SnarkyPuppy

Agree - but given the clear coordination between FHFA and Treasury with respect to the Q4 buffer I'd infer further coordination. My opinion is very biased of course. With that said - “MBA is grateful for the well-informed input provided by the Director and hope that it contributes to momentum for congressional action on reform," said MBA head lobbyist, Bill Kilmer. But it's possible MBA sees where this is going and accepting reality + a partial win (MBS guarantee). Consistent with Stevens resignation.

Wasn't a shareholder owned regulated utility exactly berkowitz proposal?

How much more obvious does it need to get outside of literally implementing the plan?

"The conference organizer, Moe Levin, earlier told Bitcoin.com that his company was working to get bitcoin cash or other digital assets with cheaper fees integrated into the ticketing system." The CEO of Bitcoin.com is Roger Ver. LOL.

"I get into enough trouble with things I think I know something about," he added. "Why in the world should I take a long or short position in something I don't know anything about." I notice a recurring theme.

Question for those who feel that shareholders will be treated favorably in exchange for dropping lawsuits- Is there a realistic scenario whereby all future litigation risk is removed from the government? Even in a recap/release whereby warrants are exercised- would there not be a new set of lawsuits raised against the government regarding the legality of the warrants? You can't say this is an unlikely outcome while simultaneously thinking that the legal route (the spefific legal route challenging HERA constitutionality) is viable.

Does fundamental analysis have to be complicated to be fundamental? Gold is used as a scarce flight-to-safety store-of-value which is naturally anti-central bank (i.e. government) and a hedge against the current financial system. It is a demonstrable fact that such an asset is valued at $7trillion. Bitcoin seeks to fill the same role. Compared to gold, Bitcoin is easier to move globally, cheaper, faster, scarcer, easier and more secure to store, and MOST importantly: has trustless immutability. (Note: some of these are not currently the case but probablisticaly will be the case in 3-5 years - such as ease of use, storage, and cost; many are mistaking the current difficulty with the future ease; a possible relevant comparison is sending emails in 1987 versus sending emails in 2017). If the assumption proves to be true/accepted that bitcoin performs the function of gold in a more efficient and trustless manner (this is clearly debatable), then its entirely within the realm of possibility that it reaches the valuation of gold. I will say - this is ABSOLUTELY NOT fundamental value investing with a margin of safety. This is clearcut speculation - maybe others disagree with this but this absolutely can go to $0 and "probably" (probabilistically >50%) go to $0. The variant perception is that bitcoin has significant value based on its trustless immutability - and the value proposition is that similar assets are valued at ~23x. You are risking $1 to make $23. Determine the odds and place your bets.

My problem with this is that "something going up 20x" doesn't account for fundamentals. Many value investors simply say its overvalued because of recent price action. Aren't we supposed to largely ignore past price movements in value investing and instead focus on fundamentals (% of gold market cap, % of world money supply, etc)? I think what is really happening here is that crypto in general eliminates the IPO phase of investments. In its first 9 years as a company, Google went from $0 to $100B+, but people were less likely to call it a bubble because most of the price rise (in % terms ) was pre-IPO. The IPO market cap was around $20B, but if you chart gains in the pre IPO price of google shares they'd look almost exactly like crypto prices. Its largely optics imo. Not saying crypto is a great investment or that it can't fall severly from here, but I don't see a lot of fundamental analysis from value investors going on in regards to crypto (both on the bullish and bearish side). +1

We are valuing where things will be in 3 years from now. Also, commitment and consistency bias is strong w this one. As a value investor I've been taught to not react to price movements and evaluate underlying value. Assuming something is overvalued simply because of price going up is no different than blaming others for buying things because prices have gone up.

+1 Would like to enjoy the "slow death" with those willing to discuss and not insult.

From Treasury's website. How ironic. Looks like this has been posted since 2008 unfortunately.

A high honor. you have encapsulated the difference between a banker (mnuchin) and a pol (C/W). Despite some of my overall skepticism, this premise is why I'm still invested. Inverting from "how are preferreds wiped out" provides a set of answers which are very difficult to implement. Whereas answering the question of "how are preferreds made whole or close to it" provides a much broader and easier range of answers which align much closer to reality.

Bitcoin does not do everything fiat does. Try paying your taxes with bitcoin and you will be posting to COBF from federal prison. I'd argue that satisfying government levies might be the most important function of a currency as it's the function that keeps you out of prison. Why is it that most bitcoin zealots always overlook this? Can you pay taxes in gold today? Of course not. I never said that it couldn't replace gold, I implied that it can't replace the dollar. I own bitcoin because of fund flows on the bet that it becomes seen as a stable store of value. Got it - we're on the same page.

If I may jump in to this. I think that this doesn't necessarily hold up, beyond a very theoretical sense. In practice there are bitcoin apps that pool transactions together and make it effectively impossible to trace who did what. Imagine that you are going to give someone we will call A $1k. I am going to give someone called B $2k. There are tools that will make a single transaction such that deepsouth contributes $1k, no_free_lunch contributes $2k, then a gets $1k and b gets $2k. You can't really tell who gave the money to A versus who gave the money to B. Multiply that by a dozen or more people and then do that a couple of times and you can't ever know who was really giving the money to who. They would have to pass laws to ban transaction pooling to get around this. I think you can make the same argument for USD - plenty of mechanisms including utilizing international shell companies are used for laundering money. Criminal activity is a red herring because you can make the exact same argument for all other currencies actively accepted. I really should stop posting about bitcoin - will have so much egg on my face when this goes to $0. I just want to reiterate that I don't think bitcoin is a >50% bet. I just think it's a good gamble based on current prices and I think the value proposition is largely misunderstood. :)

Bitcoin does not do everything fiat does. Try paying your taxes with bitcoin and you will be posting to COBF from federal prison. I'd argue that satisfying government levies might be the most important function of a currency as it's the function that keeps you out of prison. Why is it that most bitcoin zealots always overlook this? Can you pay taxes in gold today?

Two quick thoughts on this- a) Do you disagree that the primary element of value in bitcoin is that it is completely decentralized (fundamentally inconsistent with any digital gold issued by a central bank)? I do not see central bank issuing crypto as a risk for this specific reason - what am I missing here? b) Bitcoin is the opposite of anonymous and is a great tool for tracking movements of money - no? Ross Ulbricht would probably support this statement. All transactions are publicly and immutably stored for everyone to see - how is this anonymous in any way under the current dynamic? Regulators should love this for AML.

I've heard this stated before, but have you really spent time trying to think how you would ban cryptocurrencies? It would require no changes to the internet. How about a law that says transacting in bitcoin is illegal and any merchant caught accepting, or attempting to accept (i.e. a pay with bitcoin option), bitcoin as compensation will be subject to imprisonment for up to 50 years? And any corporate merchant caught accepting, or attempting to accept (i.e. a pay with bitcoin option), bitcoin as compensation will be subject to penalties equal to the last five years GAAP net income? How easy would it be to enforce this law? There are something like 50 retailers that account for 95% of US retail. You just task one guy with going on their websites every day and trying to pay with bitcoin, if he can, they broke the law. You would just police the merchant, not the customer. You could also make it illegal to provide an exchange of bitcoin for USD. Isn't that an activity that can be easily tracked? Those are extremes, but it wouldn't be difficult to create incentives to avoid the use of bitcoin. Governments can put people in prison, and people generally don't like prison... All evidence we have to to date shows the US government is being open minded and as rational as we could hope with respect to bitcoin. This can change and it's one of the key risks - but my sense is they do not view this as a threat to USD.

A reasonable person might argue the same about your reaction to bitcoin/crypto. I think the way I phrased my first response in this thread invited an unnecessary level hostility - I apologize. At the same time, I have noticed a patterned animosity towards anyone with a slight variant view on crypto/bitcoin and I do not think its warranted or fair - I've never claimed it's not speculation and I've never said "buy it because we're all going to get lambos!~". Simply think there is value in a very hated asset.

I'd suggest watching some videos by Andreas Antonopoulos on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/user/aantonop/videos). He's a little nutty at times, but he understands the technology better than most. I have no opinion on bitcoin as a currency (my hunch is that the probability of the currency thesis playing out is orders of magnitude lower than the probability of the flight-to-safety store of value thesis playing out).

I have asked the question many times with very few answers... scability does not seem to be a concern for Bitcoin bulls. Maybe that is because trasaction volumes are of no concern because bitcoin if aimed as a store of value, not a transactional vehicle. Not sure but there is no free lunch, if a transaction today costs 20$ in energy someone has to pay for it and that that is the minimal cost not including capex. Similar to stock dilution, bitcoin dilution has a cost. People might not be seeing it because demand exceeds supply but it still is a cost. BeerBaron Transaction fees for transferring bitcoin are already starting to scale. Costs me $15 to send either $20 or $20,000 right now (on-chain transfers - please ignore whatever fees coinbase is currently charging). This isn't significantly different from trading gold with a brokerage. In terms of electricity cost to mine- I don't understand the bear argument here. The cost of mining a bitcoin will reach an equilibrium in the long term whereby the incremental cost of mining = incremental value of the mining reward. If the cost of mining a bitcoin exceeds its current price, less people will mine and supply/demand will resolve at equilibrium. Bitcoin transactions will be added to the block every 10 minutes regardless of the electricity requirement dictated by the supply/demand mining dynamics. Ultimately it's hard to see where the technology is in 5-10 years in terms of scaling, but my thesis isn't predicated on fast transfers. The "fiat replacement"/"currency" thesis alludes me and I have no idea how to calibrate likelihood. Replacement of gold as a flight-to-safety government-resistant store-of-value is the thesis with the highest probability of success IMO. This doesn't require fees any less than they are today and it doesn't require transaction speed any faster than they are today.

Please enlighten us on the gold market, its properties, its owners, and why your insights demonstrate that bitcoin has <=5% chance of obtaining a $7tn value (gold)

It sounds more to me that you are speculating on the properties of bitcoin, while simultaneously calling those who call it valuable speculators. Quite ironic. "It sits on a computer in a database that can be shut or compromised by anyone at any time.Gold doesn't suffer the same fragility and I consoder it a useless investment as well." - This alone is demonstrable proof that you do not understand the basic concepts at play here, and therefore should not have an opinion on its value. It may very well be worthless - but you have not taken the time to understand even the basics to be able to make such a claim. I very clearly said I didn't understand it... that I was a lay person in terms if IT, if you bothered to read my whole post rather than cherry picking. If I cant understand it, I guarantee that 95% of the rest of the population doesn't either, and most of the rubes going apesh*t over it haven't a clue. And I have researched it, and I still dont get it. The not understanding what it is is going to be a real impediment to its implementation on a large scale. Rkbabang comments have been helpful. Yours are not. I've attempted to be helpful in many other threads - please refer to my post history. If I went into any other thread in the investing section and stated blatantly false facts about the company while simultaneously insulting the bulls by calling them speculators and stating it is a "useless investment", I'd expect some harsh words back as well. I'm assuming that you're not an expert in HTML, TCP/IP, SMPT, etc but you are still using the internet and sending emails daily.

I don't see the $100bn for government spending as an incentive Mnuchin/Trump care about at all unless it's $100bn going into their personal pockets. The notion that their incentives are aligned to the taxpayer/country are debatable.

It sounds more to me that you are speculating on the properties of bitcoin, while simultaneously calling those who call it valuable speculators. Quite ironic. "It sits on a computer in a database that can be shut or compromised by anyone at any time.Gold doesn't suffer the same fragility and I consoder it a useless investment as well." - This alone is demonstrable proof that you do not understand the basic concepts at play here, and therefore should not have an opinion on its value. It may very well be worthless - but you have not taken the time to understand even the basics to be able to make such a claim.

Thanks for posting this