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.Because you say so.
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.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.
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.
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
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....the nature of a ponzi scheme right - its organised and set out as such from the get go.
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
But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.the vast majority of decentralised blockchain projects will simply vapourize
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.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!
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.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.
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.But not Bitcoin, for some reason. Bitcoin is different somehow.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong....suggesting a zero percent allocation to an asset that has outperformed every other over the course of 12 years.
If you refer to the past as a guide to the future, you can't dismiss past manias.
Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).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.
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.I think that is prudent advice in the context of Bitcoin. Prove me wrong.
I sense this volatility will reduce over time.
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.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.
You are only using the semantics that suit your agenda and you are ignoring the characteristics that are similar.Disingenuous rubbish - you're affixing a label that is entirely wayward (claiming semantics is more of it).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?