin is BOHA. One theory, which I do not subscribe to, is that they are all part of a self serving central bank orchestrated Satanic conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
DazedInPontoon said:
Boy do I have the perfect article to link for this conversation: https://allenfarrington.medium.com/modeling-bitcoin-value-with-vibes-99eca0997c5f
Click to expand...
That's a very unfair trap you set for @tecate. He fell for it hook line and sinker. Laughing at his response was a cruel twist.
His suggesting I will seek to have "no need to consider anything contained within what AF wrote at all re Bitcoin valuation modelling" shows that he didn't recognise it as a massive spoof.
I'd love to know which bits he was particularly impressed with. Was it the "wibble wobble factor"? Or maybe the fact that "the core of the thesis is that bitcoin will finish up as the only money in the world".
 
Last edited:
DazedInPontoon said:
The amazing thing is, AF is actually a bitcoiner :D
Click to expand...
I'm sure he is. But please confirm for @tecate's sake that this was a massive spoof. Do you really want him making a fool of himself after dark telling the dinner party that a sophisticated model using wibble wabble factors predicts within a 3% error that bitcoin will end up as the only money in the world and possibly (AF was less sure on this) the only asset of value in the world.
 
tecate said:
Yes Duke - because suggesting a need to point that out would be the most important thing here (if it were true). What a wholesome approach you have to the topic. :cool:
Click to expand...
It wasn't I who posted the silly spoof. If you want a wholesome approach ask @DazedInPontoon not to be trying to make a fool out of you. I see he still hasn't done the honourable thing and said "it's only a joke", leaving you probably believing in half of it.
 
BTC is never going to zero........unfortunately but it will dwindle to infinitesimally small sub-culture.......at its heart it's a wonderful 'story' with its anonymous mystery founder/leader (Satoshi)...wise beyond imagination who invented a new technology so ahead of its time (maybe it was Aliens :) ) while foretelling stories of impending monetary collapse....but through BTC Satoshi has provided a life raft for those that 'believe' & 'understand' such that their families financial futures might be saved at judgement day (monetary collapse) while all around them loose everything.

Stories like this appeal to I dunno 5% of the population....I'd need to look at the historical rate for what you might call goldbug-ism.....but longer term 5%feels about right....BTC is kind of goldbug-ism v2.0....so maybe it expands the TAM a little more (6-7%) but it's the same setup with an incrementally better 'story' and probably less friction given its digital nature.

There will be men (& lets be clear its pretty much all men) in nursing homes in 50yrs time holding on to their cold wallets....telling themselves and their grandkids that the promised BTC land is just around the corner and that they need to 'hang on' to these satoshis to 'protect the family'. Their grandkids will snigger at this - as one of the many ways Grandpa is a little loopy.

People waste their lives as goldbugs & doomsday preppers.......there's a cultish doomsday overtone to BTC that just can't be ignored or denied.....it's like heaven's gate/scientology overlaid with high school monetary economics & a poor understanding of existing database technology.

The problem for @tecate & co - is they over extrapolate their little monetary doomsday fetish to the wider population and think growing adoption is therefore a cinch (i.e. BTC go up) ........but it isn't.......2020/21 was a tail event and peak BTC madness.......cause at the end of the day doomsday fetishes are a minority hobby......the median human is naturally optimistic and prefers believing and hoping the future will be better than the past.

Fantasizing about systemic collapse is the preserve of a dreary dystopian few. I wish them well but I wouldn't like to get stuck in an elevator with them.

1690221663119.png
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
leaving you probably believing in half of it.
Click to expand...
Are you five Duke? Childishness. I know its important for you to believe that I was unaware (which explains much about the nature of these discussions) but that wasn't the case. I know far more about the context/background to Farrington having posted that (grounded in current debate/discussion within crypto circles) than you do. ;)

That's my commentary on your last post Duke. I have no commentary to make whatsoever on the fairytale post that follows yours! :cool:
 
Last edited:
tecate said:
Are you five Duke? Childishness. I know its important for you to believe that I was unaware (which explains much about the nature of these discussions) but that wasn't the case. I know far more about the context/background to Farrington having posted that (grounded in current debate/discussion within crypto circles) that you do. ;)

That's my commentary on your last post Duke. I have no commentary to make whatsoever on the fairytale post that follows yours! :cool:
Click to expand...
Talk about double standards. You now claim that you knew it was a spoof all along and yet you played along with a lot of nonsense about me claiming he was a no vaxxer and something about parking fines. You think that was a wholesome approach? You think that was adult (rather than childish)?
Anyway, now that you accept that it was a massive spoof let me make a wholesome adult point. The spoof culminates with the punchline that bitcoin is going to $12m. lol, lol, lol. What's so funny? You had posted a wholesome piece which gave a plausible scenario where it went to $11m and it didn't seem to me that he was deliberately pulling our leg.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
You now claim that you knew it was a spoof all along
Click to expand...
Right Duke - of course. The 'now' exists in that sentence due to some wishful thinking on your part.

Duke of Marmalade said:
yet you played along with a lot of nonsense about me claiming he was a no vaxxer and something about parking fines. You think that was a wholesome approach.
Click to expand...
See the last cited write-up that you 'appraised' by ignoring the entire thrust of what he wrote to try and home in on something that you think you can present to people in such as a way as to undermine the entire thing (I pity anyone who pays heed to you in that regard). 4 or 5 times I drew your attention to this - but you kept on going and didn't consider the main thrust of what he wrote and - as I explicitly pointed out - that was the whole point of my posting it in the first place. Wholesome? It's the furthest thing from wholesome. If you had a genuine interest in understanding more about this subject you'd have willingly reviewed that. But - as per your previous admission - the only thing you're pursuing here is any which way to put Bitcoin down. So don't talk about 'wholesome' Duke.

Duke of Marmalade said:
The spoof culminates with the punchline that bitcoins is going to $12m. lol, lol, lol. What's so funny? You had posted a piece which gave a scenario where it went to $11m and it didn't seem to me that he was deliberately pulling our leg.
Click to expand...
He made a calculation based on certain assumptions - which he stated explicitly - before discussing said calculations. As I clarified earlier and as I've always said during these discussions, such forecasts are uninteresting. And because its uninteresting and the fact I've other things to be getting on with, you think Farrington doesn't believe that BTC price is going to accumulate over time? I don't know if he's engaged with an actual prediction but he certainly believes in the asset.

But fill your boots, try and big up what you perceive to be an absurdity - like you did when BTC was at $5K, $10K....and oh yeah, let's not forget $20K Duke. Should we go back and have a look at just how many posts you stuck up here going on about the poor craturs that had been screwed at $20K and how they'd never see $20K again? How many more instances of your wayward pricing forecasts should we delve into - because there's a raft of them.....and you then have the nerve to go lecturing others on pricing predictions. That's not worthy of a 'LOL', it's worthy of a 'ROFL'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top