Bitcoin falls under $16,000(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Bitcoin falls under $16,000
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/09/cryptocurrencies-pressured-as-investors-digest-ftx-fallout-solana-loses-another-20percent.html
341 comments
With every bubble pop, exchange insolvency, token scam, crypto startup bankruptcy, we are getting closer and closer to the "real" value of bitcoin. Still ways to go I predict. However, I also do think that value is comfortably > 0.
For actual use of Bitcoin I don't think the value even matters. You buy it, transact it, and the seller sells it immediately. It doesn't matter what the value was as long as it doesn't change in between this process.
In my perspective the only real use of bitcoin is transferring money where you can't use traditional payment providers.
In my perspective the only real use of bitcoin is transferring money where you can't use traditional payment providers.
How do you quickly buy and sell it at an agreed price without going through a traditional payment provider?
It's the same thing, you're just adding a lot of steps with a ton of overhead.
It's the same thing, you're just adding a lot of steps with a ton of overhead.
There is a pretty common situation where your operation is legal and you can use some form of financial service but you can't have the provider be publicly known. Say you are a political related org and you need to accept donations. You can't use paypal, stripe, etc because those platforms will receive enough complaints that they will de platform you, but you can take crypto and sell it later in a way the complainers can't work out who to complain to.
This doesn't strictly have to be some instantaneous automated buy and sell. You could accept some % of loss but you don't want to hold for more than a day.
This doesn't strictly have to be some instantaneous automated buy and sell. You could accept some % of loss but you don't want to hold for more than a day.
If buyer and seller are both willing to hold value in bitcoin, you can just do the math and send that amount with a thin client - super simple.
If either party wants to hedge their exposure to bitcoin volatility, it gets more complicated.
If either party wants to hedge their exposure to bitcoin volatility, it gets more complicated.
So... money laundering and drug deals (again) are the only valid use cases?
There are _some_ cases where the transaction is legal but can't run through traditional payment networks. I agree it's quite a slim use case, a bit like downloading linux ISOs over bittorrent. But it does exist.
I've used crypto for the property of fast irreversible online transactions. You can buy bullion cheaper than with say a card this way as there is no risk of the transaction being reversed and the merchant is able to pass the savings from reduced risk to the consumer. It also clears much faster than most ACH or wire transfers.
If you are involved in buying legal items online where the merchant has to deal with a lot of claw-back from the bank or card companies, they will generally give you a better deal with crypto.
If you are involved in buying legal items online where the merchant has to deal with a lot of claw-back from the bank or card companies, they will generally give you a better deal with crypto.
100%
There is a lot of value in ransomware, the ability to purchase drugs, and money laundering.
There is a lot of value in ransomware, the ability to purchase drugs, and money laundering.
And money laundering is basically a fancy way of saying money was moved and/or privacy enhanced in a way the government didn't agree with. The truth is government could eliminate KYC and AML and bitcoin would largely die.
don't forget gambling and corruption dressed up as 'interest in the tech'
Finally. I will be able to buy some $8 BTC soon. (I missed the first wave, not the second!)
If you think the value is > 0, you (or someone) should be able to estimate what that number is. Because the number should be based on... something. Otherwise, = 0 seems correct.
What's the value of a brick?
https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red
Both art and grifts have changing value > 0.
https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red
Both art and grifts have changing value > 0.
It really depends on where you are located, what you need the brick for and what your alternatives are (as with everything).
Yes but most of the time deviation is not that big. I've checked prices where I live and also it varies it similar to $0.82 (but we do not us $ and it is not exactly same brick).
Hey, if you want to really get into it, a brick is made of physical materials that took time and a process to form into a brick, and has practical as well as decorative uses.
Bitcoin doesn't have a single one of those.
Bitcoin doesn't have a single one of those.
Neither does USD. Can we please hate on bitcoin with arguments that aren't 100% identical to issues of trust in USD?
USD is based on the GDP and productivity output of the entire United States (25% of the entire world's economy), as well as the indirect backing of the cool little thing known as the United States Armed Forces, just incase. And many more things.
People who constantly make this argument don't actually understand how economics and monetary value actually work. They've just heard someone say it and, like most bro-science, it sounds about right so it should be right!
Right from the jump, they'd know that among the many other worthless parts of BTC, if we actually had a deflationary currency be the standard it would be a horrible, horrible reality.
People who constantly make this argument don't actually understand how economics and monetary value actually work. They've just heard someone say it and, like most bro-science, it sounds about right so it should be right!
Right from the jump, they'd know that among the many other worthless parts of BTC, if we actually had a deflationary currency be the standard it would be a horrible, horrible reality.
USD is also based on global oil.
Inflation is a tool so not being able to use it, yes, would make things more difficult. It's a double-edged sword though as inflation can get out of hand. BTC's scarcity ensures no one can print it out of existence.
I am also convinced that The Economy is a huge dumb emotional beast that no one fully understands. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't boom/bust constantly because we could predict accurately.
Inflation is a tool so not being able to use it, yes, would make things more difficult. It's a double-edged sword though as inflation can get out of hand. BTC's scarcity ensures no one can print it out of existence.
I am also convinced that The Economy is a huge dumb emotional beast that no one fully understands. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't boom/bust constantly because we could predict accurately.
> People who constantly make this argument don't actually understand how economics and monetary value actually work.
People who make your argument usually don't understand that monetary theory hasn't caught up to accommodating cryptocurrency because most of the ideas are decades old.
USD is not based on GDP. Its value can only loosely be attributed to it.
People who make your argument usually don't understand that monetary theory hasn't caught up to accommodating cryptocurrency because most of the ideas are decades old.
USD is not based on GDP. Its value can only loosely be attributed to it.
Can you use BTC to pay taxes in the US and settle debts? Can BTC be used to purchase oil? No? Then this argument doesn't make any sense.
These are such odd questions to ask consumers. I have never even considered purchasing oil with USD (assuming you mean crude petroleum - olive, sure).
The argument still stands, but can be rephrased if convenient: have you purchased olive oil or vehicle fuel using cryptocurrency?
Because it’s not a brick . It’s not made of physical materials. But it took time and purpose. It has practical uses. Not sure about decorative one.
Hate to blow up your logic but Bitcoin is made up of 100k+ lines of code that took time and a process to form into a blockchain, and has several practical uses.
I've personally written thousands of lines of code that does (or did) something yet is currently worthless.
yes, proving my point. your worthless code does not have millions of users and developers building on top of your platform.
Even if it did it would still be worthless. Value isn't created by destroying time and energy.
can you show me a product with roughly 200 million users and 200k daily transactions that has a value of $0 to back up your logic?
Yes: NFTs
Less than a year ago NFTs had about as many daily transactions. Since then volume is down 97%+ and prices have collapsed, well on their way to the correct value of $0.
IMO bitcoin will go the same way. The market is just more entrenched in bitcoin mania so it's happening more slowly.
Less than a year ago NFTs had about as many daily transactions. Since then volume is down 97%+ and prices have collapsed, well on their way to the correct value of $0.
IMO bitcoin will go the same way. The market is just more entrenched in bitcoin mania so it's happening more slowly.
I think bitcoin has little intrinsic value compared to ethereum.
Personally I think the idea of crypto is sound but any one coin is worthless. In 40 years we might all be using crypto and blockchains but we have no idea which coin it would be. Bitcoin seems almost purely less useful than eth so I don't imagine it's going to do so well as crypto moves from speculation to real usage.
Probably one backed by a nation with a substantial military. Thanks for the POC NERRRRDS!!!
In maintaining the value and legitimacy of a currency, civilian law enforcement matters far more than the military (at least for developed countries that have stable governments). Even if I earn income denominated in Euros, Bitcoin, gold, or some other store of value I have to obtain a certain number of US dollars to pay my income taxes. If I fail to pay for long enough then eventually the IRS will get a court order to seize my assets, and armed federal agents will carry out the order. The military doesn't enter into it.
Still a pretty great deal for everyone who was trading it at $15-100 for lunch money back in the day. I no longer hold any bitcoin, but I felt very lucky to sell one of those lunch-money coins for $10k. $2k of that went into photographic equipment that's yielded great intellectual joy for several years now.
Price is what you pay, value is what you get.
Price is what you pay, value is what you get.
Yup, this was me. Selling all my coins for $2k each back in 17 felt like I robbed a bank. No regrets, paid for my rent so I could start a company and it worked out very well.
You don't feel bad for the people who missed that specific train and are now "chasing" it, dollar cost averaging a percentage of their (limited/spare) discretionary income at the hopes of one day owning 1 $15k "whole" Bitcoin, thinking it'll go to $100k or $1m?
I've read a lot of sad posts at r/bitcoin. Not sad because people are saying "ouch, these losses hurt". Ouch because they are saying "what a great chance to buy more!"
It's a cult... for a non-zero amount of people :( They won't listen to evidence, logic, reasoning.
I've read a lot of sad posts at r/bitcoin. Not sad because people are saying "ouch, these losses hurt". Ouch because they are saying "what a great chance to buy more!"
It's a cult... for a non-zero amount of people :( They won't listen to evidence, logic, reasoning.
There is a reasonable chance that they are correct and prices will fluctuate upward again.
The differences today are at least three:
1) the Bitcoin market cap is already large, so it takes a lot more people to make it move upward.
2) Bitcoin is no longer a good proxy for the potential of crypto in general. Ethereum is now perhaps at least as important. There are oodles of other options, too.
3) Because of the large market-cap and bitcoin's maturity, the technical risk of the protocol from global government intervention is substantially larger than in, say 2017.
This time, it might be different, and not in the good way.
The differences today are at least three:
1) the Bitcoin market cap is already large, so it takes a lot more people to make it move upward.
2) Bitcoin is no longer a good proxy for the potential of crypto in general. Ethereum is now perhaps at least as important. There are oodles of other options, too.
3) Because of the large market-cap and bitcoin's maturity, the technical risk of the protocol from global government intervention is substantially larger than in, say 2017.
This time, it might be different, and not in the good way.
Bitcoin (and all the crypto/NFT/web3 bullshit) crashing for good at last would be a significant upside of this recession.
I hope this is for real this time, and that it won't be replaced by something even worse.
I hope this is for real this time, and that it won't be replaced by something even worse.
What would it mean to crash "for good"?
The network will never go offline because it's decentralized and costs nothing to run a node (miners are different).
Someone will always be willing to pay a few cents or dollars for one.
The best you can get is "stable," which then makes it attractive as a store of value again, and ramps back up the demand.
It will never end.
The network will never go offline because it's decentralized and costs nothing to run a node (miners are different).
Someone will always be willing to pay a few cents or dollars for one.
The best you can get is "stable," which then makes it attractive as a store of value again, and ramps back up the demand.
It will never end.
I don't think it needs to reach $0 to become irrelevant as a speculative asset.
Tulips bulbs still exists and have a legitimate use if you want to grow tulips.
I don't know what BTC can be used for, maybe it will be kept for historical purposes.
Tulips bulbs still exists and have a legitimate use if you want to grow tulips.
I don't know what BTC can be used for, maybe it will be kept for historical purposes.
> I don't know what BTC can be used for, maybe it will be kept for historical purpose.
That doesn't make sense to me. That's like keeping a phone number for historical purposes; it doesn't mean anything if it doesn't work any more. Old stock certificates are usually worth something, but a hypothetically crashed bitcoin is less like a stock certificate than it is like a memory that you once owned stock in a company that no longer exists, and a slip of paper with your old broker's number written on it.
That doesn't make sense to me. That's like keeping a phone number for historical purposes; it doesn't mean anything if it doesn't work any more. Old stock certificates are usually worth something, but a hypothetically crashed bitcoin is less like a stock certificate than it is like a memory that you once owned stock in a company that no longer exists, and a slip of paper with your old broker's number written on it.
Old stock certificates are worth something? I have lots of old stock certificates, would you like me to send them? And some Confederate dollars?
I wish i could have a dollar every time i read about how a certain bad thing « could never happen due to the technical nature of this crypto ».
Of course btc could crash. Once nobody cares about it anymore, and people stop wasting cpu cycles to run the software.
Of course btc could crash. Once nobody cares about it anymore, and people stop wasting cpu cycles to run the software.
We're saying that BTC's value could crash to close to $0 but it will still keep running and working because people like myself would never allow it to actually reach $0. I will personally buy every last bitcoin on the planet before it gets close to $0.
> I will personally buy every last bitcoin on the planet before it gets close to $0.
At some point during that process you will run out of the actual money you're using to buy bitcoin. It will then crash from being worth a fraction of a penny to zero.
At some point during that process you will run out of the actual money you're using to buy bitcoin. It will then crash from being worth a fraction of a penny to zero.
That can't happen, if the BTC price gets close enough to zero my money will not run out before the BTC runs out. I have plenty of money and there's less than 20 million BTC.
Who will pay to put your transaction on the blockchain?
He will, fees come from the sender.
As I understand it, for anything to go on the Blockchain, somebody has to be mining coins. Who will still be doing that? Or, have I misunderstood?
Anybody can set up a miner and if there's no competition, it just gets cheaper as well.
It will never end but interest can wane enough that it becomes obsolete. Each scam that gets exposed further destroys confidence in it and that's really all it has going for it.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you. It's embarrassing that we as tech people didn't see it and missed out. Now it's payback time.
The good thing if it would just be replaced is that you and me get a new opportunity to actually get on early, redeem ourselves and avoid being the laughing stock we currently are.
The good thing if it would just be replaced is that you and me get a new opportunity to actually get on early, redeem ourselves and avoid being the laughing stock we currently are.
Is that really the only reason you can see for wanting this travesty to crash and burn?
And is that really your best idea for what would be good to replace it?
What we need is to get rid of all of these systems for getting a small number of insiders rich quick at the expense of the general public. We need to make the distribution of wealth more equitable, not just try to change things around so we're the ones who get to be stepping on the hapless masses.
And is that really your best idea for what would be good to replace it?
What we need is to get rid of all of these systems for getting a small number of insiders rich quick at the expense of the general public. We need to make the distribution of wealth more equitable, not just try to change things around so we're the ones who get to be stepping on the hapless masses.
I wish we could blame our hatred on altruistic reasons but in the end we both know it's not true. We're ashamed and embarrassed. Every time someone presumes we got rich off Bitcoin it fuels our anger.
Speak for yourself. What I said is absolutely how I feel about it.
Would I love to have another few hundred thousand dollars? Sure. That kind of money would be life-changing to me.
But I don't in any way feel ashamed or embarrassed that I didn't jump on the cryptocurrency fad. Quite the contrary, in fact—I would be deeply ashamed if I had joined in enabling it.
Would I love to have another few hundred thousand dollars? Sure. That kind of money would be life-changing to me.
But I don't in any way feel ashamed or embarrassed that I didn't jump on the cryptocurrency fad. Quite the contrary, in fact—I would be deeply ashamed if I had joined in enabling it.
The Binance takeover of FTX has been called off after "due diligence", so get ready for more chaos.
I focused a lot on economic history in school and to be able to live through the insane unfettered scam bullshit that was the framework for all these financial laws we have today but without the second-order effects of total economic collapse (but with enough money to actually be interesting) has been such a gift for me.
Why is this news?
Sorry, I must have missed all of the following posts:
- AMZN under $100 (Down 48% YOY) - GOOG under $100 (Down 42% YOY) - AMD under $60 (Down 59% YOY) - META at $101 (Down 77% YOY)
and the list goes on.
What is it about bitcoin that brings people into these threads to say "good riddance! I hope it dies because all of it's negative externalities."?
To the oblivious observer it would appear cryptocurrency lives rent free in many heads in this space. If you don't care for it why pay attention to it?
I am not a fan of BlackRock. The last thing I could imagine spending my time doing would be checking BLK on the NYSE to gleefully dance on its grave when it misses its earnings, and then hopping into my echo chamber to share the news with anonymous strangers.
Sorry, I must have missed all of the following posts:
- AMZN under $100 (Down 48% YOY) - GOOG under $100 (Down 42% YOY) - AMD under $60 (Down 59% YOY) - META at $101 (Down 77% YOY)
and the list goes on.
What is it about bitcoin that brings people into these threads to say "good riddance! I hope it dies because all of it's negative externalities."?
To the oblivious observer it would appear cryptocurrency lives rent free in many heads in this space. If you don't care for it why pay attention to it?
I am not a fan of BlackRock. The last thing I could imagine spending my time doing would be checking BLK on the NYSE to gleefully dance on its grave when it misses its earnings, and then hopping into my echo chamber to share the news with anonymous strangers.
Unlike the things you pointed out, Bitcoin will never give dividends or have any assets sold at an auction. Instead it's a pyramid scheme, easily replaceable by any other shitcoin out there, and the value of it should be close to $1 or less.
> Unlike the things you pointed out, Bitcoin will never give dividends or have any assets sold at an auction.
Crypto allowed me to transfer my wealth across border and helped me survive while Visa blocked my cards and local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements and creative nonsense based out of fear of the US and EU sanctions. The utility of that is much higher than any dividends.
> Instead it's a pyramid scheme, easily replaceable by any other shitcoin out there, and the value of it should be close to $1 or less.
Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse?
Crypto allowed me to transfer my wealth across border and helped me survive while Visa blocked my cards and local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements and creative nonsense based out of fear of the US and EU sanctions. The utility of that is much higher than any dividends.
> Instead it's a pyramid scheme, easily replaceable by any other shitcoin out there, and the value of it should be close to $1 or less.
Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse?
I long suspected that "monopoly on violence" is a dog whistle. So I looked it up, and actually it's quite straightforward. If you think about the number of entities in a society that can legitimately control violence, the answer is either zero, one, or many. Zero is a pipe dream. Many is civil war. The only answer that makes sense is one. Thus "monopoly on violence" is just a scary sounding way of saying that a society has a government.
In my view, society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.
In my view, society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.
Monopoly on violence is the defining property of the state according to Max Weber, one of the most famous sociologists. In what way is it a dog whistle?
Because it's only used by people in a tiny little political segment today - far-right-wing libertarians.
No one else denies this or doesn't believe it's true, I hasten to add. For most of us, we think that this is a good thing, but also such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be mentioned.
The people who keep mentioning it are people who think it's a bad, bad thing. They want everyone to have access to violence at all times.
The sane majority does not.
No one else denies this or doesn't believe it's true, I hasten to add. For most of us, we think that this is a good thing, but also such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be mentioned.
The people who keep mentioning it are people who think it's a bad, bad thing. They want everyone to have access to violence at all times.
The sane majority does not.
In the “jungle” you only own what you can protect. Even your life. Violence is natural. Non-violence, property rights and free trade is extremely unnatural, and requires a strong central authority to write the rules and impose them.
> far-right-wing libertarians
No. If your going to targrt political stratas, don't be narrow sighted.
The BLM and Antifa riots of "Defund the police" is exactly about the same concern, and supporters caused widespread violence to prove that point. There's a different reason, but many prominent Democrats urged those protests on, making it more broad than just some leftists commies.
The major difference is that BLM/antifa targeted local police with a national organization and got their way in many places, whereas conservatives are weary of the federal government are just some disorganized people that become easily targeted by the feds.
No. If your going to targrt political stratas, don't be narrow sighted.
The BLM and Antifa riots of "Defund the police" is exactly about the same concern, and supporters caused widespread violence to prove that point. There's a different reason, but many prominent Democrats urged those protests on, making it more broad than just some leftists commies.
The major difference is that BLM/antifa targeted local police with a national organization and got their way in many places, whereas conservatives are weary of the federal government are just some disorganized people that become easily targeted by the feds.
Do you think it’s bad to put a teenager in jail for an abortion they did after they had been raped? Or is it also a good (well, it is certainly lawful) use of state monopoly on violence?
if the teenager is woke, its good. and a non woke person would never be prosecuted by any sane government, so your logic game is flawed
There is a saying, an armed society is a polite society.
I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war". Quite the opposite. Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war". Quite the opposite. Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
> There is a saying, an armed society is a polite society.
There are all sorts of sayings. Is this one true?
The United States is the most heavily armed country of any size in the world. It is also more heavily armed than any time in its past.
And yet politeness appears to be at an all-time low. Certainly, a lot of political figures say things that are just astonishingly rude and horrible and false, things that would have destroyed their careers even twenty years ago but seem to make them very popular today.
It seems that saying is wildly false.
> I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war".
Probably they are knowledgeable about history, as their statement is simply true.
> Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
I'm baffled as to how this makes sense to you.
How exactly do these people "decide they have had enough of that" without abrogating the states monopoly on violence? Surely by the time you get to civil war, there are _two sides fighting_??
It's like you just cut and paste a lot of slogans and stop thinking critically there.
I really suggesting reading some history.
There are all sorts of sayings. Is this one true?
The United States is the most heavily armed country of any size in the world. It is also more heavily armed than any time in its past.
And yet politeness appears to be at an all-time low. Certainly, a lot of political figures say things that are just astonishingly rude and horrible and false, things that would have destroyed their careers even twenty years ago but seem to make them very popular today.
It seems that saying is wildly false.
> I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war".
Probably they are knowledgeable about history, as their statement is simply true.
> Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
I'm baffled as to how this makes sense to you.
How exactly do these people "decide they have had enough of that" without abrogating the states monopoly on violence? Surely by the time you get to civil war, there are _two sides fighting_??
It's like you just cut and paste a lot of slogans and stop thinking critically there.
I really suggesting reading some history.
[deleted]
Why did visa and the banks question you? What were you really trying to do?
I was trying to leave Russia.
Most likely leave Russia, Iran, or Venezuela.
Yes crypto has the evil property of bypassing KYC/AML to allow peaceful citizens to escape genocidal kleptocratic governments who seek to draft you to go into war with a WWI era Mosin a feminine hygiene product as a first aid kit and an oversized pair of rotten boots. Once again crypto proves to do nothing but aid and abet criminals such as those who refuse to invade their neighbors.
You are being downvoted but the point you make stands: there are a lot of people here who will jump at the opertunity to proclaim that crypto's only use is a ponzy scheme. That claim is not only objectively false, but they way they usually phrase it also preemptively shuts down any chance proponents of either side coming closer to seeing how this tech is actually used.
Whether it be war, tyranny and unjust sanctions, crashing economies, or just avoiding the arbitrary and often unjust fees, rules, seizures, and bannings imposed by private payment networks and services like paypal or visa, humanity will always need way to exchange cash. I for one am glad crypto (as a means to transfer funds) exists, glad it will continue to exist, and will continue to support it in any way I can.
To me, what it provides to humanity far outweighs the negatives.
Whether it be war, tyranny and unjust sanctions, crashing economies, or just avoiding the arbitrary and often unjust fees, rules, seizures, and bannings imposed by private payment networks and services like paypal or visa, humanity will always need way to exchange cash. I for one am glad crypto (as a means to transfer funds) exists, glad it will continue to exist, and will continue to support it in any way I can.
To me, what it provides to humanity far outweighs the negatives.
No, I think everyone agrees that "evading the law" is another feature of cryptocurrencies. We simply don't think this is a good feature.
Trillions of dollars are stolen from the people by money laundering and tax evasion every year, and cryptocurrencies are one of the ways this is accomplished.
Yes, some people live in countries where the law is hostile. However, your solution, "Let's evade all laws concerning money," is WORSE, not better.
Trillions of dollars are stolen from the people by money laundering and tax evasion every year, and cryptocurrencies are one of the ways this is accomplished.
Yes, some people live in countries where the law is hostile. However, your solution, "Let's evade all laws concerning money," is WORSE, not better.
This argument applies just as much to cash as cryptocurrency and makes no sense.
Trillions of dollars are stolen by government officials wastefully spending taxes they collect via mechanisms of force and by people who classify as "money laundering" activities they don't like -- such as people who grow weed and then sell it to a willing adult buyer and have the nerve to actually clean the cash so it can be spent on stuff like buying baby formula or the rent.
If the argument is bad stuff possible then your argument is to abolish government.
We cannot presuppose that breaking the law is necessarily bad or that following the law is not bad.
If the argument is bad stuff possible then your argument is to abolish government.
We cannot presuppose that breaking the law is necessarily bad or that following the law is not bad.
Society is propped up by legal decree and violence. CryptoKitties didn't change that.
> Society is propped up by legal decree and violence
and a currency whose value approaches zero as time grows. if bitcoin is bad, how is that much better?
and a currency whose value approaches zero as time grows. if bitcoin is bad, how is that much better?
The former is actually being used to run businesses and as long as the currency is not a demurrage currency, you are going to have to accept inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation.
> The former is actually being used to run businesses
run businesses? to say nothing about whether those businesses are sustainable or actually generating wealth & human prosperity. if you look at all the worst aspects of the economy, they're based in expansionary monetary policy and high time preference
> inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation
it keeps people spending money on usually wasteful things and incentivizes the consumption of cheap goods, if you want an economy built on prosperity and enduring goods, you need to actually incentivize saving (not wasteful consumerism)
run businesses? to say nothing about whether those businesses are sustainable or actually generating wealth & human prosperity. if you look at all the worst aspects of the economy, they're based in expansionary monetary policy and high time preference
> inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation
it keeps people spending money on usually wasteful things and incentivizes the consumption of cheap goods, if you want an economy built on prosperity and enduring goods, you need to actually incentivize saving (not wasteful consumerism)
Are you actually using BTC as currency? Have you done anything but traded it? We all know the answer--that's why this meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic.
> meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic
why are you getting so defensive about the fact that fiat currency exponentially decreases in value
why are you getting so defensive about the fact that fiat currency exponentially decreases in value
An interesting read of the quoted text since the topic that is supposedly being defended isn't even mentioned.
This is an attack on this whimsical philosophizing crypto-boosters use as a defense. No one cares about this "what is money" commentary. If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money? Of course you'll have to lose those gainz but real money is just worthless paper right?
This is an attack on this whimsical philosophizing crypto-boosters use as a defense. No one cares about this "what is money" commentary. If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money? Of course you'll have to lose those gainz but real money is just worthless paper right?
> If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money
I don't buy stuff with it though it's being used to facilitate transactions for people. I route around $40k a month.
I don't buy stuff with it though it's being used to facilitate transactions for people. I route around $40k a month.
> local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements
So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes.
> Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse?
Yes, it absolutely does sound worse.
On one side, we have the United States - the largest economy in the history of the world, backed by the government with the largest income of any government in history, a court system, the police and their "monopoly on violence".
On the other side, you have a cryptocurrency backed by nothing, created by anonymous individuals, with no form of conflict resolution whatsoever.
Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.
So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes.
> Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse?
Yes, it absolutely does sound worse.
On one side, we have the United States - the largest economy in the history of the world, backed by the government with the largest income of any government in history, a court system, the police and their "monopoly on violence".
On the other side, you have a cryptocurrency backed by nothing, created by anonymous individuals, with no form of conflict resolution whatsoever.
Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.
> So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes.
Using it for crime? That just makes crypto even more similar to traditional finance.
> Yes, it absolutely does sound worse.
So you think all countries should switch their currencies to the US dollar? Do you think it is just as good for countries to give up their financial sovereignty as it is for common people?
> Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.
I was a teaching assistant for a graduate course in macroeconomics in a top 50 department during my PhD. Arrow-Debreu and all that.
Using it for crime? That just makes crypto even more similar to traditional finance.
> Yes, it absolutely does sound worse.
So you think all countries should switch their currencies to the US dollar? Do you think it is just as good for countries to give up their financial sovereignty as it is for common people?
> Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.
I was a teaching assistant for a graduate course in macroeconomics in a top 50 department during my PhD. Arrow-Debreu and all that.
> transfer my wealth
I don't think _anyone_ is against using cryptocurrencies as a way of transferring money. It doesn't make sense to transfer wealth via something that rapidly changes its value, right? Because means of transferring wealth requires preserving the value of the wealth. Bitcoin today does not preserve its value, as evident by the rapid decline in value in the past few days.
I don't think _anyone_ is against using cryptocurrencies as a way of transferring money. It doesn't make sense to transfer wealth via something that rapidly changes its value, right? Because means of transferring wealth requires preserving the value of the wealth. Bitcoin today does not preserve its value, as evident by the rapid decline in value in the past few days.
The monopoly on violence actually sounds better to me. I am a big fan of violence, when applied against certain types of anti-social people.
My fetish is unnecessarily-superior firepower against people advocating for violence (and also their families)
You are talking about shooting police officers, judges, law enforcement, and the people who support the law, as well as as their families.
I'm not going to pretend to be surprised - many American conservatives have expressed the same sentiments to me. However, I am surprised you post it in a public forum.
I'm not going to pretend to be surprised - many American conservatives have expressed the same sentiments to me. However, I am surprised you post it in a public forum.
I think insurgent is the word, I grew up with conservatives and they are not like this
1. Can you point any company in recent history that went through bankruptcy/auction to pay is retail investor their money back... or for that matter, most tech companies with negative net income does not pay dividend either...
2. So called, "Money" does not pay dividend... does Gold pays dividend? now on the other hand, I can lend you BTC or Gold and ask you to pay me back the principle + interest on it in BTC/Gold etc so that is that... Fiat money can yield as it can be created of thin air, no actual work required (i.e. mining for Gold or BTC)
3. Any currency, company also can be replaced by something else out there but won't why? network effect, trust and liquidity matters...
2. So called, "Money" does not pay dividend... does Gold pays dividend? now on the other hand, I can lend you BTC or Gold and ask you to pay me back the principle + interest on it in BTC/Gold etc so that is that... Fiat money can yield as it can be created of thin air, no actual work required (i.e. mining for Gold or BTC)
3. Any currency, company also can be replaced by something else out there but won't why? network effect, trust and liquidity matters...
> 1. Can you point any company in recent history that went through bankruptcy/auction to pay is retail investor their money back...
Hertz: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/business/hertz-bankruptcy-car...
Hertz: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/business/hertz-bankruptcy-car...
1. The point of bankruptcy is liquidating assets to pay debts. Whatever is left after that is distributed to the shareholders.
2. Money does pay "dividend" - it's called "interest".
2. Money does pay "dividend" - it's called "interest".
> Money does pay "dividend" - it's called "interest".
Only if you lend it.
Money sitting around under a mattress tends to lose value due to inflation.
Actual specie, dug out of the ground, tends to hold its value, relatively speaking. Sure, their may be shocks like discovering a whole continent made of gold but those are pretty rare.
Bitcoin, who knows? It simply hasn’t been around long enough for its place on the money pyramid to be found.
Only if you lend it.
Money sitting around under a mattress tends to lose value due to inflation.
Actual specie, dug out of the ground, tends to hold its value, relatively speaking. Sure, their may be shocks like discovering a whole continent made of gold but those are pretty rare.
Bitcoin, who knows? It simply hasn’t been around long enough for its place on the money pyramid to be found.
Why even make shotgun arguments?
2.a. Gold is an asset and doesn't need to pay dividends as it has intrinsic market value.
2.b. Loans and interest are contractual agreements, i.e. financial instruments unto themselves that generate value. Just because you get suckered into agreeing to a hobby money loan doesn't mean the hobby money has any value.
2.c. Variable cost doesn't equal value either. You can burn a stack of $100 bills but that doesn't mean that brief fire has any value, but it sure as shit didn't help the planet either.
2.a. Gold is an asset and doesn't need to pay dividends as it has intrinsic market value.
2.b. Loans and interest are contractual agreements, i.e. financial instruments unto themselves that generate value. Just because you get suckered into agreeing to a hobby money loan doesn't mean the hobby money has any value.
2.c. Variable cost doesn't equal value either. You can burn a stack of $100 bills but that doesn't mean that brief fire has any value, but it sure as shit didn't help the planet either.
What exactly is the point of this mental gymnastics? For all this talk, how much of your crypto have you actually used as currency to buy things with? 50%? 20%? The typical Bitcoin holder spends 0%. The haters aren't the barrier to your libertarian wonderland--it's the people who actually buy and HODL.
Or as I like to say, Bitcoin is almost a perfect measurement of excess capital in the market driving up asset prices, or "excess speculation"
That's a good take. Bitcoin: a store of (excess) value. Just like beanie babies.
Art is another example. Art is just old school NFTs. Sure you could get the utility of the image for free, but the real value is in the artificial scarcity.
The real value of (some) art is in being able to artificially inflate the book value through sham transactions, then donate it to a charity for an income tax deduction worth more than the original acquisition price.
> Art is just old school NFTs.
I am an art collector. None of it is rare or wildly expensive. Nor do I expect to resell any of it.
It might shock you to discover that I collect that art simply because I enjoyed looking at it and having it. I go to art galleries to see art that I do not own, not because of its financial value, but because I enjoyed looking at it.
The idea that art is exactly an precisely an investment vehicle is simply false to the fact. And honestly, I find it horrifying and empty.
I am an art collector. None of it is rare or wildly expensive. Nor do I expect to resell any of it.
It might shock you to discover that I collect that art simply because I enjoyed looking at it and having it. I go to art galleries to see art that I do not own, not because of its financial value, but because I enjoyed looking at it.
The idea that art is exactly an precisely an investment vehicle is simply false to the fact. And honestly, I find it horrifying and empty.
Your smug statement presumes no one trades NFTs for the same reasons you do. You managed to make an economic observation into some personal emotional feely victim statement.
Personally I love looking at a nice shiny piece of gold and artfully stacked pile of $20s.
Personally I love looking at a nice shiny piece of gold and artfully stacked pile of $20s.
Art doesn't have "artificial" scarcity.
> The model employed by artists in the West, in collusion with collectors, was to create an artificial scarcity of their own products on the market. Thus they introduced editions that gained in importance with the appearance of video art, and the same model is being attempted in the realm of digital art. Having made an arrangement with agents and galleries, artists would limit the number of copies of their works (for example, by setting the limit at 10 original copies), and sometimes they would even establish a hierarchy among the limited number of copies. A certain number of copies would be signed by the artist, and they would command a higher price, usually being fewer in number than the unsigned ones. During the Golden Age of video art, that is, in the 1980s, there was almost a consensus in the mainstream art circles to the effect that the existence of an illegal copy was tantamount to a criminal offence, even though it was easier than ever to copy a video cassette. An artificial scarcity was sometimes created by limiting the number of screenings, so that a given video work was limited to, for example, 10 screenings in the whole world during a calendar year.
https://monoskop.org/images/c/cd/Lukic_Kristian_2013_Artific...
https://monoskop.org/images/c/cd/Lukic_Kristian_2013_Artific...
Thanks for finding the exception you need to prove your point, that must've taken a while. The argument that famous artists made a limited amount of art because there's only so much they could make in a lifetime is moot because of this one quintessential example of 1980's "video art" (those really go off the shelves at Sotheby's).
I mean it doesn't really take much time at all to find counter examples, does it? There's even a detailed page at Wikipedia with concrete examples, if you haven't ever heard of the concept of a limited or special edition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_edition
The very first paragraph of the page is helpful:
> The terms special edition, limited edition, and variants such as deluxe edition, or collector's edition, are used as a marketing incentive for various kinds of products, originally published products related to the arts, such as books, prints, recorded music and films, and videogames, but now including clothing, cars, fine wine, and whisky, among other products. A limited edition is restricted in the number of copies produced, although in fact the number may be very low or very high. Suzuki (2008) defines limited edition products as those “sold in a state that makes them difficult to obtain because of companies limiting their availability to a certain period, quantity, region, or channel"
The very first paragraph of the page is helpful:
> The terms special edition, limited edition, and variants such as deluxe edition, or collector's edition, are used as a marketing incentive for various kinds of products, originally published products related to the arts, such as books, prints, recorded music and films, and videogames, but now including clothing, cars, fine wine, and whisky, among other products. A limited edition is restricted in the number of copies produced, although in fact the number may be very low or very high. Suzuki (2008) defines limited edition products as those “sold in a state that makes them difficult to obtain because of companies limiting their availability to a certain period, quantity, region, or channel"
And unlike those things, Bitcoin cannot be confiscated by the government, specially third world tyrannical governments that seem to always be trying their hardest to impoverish and screw those under their administration.
> it's a pyramid scheme
That's your opinion.
> easily replaced by any other shitcoin
It's not.
> it's a pyramid scheme
That's your opinion.
> easily replaced by any other shitcoin
It's not.
> And unlike those things, Bitcoin cannot be confiscated by the government...
The IRS seized $3 billion worth about a year ago. https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/histor...
The IRS seized $3 billion worth about a year ago. https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/histor...
There's a major difference between confiscating something that they first have to get their hands on (physically or digitally) and confiscating something like your bank account which doesn't require more than a phone call.
See for example the Canadian government freezing bank accounts[0] of anyone trying to contribute to the vaccine mandate protests.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
See for example the Canadian government freezing bank accounts[0] of anyone trying to contribute to the vaccine mandate protests.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
Bitcoin is constantly confiscated by the US government. Can you clarify what you mean?
I guess he mostly means as a way to get around currency controls. Obviously if the government comes with the police you can be confiscated
But for example, Argentina has incredibly harsh currency controls, any freelancer or company that tries to export goods or services gets paid half the value per dollar and is forced to sell their dollars to the government
While companies can't really avoid it, most freelancers go around the control by using crypto and so can get the full value of their work
But for example, Argentina has incredibly harsh currency controls, any freelancer or company that tries to export goods or services gets paid half the value per dollar and is forced to sell their dollars to the government
While companies can't really avoid it, most freelancers go around the control by using crypto and so can get the full value of their work
The government has to physically come and take it from you. They cannot remotely freeze Bitcoin like they can with conventional financial instruments.
I bet a tyrannical government can easily confiscate your BTC with enough "enhanced interrogation".
Rubber-hose cryptography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
Doesn't even need to be governments. A man was tortured in his home with a drill in front of his 4 year old while being robbed of his bitcoin:
https://www.ccn.com/dutch-bitcoin-trader-suffers-brutal-tort...
https://www.ccn.com/dutch-bitcoin-trader-suffers-brutal-tort...
Crypto bros thrive in an extremely abnormal environment where violence is controlled and outsourced to a powerful central authority. Good thread on this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579124072390463488.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579124072390463488.html
It's true. It would be a lot more difficult with something like a privacy coin. Someone could write down a 12/13 word phrase as a hot wallet and have a cold wallet with a memorized phrase. No one knows how much are in either wallet or that the two are even linked.
Pretty sure after they break out the blowtorches you’ll be volunteering this information…
Torture works a lot better if you know what you're looking for. With BTC you know exactly what it is you're looking for and how much. If all you know is they paid with a privacy coin then you have no idea how many wallets they have or how much money, there's no more advantage to giving up 2 wallets than 1 as there's no reason for an attacker to not think there's a 3rd you're holding out on if they didn't believe you the first time -- the options would be give up everything and get blow torched or give up only some and get blow torched
[deleted]
It can't? Strange how the government ended up controlling the Silk Road's stash
> Bitcoin cannot be confiscated by the government, specially third world tyrannical governments that seem to always be trying their hardest to impoverish and screw those under their administration.
This just seems apt: https://xkcd.com/538/
This just seems apt: https://xkcd.com/538/
Maybe so, but there was another article not long ago talking about how, while originally bitcoin was expected to act like gold - ie go up when people worried about the stability of the financial system, what happened instead is that it's basically just correlated with the stock market. So in that light, the GP comment is useful context. Even if you think that long term it's a pyramid scheme, its short term performance is basically explained by the stock market, and is not evidence of the scheme unravelling, or whatever you might call it
Just as a matter of history:
- BTC was originally intended to support smart contracts
- but people pitched “digital gold” because they didn’t understand that vision
- then the capability was removed for “safety”
- and then later ETH came along (with a different model), but one that still is too costly for general compute trade and which is inflated by the gimped-BTC bubble
- we’re watching that fools gold bubble pop
- and new ideas about compute for sale emerge [1]
And in the near future:
- eventually, tokens will represent real things with the interop currency being the one for buying compute time
[1] - eg, https://github.com/lucasgleba/zkRiscV
- BTC was originally intended to support smart contracts
- but people pitched “digital gold” because they didn’t understand that vision
- then the capability was removed for “safety”
- and then later ETH came along (with a different model), but one that still is too costly for general compute trade and which is inflated by the gimped-BTC bubble
- we’re watching that fools gold bubble pop
- and new ideas about compute for sale emerge [1]
And in the near future:
- eventually, tokens will represent real things with the interop currency being the one for buying compute time
[1] - eg, https://github.com/lucasgleba/zkRiscV
it correlated with the stock market because the local courts allowed public companies to let the public decide whether or not they could buy into crypto currencies and put it on their balance sheet.
I'll happily buy Bitcoins from you for $1. In fact, I'll even give you $100 per Bitcoin. Deal?
How about LUNC?
Sorry, fresh out of BTC (I was all in on this Celsius get rich quick scheme!), I'll have some tulips in the spring though. $100 each, sound good?
How is it a pyramid scheme?
If you're getting technical, it's not a pyramid scheme, but a greater fool scam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
I'm a big fan of crypto but at least the idea of passing the hot potato til it crumbles in to nothing is a reasonable worry. Every stonk has that same exact issue.
Well, no, some stocks actually have value, because there's a money-making company behind the stock. (Or are you using "stonk" to refer to a stock that has a money-losing company behind it?)
A lot of cryptocurrencies are part of projects that I believe in. I see the code, see commits, discussions, details of the project being used in the wild. I don't blame the people behind the project for ridiculous fluctuations in their coin's price or blind hysteria in the space.
Bitcoin's project is that it's a collectible with limited supply.
Bitcoin's project is that it's a collectible with limited supply.
Thing is, the market doesn't care whether or not you believe in the underlying asset. The difference is that when you buy shares you're buying shares in a company that actually produces something, and those shares usually pay dividends.
Buying crypto because you believe in a given project is the same as buying a beanie baby because you happen to like the particular appearance of said beanie baby.
Buying crypto because you believe in a given project is the same as buying a beanie baby because you happen to like the particular appearance of said beanie baby.
Strangely enough RAI doesn't need to be excessively volatile. It just happens to be the least volatile cryptocurrency in existence.
I wonder why that is...
I wonder why that is...
I read it as stonk to mean stock that would be a bad decision to put money in at any time (not just because it is overvalued at this time). Like GameStop.
[deleted]
<< the value of it should be close to $1 or less.
Value ( and by extension price ) of anything is what people are willing to pay for it. Some digital cards in a Blizzard game were purchased for thousands of dollars. There is some digital real estate that was purchased for millions. We can argue all day long whether it makes sense and what the value should be, but that is the wrong perspective to begin with.
<< will never give dividends
Even now I can easily point to stocks that never paid dividends.
<< it's a pyramid scheme
At this point, it is a pyramid scheme the same way US dollar is a pyramid scheme.
Value ( and by extension price ) of anything is what people are willing to pay for it. Some digital cards in a Blizzard game were purchased for thousands of dollars. There is some digital real estate that was purchased for millions. We can argue all day long whether it makes sense and what the value should be, but that is the wrong perspective to begin with.
<< will never give dividends
Even now I can easily point to stocks that never paid dividends.
<< it's a pyramid scheme
At this point, it is a pyramid scheme the same way US dollar is a pyramid scheme.
> digital real estate was purchased for millions.
It was purchased for millions AT THE TIME OF PEAK MANIA . big difference
Also it was purchased for millions by the only guy in the world willing to pay millions for it…
Don’t extrapolate or you risk making an hypothesis of liquidity and price permanence which is just not there
A mansion in Naples or San Mateo was worth millions in the 1980s, 90s , 00s , 10s , 20s and there are millions of potential buyers globally who’d happily pay that price. That’s an asset which proved both liquidity and price permanence (matter of fact appreciation) but still it’s not a given that it will prove to be such going forward
It was purchased for millions AT THE TIME OF PEAK MANIA . big difference
Also it was purchased for millions by the only guy in the world willing to pay millions for it…
Don’t extrapolate or you risk making an hypothesis of liquidity and price permanence which is just not there
A mansion in Naples or San Mateo was worth millions in the 1980s, 90s , 00s , 10s , 20s and there are millions of potential buyers globally who’d happily pay that price. That’s an asset which proved both liquidity and price permanence (matter of fact appreciation) but still it’s not a given that it will prove to be such going forward
<< A mansion in Naples or San Mateo was worth millions in the 1980s, 90s , 00s , 10s , 20s and there are millions of potential buyers globally who’d happily pay that price. That’s an asset which proved both liquidity and price permanence (matter of fact appreciation) but still it’s not a given that it will prove to be such going forward
If there is one thing that 2008 should have taught anyone, it is that nothing is permanent. I am not going to get philosophical here and say that possessions are fleeting, but to pretend that real estate is not propped up hard and effectively is guaranteed to "prove to be such going forward" is about the same faith that keeps ANY asset including bitcoin up.
Why are you so certain that this timeline will never see Naples mansion price go to zero? I can easily see several scenarios where that could happen.
If there is one thing that 2008 should have taught anyone, it is that nothing is permanent. I am not going to get philosophical here and say that possessions are fleeting, but to pretend that real estate is not propped up hard and effectively is guaranteed to "prove to be such going forward" is about the same faith that keeps ANY asset including bitcoin up.
Why are you so certain that this timeline will never see Naples mansion price go to zero? I can easily see several scenarios where that could happen.
>At this point, it is a pyramid scheme the same way US dollar is a pyramid scheme
Yeah the dollar is a pyramid scheme. It has the same construction flaws as Bitcoin. You can withdraw it from the markets and just hoard it which causes deflation. The central bank then allows commercial banks to increase the money supply instead of increasing the circulation velocity. The problem with newly created money: it can be hoarded too, resulting in an infinite doom loop.
Yeah the dollar is a pyramid scheme. It has the same construction flaws as Bitcoin. You can withdraw it from the markets and just hoard it which causes deflation. The central bank then allows commercial banks to increase the money supply instead of increasing the circulation velocity. The problem with newly created money: it can be hoarded too, resulting in an infinite doom loop.
> Bitcoin will never give dividends
Niter will Tesla shares, yet people still buy. Its purely for resale at later stage.
Niter will Tesla shares, yet people still buy. Its purely for resale at later stage.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> - AMZN under $100 (Down 48% YOY) - GOOG under $100 (Down 42% YOY) - AMD under $60 (Down 59% YOY) - META at $101 (Down 77% YOY)
To be fair, many of the big companies (at least Amazon, Meta, Twitter) have gotten front-page articles about their losses with people laying into them.
To be fair, many of the big companies (at least Amazon, Meta, Twitter) have gotten front-page articles about their losses with people laying into them.
Yeah, FAANG stock imploding has been on headlines for months now.
Why wouldn't BTC get the same treatment? OP must be a bag holder.
Why wouldn't BTC get the same treatment? OP must be a bag holder.
You have coin in your handle. Far more likely that you're hyper-sensitive to news you think is a slight on crypto. I have seen threads about Meta and Amazon losing enormous amounts in market cap in the last week. Maybe you're the one who needs to stop paying attention to detractors.
For me, it's because I genuinely dislike the Bitcoin cult. They are detached from reality and have a sense of superiority. Something about that really annoys me and I want them to "lose". I feel the same about investors in GME and to some extent extent TSLA.
[deleted]
If bitcoin is gold, shouldn't it be moving in the opposite direction? If it isn't, why not buy AMZN, GOOG, AMD, or META, who are all doing as good or better?
And since bitcoin isn't a tech stock, but a "currency," why wouldn't you compare it to the S&P (down 19%), DJIA (down 10%), or the USD (up 17% against UKP, 15% against EUR)?
And since bitcoin isn't a tech stock, but a "currency," why wouldn't you compare it to the S&P (down 19%), DJIA (down 10%), or the USD (up 17% against UKP, 15% against EUR)?
Your last post:
- Amazon Becomes the First Company Ever to Lose $1T in Stock Value
I'll let it speak for itself.
- Amazon Becomes the First Company Ever to Lose $1T in Stock Value
I'll let it speak for itself.
My best explanation is an psycho-economic-reactance model. It hypothesizes that the largest crypto-pessimistic voices are engaging in the hyperstitious[2] manufacturing of a desired crypto collapse. The desire to foment crypto-collapse stems the reactance one imagines oneself experiencing in a thoroughly crypt-infused world. Allow me to draw a parallel.
There exists a contingent of folks who experience psychological reactance at the thought of having to make decisions with respect to government oversight. They "[experience] motivation to regain a freedom after it has been lost or threatened – leads people to resist the social influence of others" when faced with the prospect of having to deal with the government. We all know people like this.
The same reaction exists when people feel they will be forced to make decisions with respect to crypto - a system they didn't and don't wish to participate in. No amount of reasoning is going to make someone amenable to government interference in the same way no one is going to be reasoned out of being currency-interfered with by those wish to establish a crypto-hegemony.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
2. http://www.xenopraxis.net/readings/carstens_hyperstition.pdf
There exists a contingent of folks who experience psychological reactance at the thought of having to make decisions with respect to government oversight. They "[experience] motivation to regain a freedom after it has been lost or threatened – leads people to resist the social influence of others" when faced with the prospect of having to deal with the government. We all know people like this.
The same reaction exists when people feel they will be forced to make decisions with respect to crypto - a system they didn't and don't wish to participate in. No amount of reasoning is going to make someone amenable to government interference in the same way no one is going to be reasoned out of being currency-interfered with by those wish to establish a crypto-hegemony.
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
2. http://www.xenopraxis.net/readings/carstens_hyperstition.pdf
People on here get worked up about it because they all know someone who made a lot of money in it that they see as unearned -- it comes down to jealousy or schadenfreude, I suppose. The guise of caring about the externalities or the grandmas is always a front, if we're being totally honest with ourselves.
Because to your point, it's completely voluntary to get involved, and if someone is pretending to care about all the (relatively few) grandmas who put money in, well, they're losing money so this person shouldn't be so happy about it.
And as for the energy externality, the vast majority of crypto hashpower has hook ups to power plants where during certain times of the day/year, there is excess power and nowhere to put it, so they sell it dirt cheap to miners. I know someone who worked for a US solar power provider that had such an arrangement. Sure, some people are mining from their college campus and stealing power to do so, but the cumulative real effect of this relatively low profit activity is dwarfed by the out of context numbers you see in articles.
So at the end of the day, the crypto hating is just people playing zero sum status games, hoping they somehow benefit relative to the decline of others (just as the crypto people are playing zero sum wealth games). It would be nice if everyone could just be honest about it.
Because to your point, it's completely voluntary to get involved, and if someone is pretending to care about all the (relatively few) grandmas who put money in, well, they're losing money so this person shouldn't be so happy about it.
And as for the energy externality, the vast majority of crypto hashpower has hook ups to power plants where during certain times of the day/year, there is excess power and nowhere to put it, so they sell it dirt cheap to miners. I know someone who worked for a US solar power provider that had such an arrangement. Sure, some people are mining from their college campus and stealing power to do so, but the cumulative real effect of this relatively low profit activity is dwarfed by the out of context numbers you see in articles.
So at the end of the day, the crypto hating is just people playing zero sum status games, hoping they somehow benefit relative to the decline of others (just as the crypto people are playing zero sum wealth games). It would be nice if everyone could just be honest about it.
I don't know what you are taking about. I hate cryptocurrencirs because they perpetuate the current fiat currency system that originated from the gold standard. The reason why Bitcoin has this massive amount of volatility has to do with the way it is constructed. Just like with conventional fiat currency there is no way to pay off debts with Bitcoin because the additional demand for Bitcoin will increase the value of Bitcoin denominated debt.
The news we constantly hear is "Hackernews 10/Dec/2022 Changpeng on brink of second bailout for cryptoexchanges."
It is like Bitcoin is supposed to send a hyperexaggerated message about our current money system and how unsustainable it is.
The answer is already obvious you have negative rates or not. The positive interest side of the loanable funds model is the side where new debt is taken on, the negative interest side of the loanable funds model is where debt is being paid off. We want to be on the negative side now because we have too much debt.
The news we constantly hear is "Hackernews 10/Dec/2022 Changpeng on brink of second bailout for cryptoexchanges."
It is like Bitcoin is supposed to send a hyperexaggerated message about our current money system and how unsustainable it is.
The answer is already obvious you have negative rates or not. The positive interest side of the loanable funds model is the side where new debt is taken on, the negative interest side of the loanable funds model is where debt is being paid off. We want to be on the negative side now because we have too much debt.
FWIW I think I have seen most of those titles posted to HN over the last few months.
e.g.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33357289 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33379932
Anyways, a sharp decline in cryptocurrency markets caused by the continuing house-of-cards is almost certainly going to make front page HN.
e.g.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33357289 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33379932
Anyways, a sharp decline in cryptocurrency markets caused by the continuing house-of-cards is almost certainly going to make front page HN.
> What is it about bitcoin that brings people into these threads to say "good riddance! I hope it dies because all of it's negative externalities."?
> To the oblivious observer it would appear cryptocurrency lives rent free in many heads in this space. If you don't care for it why pay attention to it?
The environmental impact is something everyone should care about
> To the oblivious observer it would appear cryptocurrency lives rent free in many heads in this space. If you don't care for it why pay attention to it?
The environmental impact is something everyone should care about
It's popular to hate cryptocurrency in some circles.
I think that mainly that is what drives the hate, just network effects. It's popular to hate because everyone's doing it.
But also, unfortunately cryptocurrency's reputation has largely been ruined by scammers. Because it's like any high technology, it multiplies the power of those who use it. Including the multitudes of low-lifes out there.
The biggest issue though is that people fundamentally do not understand what cryptocurrency is or that it has core advances in digital signatures and blockchains that make legacy trust-based financial systems obsolescent.
It also represents in some ways how technology has made all sorts of institutions and paradigms obsolete. Those who are profiting from these previous paradigms and/or are less cognitively adaptive subconsciously are threatened by these types of changes.
I think that mainly that is what drives the hate, just network effects. It's popular to hate because everyone's doing it.
But also, unfortunately cryptocurrency's reputation has largely been ruined by scammers. Because it's like any high technology, it multiplies the power of those who use it. Including the multitudes of low-lifes out there.
The biggest issue though is that people fundamentally do not understand what cryptocurrency is or that it has core advances in digital signatures and blockchains that make legacy trust-based financial systems obsolescent.
It also represents in some ways how technology has made all sorts of institutions and paradigms obsolete. Those who are profiting from these previous paradigms and/or are less cognitively adaptive subconsciously are threatened by these types of changes.
No, we understand it pretty well and the "core advances" in signature and blockchains haven't obsoleted anything.
Nothing has been made obsolete, nothing about Bitcoin replaces any existing financial institution.
Nothing has been made obsolete, nothing about Bitcoin replaces any existing financial institution.
Anyone who understands cryptocurrency understands how it doesn't make the old financial system obsolete. If anything it reminds people how good their day to day life is because their government is relatively competent at managing the national currency compared to an unregulated currency.
The fact that 99% of cryptocurrencies have no reason to exist including Bitcoin is visible in RAI. RAI is the Swiss franc of cryptocurrencies among hyperinflating nonsense.
What RAI represents is effectively a currency with an entirely computer controlled central bank just like Friedman dreamt of. Now that is possibly the greatest invention of this century. It is battle tested in one of the harshest environments. While every other currency(crypto or not) is dropping like flies, RAI is only dropping as fast as the Swiss franc which is hardly losing its value.
> It also represents in some ways how technology has made all sorts of institutions and paradigms obsolete. Those who are profiting from these previous paradigms and/or are less cognitively adaptive subconsciously are threatened by these types of changes.
I don't know what is going in your head but I could easily accuse you of the same. RAI represents how technology made the old paradigm of hypervolatile currencies obsolete. Bitcoin traders who were profiting from this paradigm or people who are unable to understand computer controlled monetary policy are theatened by these types of changes.
By the way, mining rewards are not a monetary policy because they don't take the supply and demand for Bitcoin into account, nor is there a way to get rid of excess Bitcoin.
The fact that 99% of cryptocurrencies have no reason to exist including Bitcoin is visible in RAI. RAI is the Swiss franc of cryptocurrencies among hyperinflating nonsense.
What RAI represents is effectively a currency with an entirely computer controlled central bank just like Friedman dreamt of. Now that is possibly the greatest invention of this century. It is battle tested in one of the harshest environments. While every other currency(crypto or not) is dropping like flies, RAI is only dropping as fast as the Swiss franc which is hardly losing its value.
> It also represents in some ways how technology has made all sorts of institutions and paradigms obsolete. Those who are profiting from these previous paradigms and/or are less cognitively adaptive subconsciously are threatened by these types of changes.
I don't know what is going in your head but I could easily accuse you of the same. RAI represents how technology made the old paradigm of hypervolatile currencies obsolete. Bitcoin traders who were profiting from this paradigm or people who are unable to understand computer controlled monetary policy are theatened by these types of changes.
By the way, mining rewards are not a monetary policy because they don't take the supply and demand for Bitcoin into account, nor is there a way to get rid of excess Bitcoin.
[deleted]
To me the real question is why isn’t bitcoin skyrocketing in value? If crypto is susceptible to inflation worries, what is the point?
I would say because this is a correction. The demand for BTC was up due to speculation. As the perception of risk increases in general, there will be less speculation.
>>What is it about bitcoin that brings people into these threads to say "good riddance! I hope it dies because all of it's negative externalities."?
Because many became rich riding the first crypto wave. And they missed out. It strikes them as an injustice and as some consolation, they would like to see crypto crash burn.
If I can't have, neither should they.
Because many became rich riding the first crypto wave. And they missed out. It strikes them as an injustice and as some consolation, they would like to see crypto crash burn.
If I can't have, neither should they.
Yeah, it’s really a mystery why news about a techno-utopist technology would show up on a technology focused website.
The one thing which is satisfying for me about this crash is that, as a developer working in the cryptocurrency space, I was constantly looked down on by the mainstream FAANG tech crowd. They kept telling me "Crypto is a bubble, there's nothing behind it" and I would say back to them "Yes, but with all the money printing that's been going on and distorting the markets, how can we even know which company in the stock market is backed by real value?"
And now look at what's going on; big tech stocks crashed faster than crypto did. In a realistic economic environment, could these stocks be worth less than 'worthless' crypto? The effect is even more dramatic than I thought. It confirms my beliefs that the economy of the last decade was a kind of lucky lottery system.
And now look at what's going on; big tech stocks crashed faster than crypto did. In a realistic economic environment, could these stocks be worth less than 'worthless' crypto? The effect is even more dramatic than I thought. It confirms my beliefs that the economy of the last decade was a kind of lucky lottery system.
None of the tier 1 tech stocks have any chance of bankruptcy.
There is still a tiny chance. Crypto has 0 chance of bankruptcy.
This is because cryptocurrencies aren't even companies; they have no directors, no board members, no debt, no assets. It's impossible for them to go bankrupt.
Also, companies can become nonviable and be shut down. On the other hand, it's almost impossible for a crypto to become nonviable... There will always be some tinkerers willing to run nodes at a tiny annual loss. PoS cryptos are very cheap to operate.
This is because cryptocurrencies aren't even companies; they have no directors, no board members, no debt, no assets. It's impossible for them to go bankrupt.
Also, companies can become nonviable and be shut down. On the other hand, it's almost impossible for a crypto to become nonviable... There will always be some tinkerers willing to run nodes at a tiny annual loss. PoS cryptos are very cheap to operate.
Certain large crypto companies have gone bankrupt causing their customers to lose all their funds whereas I’d claim purchasing meta stock at this point in time is a much safer position.
Lack of a meaningful consensus network would be pretty similar, in the sense that someone holding that currency wouldn't be able to get anything in exchange for it.
Well, it'd likely be worse than bankruptcy, because there wouldn't be any assets to go after in court.
Well, it'd likely be worse than bankruptcy, because there wouldn't be any assets to go after in court.
That won't happen because there will never be a shortage of fools and degens who will buy crypto. Same reason why gambling will always exist. Crypto is better at attracting speculators because it's not as constrained by regulations and even if price drops 80%+, people immediately start telling themselves "I'm in it for the technology and/or social mission" and this keeps them HODLing until the next bull run.
Stock investors tend to think more like "This stock just dropped 80%, I have to cut my losses... Switching to value investing. Bye."
Stock investors tend to think more like "This stock just dropped 80%, I have to cut my losses... Switching to value investing. Bye."
Because it's a fucking scam, that's why. Aside the technology behind it, the coin itself offers no value whatsoever. Not to mention all the resources used to mine it.
Bitcoin is not above criticism nor are the companies you mentioned (all of which have been criticized for various reasons on this platform).
Are you confused about why the HN community would be more interested in big moves in the first cryptocurrency rather than in BLK or AMZN?
Turned out that BTC is not an inflation hedge.
There's been a bunch of posts about how much Meta's stock has fallen that have hit the front page.
Thinking it is harmful is different than "don't care for it".
> lives rent free in many heads
Do you normally charge rent to remember concepts you find ridiculous, evil or toxic? How much rent do you charge, say, "scientology" or "child abuse" for the mental real estate they are squatting on in your head?
Do you normally charge rent to remember concepts you find ridiculous, evil or toxic? How much rent do you charge, say, "scientology" or "child abuse" for the mental real estate they are squatting on in your head?
I see crypto as the embodiment of unchecked greed. The massive amounts of energy it destroys is such a major middle finger to everyone. The current financial system wasn't bad enough. They had to take the brakes off.
> amounts of energy it destroys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
Should the value of Bitcoin be rising with inflation?
By definition, the value of everything rises with inflation. That just tells you that in the absence of inflation, prices now would be lower than they are now. It doesn't tell you whether prices now are higher or lower than they were yesterday.
To be precise, the value of money sinks. The value of bread to everyone involved stays the same.
Said differently: the price of everything rises, not the value.
And another nitpick: by definition the average/median price rises, not the price of everything (afair).
Since bitcoin itself is a currency though, I'm not sure how inflation really applies across currencies (since there are "prices" both ways).
Said differently: the price of everything rises, not the value.
And another nitpick: by definition the average/median price rises, not the price of everything (afair).
Since bitcoin itself is a currency though, I'm not sure how inflation really applies across currencies (since there are "prices" both ways).
> To be precise, the value of money sinks. The value of bread to everyone involved stays the same.
The value of bread as measured in money rises. I'm just using the terminology from the parent comment.
> And another nitpick: by definition the average/median price rises, not the price of everything (afair).
No, that's wrong. The value of money sinking is exactly the same as the price of everything rising. That is the meaning of "the value of money"; there is not even a theoretical distinction between these concepts. If the value of money falls in half, then all prices, of everything, have increased by 100%.
> Since bitcoin itself is a currency though, I'm not sure how inflation really applies across currencies (since there are "prices" both ways).
There seems to be some kind of conceptual confusion here. Currencies inflate (by losing value), or deflate (by gaining value), or don't (by maintaining the same value; in reality this can't happen).
If one currency inflates more than another one does, then the exchange rate between them will shift. (It will take more of the first currency to buy a constant amount of the second one, or less of the second one to buy a constant amount of the first one.) If two currencies inflate by the same amount, then the exchange rate between them won't shift. What's your question?
The value of bread as measured in money rises. I'm just using the terminology from the parent comment.
> And another nitpick: by definition the average/median price rises, not the price of everything (afair).
No, that's wrong. The value of money sinking is exactly the same as the price of everything rising. That is the meaning of "the value of money"; there is not even a theoretical distinction between these concepts. If the value of money falls in half, then all prices, of everything, have increased by 100%.
> Since bitcoin itself is a currency though, I'm not sure how inflation really applies across currencies (since there are "prices" both ways).
There seems to be some kind of conceptual confusion here. Currencies inflate (by losing value), or deflate (by gaining value), or don't (by maintaining the same value; in reality this can't happen).
If one currency inflates more than another one does, then the exchange rate between them will shift. (It will take more of the first currency to buy a constant amount of the second one, or less of the second one to buy a constant amount of the first one.) If two currencies inflate by the same amount, then the exchange rate between them won't shift. What's your question?
Everyone (including you) knows what he means.
The only alternative I see is that you're proposing bitcoin's price should generally rise faster than inflation when inflation is positive.
Is that really what you mean, and what you think my parent comment meant? Inflation is a mechanical thing; to get that effect, you'd need a financial instrument that was specifically defined to produce it.
Is that really what you mean, and what you think my parent comment meant? Inflation is a mechanical thing; to get that effect, you'd need a financial instrument that was specifically defined to produce it.
He meant that the price of BTC expressed in USD should be going up with inflation.
It is. If you want people to understand that you have some other meaning than that, you're going to need to phrase it better.
Exactly.
> What is it about bitcoin that brings people into these threads to say "good riddance! I hope it dies because all of it's negative externalities."?
The negative externalities.
The negative externalities.
> To the oblivious observer it would appear cryptocurrency lives rent free in many heads in this space. If you don't care for it why pay attention to it?
Because it affects people. A lot of people needed graphics cards for not just gaming, but for 3d animation, video making, and video games during and after lockdown.
Ethereum was responsible for very large price increases and scarcity of graphics cards. The collapse of Ethereum eventually brought supply back to graphics cards-but we still have these inflated prices. Early in this recent crypto boom it was impossible to buy a mainstream card ($250-$400) while the top end cards were available because mining profitability on the mainstream ones was much higher.
This is before you consider that the high demand also attracted scalpers and the environmental issues.
Because it affects people. A lot of people needed graphics cards for not just gaming, but for 3d animation, video making, and video games during and after lockdown.
Ethereum was responsible for very large price increases and scarcity of graphics cards. The collapse of Ethereum eventually brought supply back to graphics cards-but we still have these inflated prices. Early in this recent crypto boom it was impossible to buy a mainstream card ($250-$400) while the top end cards were available because mining profitability on the mainstream ones was much higher.
This is before you consider that the high demand also attracted scalpers and the environmental issues.
Because HN is now mainly a forum for FAANG employees, as opposed to founders like it used to be. FAANG cannot control Bitcoin, thus its management and thus its peons view it as a problem. Switch to https://stacker.news instead
I thought it was a good asset to own in case of recession?
Only necessity commodities are a good asset to own in a recession. And in practice due to retail patterns volatility in bad times nothing is a "good" thing to own. (If you know a vertically integrated food producer that produces their own water and fertilizer, do let me know though.)
Also note we have a global currency war, where U.S. is forcing policy/pick your side to countries and also "exports" inflation.
This is done in part by the rate of increase of interests rate -- a derivative other countries can not simply follow up. In big part in the way energy gets exported.
So as DXY goes up everything else free-falls, and causes extra strain -- as the fixed costs to pay debt increase rapidly due to the rates too -- things break. And when things break, people sell everything they can to save the boat.
So you are looking at a table full of fireworks randomly popping trying to guess what is going to stay there. I wouldn't say there is a good asset thus.
Note this is simply unsustainable. My perspective.
Also note we have a global currency war, where U.S. is forcing policy/pick your side to countries and also "exports" inflation.
This is done in part by the rate of increase of interests rate -- a derivative other countries can not simply follow up. In big part in the way energy gets exported.
So as DXY goes up everything else free-falls, and causes extra strain -- as the fixed costs to pay debt increase rapidly due to the rates too -- things break. And when things break, people sell everything they can to save the boat.
So you are looking at a table full of fireworks randomly popping trying to guess what is going to stay there. I wouldn't say there is a good asset thus.
Note this is simply unsustainable. My perspective.
Counterpoint: Stanley Druckenmiller, who many, including myself, think is the most successful investor/trader alive (something like 30% a year average for 30 years with not a single down year) is on the record saying that during recessions he makes money by buying bonds.
Would you pick a random bond? The question is if there is a good type of asset. One anyone would just keep.
To your words Druckenmiller "makes money by buying bonds." That involves a) picking them b) selling them and doing both right. I don't think the average person does 30%. If Druckenmiller can send us his tips on the ultimate bond that is inefficient, I am all ears. But I wouldn't know how to pick a mispriced bond myself.
Edit: But yes, you can make money during a recession. If there is a lot of inflation that might not count as much. I don't think I implied you can't with my statement. But even where you place your money is a game then -- think Lehman Brothers taking hedge fund liquidity down with it.
Edit: But yes, you can make money during a recession. If there is a lot of inflation that might not count as much. I don't think I implied you can't with my statement. But even where you place your money is a game then -- think Lehman Brothers taking hedge fund liquidity down with it.
A really bad asset to own in a recession. Its totally speculative and backed by nothing, it has no real use/value per se. Even gold's value is derived by the work taken to extract and mine it - it has uses in computing, jewelry etc. Bitcoin is just bits of data floating through the air. And don't even get me started on NFTs! During a recession people will withdraw their crypto and sell leading it to drop in value(more out in the wild) as they need money. I wonder if all of the tech layoffs this/last week triggered a huge sell volume(tech employees trying to cash out risky assets). The timing does seem suspicious.
A store of value i was told. Because see, unlike money, bitcoin has value i was told.
You were told fortune favors the bold, but you should have instead invested in gold.
Invested in real estate and made enough to be debt free instead, pulled out just in time. Not rich, but not bad. May even be a good time to buy crypto but each time i say "now is the time" it goes down. So there's clearly a batch of signals i am reading wrong.
These are expected historical falls - https://ibb.co/TWyTDh5
This graph only looks good because of logarithmic scale use. This is how it looks like to normal people:
https://www.coindesk.com/embedded-chart/QMQGWJngBbWTR
https://www.coindesk.com/embedded-chart/QMQGWJngBbWTR
Why would you use anything but a logarithmic scale to understand an asset over long periods of time?
Because “lost nearly 80% YOY” shows up better this way.
In 2011 it crashed 94% ($35 -> $2)
In 2013 it crashed 83% ($260 -> $45)
In 2015 it crashed 87% ($1,140 -> $150)
In 2017 it crashed 82% ($19,900 -> $3,540)
In 2022 it crashed 76% ($66,938 -> $15,853) - so far..
As we can see, 80% crash for Bitcoin has not been that scary.
In 2013 it crashed 83% ($260 -> $45)
In 2015 it crashed 87% ($1,140 -> $150)
In 2017 it crashed 82% ($19,900 -> $3,540)
In 2022 it crashed 76% ($66,938 -> $15,853) - so far..
As we can see, 80% crash for Bitcoin has not been that scary.
You left out the difference in market cap.
> In 2011 it crashed 94% ($35 -> $2)
In 2011 Bitcoin's market cap was 23.6 million
> In 2022 it crashed 76% ($66,938 -> $15,853) - so far..
In 2022 Bitcoin's starting market cap was $891B.
In this context, I understand "scary" to mean "destructive economic impact", and from that perspective a 76% crash is very scary.
> In 2011 it crashed 94% ($35 -> $2)
In 2011 Bitcoin's market cap was 23.6 million
> In 2022 it crashed 76% ($66,938 -> $15,853) - so far..
In 2022 Bitcoin's starting market cap was $891B.
In this context, I understand "scary" to mean "destructive economic impact", and from that perspective a 76% crash is very scary.
Market cap only represents the unrealized, fictional value that presumes the latest price multiplied across every coin. A destruction of say 76% of the market cap in no way means 76% of the value of the instruments used to obtain the BTC was destroyed. That is, it's possible for it to be impossible to ever realize losses anywhere near the market cap.
An example. A thousand people pay $1 for a coin. Then two people pay $1000 for a coin. The market cap is now about a million even though only about $3k USD were traded for the coins. A massive reduction in market cap would give the misleading idea the better part of 1M was destroyed, when in fact there can't be more than $3k in realized losses.
An example. A thousand people pay $1 for a coin. Then two people pay $1000 for a coin. The market cap is now about a million even though only about $3k USD were traded for the coins. A massive reduction in market cap would give the misleading idea the better part of 1M was destroyed, when in fact there can't be more than $3k in realized losses.
> Market cap only represents the unrealized, fictional value that presumes the latest price multiplied across every coin. A destruction of say 76% of the market cap in no way means 76% of the value of the instruments used to obtain the BTC was destroyed. That is, it's possible for it to be impossible to ever realize losses anywhere near the market cap.
That goes out the window the moment that the current "market cap" value of the coin is used as collateral for transactions involving "real" money and assets.
That goes out the window the moment that the current "market cap" value of the coin is used as collateral for transactions involving "real" money and assets.
Past performance is not indicative of future performance. It's very realistic that one of these crashes is the last one. If we could be sure it wasn't, it never would have crashed to begin with. It's just a long game of pass the bomb where everyone bets on which year it really does explode.
Agreed, but have we ever had an asset type that is accessible to pretty much every single person in the world? I get that it cannot go up all the time and I'm sure the price will get more or less stable at some point in the future. On the other hand, since the asset type is so widely accessible, it could go up proportionally to the population of the Earth. Just speculating.
There is no reason to be sure BTC will stabilize on anything even close to it's current value. The volatility represents this. It says the vast majority of speculators do not trust the current value to remain.
Even if you fully believe crypto is the future, it's very hard to convincingly explain why BTC is the future and not one of the other coins which implement more features. Someone 20 years ago could have been right about the internet being the future but picked the wrong companies that would win.
Even if you fully believe crypto is the future, it's very hard to convincingly explain why BTC is the future and not one of the other coins which implement more features. Someone 20 years ago could have been right about the internet being the future but picked the wrong companies that would win.
> I'm sure the price will get more or less stable at some point in the future.
I’m not. Most of the demand for crypto is only because it is going up. If it stops going up then speculators will look at alternatives, and it crash again.
Once it’s low enough that small gains represent a higher rate of return then investors will return and the cycle begins again.
This sawtooth pattern is probably inevitable, and will probably continue indefinitely.
I’m not. Most of the demand for crypto is only because it is going up. If it stops going up then speculators will look at alternatives, and it crash again.
Once it’s low enough that small gains represent a higher rate of return then investors will return and the cycle begins again.
This sawtooth pattern is probably inevitable, and will probably continue indefinitely.
> have we ever had an asset type that is accessible to pretty much every single person in the world?
We still don't. Assets have value.
We still don't. Assets have value.
I agree that it's volatile, but that doesn't necessarily recommend it as an an investment vehicle, nor is it the case that we have a lot of assurance that the bottom has been reached.
The main downside of bitcoin is that because it has no cashflow, no one knows how to price it. I agree that in some sense, this democratizes investment in bitcoin, but resistance to any rational investment thesis sure seems a lot like gambling.
The main downside of bitcoin is that because it has no cashflow, no one knows how to price it. I agree that in some sense, this democratizes investment in bitcoin, but resistance to any rational investment thesis sure seems a lot like gambling.
This time it might play out differently, just because the real economy is tanking (or it will in 2023) and the supply of real money towards crypto purchases will dwindle to nothing.
russian roulette
[deleted]
This is the sales pitch for Bitcoin, and it does have some merits if you consider the "digital gold" argument. However, as it turns out, too many people got on the boat and started thinking that bitcoin would make them "rich". They flooded the market and Bitcoin transformed into a completely speculative asset instead.
It turns out that chanting "this is good for Bitcoin" doesn't actually make that true.
Then what better time to buy a recession-proof asset?
(Did I gambler's fallacy correctly?)
(Did I gambler's fallacy correctly?)
You'd be better off with magic beans. At least you can eat beans.
It's quite the opposite: in recession the dollar is getting stronger (buys more shares of stocks / houses).
Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation of currency supply (QE infinity).
Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation of currency supply (QE infinity).
It's good asset to own and buy in a recession. Just bad asset to sell. Just as any other. Gold is going down since march too.
Are we in a recession ?
We are, a recession is usually called in retrospect after some quarters, we are definitely in the beginning of a recession.
GDP was up last quarter. Probably this upcoming one, too. If there’s a recession coming, we aren’t in it yet.
Back in 2007-2008 (for the ones too young or just not remembering) [1]:
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy shrank during the closing months of 2007 for the first time in six years, the Commerce Department confirmed on Thursday, hurt by the steepest slump in housing since 1981.
> But it bounced back to record modest growth in 2008, avoiding back-to-back quarters of decline that would have met a popular definition of recession.
> The department sharply revised its estimate for fourth-quarter performance to show gross domestic product, or GDP, contracted 0.2 percent -- rather than growing 0.6 percent as it previously reported.
And later that year of 2008:
> Growth resumed in the first quarter of 2008, however, with GDP rising at a 0.9 percent rate that accelerated to 1.9 percent in the second quarter as government stimulus payments began to flow.
The wheels of recession were in motion since 2006, its head cropped up during the later quarters of 2007 and completely exploded in late-2008.
Look at all the macroeconomic indicators right now, inflation, energy costs, customer spending, etc., do you really believe we are not way into the wheels of a recession?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-gdp-revisions...
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy shrank during the closing months of 2007 for the first time in six years, the Commerce Department confirmed on Thursday, hurt by the steepest slump in housing since 1981.
> But it bounced back to record modest growth in 2008, avoiding back-to-back quarters of decline that would have met a popular definition of recession.
> The department sharply revised its estimate for fourth-quarter performance to show gross domestic product, or GDP, contracted 0.2 percent -- rather than growing 0.6 percent as it previously reported.
And later that year of 2008:
> Growth resumed in the first quarter of 2008, however, with GDP rising at a 0.9 percent rate that accelerated to 1.9 percent in the second quarter as government stimulus payments began to flow.
The wheels of recession were in motion since 2006, its head cropped up during the later quarters of 2007 and completely exploded in late-2008.
Look at all the macroeconomic indicators right now, inflation, energy costs, customer spending, etc., do you really believe we are not way into the wheels of a recession?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-gdp-revisions...
> Look at all the macroeconomic indicators right now, inflation, energy costs, customer spending, etc., do you really believe we are not way into the wheels of a recession?
I think you left out unemployment from that list because it doesn’t fit the message. How many recessions happen with a 3% unemployment rate?
The economy is odd the last couple years. I don’t know that the usual data points help predict as well as they might normally.
I think you left out unemployment from that list because it doesn’t fit the message. How many recessions happen with a 3% unemployment rate?
The economy is odd the last couple years. I don’t know that the usual data points help predict as well as they might normally.
My message stays the same...
> In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. [1]
[1] https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_b...
> In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. [1]
[1] https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_b...
Until the numbers get revised in 4 months.
Maybe. Q2’s got revised up, not down. https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2022-08-25/2q-g...
No. We just printed positive GDP growth after 2 quarters of slightly negative growth. More importantly, we’ve added many jobs and unemployment is low.
However, we have been in a sector correction for nearly a year now with it beginning to affect high growth cloud tech a year ago and moving into tech generally since. In general growth has done poorly as yields have risen and people have moved into other assets. Many over-leveraged investors have had to liquidate to stay solvent (due to not only falling asset prices but the cost for margin has rising extensively) further driving down prices.
However, we have been in a sector correction for nearly a year now with it beginning to affect high growth cloud tech a year ago and moving into tech generally since. In general growth has done poorly as yields have risen and people have moved into other assets. Many over-leveraged investors have had to liquidate to stay solvent (due to not only falling asset prices but the cost for margin has rising extensively) further driving down prices.
Are we in a recession? No.
But some large parts of the economy are operating much like they would if we were in one. Other large parts are not.
But some large parts of the economy are operating much like they would if we were in one. Other large parts are not.
I guess not since they changed the definition of recession to be something else than two subsequent quarters of negative GDP growth.
For those who may be new to this, what's happening now is the final act of the Bitcoin Cycle.
The Cycle starts with nobody giving Bitcoin a second thought. It's deader than a doornail. Yesterday's news. That is, if anybody even remembers it. Winter.
Spring comes in the form of inexplicably rising exchange rate. Few are paying attention because... Bitcoin is dead. There have been rallies in the past, all failed. Too many failed rallies to even count. So many hopes dashed. So many families broken. So many lives warped beyond recognition.
Summer arrives with an out-of-the blue shot at making a new all time high against the dollar. Will it or won't it? The excitement drives the materialization of a new generation of promoters. Those who have "done the math" and now believe in Bitcoin. People who will tell you to mortgage your house, sell your car, and borrow against your retirement because it's "going up forever."
The popular press starts to smell the sweet scent of clicks and gets busy.
In late summer, problems with "custodians" begin. First with a trickle of instability at an obvious scam. Maybe an exchange. Maybe a yield farm. Maybe an admitted Ponzi.
Before long two, three, four of these custodians are tits up in a pool of blood. "Victims" can't believe their misfortune! They were lied to!
Influencer after influencer comes out of the woodwork to assure followers that capitulation has happened. The exchange rate has stabilized around a nice round number $10. $1000. $10000. $20000. Further declines are not in the cards. Fortune favors the bold!
This goes on for some time, each episode tearing the exchange rate to a lower level. It's Fall.
Eventually, the influencers move on to other audiences. Nobody ever admits what a complete fool they have been. They just... disappear.
Winter comes and the only ones left are the ones who warned the Johnny-come-latelies that this is blood sport, that they are ill-suited for the risks their taking on, and for the love of God, get your damned money off of exchanges.
The Cycle starts with nobody giving Bitcoin a second thought. It's deader than a doornail. Yesterday's news. That is, if anybody even remembers it. Winter.
Spring comes in the form of inexplicably rising exchange rate. Few are paying attention because... Bitcoin is dead. There have been rallies in the past, all failed. Too many failed rallies to even count. So many hopes dashed. So many families broken. So many lives warped beyond recognition.
Summer arrives with an out-of-the blue shot at making a new all time high against the dollar. Will it or won't it? The excitement drives the materialization of a new generation of promoters. Those who have "done the math" and now believe in Bitcoin. People who will tell you to mortgage your house, sell your car, and borrow against your retirement because it's "going up forever."
The popular press starts to smell the sweet scent of clicks and gets busy.
In late summer, problems with "custodians" begin. First with a trickle of instability at an obvious scam. Maybe an exchange. Maybe a yield farm. Maybe an admitted Ponzi.
Before long two, three, four of these custodians are tits up in a pool of blood. "Victims" can't believe their misfortune! They were lied to!
Influencer after influencer comes out of the woodwork to assure followers that capitulation has happened. The exchange rate has stabilized around a nice round number $10. $1000. $10000. $20000. Further declines are not in the cards. Fortune favors the bold!
This goes on for some time, each episode tearing the exchange rate to a lower level. It's Fall.
Eventually, the influencers move on to other audiences. Nobody ever admits what a complete fool they have been. They just... disappear.
Winter comes and the only ones left are the ones who warned the Johnny-come-latelies that this is blood sport, that they are ill-suited for the risks their taking on, and for the love of God, get your damned money off of exchanges.
I feel like that this point I know more people who have tried to speculate and given up on any kind of crypto altogether due to losing money, and/or have told me stories about people they know losing very large amounts of money from trying to speculate...
So surely it's getting to a point where anybody interested, if they mention it to one or two people will hear horror stories about people they know losing huge amounts of money and, and will probably stay away... Like an 'anti-network effect'.
So surely it's getting to a point where anybody interested, if they mention it to one or two people will hear horror stories about people they know losing huge amounts of money and, and will probably stay away... Like an 'anti-network effect'.
[deleted]
that's the best History of Bitcoin I've ever read
What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again.
The tragic thing is, by assuming that it's a cycle, an argument can be made to buy low. To hodl, even, when assuming the next cycle will be higher, right?
But why the assumption that that particular chain will keep blockin?
But why the assumption that that particular chain will keep blockin?
There were rumors last year that Microstrategy will face a margin call if BTC ever went below 20k. I remember a few months back Michael Saylor refuted those claims, but he also stepped down as CEO back in August. Are these Margin call rumors true?
Our company is moving off Microstrategy soon because it’s obviously a sinking ship. They got absurdly hardball in the last negotiation so I doubt it’s going well.
Has there ever been a good way to short bitcoin? I'm guessing not, otherwise it never would've reached such ridiculous prices. I think I'd bet real money on it going below $100.
Counterparty risk.
Lets say you borrowed 1BTC from FTX exchange so that you can short BTC. Congrats, you're correct! You're technically worth a lot more US-dollars now.
You go to FTX, and it stopped existing today. So you don't get your money. In fact, it turns out that you never had borrowed 1BTC in the first place, because FTX where you handled this whole concept has stopped existing entirely.
-------
You can only do things like "short" something if the bank you're shorting with still exists by the end of it all.
You can't win this at all. You _MUST_ have trust with somebody to do any kind of financial trade (be it a long, or short, or any other such complex trade). If that trust is broken, everything collapses.
Lets say you borrowed 1BTC from FTX exchange so that you can short BTC. Congrats, you're correct! You're technically worth a lot more US-dollars now.
You go to FTX, and it stopped existing today. So you don't get your money. In fact, it turns out that you never had borrowed 1BTC in the first place, because FTX where you handled this whole concept has stopped existing entirely.
-------
You can only do things like "short" something if the bank you're shorting with still exists by the end of it all.
You can't win this at all. You _MUST_ have trust with somebody to do any kind of financial trade (be it a long, or short, or any other such complex trade). If that trust is broken, everything collapses.
Honest question, why do you need FTX to exist to short? E.g. if you borrow 1 BTC from someone and then sell it for dollars, later when you need to return this BTC you need to buy it on the mark. The difference in price is either your gain or loss.
You need whichever exchange you entered the position on to exist, and ensure payout when the position is closed/expired. FTX is irrelevant.
If the exchange is doing it's job properly, it would ensure there's a long position for every short position. It's the trader/market maker on the other side that pays you. The premium is what attracts your counter party to the trade.
In the case of FTX, there wasn't a problem with the counter party, it was a problem with the exchange playing with the customer deposits that should have been left untouched.
If the exchange is doing it's job properly, it would ensure there's a long position for every short position. It's the trader/market maker on the other side that pays you. The premium is what attracts your counter party to the trade.
In the case of FTX, there wasn't a problem with the counter party, it was a problem with the exchange playing with the customer deposits that should have been left untouched.
> You need whichever exchange you entered the position on to exist, and ensure payout when the position is closed/expired. FTX is irrelevant.
You need that if you're long, unless you have ownership [almost always true...] in which case you can just close out your long position on some other exchange. You don't need it if you're short, because you get your payout immediately when you go short; closing out a short position is always a loss for you. (You profit when the loss from closing the short is smaller than the gain you got when you took the position. If you never need to close it at all, that's the best-case scenario for your short position.)
You need that if you're long, unless you have ownership [almost always true...] in which case you can just close out your long position on some other exchange. You don't need it if you're short, because you get your payout immediately when you go short; closing out a short position is always a loss for you. (You profit when the loss from closing the short is smaller than the gain you got when you took the position. If you never need to close it at all, that's the best-case scenario for your short position.)
>You don't need it if you're short, because you get your payout immediately when you go short
I don't know of any exchange that would let you withdraw premium before the short position was closed/expired. If you thought that happened once before, it's only because you are using margin collateralized with other assets on that exchange.
I don't know of any exchange that would let you withdraw premium before the short position was closed/expired. If you thought that happened once before, it's only because you are using margin collateralized with other assets on that exchange.
> In the case of FTX, there wasn't a problem with the counter party, it was a problem with the exchange playing with the customer deposits that should have been left untouched.
I have two questions, because unlike with the other crypto drama, I'm late to this party.
1. Is that actually what happened?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, why does this still keep happening? We're in 2022, how many times has this played out, already?
I have two questions, because unlike with the other crypto drama, I'm late to this party.
1. Is that actually what happened?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, why does this still keep happening? We're in 2022, how many times has this played out, already?
>1. Is that actually what happened?
Yes, this is our best guess based on all current facts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-09/bankma...
"The problem is that FTX took its customers’ money and traded it for a pile of magic beans, and now the beans are worthless and there’s a huge hole in the balance sheet."
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, why does this still keep happening? We're in 2022, how many times has this played out, already?
This is a common occurrence during bear markets. The non-US crypto exchanges are (self|minimally|un)regulated. FTX is the biggest blow-up, and surprised many experienced people.
As Warren Buffet says: “It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked.”
It's also rumored that FTX/Alameda were hit hard by the LUNA/Terra collapse early this year. They may have tried to cover it by manipulating the tokens they control, and trading with customer deposits.
It's not unique to crypto. LME (London Metals Exchange) had an issue this year with someone short nickel that didn't want to payout. Also, Archegos capital ran up much more leverage than they should, which resulted in loses at several prime brokers. This was due to the brokers not margin calling them sooner. Credit Suisse had to close their broker services unit afterwards.
Yes, this is our best guess based on all current facts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-09/bankma...
"The problem is that FTX took its customers’ money and traded it for a pile of magic beans, and now the beans are worthless and there’s a huge hole in the balance sheet."
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, why does this still keep happening? We're in 2022, how many times has this played out, already?
This is a common occurrence during bear markets. The non-US crypto exchanges are (self|minimally|un)regulated. FTX is the biggest blow-up, and surprised many experienced people.
As Warren Buffet says: “It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked.”
It's also rumored that FTX/Alameda were hit hard by the LUNA/Terra collapse early this year. They may have tried to cover it by manipulating the tokens they control, and trading with customer deposits.
It's not unique to crypto. LME (London Metals Exchange) had an issue this year with someone short nickel that didn't want to payout. Also, Archegos capital ran up much more leverage than they should, which resulted in loses at several prime brokers. This was due to the brokers not margin calling them sooner. Credit Suisse had to close their broker services unit afterwards.
> E.g. if you borrow 1 BTC from someone and then sell it for dollars
Why does that guy trust you to return the BTC later?
You don't need an exchange per se. But both people need to trust each other. In the stock market, cleaning houses serve as the central role of trust (and brokerages pass your money/stock to these cleaning houses).
-----
It goes like this: if you don't return the stock, the clearinghouse will return the stock. If the other guy doesn't return the money, the clearinghouse makes it whole again.
Since the clearinghouse is well trusted, everyone is happy with the trust issue. Otherwise, you have no reason to trust random people on the internet with your $15,000+ bets.
Why does that guy trust you to return the BTC later?
You don't need an exchange per se. But both people need to trust each other. In the stock market, cleaning houses serve as the central role of trust (and brokerages pass your money/stock to these cleaning houses).
-----
It goes like this: if you don't return the stock, the clearinghouse will return the stock. If the other guy doesn't return the money, the clearinghouse makes it whole again.
Since the clearinghouse is well trusted, everyone is happy with the trust issue. Otherwise, you have no reason to trust random people on the internet with your $15,000+ bets.
Nobody will borrow you a Bitcoin because with price that could go up by few hundred percent you might not have money to buy it back to give it back. It would need to be guaranteed by the third party that can force you to pay back by liquidating some of your other assets.
> Lets say you borrowed 1BTC from FTX exchange so that you can short BTC. Congrats, you're correct! You're technically worth a lot more US-dollars now.
> You go to FTX, and it stopped existing today. So you don't get your money.
What? That's not how shorting works. If you borrow 1BTC from FTX so that you can short BTC, you then actually perform the short by selling the 1BTC to some other party. Now you have two things: (1) cash; and (2) an obligation denominated in bitcoin. That is what it means to be short.
As soon as FTX stops existing, that's great for you, because it means you don't need to give them their 1BTC back. You got your money a long time ago.
> You go to FTX, and it stopped existing today. So you don't get your money.
What? That's not how shorting works. If you borrow 1BTC from FTX so that you can short BTC, you then actually perform the short by selling the 1BTC to some other party. Now you have two things: (1) cash; and (2) an obligation denominated in bitcoin. That is what it means to be short.
As soon as FTX stops existing, that's great for you, because it means you don't need to give them their 1BTC back. You got your money a long time ago.
That's probably not what happens in practice.
1. You never got the BTC to begin with. Its on FTX's platform, with a little database entry that says "User Bob has -1 BTC on margin on the books".
2. The cash never leaves FTX platform either. Because FTX needs to "margin call" (aka: grab your assets somehow) if the market moves against the short position.
3. So really, you're trusting that FTX is going to give you the money back eventually when you zero out all your position entirely.
4. Also remember: exchanges regularly grab the assets. So its not really FTX's bitcoin either. They probably took it from Alice to lend to you.
5. If you wanna say "Well, why doesn't Bob go to Alice directly for this transaction??", its because Alice doesn't trust Bob, and Bob has no trust of Alice, so the entire scheme would never work.
1. You never got the BTC to begin with. Its on FTX's platform, with a little database entry that says "User Bob has -1 BTC on margin on the books".
2. The cash never leaves FTX platform either. Because FTX needs to "margin call" (aka: grab your assets somehow) if the market moves against the short position.
3. So really, you're trusting that FTX is going to give you the money back eventually when you zero out all your position entirely.
4. Also remember: exchanges regularly grab the assets. So its not really FTX's bitcoin either. They probably took it from Alice to lend to you.
5. If you wanna say "Well, why doesn't Bob go to Alice directly for this transaction??", its because Alice doesn't trust Bob, and Bob has no trust of Alice, so the entire scheme would never work.
Well, if you borrowed just before it went down…
CME futures. Go for it.
If you thought a fraudulent non-US centralized exchange blowing up would cause it to drop below $100, you may not know anything about bitcoin.
If you thought a fraudulent non-US centralized exchange blowing up would cause it to drop below $100, you may not know anything about bitcoin.
CME stands for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange - they are one of the most well respected institutions in global finance - not some crypto startup.
If you doubt bitcoin's future, there is a way to put your money where you mouth is without having to trust anyone a mutual fund wouldn't.
If you doubt bitcoin's future, there is a way to put your money where you mouth is without having to trust anyone a mutual fund wouldn't.
This is the right answer. If you short crypto through crypto platforms, you take too much counterparty risk. This lets you avoid it, though it only works for Bitcoin.
CME bitcoin futures are cash settled if you hold it to expiration. If you short, someone else is going long and presumably hedging their bet somehow if it tanks.
Good point. I keep forgetting that beyond the pyramid-scheme type aspect of crypto, it has real utility for drug and other illegal transactions.
> CME futures. Go for it.
Makes me wonder who wants to hedge bitcoins?
Makes me wonder who wants to hedge bitcoins?
There are a bunch of ways to short bitcoin - futures exchanges, canadian ETFs, shorting Grayscale as a proxy.
This is probably not a good time though. See https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/
Ironically I was short Celcius Networks token (CEL) on ftx which was working well apart from one recent unexpected flaw in my scheme.
This is probably not a good time though. See https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/
Ironically I was short Celcius Networks token (CEL) on ftx which was working well apart from one recent unexpected flaw in my scheme.
You can buy put options or outright short the mining companies. I don't recommend it unless you really know what you're doing and what the risks are, but it's worked out well for me.
I've written about it a couple times.
https://paulbutler.org/2022/the-problem-with-bitcoin-miners/ https://paulbutler.org/2021/betting-against-bitcoin/
I've written about it a couple times.
https://paulbutler.org/2022/the-problem-with-bitcoin-miners/ https://paulbutler.org/2021/betting-against-bitcoin/
It sounds like easy money, but the volatility will likely liquidate you if you use any kind of leverage, and there are also lending fees you would likely have to pay. I would be happy to take you up on that bet though. I would be very surprised if it even drops below $10k again.
Plenty of ways to short bitcoin. Whether you will be able to actually collect your profits – who knows.
Shorting mstr has been a good proxy for shorting bitcoin.
Yes, you can short on FTX... er Binance.
short coinbase
BITI
You can pretty much short any stocks or crypto at this point.... Biden is not done.
yes.
Bitcoin down 77% in a year.
performing neck-and-neck in going downhill as Meta stock. ;)
It's a race for who was most deluded in 2021!
Can bitcoin sack staff?
ignoring the vindictive joy i feel at the loudest dumbest people losing money, its a very good thing for bitcoin to die because its got so many awful externalities imo.
In other words, it's still above it's last major peak before this big cycle.
I'm still WAY above what I bought in at total, and already took out a good 20x of the original principal. Wake me up if it gets below 14,000; that might be worth actually rolling over for.
What part of volatile asset class is hard for so many people to understand?
I'm still WAY above what I bought in at total, and already took out a good 20x of the original principal. Wake me up if it gets below 14,000; that might be worth actually rolling over for.
What part of volatile asset class is hard for so many people to understand?
Having bought Eth at I dunno, $150, it's funny watching people panic or gloat about price swings from $1k, or $2k, or $7k.
Whatever, maybe I'll be wiped out tomorrow. Or maybe it'll be $10k in a year or two. Let's ride it and see.
Whatever, maybe I'll be wiped out tomorrow. Or maybe it'll be $10k in a year or two. Let's ride it and see.
Tons of people got into Bitcoin when it was over 20K. That's part of what pushed it so high last year.
Well, you are now an outlier, perhaps even an extreme one. The great majority of people who bought Crypto, have lost money. We could argue that they haven't lost if they didn't sell. But in these economical times, at least Bitcoin/Crypto is proving not to be an inflationary hedge.
[deleted]
I joke that I'll sell my ETH when it's worth half a million USD. It was an insignificant investment at the time and it's fun just going for the ride.
Would like to say this is it for Bitcoin, but it seems to always find a way to recover after a few years. And every time it falls this hard someone says, this is it, like really it.
> Would like to say this is it for Bitcoin, but it seems to always find a way to recover after a few years
That's because fear and greed are anti-fragile, and Bitcoin is fear and greed and little else.
That's because fear and greed are anti-fragile, and Bitcoin is fear and greed and little else.
Great time to buy!
How long until ASIC mining to become unprofitable?
Mining will never really be unprofitable, because the size of the pool will just regulate itself as needed. As the price falls, people running more efficient mining setups (read: cheaper electricity) will get a larger % of profits as others drop out.
Meaning the drop in value is a massive benefit to the planet as miners shut their setups down.
It's a great time to buy mining hardware and invest into renewables so you can mine like crazy during next ride up in 2024-2025.
Mining hardware becomes obsolete after 6 months because more efficient chips come in which every other miner has. So they all get e wasted constantly.
It’s a negative roi to mine on old hardware.
It’s a negative roi to mine on old hardware.
At some point this has to stop as bitcoin ASIC manufacturing reaches top tier of available technology. Not sure if this moment already came so it's risky, but at some point energy and energy generation hardware will dominate the cost of mining bitcoin.
This is less true now due to maturing of ASIC designs and the slowing of Moore's Law. N5-based miners could last for years.
Here's a 10-Q filing from a miner from yesterday[1]
They mined 1,047 bitcoin from July, Aug, Sept. Their cost of revenue for mining works out to $13.5k per coin. But that doesn't include the cost of the equipment they use (which, by value, is mainly the ASIC miners). If you add in the figure that they provide for equipment depreciation, it's an additional $25k per coin.
(Full disclosure: I'm short this stock)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1167419/0001...
They mined 1,047 bitcoin from July, Aug, Sept. Their cost of revenue for mining works out to $13.5k per coin. But that doesn't include the cost of the equipment they use (which, by value, is mainly the ASIC miners). If you add in the figure that they provide for equipment depreciation, it's an additional $25k per coin.
(Full disclosure: I'm short this stock)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1167419/0001...
Pretty hard to say since it depends on the price you pay for electricity. But you can just watch the difficulty adjusting to see when people have started to turn off miners
It is now; machines are being turned off as even the marginal(electricity) costs are now more than the return. Mining in case the price goes up doesn't make sense if you can just buy bitcoin for less than the electricity cost, of course.
[deleted]
:tada: emoji
[deleted]
Made an absolutely tasty short, now looking to slurp this dip. New car off the past 2 days alone.
The similarities with the summer of 2018 market conditions are uncanny. Higher lows followed by a drop in June. Higher lows, then drop in November. Business as usual really.
The speculators may want to consider the impact of the slowing rate of "money printing" price (it's-different-this-time(TM)). Once all the tourists are gone, you're still left with the first artefacts from trustless consensus tech that lets you exchange value. That's gotta be worth something...eventually.
The speculators may want to consider the impact of the slowing rate of "money printing" price (it's-different-this-time(TM)). Once all the tourists are gone, you're still left with the first artefacts from trustless consensus tech that lets you exchange value. That's gotta be worth something...eventually.
Yeah. Bitcoin is on a four year cycle due to the supply cutting in half every four years. Look at 2014, 2018, and now 2022, they are all pretty similar. I think it may still drop a bit further before all is said and done.
I am expecting the recovery to begin next year leading into the 2024 halving, but we will see.
I am expecting the recovery to begin next year leading into the 2024 halving, but we will see.