Merged: Bitcoin - Part 3

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That is a good question. Will people ever stop falling for con jobs, or will humanity itself die out first?

Stick to the subject at hand.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So will the heat death of the universe. The question is, which event will occur first?

Since BTC requires vast quantities of energy, we can be sure it'll be gone first. In fact, it might even be the cause of the heat death of the Universe.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Stick to the subject at hand.

Dude, that was literally your question that I was agreeing with!

[marting]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Crypto ATMs exist pretty much everywhere at this point. Even some small towns with a population of less than 5k have them. Some you can only buy crypto, some you can buy or sell. You don't need an account and you use your own wallet. Scan your wallet address, put in your money, wait 15 minutes for the blockchain confirmations, and you're done. Anyone with sufficient funds can buy one of the various models of crypto ATM and make an arrangement with a local gas station or whatever to house it just like any other ATM.

Seems the Bitcoin ATM market isn't going great.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...0m/ar-AA17g1rP

Quote:

Bitcoin ATM Operator Coin Cloud Files for Bankruptcy With Liabilities of $100M-$500M
...
Coin Cloud, which operates more than 4,000 bitcoin ATMs across the U.S. and Brazil, has filed for bankruptcy protection with estimated liabilities of between $100 million and $500 million.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Dude, that was literally your question that I was agreeing with!

No it wasn't. You changed the subject from bitcoin to "con jobs".

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

No it wasn't. You changed the subject from bitcoin to "con jobs".

That's not a subject change. See all the recent discussion about price manipulation, wash trading, pump and dump, etc if you remain confused.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's not a subject change.

Yes it is. It is the old "<bad word> ergo bitcoin" argument which passes for critical thinking in this thread.

Bitcoin may be subject to price manipulation and there may be "con jobs" involving BTC (just as there are "con jobs" involving fiat currencies) but bitcoin itself is not any sort of "job". It is just a digital asset.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Yes it is. It is the old "<bad word> ergo bitcoin" argument which passes for critical thinking in this thread.

Bitcoin may be subject to price manipulation and there may be "con jobs" involving BTC (just as there are "con jobs" involving fiat currencies) but bitcoin itself is not any sort of "job". It is just a digital asset.

Good job, psionl0! Look at you, finally admitting that it's possible that there may be con jobs involving bitcoin!

Why, pretty soon you might even accept that it's a known fact that there are scams involving bitcoin! Then it's not too much further before you grok that the majority of bitcoin transactions are fraudulent in nature. And eventually, maybe, you too will understand that bitcoin is not the lovely commodity with a halo that you first thought!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Good job, psionl0! Look at you, finally admitting that it's possible that there may be con jobs involving bitcoin!

I figured that out way back in 2010. But you didn't claim that there may be con jobs involving bitcoin. You claimed that bitcoin itself is a con job and that is a very different thing.

Originally Posted by wareyin

And eventually, maybe, you too will understand that bitcoin is not the lovely commodity with a halo that you first thought!

Aaannndd - back to the rule 12 violations. I have never claimed that bitcoin is "wonderful". I have always spelled out the shortcomings of bitcoin.

You problem is that if one is not willing to make BS claims about bitcoin then they must be a bitcoin lover. Totally illogical.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I figured that out way back in 2010. But you didn't claim that there may be con jobs involving bitcoin. You claimed that bitcoin itself is a con job and that is a very different thing.

Sigh, I guess you hit "may be" back in 2010 but never advanced beyond that to "are" in the last 13 years? Despite all the reports of it happening?

Originally Posted by psionl0

- back to the rule 12 violations. I have never claimed that bitcoin is "wonderful". I have always spelled out the shortcomings of bitcoin.

<looks back at the post you quoted for "wonderful"...doesn't find it>

Hmmm. You also appear to not understand rule 12 if you think that post violates it.

Originally Posted by psionl0

You problem is that if one is not willing to make BS claims about bitcoin then they must be a bitcoin lover. Totally illogical.

psionl0, pal, you can't even admit that any cons do actually happen with bitcoin! That's an ironclad actual fact, not BS, but you aren't even willing to admit that.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

psionl0, pal, you can't even admit that any cons do actually happen with bitcoin! That's an ironclad actual fact, not BS, but you aren't even willing to admit that.

You can't deflect from your actual claim that bitcoin itself is the con job.

The only reason I use "may" is because I don't have a specific example. Even then it only proves that some con jobs involve bitcoin not that bitcoin itself is a con job.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can't deflect from your actual claim that bitcoin itself is the con job.

I don't need to.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The only reason I use "may" is because I don't have a specific example. Even then it only proves that some con jobs involve bitcoin not that bitcoin itself is a con job.

Multiple specific examples have been provided. That you refuse to accept them isn't anyone else's problem, nor does it make bitcoin any better of an investment.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Multiple specific examples have been provided. That you refuse to accept them isn't anyone else's problem, nor does it make bitcoin any better of an investment.

Did you even read what you posted? It says quite clearly in black and white that some con jobs involve bitcoin. And there was no mention about bitcoin being a "better investment" (than what?).

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Did you even read what you posted? It says quite clearly in black and white that some con jobs involve bitcoin.

You're tripping over your own argument again. Of course what I posted says bitcoin is used in scams. It's what you've been posting that's the issue: "may", "no specific examples", etc.

Originally Posted by psionl0

And there was no mention about bitcoin being a "better investment" (than what?).

Sigh. Pretending that bitcoin has more real world usage than it does, or that it is safer than it is, or that the majority of bitcoin transactions aren't fraudulent (they are), or that holding on to bitcoin has always made those who did so richer, etc, are all ways to attempt to make bitcoin look like a better investment than it actually is.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Pretending that bitcoin has more real world usage than it does

LIE.

Originally Posted by wareyin

that it is safer than it is

LIE.

Originally Posted by wareyin

that the majority of bitcoin transactions aren't fraudulent (they are)

CRAP!!

Originally Posted by wareyin

that holding on to bitcoin has always made those who did so richer,

LIE.

What I have stated is that in the PAST this has been true. Anybody who bought BTC prior to December 2017 would be able to sell them at a profit today if they had "hodled" them. That is nothing at all like the way you misquoted me.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

LIE.


LIE.


CRAP!!


LIE.

Dude, it's demonstrably true that you've spent pages arguing that bitcoin is a commodity, equivalent to gold. That's where you're saying bitcoin has more real world usage than it does.

You've painted bitcoin as being safer than fiat currency.

You've gone so far as to pretend to not be aware of any fraudulent uses of bitcoin, with your "may" and how you don't "have a specific example".

Originally Posted by psionl0

What I have stated is that in the PAST this has been true. Anybody who bought BTC prior to December 2017 would be able to sell them at a profit today if they had "hodled" them. That is nothing at all like the way you misquoted me.

I see, you are using the English language in this weird way where "has always" is not applicable to the past? Or should I say PAST (because maybe that means something different in your dialect)?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Dude, it's demonstrably true that you've spent pages arguing that bitcoin is a commodity, equivalent to gold. That's where you're saying bitcoin has more real world usage than it does.

Even if I argued that bitcoin was "equivalent to gold" (your words) the conclusion doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by wareyin

You've painted bitcoin as being safer than fiat currency.

LIE.

Originally Posted by wareyin

I see, you are using the English language in this weird way where "has always" is not applicable to the past? Or should I say PAST (because maybe that means something different in your dialect)?

What are you blathering on about now? "has always" is your words not mine.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Even if I argued that bitcoin was "equivalent to gold" (your words) the conclusion doesn't follow.

As gold actually does have real world usage (electronics and jewelry to name 2) while bitcoin is numbers in a ledger, yes. Yes the conclusion follows.

Originally Posted by psionl0

LIE.

Right, pal. All that nonsense about nobody being able to take your bitcoins while they can take your real money was said by that other psionl0.

Originally Posted by psionl0

What are you blathering on about now? "has always" is your words not mine.

If you are unable to follow this simple exchange (wherein you claimed I lied because I said "has always" and you said you were talking about "the PAST" as though "has always" isn't talking about "the PAST"), then I can understand why you remain unconvinced that bitcoin has been fraudulently used despite the multitude of links showing exactly that that have been presented to you.

[Solitaire]

Quote:

Why America Should Ban Crypto by Charlie Munger

In the U.S. in recent years, privately owned companies have issued
thousands of new cryptocurrencies, large and small. These have later
become publicly traded without any governmental pre-approval of
disclosures. In some cases, a big block of cryptocurrency has been
sold to a promoter for almost nothing, after which the public buys
in at much higher prices without fully understanding the pre-dilution
in favor of the promoter.

Interesting change. A division of labor thing.

The miner gets a definite payout and the promoter takes the risk.

Quote:

Such wretched excess has gone on because there is a gap in regulation.
A cryptocurrency is not a currency, not a commodity, and not a security.
Instead, it’s a gambling contract with a nearly 100% edge for the house,
entered into in a country where gambling contracts are traditionally
regulated only by states that compete in laxity. Obviously the U.S.
should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening.

I agree with this part. But how would one go about regulating slow gambling?

P. S. If your behind a paywall version of the opinion piece.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

As gold actually does have real world usage (electronics and jewelry to name 2) while bitcoin is numbers in a ledger, yes. Yes the conclusion follows.

Right, pal. All that nonsense about nobody being able to take your bitcoins while they can take your real money was said by that other psionl0.

If you are unable to follow this simple exchange (wherein you claimed I lied because I said "has always" and you said you were talking about "the PAST" as though "has always" isn't talking about "the PAST"), then I can understand why you remain unconvinced that bitcoin has been fraudulently used despite the multitude of links showing exactly that that have been presented to you.

Let me know when you want to discuss my actual posts instead of these lies.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

But how why would one go about regulating slow gambling?

ftfy.

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

ftfy.

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.

Speaking of lies, Solitaire didn't say prohibit, but regulate. We regulate all sorts of things in society, pretty effectively too.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Speaking of lies, Solitaire didn't say prohibit, but regulate. We regulate all sorts of things in society, pretty effectively too.

You obviously didn't read Solitaire's post. It clearly quotes an article which says "Obviously the U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening"

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You obviously didn't read Solitaire's post. It clearly quotes an article which says "Obviously the U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening"

Read the sentence before that one to learn what "this" meant.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by psionl0

ftfy.

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.

Prohibition in the sense of strictly enforcing laws against rug pulls and similar would benefit crypto though.

This whole practice of social media influencers doing a "project" of a coin or NFT scheme, keeping a bunch of coins and then when they hype it up they sell it needs to go. The Coffeezilla investigation of Logan Paul's cryptozoo was fascinating and really should result in a criminal indictment but generally not...

This is, of course, barely connected to bitcoin. Almost all of the scams right now seem to be more involving eth. Bitcoin scams tend to be cumbersome. Anyone could probably hatch a rugpull by programing a coin and sending like 10K to random shady influencers to tweet about it...

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Prohibition in the sense of strictly enforcing laws against rug pulls and similar would benefit crypto though.

The article was titled :"Why America Should Ban Crypto by Charlie Munger".

Even if existing laws are inadequate for preventing fraudulent marketing of cryptos, do you really want to gain more legitimacy for cryptos? I'm sure that a lot of posters here wouldn't want that. As for me, I would rather see how the technological developments progress without it being driven underground by stifling regulation.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The article was titled :"Why America Should Ban Crypto by Charlie Munger".

Headlines are written by the editor, not the author of the article, so it doesn't matter what's in the headline. What matters is what's actually written in the article.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Headlines are written by the editor, not the author of the article, so it doesn't matter what's in the headline. What matters is what's actually written in the article.

Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?

Have you even read the link?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?

Have you even read the link?

Why do you insist on making up claims on behalf of other people? If it's really that difficult to argue against they things they are actually saying maybe you should reconsider your own position instead of trying to invent claims to argue against.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Prohibition in the sense of strictly enforcing laws against rug pulls and similar would benefit crypto though.

How?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Why do you insist on making up claims on behalf of accurately quoting the posts of other people?

ftfy - not that this had anything to do with your made-up contents of a link.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

ftfy - not that this had anything to do with your made-up contents of a link.

You are making stuff up, again. Anyone can look at my post and easily see I took no position at all about the contents of the article.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

You are making stuff up, again. Anyone can look at my post and easily see I took no position at all about the contents of the article.

Yes you did. You claimed that "it doesn't matter what's in the headline".

You clearly believed that the headline didn't accurately represented the contents of the article or you wouldn't have made such an otherwise superfluous statement - unless it was to falsely imply that I was misrepresenting the contents.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Yes you did. You claimed that "it doesn't matter what's in the headline".

Again, headlines are not written by the author of the article so you can't use them as an accurate reflection of what's in the article. I'm just educating you on this fact and have take no position at all on the article.

You on the other hand are actively trying to debate it's contents. Others have correctly appealed to the contents of the article, and you haven't been able to rebut them. I presume at this point it's because you can't.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.

Evidence?

Note: I'm asking about attempts to ban things in the financial sector, not Prohibition (which actually did work, but that's for another thread).

Quote:

Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?

The article discusses both banning and regulation. For example:-

Quote:

Such wretched excess has gone on because there is a gap in regulation.

Solitaire asked about regulating 'slow gambling', not banning it. So your reply is off-base.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

How?

This seems obtuse.

Scams being rampant in any market tends to discourage participation in that market.

It isn't hard to imagine a stock market with similar issues. If it were easy and effectively legal to blatantly scam the market there would be a problem with liquidity and many would dismiss the concept of publicly traded stock as a scam or at least of negative social value.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

This seems obtuse.

Scams being rampant in any market tends to discourage participation in that market.

It isn't hard to imagine a stock market with similar issues. If it were easy and effectively legal to blatantly scam the market there would be a problem with liquidity and many would dismiss the concept of publicly traded stock as a scam or at least of negative social value.

Negative social value, sure. But stocks like Gamestop and the deli that added "blockchain" to it's name and saw stock prices rocket suggest that these markets can be large. As I've said earlier. Scams such as self trading to create volume and drive prices higher are a feature, not a bug. These sorts of "markets" don't require the ability to read and understand SEC filings. An advantage for the gamblers that don't have or need that background because it puts them on an even footing with value type investors that look for present value of future cash flows.. And people love to gamble.

[Samson]

Bitcoin and crypto generally are set for a massive decline along with stocks. About now.
This is a purely technical view.

[marting]

After dropping below 20k last week, BTC has climbed to about 22.5k with the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley and Signature banks Signature holds a lot of crypto VC funds. Gold has gone back up as well.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marting

After dropping below 20k last week, BTC has climbed to about 22.5k with the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley and Signature banks Signature holds a lot of crypto VC funds. Gold has gone back up as well.

Bitcoin has shot to 47% dominance, with other cryptos languishing.
Bitcoin maximalists will be crowing.