What split between Bitcoin and Etherium

[tecate]

Because you say so.

You're the one that tars it with the tulipmania jibe. If you're big enough to make the claim, then you should be big and bold enough to defend your position and tell us in what earthly way tulips were a good store of value or money.

Until the time that it doesn't. This is why I wouldn't recommend it as an investment for the future. It's totally reliant on people pumping up the value through hype. It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.

oh dear - more homework to be done. Another wayward term from a number of years ago. Tell me, where are the offices of the masterminds behind this 'ponzi'??....because that's the nature of a ponzi scheme right - its organised and set out as such from the get go.

Its testament to the nature of people that there are hype cycles where innovation and new tech are concerned. However, in no way do I agree that bitcoin is reliant on 'people pumping up the value'.

 

[WolfeTone]

Until the time that it doesn't. This is why I wouldn't recommend it as an investment for the future.

You can say that about anything.

It's totally reliant on people pumping up the value through hype. It's the largest ponzi scheme known to man.

If its a Ponzi scheme its only the only Ponzi scheme in history that once the price crashes into freefall has recovered again to new all times highs.
A characteristic that is alien to Ponzi schemes.

If its a Ponzi scheme who is operating it?

Arguably, the US $ debt market is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time, operated by Federal Reserve, US govt and US military.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Wolfie

If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.

So despite tecate's "end of" comment, tulipmania and the dot.com boom are entirely relevant to the discussion of Bitcoin.

The reason why manias like Bitcoin keep recurring, is because people forget about them, or say "this time it's different"

Brendan

 

[tecate]

Wolfie

If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.

So despite tecate's "end of" comment, tulipmania and the dot.com boom are entirely relevant to the discussion of Bitcoin.

The reason why manias like Bitcoin keep recurring, is because people forget about them, or say "this time it's different"

Brendan

Brendan, analogies have to be looked at for what they are. In the case of the dot com boom I've always maintained that you're absolutely right to bring that into the discussion. What you've always failed to acknowledge though - is the wave of innovation that came out of it. You've always presented it - in purely negative terms.
In the case of tulipmania, the inference is that there was nothing of substance behind the tulip craze and there's nothing of substance behind crypto/bitcoin. That's wayward. If someone disagrees, all they have to do is look at the recognised attributes of money and of a store of value to determine that tulips don't even enter the discussion whereas bitcoin most certainly does.
That doesn't mean its perfect or that its beyond criticism but it does mean that the tulipania analogy is wayward. The dot com boom implicated hype with plenty of substance. Tulipmania was incredibly short lived - implicating hype and zero substance.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Tecate

Manias are manias.

I am having the same discussion with you as I had with others during the dot.com mania. The other side just won't listen. They derided any reference to tulips.

The tulip maniacs dismissed all criticism just as the BTC maniacs do. This time is no different.

The main lesson that you and Wolfie need to learn is that the past is a great guide. Really clever people like you and Wolfie fall victim to irrational manias. When BTC falls to zero, you will be scratching your head "How did I believe all that nonsense?".

Brendan

 

[Tickle]

...the nature of a ponzi scheme right - its organised and set out as such from the get go.

Ah come on now, Bitcoin's main selling point is that it is a decentralised ponzi scheme. It is being pumped up by those who have bought in to it. Herd mentality and fear of missing out is feeding the scheme and blowing it's worth out of proportion. You can continue to shout down at people who don't buy into it.

 

[tecate]

Tecate

Manias are manias.

I am having the same discussion with you as I had with others during the dot.com mania. The other side just won't listen. They derided any reference to tulips.

The tulip maniacs dismissed all criticism just as the BTC maniacs do. This time is no different.

The main lesson that you and Wolfie need to learn is that the past is a great guide. Really clever people like you and Wolfie fall victim to irrational manias. When BTC falls to zero, you will be scratching your head "How did I believe all that nonsense?".

Brendan

I see zero progression in your take on this Brendan since 2017. You've once again ignored what I put to you in my last post. I'll ask again. Do you accept that a whole raft of life-changing innovation emerged out of the dot com era? Why do you never acknowledge that?

With regard to hype cycles, I've repeatedly acknowledged that markets of this nature get over-exuberant. I've stepped out of the market on that basis on a number of occasions. I've also repeatedly stated that the vast majority of decentralised blockchain projects will simply vapourize. People over estimate what can be achieved in 1 year and underestimate what can be achieved in 10.

You could take a completely different perspective here and acknowledge that there's something of substance at the heart of this. Given that to be the case and given what we know about hype cycles, you could choose to engage positively in figuring out what would be a safe strategy for someone to gain exposure to this as it develops. You'll note that the engagement with others here was on the basis of a suggestion of limiting exposure to no more than 5% of overall portfolio. Anyone who would engage positively on the subject to my mind would explore items of that nature....not this doubling and tripling down with mention of ponzi schemes!

As regards the 'how did i believe all this nonsense'? - what on earth are you referring to? What would you have been referring to back in dot com era times? What we don't have acceptance of here from you is that there is innovation at hand - you have consistently denied that.

 

[Tickle]

the vast majority of decentralised blockchain projects will simply vapourize

But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.

 

[Tickle]

You'll note that the engagement with others here was on the basis of a suggestion of limiting exposure to no more than 5% of overall portfolio. Anyone who would engage positively on the subject to my mind would explore items of that nature....not this doubling and tripling down with mention of ponzi schemes!

Your basis for that, given on this thread, is solely the assertion that "the asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years". That does not seem very well thought out.

 

[tecate]

Ah come on now, Bitcoin's main selling point is that it is a decentralised ponzi scheme. It is being pumped up by those who have bought in to it. Herd mentality and fear of missing out is feeding the scheme and blowing it's worth out of proportion. You can continue to shout down at people who don't buy into it.

You can continue to embarrass yourself with this all day long - and I say embarrass yourself because by its very definition, a ponzi scheme is an organised, centralised, orchestrated manipulation to willfully relieve people of their funds. And now you're claiming that bitcoin is a 'decentralised' ponzi - it's complete clown college stuff. And as regards what you call 'shout down at people', I call that calling people on their bs.

 

[Tickle]

I think the concept and mechanics of a ponzi scheme are well known, however, just because you say that it has to be organised, doesn't make the description any less apt. A description based on its characteristics. Which you cannot see or refuse to acknowledge.

 

[tecate]

But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.

There isn't even the remotest chance of having anything close to an intelligent discussion on the subject given that you acknowledge no positive attribute in any project.

Your basis for that, given on this thread, is solely the assertion that "the asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years". That does not seem very well thought out.

No, it's not. I've posted here on the subject over the course of 4 years - and my thesis re. bitcoin extends beyond what you claim.

 

[tecate]

I think the concept and mechanics of a ponzi scheme are well known, however, just because you say that it has to be organised, doesn't make the description any less apt. A description based on its characteristics. Which you cannot see or refuse to acknowledge.

It's a complete and utter fabrication. The definition of a ponzi scheme in no way fits - but what your saying is yeah you're right but I'm going to tar and feather it with that label regardless.

 

[Tickle]

It's a complete and utter fabrication. The definition of a ponzi scheme in no way fits - but what your saying is yeah you're right but I'm going to tar and feather it with that label regardless.

No, what I am saying is that a comparisons can be made without semantics. And fixating on semantics to refute is ignoring the bigger picture.

 

[Tickle]

...suggesting a zero percent allocation to an asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years.

I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong.

 

[WolfeTone]

If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.

Brendan, I'm not dismissing the 'mania', clearly Bitcoin’s meteoric rise from 0 to $5k, then $3k to $20k, then $3k to $60k is phenomenal.
I'm simply making the distinction that ponzi schemes, when they go bust go bust for good. They only ever resurface if they are packaged as another product/investment vehicle etc

Bitcoin price action is not too dissimilar to other assets that are subject to price volatility over time, property, oil, gold etc.

No doubt Bitcoin’s greater volatility is a consequence of its establishment as a new asset class. I sense this volatility will reduce over time.

 

[tecate]

No, what I am saying is that a comparisons can be made without semantics. And fixating on semantics to refute is ignoring the bigger picture.

Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).

I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong.

You've already been proven wrong. What's even more concerning is that you fail to see the potential upside of the assemetric risk that bitcoin represents right now without having to go overboard in terms of overall portfolio risk.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I sense this volatility will reduce over time.

You are correct.

When it falls to zero, the volatility will be zero.

Brendan

 

[Tickle]

You fail to see the potential upside of the assemetric risk that bitcoin represents right now without having to go overboard im terms of overall portfolio risk.

Tell us some more about the potential downsides. You seem to have no problems overstating the upsides, and you are completely dismissive of views that you don't agree with.

Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).

You are only using the semantics that suit your agenda and you are ignoring the characteristics that are similar.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The ponzi scheme argument is a non argument.

If you define a ponzi scheme as an organised scheme, then it's not a ponzi scheme.

If you define it as something where people pay a lot of money for nothing in the hope that a greater fool will pay more for it, then it's a ponzi scheme.



Brendan