Merged: Bitcoin - Part 3

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by wareyin

When the company that provides risk management for cryptoasset owners files for bankruptcy, it's time to get out of the crypto speculation game.

Why ? Clearly it means there is no risk !

[a_unique_person]

Move it all into Bored Apes.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why would I expect anybody to believe a point that I didn't try to make?

Your original point was

Originally Posted by wareyin

As crypto has no utility outside of the exchanges, and the crypto exchanges have nothing to do without crypto, you're obviously wrong.

Clearly, if neither can exist without the other then they must have come into existence simultaneously.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Samson

I suggest shorting bitcoin to 4k.

Where? Wouldn't such a price drop and the current insolvency question of exchanges make the proposition of putting money on an exchange to short quite a bit riskier than the payoff?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by rdwight

Where? Wouldn't such a price drop and the current insolvency question of exchanges make the proposition of putting money on an exchange to short quite a bit riskier than the payoff?

There should be a few ways to mitigate that risk.
Leverage at say 100 to 1 would allow margin capital to be deployed across multiple platforms, and so long as some survive the implosion the rainbow may yield gold. (physical).

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Samson

There should be a few ways to mitigate that risk.
Leverage at say 100 to 1 would allow margin capital to be deployed across multiple platforms, and so long as some survive the implosion the rainbow may yield gold. (physical).

If the bitcoin goes to 4k, in the time specified .. oh, you didn't specify a time .. never mind ..

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Your original point was

Clearly, if neither can exist without the other then they must have come into existence simultaneously.

Kindly reread the sentence you quoted and note that "exist" was never in it.

Once you have done that, if you still disagree then please explain what the crypto exchanges would do without crypto.

Once you have done that (yeah, I know, you won't because you can't) you could try explaining what utility crypto would have if you don't have the ability to buy or sell it or exchange it for goods. (and yeah, I know, you've yet to articulate what utility crypto has period, so I know this is also too high a bar for you to clear)

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Kindly reread the sentence you quoted and note that "exist" was never in it.

Rubbish! That sentence was in direct response to the claim that " bitcoin doesn't need an exchange to exist".

Originally Posted by wareyin

. . . you could try explaining what utility crypto would have if you don't have the ability to buy or sell it or exchange it for goods.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Rubbish! That sentence was in direct response to the claim that " bitcoin doesn't need an exchange to exist".

It's like the irreducible complexity idea, but for crypto, huh? Because 2 systems are now so intertwined that they can't function without each other, you think this should prove that they were created simultaneously.

And yes, the fact that you simply insist that there is a utility, but you don't have to explain or prove it is simply jaw dropping.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Stankeye

Where did you get that info about both parties?

Not even the WaPo has mentioned any donations FTX made to republicans.

Bankman-Fried claims he donated equally ("about the same") to both parties, but:

“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the **** out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”


eta from that article: "Data from OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying, shows FTX US, the company’s US operation, gave equally to both parties."

[marting]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Bankman-Fried claims he donated equally ("about the same") to both parties, but:

“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the **** out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”


eta from that article: "Data from OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying, shows FTX US, the company’s US operation, gave equally to both parties."

Yep. Fried was spending large on lobbying and advertising. Image was important to Fried and he presented himself as a hyper supporter of the environment and poor to make his FTX pitch sound more noble. All a ruse. Lobbying was all about FTX friendly regulations.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It's like the irreducible complexity idea, but for crypto, huh? Because 2 systems are now so intertwined that they can't function without each other, you think this should prove that they were created simultaneously.

And yes, the fact that you simply insist that there is a utility, but you don't have to explain or prove it is simply jaw dropping.

Obviously you are the one who needs to read their own posts.

[Roger Ramjets]

Bitcoin's last stand

Quote:

Bitcoin was created to overcome the existing monetary and financial system. In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the concept. Since then, Bitcoin has been marketed as a global decentralised digital currency. However, Bitcoin's conceptual design and technological shortcomings make it questionable as a means of payment: real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions...

It’s also worth noting that the Bitcoin system is an unprecedented polluter. First, it consumes energy on the scale of entire economies. Bitcoin mining is estimated to consume electricity per year comparable to Austria. Second, it produces mountains of hardware waste. One Bitcoin transaction consumes hardware comparable to the hardware of two smartphones. The entire Bitcoin system generates as much e-waste as the entire Netherlands. This inefficiency of the system is not a flaw but a feature. It is one of the peculiarities to guarantee the integrity of the completely decentralised system...

Since Bitcoin appears to be neither suitable as a payment system nor as a form of investment, it should be treated as neither in regulatory terms and thus should not be legitimised. Similarly, the financial industry should be wary of the long-term damage of promoting Bitcoin investments - despite short-term profits they could make (even without their skin in the game). The negative impact on customer relations and the reputational damage to the entire industry could be enormous once Bitcoin investors will have made further losses.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Bitcoin's last stand

So somebody on the internet confirms your bias? Good for you.

BTW If that person on the internet claims that "real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive" then you can be sure that they know about as much about bitcoin as they do about the temperature of their backside.

[Samson]

Once again we see a suckers rally.
I bet 3 arms we see 14k before Mariah Carey sets a new world record for her Christmas song.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Samson

Once again we see a suckers rally.
I bet 3 arms we see 14k before Mariah Carey sets a new world record for her Christmas song.

What about those 4k ?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Obviously you are the one who needs to read their own posts.

Dude, we get it, you'll hear no bad word about crypto. But your one liner snark posts which miss the point by a mile aren't demonstrating bitcoin's utility, nor how you can buy or sell or trade bitcoin effectively without an exchange, nor what the crypto exchanges are supposed to actually do if/when people realize that bitcoin is just the 21st century tulip thing.

[marting]

A US Regulator's pov, Goldsmith Romero:
https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-12-0...exchanges.html

Quote:

She added that Congress must close existing loopholes and regulatory gaps, and should also ban the mixing of customer and company funds. “User agreements posted online for Coinbase and Kraken, two of the largest digital asset exchanges in the world, appear to authorize the commingling of customer and exchange assets,” she said. “This suggests that commingling is widespread throughout the unregulated crypto markets.”

She also said lawmakers need to provide customers with bankruptcy priority. “There is not enough awareness or attention on this critical threat to customers,” she said. “Customers are often unaware of their lack of protections.”

I've been struck by how blasie Bankman Fried has been in recent days describing his state of mind from before Nov. 6 and subsequent days. But it makes sense now. What he was doing (comingling customer assets) was commonplace and, if he perceived it as a kind of standard practice, it goes a great way to explaining his demeaner.

I agree with the regulator's priorities.

[a_unique_person]

SBF says "I've had a bad week".

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

. . . . if/when people realize that bitcoin is just the 21st century tulip thing.

It is unbelievable how many people new to this thread think that mentioning "tulips" is somehow clever.

They are basically saying that there was a failed investment 400 years ago therefore bitcoin is bad.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So somebody on the internet confirms your bias? Good for you.

BTW If that person on the internet claims that "real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive" then you can be sure that they know about as much about bitcoin as they do about the temperature of their backside.

Let me get this straight according to you:

The European Central Bank is just "someone on the internet"

The ECB Director of Market Systems and Payments is qualified to call Bitcoin transactions slow and cumbersome.

It seems to me that these are some actual experts on the subject while you and, well you. I'm pretty sure most people understand who's opinions are more valuable.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The ECB Director of Market Systems and Payments is qualified to call Bitcoin transactions slow and cumbersome.

This is just appeal to authority.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

SBF says "I've had a bad week".

What amused me was the interviewer basically begging the audience for a round of applause for this thief showing up against the advice of counsel, and the crowd actually complies.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is just appeal to authority.

Appeal to legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, and the ECB certainly is a legitimate authority in this case.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Appeal to legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, and the ECB certainly is a legitimate authority in this case.

That is just an opinion piece and is not immune to scrutiny just because the ECB is a "legitimate" authority.

Most of the so called "experts" in finance haven't dealt with bitcoin before and, like the idiots in this forum, believe that bitcoin came into existence yesterday and will be gone tomorrow.

Anybody who knows anything at all about bitcoin knows that the only cost of a transaction is the fee that must be offered to get the transaction on the blockchain and that you can get 6 confirmations (the irreversible standard) in as little as 30 minutes. Calling that "cumbersome, slow and expensive" reeks of ignorance.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It is unbelievable how many people new to this thread think that mentioning "tulips" is somehow clever.

They are basically saying that there was a failed investment 400 years ago therefore bitcoin is bad.

No to all points. I'm not new to this thread, I'm not mentioning tulips to sound clever, and your "basically saying" is completely ignoring the explanations you've been given which demonstrate the parallels over and over.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is just an opinion piece and is not immune to scrutiny just because the ECB is a "legitimate" authority.

Most of the so called "experts" in finance haven't dealt with bitcoin before and, like the idiots in this forum, believe that bitcoin came into existence yesterday and will be gone tomorrow.

Anybody who knows anything at all about bitcoin knows that the only cost of a transaction is the fee that must be offered to get the transaction on the blockchain and that you can get 6 confirmations (the irreversible standard) in as little as 30 minutes. Calling that "cumbersome, slow and expensive" reeks of ignorance.

IOW you think that you are the real expert in monetary systems, The European Central Bank is a bunch of uninformed idiots who don't know anything and the The ECB Director of Market Systems and Payments doesn't know the first thing about how bitcoins can be used to pay for things...

Your appeal to personal authority is staggering in it's stupidity.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

No to all points. I'm not new to this thread, I'm not mentioning tulips to sound clever, and your "basically saying" is completely ignoring the explanations you've been given which demonstrate the parallels over and over.

What explanations?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

IOW you think that you are the real expert in monetary systems, The European Central Bank is a bunch of uninformed idiots who don't know anything and the The ECB Director of Market Systems and Payments doesn't know the first thing about how bitcoins can be used to pay for things...

Your problem is that you don't know anything about bitcoin and that is why you are desperately clinging onto a bad review like this without daring to analyze the content.

[a_unique_person]

Bitcoin is like the God of Gaps.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Bitcoin is like the God of Gaps.

Why? Because God of Gaps is "bad"?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by lomiller

IOW you think that you are the real expert in monetary systems, The European Central Bank is a bunch of uninformed idiots who don't know anything and the The ECB Director of Market Systems and Payments doesn't know the first thing about how bitcoins can be used to pay for things...

Your appeal to personal authority is staggering in it's stupidity.

No, he thinks that the 'experts' are just pushing an agenda that props up their self-appointed position of authority, and nobody is actually any more of a 'real' expert than anyone else. IOW, financial nihilism.

You see, the market will do what it wants and nobody has any control or predictive power over it (other than that Bitcoin will always become more valuable in the long term). Fiat currencies are just as worthless as Bitcoin, no matter how much banksters like the ECB insist otherwise. Bitcoin is just more honest about it.

psionl0 never set himself up as an expert, except to say that everyone is just as clueless as he is. So it's not appeal to personal authority, it's projection.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What amused me was the interviewer basically begging the audience for a round of applause for this thief

That's a bit harsh. Everybody who 'invests' in Bitcoin expecting the price to go up is a wannabe thief, because they all know their gain must come at someone else's loss. Personally I have no problem with thieves stealing from each other, so long as it doesn't affect the real world.

But course in practice it does spill out into the real world, and lots of innocents get hurt. That's why Bitcoin needs to be strongly regulated 'at the border' - preferably regulated out of existence.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

That's a bit harsh. Everybody who 'invests' in Bitcoin expecting the price to go up is a wannabe thief, because they all know their gain must come at someone else's loss.

Harsh? These people stole billions, which they gambled away and now they can't repay it. This is only off by about a single order of magnitude of the scale of Bernie Madoff and Enron, and reasonably close to the Worldcom scandal.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No, he thinks that the 'experts' are just pushing an agenda that props up their self-appointed position of authority, and nobody is actually any more of a 'real' expert than anyone else. IOW, financial nihilism.

That is pretty much your position too.

The only reason why you linked to the article is that it was negative about bitcoin. Those "experts" who aren't sufficiently negative enough about bitcoin will never be quoted by you.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Harsh? These people stole billions, which they gambled away and now they can't repay it. This is only off by about a single order of magnitude of the scale of Bernie Madoff and Enron, and reasonably close to the Worldcom scandal.

I won’t be at all surprised when they have a solid defense of: this was all allowed by our user agreement.

Will it work? Don’t know.

When you play Willy Wonka’s game, you play by his rules.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why? Because God of Gaps is "bad"?

Because the "why" it actually exists seems to get smaller and smaller.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Because the "why" it actually exists seems to get smaller and smaller.

That is just a meaningless set of random words - unless you are aiming to be the 1,000,000th poster who says "this is the end for bitcoin (this time for sure)".

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No, he thinks that the 'experts' are just pushing an agenda that props up their self-appointed position of authority, and nobody is actually any more of a 'real' expert than anyone else. IOW, financial nihilism.

You see, the market will do what it wants and nobody has any control or predictive power over it (other than that Bitcoin will always become more valuable in the long term). Fiat currencies are just as worthless as Bitcoin, no matter how much banksters like the ECB insist otherwise. Bitcoin is just more honest about it.

psionl0 never set himself up as an expert, except to say that everyone is just as clueless as he is. So it's not appeal to personal authority, it's projection.

He constantly argues that everyone who disagrees with him simply doesn't know as much as he does. He'll never accept even the slightest possibility that he is wrong because he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is simply too stupid to understand what he said.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is just a meaningless set of random words -

No, that was a clear and concise debunking of your response. a_unique_person explained how the arguments of bitcoin proponents are like god of the gaps arguments. Now it's up to you to either draft a real counterargument or to withdraw your objection.