Well, don't feel you need to go home empty-handed. See posts #14-27 for 'tulipmania' discussion.
What split between Bitcoin and Etherium
- Thread starter IndianaJones
- Start date
I am a little puzzled by the Ponzi assertions around Bitcoin. Everything about the tech and algorithms is freely available for scrutiny. The source code to run a full Bitcoin node on any laptop is freely available here - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin - and can be picked over by any interested party. If you really want to know *exactly* how this works, you can (if you put the effort in ).
).DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,053
As I said, I don't think its a Ponzi Scheme and I don't discount your opinion, I'm merely highlighting that nobody can prove with 100% certainty. It is with this that people should be accepting of others opinions and views on the topics. The perception of it being a ponzi scheme is directly influenced by ones own experience with Bitcoin If you invest at $30 and sell at $60k you aren't going to think it is a ponzi scheme, if you invest at $60k and sell at $30k you will more likely listen to the narrative that it is a ponzi scheme.
This idea should not be new to those that have had some involvement in cryptocurrency, specifically on crypto twitter. There is language used that draws comparisons to ponzi schemes.....'bag holders'...'bag of air'...'whale'...'REKT'...'Hodlers'.
There's a fundamental disconnect then in terms of what you and I deem to be debate. The beauty of an open forum is that anyone can chime in. Every single participant can expect to have any claims or views well and truly challenged out in the open. We all have our views and we also have views that are steeped in bias and prejudice. Lets take the example at hand - the ponzi scheme claim. I've made my counter claims. Any other participant can see claim and counterclaim. That's the outcome of the discussion. The individual makes up their own mind. That is discussion and that is debate. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to engage in debate. You may think that there has to be an agreement at the end of it, there doesn't.
Well, here's another aspect to consider. Someone can be fundamentally opposed to bitcoin and grab at any old thing (knowing it to be untrue) and try and tar and feather it - and so, maybe those perceptions among the general public are based on same. I'm not down with misinformation - whether intentional or accidental - and I will challenge it and make no apologies for that.
Firstly on personal attacks, you'll get no sympathy from me. You've goaded the hell out of me for the past 7 months and despite going out of my way not to engage with you, you've contrived at every turn to personally attack. Well, be aware that my approach to discussion is to 2x the way I'm treated - so if you decide to go that route from this point onwards, you'll be spending a lot more of your time on AAM. Entirely up to yourself.
We're back to your total misunderstanding of the nature of discussion. Where have I said that people shouldn't listen to your opinion? How can anyone form their own opinion if they were only to listen to one side of a story? Secondly, what power have I ever had to deprive you of your ability to express your opinion here. Last time I noticed, I didn't have mod powers to delete posts.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,053
If you are not trying to discredit my opinion, why are you dragging up points from 2020 into this conversation? If you are not trying to discourage me, what is with the constant personal attacks?
Firstly on the notion of 'discrediting someone's opinion' - at the end of the day, your opinion is your opinion. Maybe someone will chime in and you think bs - i don't agree or maybe you think they may have a point. If there's to be any value to a discussion, anyone should want every single point critiqued/challenged. Isnt that the whole point?
As regards the rest of what you state above, see my previous post - then run a search on your own posts with keyword 'tecate' - and come back and tell me that you have not engaged in personal attack after personal attack. Other than that, over the course of 7 months, I worked with the notion of not engaging with you whatsoever - so if I wasn't engaging with you, where were the personal attacks exactly?
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,053
What does bringing up comments from 2020 on a different topic have to do with critiquing my opinion on the current topic? You are seeking constantly to bucket me into the category of a bitcoin naysayer as a means to discredit my opinion. If you want to critique and challenge every single point, why don't you actually challenge and critique the points I have stated here rather than drudging up something from somewhere else. For example, I stated at the outset I don't believe Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, and I've asked you if you can prove with certainty, I've also raised the example of the Maddoff ponzi scheme. All of these points have been conveniently excluded from your approach.
Tecate, there may have been times where I have lost the run of myself, but I don't believe I have ever personally attacked you. I am sorry if I have, but your claims that every post from me to yourself is a personal attack, I don't buy it. Also if you are claiming you have never personally attacked me, there is no point continuing.
Broken record.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I originally gave this thread a miss as its Title was most uninviting. I see that Wolfie has now answered the Title. But I now see that I was missing pure entertainment.
In my satoshi's worth I will not be expressing a personal view but rather interpreting what I believe would be the views of Professor Roubini, the gal who predicted the credit crunch etc.
He describes phenomena such as pump and dump, price manipulation, whales etc. but I don't think he has called it a Ponzi scheme because it does not tick all the boxes to be so indicted. Maybe it should be called a Tulip scheme though that to @tecate would be like saying "pope" in the presence of Ian Paisley and in any event tulips actually did and still do have value. Maybe it should be called a Muskie scheme but that would be in danger of getting a legal rocket up the rear end. Maybe a Whaley scheme.
But I actually think that @tecate would be comfortable with describing it as a dotcom scheme. With hindsight dotcom had a big difference with Tulipmania - there was the germ of a correct speculation there. The new technology has indeed transformed the world and has led to some enormous increases in certain assets, maybe not all or even a high proportion of the original stars but the premise behind dotcom was not entirely wrong.
As I understand the gal @tecate sees parallels between crypto/blockchain technology and dotcom. The parallel goes that there will be many many losers and failures amongst the early players but there will be one or two monster winners. I would tend to agree that IF this parallel is borne out bitcoin is the strong favourite to be one of the big winners. It may not have the best platform but it has a huge edge in its network adoption.
BUT, I am with Professor Roubini. The parallel will be proven false.
In my satoshi's worth I will not be expressing a personal view but rather interpreting what I believe would be the views of Professor Roubini, the gal who predicted the credit crunch etc.
He describes phenomena such as pump and dump, price manipulation, whales etc. but I don't think he has called it a Ponzi scheme because it does not tick all the boxes to be so indicted. Maybe it should be called a Tulip scheme though that to @tecate would be like saying "pope" in the presence of Ian Paisley and in any event tulips actually did and still do have value. Maybe it should be called a Muskie scheme but that would be in danger of getting a legal rocket up the rear end. Maybe a Whaley scheme.
But I actually think that @tecate would be comfortable with describing it as a dotcom scheme. With hindsight dotcom had a big difference with Tulipmania - there was the germ of a correct speculation there. The new technology has indeed transformed the world and has led to some enormous increases in certain assets, maybe not all or even a high proportion of the original stars but the premise behind dotcom was not entirely wrong.
As I understand the gal @tecate sees parallels between crypto/blockchain technology and dotcom. The parallel goes that there will be many many losers and failures amongst the early players but there will be one or two monster winners. I would tend to agree that IF this parallel is borne out bitcoin is the strong favourite to be one of the big winners. It may not have the best platform but it has a huge edge in its network adoption.
BUT, I am with Professor Roubini. The parallel will be proven false.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dang, you're getting good at this stuff, Dukey.
Brendan has made the comparison with the dot com era on multiple occasions from the point of view of mania/hype cycle/over-exuberance - and I agree with him on that all day long. What I have not seen from him or anyone else here is an acknowledgement that the existence of a hype cycle doesn't mean that someone shouldn't have pursued a means of gaining exposure to that dot com wave of innovation from an investment perspective. The analogy is fitting from the perspective of risk/reward. You could have ended up with shares in pets.com or amazon.com. The same is true here - there is variance between crypto projects and there are all the other risk factors - including regulatory risk, etc.
That's why I can't see why someone couldn't be skeptical in general about the innovation at hand and yet still find reasonably acceptable the notion of limited exposure (lets say up to 5%) against the backdrop of an otherwise balanced portfolio.
The mentality amongst many here seems to be this is a nothing burger yet over the timeframe of these discussions - these past 4 years - the evidence points to ongoing development, adoption and growth.
Brendan has made the comparison with the dot com era on multiple occasions from the point of view of mania/hype cycle/over-exuberance - and I agree with him on that all day long. What I have not seen from him or anyone else here is an acknowledgement that the existence of a hype cycle doesn't mean that someone shouldn't have pursued a means of gaining exposure to that dot com wave of innovation from an investment perspective. The analogy is fitting from the perspective of risk/reward. You could have ended up with shares in pets.com or amazon.com. The same is true here - there is variance between crypto projects and there are all the other risk factors - including regulatory risk, etc.
That's why I can't see why someone couldn't be skeptical in general about the innovation at hand and yet still find reasonably acceptable the notion of limited exposure (lets say up to 5%) against the backdrop of an otherwise balanced portfolio.
The mentality amongst many here seems to be this is a nothing burger yet over the timeframe of these discussions - these past 4 years - the evidence points to ongoing development, adoption and growth.
Broken record indeed - from the guy that has dredged up retro-fud not seen since 5+ years ago when practically everyone else has long since abandoned the wayward ponzi and tulipmania claims.Tickle said:
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,099
This has a ring of reasonableness about it, but it's misleading.
If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio into gold, it's reasonable, but I will decline.
If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio on Tecate's Folly in the 3.30 in Newmarket, I will decline. But you will point out the asymmetrical return at 20/1, but I will still decline.
If you suggest to me to put 5% of my portfolio into something which is worth nothing because there is hype about it and it might well rise before falling to zero, again, I will decline.
Brendan
You can build a sandcastle on sand, but not a house. A house will (eventually) collapse if built on sand.
@Brendan - ok, fair enough. It's as I suspected - you continue to believe there is nothing of substance here. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, be aware that the dot com era faced a whole plethora of objections back then. Now people think, of course - it makes complete sense - but there was a range of commentary saying it was a nothing burger (including from the renowned fax machine guy).
But lets take a step back. Lets say that its the dot com thats playing out right now - and unlike decentralised blockchain, you're onboard and believe that there's major substance. You told us that you were blue in the face railing against investment back then due to the existence of mania. I fully acknowledge the existence of a hype cycle back then (just as I do where crypto is concerned). If it was playing out right now, what would you deem to be a reasonable approach if someone wanted to gain exposure to that innovative wave despite the various stages of a hype cycle?
But lets take a step back. Lets say that its the dot com thats playing out right now - and unlike decentralised blockchain, you're onboard and believe that there's major substance. You told us that you were blue in the face railing against investment back then due to the existence of mania. I fully acknowledge the existence of a hype cycle back then (just as I do where crypto is concerned). If it was playing out right now, what would you deem to be a reasonable approach if someone wanted to gain exposure to that innovative wave despite the various stages of a hype cycle?
Last edited:
I know it is hot outside so aside from any mirage type effects I can only see the mere pondering of this prospective outcome as a seismic shift in Dukes thinking.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
The big (actually CAP) two letter word is IF. Similarly. I believe that IF there is a God she is an RC.
Yes, and you have opened the door for it being possible.
Look what happened when people started to wonder IF there was a God!
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I hope you don't take it as a buy signal. I would hate to have that on my conscience.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,099
Hi tecate
I was an early adopter of the internet and did not rail against investment back then.
I railed against investment at the prices.
Companies which had little prospect of ever making money were selling for multiples of their turnover. A company's share price would rise for no reason. To make the shares affordable, they would be split in two - and guess what? The share price would double instead of halving. I remember a friend of mine saying about a company he had invested in - "one more share split and I will be a millionaire." There was no telling him that the share price was wrong. A company would add .com to its name, and its share price would double. You could not talk to the faithful. They dismissed anyone with investments in the likes of CRH or Ryanair as dinosaurs. The arguments put forward were not unlike yours. "The number of BTC being mined is reducing, so the supply is reducing." Once you believe, you believe everything even that black is white. It's real Alice through the Looking Glass stuff.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,099
Very very difficult to answer this.
In some stocks, there is a dot.com bubble playing out now.
Take Uber - I just can't see how it will ever make a profit. It's a fantastic service. So I would find it very hard to take a punt on it.
Coinbase floated recently? It looks like an interesting company. I only read bits about it but it seems like it might or might not make money. It made $320m in 2020 But it's valued at $85 billion. If it doubles its profits every year for 10 years, then it would be worth that. But if it crashes when BTC crashes, it will be worth virtually nothing.
Last edited: