73 Reds

But that can be said for anything - how do you know the price is reasonable?

We often hear that gold is a "store of value" but if so, it's a pretty bad one, wouldn't you say? With BTC, how can you ascertain whether the price you pay is reasonable if there is no way to measure it? I've never even thought about owning currencies as a store of value; that is the purpose of using dollars to invest in other assets that hopefully generate a return. The return has to somehow be measured and the dollar is as good as any other measurement - at least from a volatility standpoint. Otherwise, in a free society even the barter system makes more sense to me.

There is a segment of society that wants to believe that. The media, both legacy media and social media are much to blame. My issues with legacy media go back 40+ years - long before identity politics. When great news men like Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite were replaced by Networks with agendas that have become much clearer over time, the current divide we have in this country is easily explainable.

Yeah, if you polled 100 people long before the election and asked them who they would like to see run for President, how many would have chosen last week's candidates? Recent Presidential elections have come down to the lesser of two evils. Its a binary choice and therefore you are entirely correct that policies, not the person are what is most important.

The distinction is, when it comes time to sell there are accepted metrics available to provide you with a range of value. No such metric(s) are available to value BTC.

LOL, I'd go back and read my posts if you really care - makes no difference to me though.

But everything is not a ponzi scheme. When you purchase an asset and don't care about the subsequent price, but rather the return you get in the form of distributions and/or tangible/liquidation value, how is that a ponzi?

Doesn't matter. The issue is selective, politically-motivated prosecution.

Irrelevant question, but my answer would be the same for any big-name politician.

+1 Otherwise we are no better than a banana republic.

The part I have a problem with is currencies can be valued relative to other currencies and also on the basis of the strength/weakness of their issuing countries. I honestly have no way of knowing what a fair price, if any would be for BTC.

@rkbagang I, for one am glad you started the thread, for no other reason than reading the various arguments - both for and against, and the rationale behind each. I do find it a bit perplexing that there would be so many proponents on a value-oriented investment board and have a hard time reconciling being an investor in Berkshire/Fairfax and also an owner of BTC. The thought process behind owning each is just so different.

The answer to your question is supply and demand. But that is not the issue with BTC. The issue is, how do you measure its value? At present, you don't because you can't. Therefore, anyone who purchases BTC is speculating that a greater fool will pay more for it than you did. Nothing wrong with that of course and Wall Street will market anything that will make money.

See, you evaded the issue. But if you want to change the issue to Trump, I have never been a fan of his but my educated (as a lawyer) guess is that each of the cases brought against him would have been overturned by more learned, higher courts. Lawfare, against any political opponent (whether I like him or not) has no place in our politics.

Who uses bonds or gold as a cash equivalent? Cash equates to instant liquidity. If you want to argue that a MMF is a cash equivalent, I'd agree with that. But something whose alleged value is as volatile as BTC is not only NOT a cash equivalent, it is not even something that most folks would feel comfortable owning over the weekend. When you rely on current popularity to determine the future of something with entirely no backing, I'd take the other side of your bet that you will ever be able to pay with it everywhere. Very smart, experienced people like Buffett and Munger have repeatedly expressed their opinions of Bitcoin. I wouldn't argue with them. Nor would I be surprised if one day you wake up and BTC is next to worthless. Personally, since there are plenty of viable investments out there I don't give BTC much thought. If Crypto someday fulfills a need for me, maybe I'll consider it, but likely never as an investment.

Indeed, no one argues against good, hard working people and a good immigration system. But the issue is, should breaking the law - whether we agree with it or not - be rewarded or should there be consequences to those who break it?

Defeats the purpose if you have to sell it every time you want to pay for something, no?

Who/what accepts BTC as payment?

That's exactly right. But one can't be for enforcement of laws but only those laws that suit one's own needs.

So once again, if you believe that is OK, you encourage more of the same - lawlessness.

That's not what I said, and I don't find the prospect of not being able to hire legals at all amusing. If young people choose not to work, that's a problem at the local level.

<<Cubs must only employ local legals. I am literally laying on the floor with belly cramps from laughing violently at the entertainment of watching Cubs try to find help from this prescribed legal local bunch.>> Your words?

Sorry Dealraker, I still don't understand why you think it is OK to encourage illegals. Of course we need immigration reform - both parties are equally guilty of complete neglect on that issue. But the answer isn't to suggest that we just continue to perpetuate the problem. Maybe in your part of the country you can't find legal laborers; personally I don't have that issue where I live and work. Sounds to me like local government and community leadership is failing you and that's where the solution has to begin when you get no help on a broader scale. And oh by the way, if we strictly enforce punitive measures on employers who hire illegals, maybe they'd stop hiring them and then perhaps many illegals would stop coming altogether. When breaking the law has no consequences the ensuing results are no surprise. Probably explains this week's election results.

So, are you proscribing that we continue to allow illegal immigration? I don't understand your point.

I think folks read way more into Berkshire's cash holdings than necessary. If/when Buffett has something better to invest in, does anyone doubt that he will? Otherwise, it is pretty clear that all potential acquisitions are currently priced too high.