73 Reds

Certainly technologies like Blockchain, AI, Quantum, etc.. all seem to have amazing uses and future value. IMO an artificial currency is not one of them.

For me the issue boils down to a simple premise: The dollar is a contractual, legal obligation by the issuer as to the note holder. BTC's value is subject to the whim of the last greater fool. I have far more faith in the former than the latter. There are also far better ways to hedge against inflation than BTC. The five or ten of you on this Board who disagree are clearly entitled to your opinions.

if fiat had zero inflation, for many folks savings would just be money in checking/savings account. The productivity increase alone will give them comfortable retirement. You write of BTC as if it has no risks and is the perfect solution to whatever issues you believe it resolves. On this we disagree.

I don't need to repeat the difference between a going concern and BTC.

BTC does not have an exclusive on what you deem a protocol. You're right about circular discussions.

@Viking thanks for the candid reply. We all should invest based on our own perceptions of what affects our investments. We all (myself included) post and react to tiny snippets in the form of posts of what is undoubtedly a much more expansive view of each poster on such issues. Personally, I have not, and don't plan to change anything based on what has thus far transpired. My outlook is considerably more optimistic than yours, particularly in the long term which is what drives anything I own for investment purposes. But like you, I believe there will be some excellent opportunities to deploy capital at much better prices in the near term. A balanced approach seems quite sensible.

@Viking curious, does any of that change your opinion about Fairfax in any way?

<<The video of Charlie Munger discussing Donald Trump is simply my view, nothing more and nothing less.>> No argument here. The only caveat being Munger didn't know who and what Trump would be running against.

The discussion is not about BTC/Blockchain as a technology; it is about BTC as an investable asset. There is no other way to describe it other than as speculation.

I'll take my chances with stocks and private businesses. What you describe as "risks" are everyday costs of doing business.

The difference being, you don't buy or own the technology; you buy or own the companies that create them and generate products or services with a recurring income worthy of investment.

Every wide spread speculation in history has been accompanied by a great story. That's the attraction. Every speculation in history also plays out the same. Folks make money while the story gains traction and those left holding the bag when the story proves false or highly exaggerated lose most or everything. "This time is different" doesn't bode well.

Motorcar makers and income properties generate a return for their respective owners; results will vary. But speculation doesn't change and the objects of speculation generate nothing for their owners and come and go like clockwork.

I agree - digitization is great. So countries can digitize their currencies. BTC doesn't own a monopoly on digitization.

Adoption for what? And why does growth and adaption translate into value when there are other alternatives that people other than Michael Saylor believe are perfectly acceptable? BTW, I wouldn't own gold as a growth asset either for some of the same reasons as BTC.

Growth is not the issue. The issue is BTC and Amazon as assets to be owned. BTC doesn't generate anything and you can't even use it to make purchases directly on AMZN. In fact, you can't use it to buy much of anything. Even if I could, who wants a volatile currency? Volatility is precisely the reason why people in unstable countries don't trust their own currencies. Let's revisit the issue when BTC is accepted as payment for taxes, contractual obligations and trade.

Are you comparing Amazon to Bitcoin? Are you equating the two? One has nothing to do with other - in any way. What does a for-profit business enterprise share in common with Bitcoin?

Yes, but gold has a long history of other utility which creates demand independent of its investment potential. I see utility in BTC for illicit purposes and desperate people. To me that doesn't make for a favorable investment thesis and anyone who is risk-averse (i.e., not a speculator) should not own it. Mr. Deden seems to be saying that everyone should own gold, similar to certain BTC proponents. Yet if history is any guide, few have become wealthy owning gold and among the wealthy, gold is likely non-material to total wealth.

The one thing all BTC owners have in common is they are speculating. History has not proven terribly kind to speculation. There are plenty of non-speculative investment assets that will hedge against inflation.

Perhaps, but now we've moved on from "everyone must own it" to "it may be a good investment for some". If comparable to gold, one would hope it provides better returns.

Investment houses do........what's good for investment houses. Nothing whatsoever to do with me. Again, the suggestion that everyone must own BTC is preposterous. It is nothing but a newfound, substitute form of a currency. How many here have ever owned, or felt the need to own a currency for investment purposes?

If you feel that strongly about it why own anything else?

Why should I, or anyone on this Board care what investment houses recommend? Better question, why should I, or anyone on this Board pay anything to investment houses for their advice?

No! Everyone does not need BTC. In fact, anyone who believes that loses all credibility IMO. Nothing personal.

+1. If you're investing for the long haul, it's a question of mountains and mole hills. If your time horizon is days, weeks or months good luck to you.