I remember at the outset of all this BC business and the arguments for and against BC, Mr Burgess saying that at the end of the day BC was just worthless, no value, etc. Then some time later I watched as ordinary people in the street came across saying they had bought some, sold some and others were holding on to it because they totally believed it would soar. No doubt some "investors" made a few bob, some i'm sure lost and others are in there for the long run. Now, this "long run" strategy has me a bit baffled. Imagine you buy something for a few Euro and find yourself the owner of the exact same asset now worth €60,000.00 (was worth). I would love to know if there's many punters on here who actually bought a few Bitcoin for the couple of Euro and sold on for the €60k? Saw a piece in yesterdays Indo suggesting similar to Me Burgess that it's a worthless bubble type "thingy". In any case, did many make a killing when they had a chance? Not just a few € but a proper Kill?
How long before nation states buy bitcoin?
- Thread starter WolfeTone
- Start date
- Status
That wasn't hard now was it?
My answer was, already acknowledged, glib. But the truth is I really don't know. Just like I don't know whether it will rain on the 1st August this year, I don't know if nation states will acquire Bitcoin.
You could perhaps open a thread on that so?
According to some Russian conspiracy theorists, Putin is trying to control the weather.
Can Russia control the weather
Its got stuff about NK also, so why not knock yourself out?
Why, I'm not interested in knowing whether if it will rain on the 1st of August?
So you accuse me of posting random articles and then do exactly that yourself! By the way, I didn't have you for a Daily Mail reader I must say, unless of course you just did a Google search
I would be surprised if many here, or elsewhere did, although Im sure some both it at $1-2 and still at least hold some.. The psychology at play would be immense. The idea that you could buy something for say, $5, and in a relatively short space of time it is worth $500, let alone $5,000 or $50,000, and not cash in some or all of your holding at some point is hard to imagine, for me, anyway.
I've doubled my stake, twice. I still hold some bitcoin, unfortunately its less than my holding in 2017. But nevertheless what I do hold has now cost me nothing and has become quite valuable. Not life changing, but if predicted $200,000+ price ever emerges I can start to contemplate maybe knocking some years off for early retirement.
Last edited:
Then why mention it?
That's my point, you don't seem interested in this topic either, so why are u here? You have nothing but glib responses and unrelated, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
I did a google search
It's all there in the article that you selectively quoted from but didn't cite -> Coindesk: 'Microsoft’s ION Digital ID Network Is Live on Bitcoin'
It's a layer 2 solution which runs on top of the bitcoin network and is secured by it - working in a similar way as lightning network. It's capable of 10,000 digital identity requests per transaction - so there's no scalability issue. The project lead has been quoted as saying that bitcoin is a very important facet of the project as no other network can match its level of security.
As I suggested previously, these features and use cases should all be considered together - rather than in isolation - in arriving at a conclusion as to what overall value bitcoin brings. Bear in mind that this is just the beginning and whilst bitcoin itself is deliberately limited from a programability perspective, there are still people building services to run on top of it.
On average, bitcoin has appreciated at a rate of 200% pa over the course of its 12 years so it's a fair assumption to make that early adopters have done ok. WolfeTone recently sold some BTC just below $60,000.
The Indo is nothing more than a blog at this stage - not a good source of info on the subject. Someone ran a search on either the FT or WSJ recently for the term "DeFi" (abbreviated term that refers to Dencentralised Finance). I think it returned around three results. I'm not necessarily referring to bitcoin in this example but conventional/establishment finance (and the media associated with it) has no earthly idea of the disruption that's coming down the tracks.noproblem said:
As regards the bubble charge, its said that a bubble is a bull market that you don't have a position in. There's no doubt that there's hype, over-exuberance and latent greed. I suspect that there will once again be an 80% correction when the dust settles on this particular cycle. However, if you zoom out and look at its ongoing development over the long run, the trajectory is upwards and to the right...as per that 200% pa appreciation I mentioned above.
@WolfeTone : So your back and forth has confirmed to you that you were spot on the first time as per post # 172.
Last edited:
I am interested in the subject matter....and regarding the subject matter, not having a fidler's is quite different to not giving a fidler's
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 357
I bought a reasonable amount of crypto in 2013 and 2014. I sold some in the previous cycle (a bit too early in hindsight). I've sold a small amount recently. I won't sell more until closer to $100k. I'm happy to hold some indefinitely.
Thank you for that, but like tecate and Wolfe Tone not what I wanted to know.
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 357
Well ok, I didn't buy for 1 or 2 euro, but I did buy some at double digit euro prices, and I have held some right through since. It's once in a lifetime kind of stuff.
That would certainly qualify as a 'proper Kill' in my eyes.
I'd say very few now due to the nature of the bubble, whats unique about bitcoin is that it has crashed a few times and recovered to reach new highs. During the dot com mania many people would have cashed out towards the late 90s with tidy profits and then watched as it kept going higher, human nature being what it is most of these bought back in because of FOMO.
The nature of bitcoin being a whole belief system would mean that most of these people are still fully invested in bitcoin they couldn't resist missing out as it went to 60K. We will only know for sure when its all over who really made the killing on it.
I think we can all agree that bitcoins rapid price rise is a characteristic of a bubble. But it is not necessarily identifiable a bubble either. It is only identifiable as a bubble after a rapid price crash and then, and only then, by virtue of the price high and lows can we identify the where and how big the bubble (if there is one) is.
As opposed to any other form of money? Is there a form of money throughout the history of humankind that has not been built on a belief system?
The core of that belief system being trust.
But that could be decades or centuries away?
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Maybe. We do not want to pry into DiP's "proper kill" but here is a not unreasonable scenario that fits the stated facts.
S/he bought €5,000 (a reasonable amount) at €50 (double digits).
When it went to €15,000 s/he cashed in €5,000 (I would, even if I had the faith).
And so on, and is currently still holding about €10,000 worth (a mere fraction of the original purchase). I would say that strategy would have provided about €30,000 profit. Certainly better than a poke in the eye, but a "proper kill"? Now if s/he had held on to the original purchase that would represent a profit of €5m which would be a "proper kill" even to a duke.
The implication being that s/he has a least 1 BTC or more likely more considering the "some" reference. Bought at double digit euros, so no greater than €99, and held right through since.
Which is worth some €40,000 per €99 unit of bitcoin.
Agreed. I think @noproblem is searching for the ultimate kill, but I would imagine they would be few and far between.
More importantly, and heading back close to topic. Christine LaGarde is propagating the notion that hyperinflation is actually a good thing.
"I completely appreciate that people who are saving are not satisfied with being charged the consequences of negative interest rates, but we have to look at the situation from a global point of view. We cannot look at a particular depositor, or a particular category, we have to look at the whole economy. And we know that by putting in place those negative interest rates, we are effectively supporting the economy, we're encouraging enterprises, families, households, young couples, to actually borrow at very low rates in order to invest, in order to buy their first apartment, in order to buy some equipment, and....the contribution that that is in order to support the economy, in order to make sure that jobs are kept, in order to make sure that cooperates can continue to operate and produce is clearly a trade off against some aspects that are resented by those that are only savers and are not borrowers."
Source: Twitter, @ecb, Apr 23, 12:21pm.
So there you have it folks, FTB's saving for a deposit on an apartment or a house are not helping the economy. So much so that your savings need to be confiscated to induce you to borrow instead at very low interest rates. With eurozone house prices rising 5.4% yoy, the only way for FTB to get a house or apartment is to quit that savings nonsense and go all in on borrowing, 100%, maybe more (does LaGarde understand the correlation?)
[broken link removed]
@Duke of Marmalade, I think your brave new world has arrived. Looking good?
Not exactly stating hyper inflation is a good thing though is she??? She is explaining economics 101 that junior cert students learn. Whether you agree with her or not, I don't see anything controversial in what she said. Not like she is suddenly announcing the ECB have abandoned 2% inflation target and are instead looking for hyper inflation to kill off indebtedness.
Of course she is not saying it directly, but she is intimating that taxes on savings are here and if anyone had any cop on they would take their money out of banks, spend, and borrow as much as they can "at very low interest rates"
Exactly. You need see beyond the junior cert economics to understand the implications.
Exactly, because she is explaining economics 101 that is geared to junior cert economic thinking.
Except that's not what she is saying is it??? That's what you think she is saying. She admits negative rates hurt savers but it is a lesser evil than the alternative when looking at the whole economy. Feel free to disagree with her but nowhere does she mention hyper inflation and nowhere does she tell people to fill their boots with debt.
You basically took a quote, read what you wanted into it and then used that as proof for some idea you had.....handy tool to have in any discussion....
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
@WolfeTone I know hyperinflationary breakdown of the corrupt Western financial system is a fantasy of yours. If it stokes your fantasy that 5% yoy house price rises is bringing 50% mom inflation closer why should I rain on you?“investopedia” said:
I think you are on record as arguing that high interest rates cause inflation.
Having said that I think Mme. Lagarde is wrong on the low interest rates helping folk to buy their first apartment. All the low interest rates are doing there is driving up prices and making them less affordable. She’s out of her depth.
Last edited:
- Status