We don't know the date of this claim but we know that Dr. Doom goes into full rant mode when he speaks about bitcoin. Do you have any credible source for this stat?
Please watch my lips. Of course there is a distinction between AAM the social platform and its posts. The geniuses at Fidelity think they have come up with an insight which "confuses" us mere mortals. And very helpfully they will refer to the network with a big "B" and the digital entries with a small "b" to try save us lesser intellects from our confusion.Has your brain gone to mush entirely Duke? You now dispute the distinction they make between a blockchain network and the token that resides on it? Sweet jehovah.
MSO
The Duke moves to strike Dr. Doom's big phat claim from the record.
This is just complete bile from you Duke. Fidelity are latecomers in making that distinction, and yet its a very important distinction to make in explaining things away.
Oops! I've touched a cult raw nerve. The "distinction" between "B" and "b" must be akin for the cult to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. Bitcoin the father and bitcoin the son.
This is childish stuff. There isn't even a point here. I have to say that Fidelity didn't give you ANY point of attack if this is all you could dredge up.
That's not unreasonable. It should be borne in mind that bitcoin isn't designed to produce a return. Those who have bought and held it have benefited from its adoption from a standing start. Once it eventually matures, it should just hold its value/purchasing power. Any further appreciation will only come about via ongoing adoption/increased network effect but returns are unlikely to be anything like what we've seen in the past.
100% agree with you there. Adoption & the strength of the network is going in the right direction as time goes on
Oh, plenty more.
Really?Fidelity said:
I know you reject Satan and all his works but just on this occasion that accords with common understanding. By prices of course Satan means goods and services. In the case of btc we need two steps in that calculation. Over the last 2 years the price of a $ in btc has gone up by c. 60% p.a. and the price of goods in $ terms has itself gone up. So how did our Geniuses at Fidelity (G@F) get a "current" rate of 1.8% p.a.?Bank of England said:
Ah, so the cult does have a god figure.
Apologies to all those who were already familiar with my previous demolition of this totally erroneous use of the term inflation. Perhaps the G@F should give a glossary of terms whose meaning differ from those of the confused infidels.
I was trying to help. The correct term is "limited". The limited aspect is of course key. "Scarce" is not the right word.
Demolition of your capacity to comprehend? Fidelity are discussing token inflation - an item that is often referred to relative to token issuances of various projects.
Have you been drinking the same Kool-aid as our friend Tulip? Bitcoin is scarce. If one pie existed in the world, it would be scarce. Slicing it up a gazillion times wouldn't change that.
Oh dear! I keep blaspheming
You're wasting your time talking about the difference between 'limited ' and 'scarce' with someone who thinks that tulips are inifinite.
You were invited to move on Tulip - for the benefit of people who might actually want to engage with a discussion on the subject. Instead you persist with this nonsense. You think you've made some major finding when you haven't, you have no notion or knowledge on the subject if you think for one second that tulips (!!!!) are comparable to something like bitcoin - and follow up and suggest that bitcoin couldn't be used for payments if it's not a unit of account.
Another one. Pretty sad Duke when all you can do is resort to making stuff up.
Tulips and Bitcoin are comparable in terms of both being finite. But you just can't grasp that.
Believing that tulips are infinite is making stuff up. Just sayin'.
Except you're not just sayin'. You've made it very clear you're not interested in a discussion - and so, we're not in one (just in case you're under any illusions).
That's good that you don't care.Except you're not just sayin'. You've made it very clear you're not interested in a discussion - and so, we're not in one (just in case you're under any illusions).
You can mention finite/infinite 1000x more times - it's no skin off my nose. If someone in the near partisan peanut gallery is amused by that nonsense, fabulous. I don't care.
