Sweet

To be honest, that’s what I expected.

What’s the accurate price, and how can you be sure it’s accurate?

I have a suspicion that Bitcoin and crypto was created by a government - possibly the US government. It tracks and retains information on prior transactions within the blockchain, the ledger is public, but for some reason some people think it’s more anonymous and less traceable than cash? I’ll not be surprised if Satoshi Nakamoto turns out to be some computer programmer working for the CIA or FBI.

OK, but the creator designed it as a peer-peer electronic payment method. Funny thing is I partly agree with you, it’s a poor currency, and yet that is effectively what it was designed for.

Many advocates of Bitcoin in this very thread say it’s a currency. The title of the thread is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency has been used since its creation to define what Bitcoin is and explain one of its purpose. The creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, created it as a payment method. They all wrong? Lol.

Just an observation, but some of the recent price action on BTC looks a bit like a currency peg. The only other time I remember sideways price action like this is CB interventions.

I don’t have a problem with your view. I read parts of the white paper, and don’t disagree with the theory about utility and adoptions aspects. I don’t think you can put a number on the valuation though. From an investor standpoint, there are no cashflows to value. That doesn’t mean it’s a zero though. I think we are largely in agreement in principles. I agree Bitcoin has uses and is valuable to some people, I just don’t really have any uses or place any value in it, but others do and valuation is subjective. I think mine is a very reasonable stance. My problem with wachtwoord is his attempt to redefine what ‘intrinsic value’ means in investing.

I’m with Schwab international. I don’t have a debit card, maybe I have to apply for one? Not sure. No commissions I can confirm and good customer service. I am also with IBKR, and I much prefer Schwab platform, it’s much less clunky and more intuitive. Only one problem with Schwab, is they don’t allow EU / UK clients to buy ETFs if they don’t have the PRIIPs key investor document, and they have no process to allow yourself to reclassify as a professional client. That’s a pain in the ass.

Is it your opinion that there are commentators in this thread who don’t understand that? Seems a fairly basic level of knowledge, which I would imagine everyone has.

I think you just can’t understand why someone disagrees with you, and this is more evidence of it.

Depends on company. If it is a company that might not be around in 20 years, and has declining revenue, give me the dividends. There is no point buying back shares in a business that is in terminal decline. If revenue and income are growing, and it looks like the company has a very long life, buybacks are probably better. Then again you might have a company growing slowly, it’s a good valuation but you can find many companies with better ROIC, then it’s dividends again for me. The problem with dividends is the tax, it’s a big drag.

“Look honestly“ you think I’m lying about my views lol? There is no reason to be anything but honest, I’m not long or short. I never said crypto was a ponzi and scam, although some undoubtedly are, but so are many companies. To base one’s argument around that is, and that nobody is saying Amazon is a ponzi or scam, is a logical fallacy (as you would say).

Your arguments = logical. Those who may disagree with you = “entirely made of non sequitors, auctoritatem, as hominems and other logical fallacies”. That’s only slightly better than saying we shouldn’t comment.

@wachtwoord seems to think that if you don’t share his view on crypto, you don’t understand crypto, and you should not post in the thread Its perfectly possibly to understand yet disagree. An example of that is the Amazon thread recently. You won’t find anyone in there asking why they are posting something in a topic if they aren’t bullish. Childish.

This week on Twitter he has been complaining about Pepsi and Coke, saying they are major causes of bad health…. But he owned McDonalds and Wendy’s as per the article.

I believe that strength work is essential especially as you get older. However, I’ve been training with weights for 20 years, and to be quite honest, I would stay away from Starting Strength. I think Mark Ripptoe’s squat form, in particular, is a recipe for tightness and ultimately injury.

The problem for UK companies is that they are significantly cheaper than comparable US companies, and tend to stay that way.

“Bond produce nothing” - incorrect. Just silliness. ”Now you don't read what you write yourself anymore I even quoted you saying it” - I never said market value is intrinsic value, and I didn’t say USD has intrinsic value, so I don’t know what you are talking about and neither do you.

This forum is the 'value investor's haven'. Whilst I accept that there is no one single agreed definition of intrinsic value, I know that it is not whatever @wachtwoord thinks the value should be. The terminology of 'intrinsic value' is one used by value investors for the purposes of objectively as possible valuing an asset, typically using earnings, dividends, coupons etc. I agree with what investopedia have written on intrinsic value: "While [financial analysts] may build valuation models using qualitative, quantitative and perceptual business factors, the metric often used in calculations for intrinsic value is discounted cash flows". 'Intrinsic value' means something in the value investing world, and it is different from pricing, or market value, or whatever other type of value that wachtwoord thinks bitcoin has.

Bonds produce cashflow. Bitcoin produces nothing. No I didn't say those things. You say its hard to be as wrong as I am, but you can't get my views correct, even why they are written down in this thread.

That is not the definition of intrinsic valuation in investing. What you are referring to are intangibles properties that we / others assign value. Balance sheets have intangible assets for this very reason, pulled apart and in its own separate category from income and cashflows. Nobody is arguing that there is no value to intangible assets, just like nobody is arguing that there are no desirable characteristics of bitcoin, or that others don't find bitcoin valuable. The argument here, just to define it again, is that bitcoin by itself has no intrinsic value. Your problem is you think that intrinsic value is equivalent to market value or your own subjective value. It isn't.

It's your failure. You have assumed that I mistakenly wrote purchasing power - I didn't. I would agree that USD by itself has no intrinsic value, but the bonds do because they produce something. If the bonds paid in bitcoin, I would agree that the bond has intrinsic value provided bitcoin could be traded for real world produce. The silliness I'm referring to is your talk about USD printing, and also generally between the comparison of USD to bitcoin. The former being backed by the huge economic activity of the USA, with many global financial transactions being conducted in dollars, the latter not. How is bitcoin primarily priced again - largely priced against USD. I wonder why that is. Then there is this gem: *"Note this is different for equities as they are not bound to earnings in one particular currency now or in the future."* You don't seem to realise that bonds can be paid in other currencies, many countries issue euro or dollar bonds even thought it is not their own currency. Payments from US bonds could also be immediately converted to another currency, it's not like anyone is bound to keep the proceeds in one denomination. These risks you are referring are considered as part of the process of determining the intrinsic value of a bond. You obviously don't get it.

Silliness. Just because infinite USD can be printed at some point in the future, does not mean USD has no use today, or no purchasing power today. Truly daft.

Don’t agree @rkbabang Are you telling me a US government bond paying a coupon has no intrinsic value and it’s all subjective? I agree that elements of valuation are subjective but there is an intrinsic anchor to many businesses and bonds. I’m not arguing for absolutism about ‘intrinsic value’ - it’s weird that you would think I am.

I’ve been having a read, thanks for the straight answer.