Well, don't feel you need to go home empty-handed. See posts #14-27 for 'tulipmania' discussion.If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.
A creator is not the same as a central operator
As I've said, it's zero for three on the things needed for a Ponzi scheme, so no.
If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.
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.What is of my annoyance is that you say you want to debate but you only want to debate on your terms. For example, this is a thread about splitting an investment between Ethereum and Bitcoin, there are those that have said it is gambling, there are those called it a ponzi scheme and there are those that say it isn't a ponzi scheme. You have got hung up on somebodys 'attack' of the ponzi scheme specifically on the definition of a ponzi scheme for 4 pages. That is not a sign of somebody willing to engage in a debate.
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.My case in point I said it isn't a ponzi scheme, but I am not blind that people can perceive it that way either from the media they read or their own negative experiences with Bitcoin.
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.Yet you choose personal attacks, using inexcusable discriminatory remarks to try and discredit my opinion completely bypassing the topic at hand.
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.So if that is want you want to do....I'll ask you....why should people not listen to my opinion on Bitcoin?
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.
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?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?
Broken record.Fed up with this 'dark web' nonsense. Firstly, who gives a fiddlers - let people buy what the hell they want and they can deal with Law Enforcement thereafter - that's their problem. All of these people use cash, cars, etc. etc. - are we to ban them too? or tar and feather bitcoin? The idea that more people proportionately use bitcoin for illicit purposes than cash is semantics. A savage amount of cash is used for a multitude of illegal purposes day in, day out. In any event, those dark web people you're talking about (if they're not using usd or euro) are using monero now (given that it is truly anonymous whereas bitcoin isn't.)
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:Broken Record
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.
You can build a sandcastle on sand, but not a house. A house will (eventually) collapse if built on sand....ongoing development, adoption and growth.
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.
The big (actually CAP) two letter word is IF. Similarly. I believe that IF there is a God she is an RC.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.
The big (actually CAP) two letter word is IF. Similarly. I believe that IF there is a God she is an RC.
I hope you don't take it as a buy signal. I would hate to have that on my conscience.Yes, and you have opened the door for it being possible.
Look what happened when people started to wonder IF there was a God!
You told us that you were blue in the face railing against investment back then due to the existence of mania.
Lets say that its the dot com thats playing out right now - ... 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?
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?