Buckeye

James, I was and am completely sincere. Thank you for coming back to the thread. And sorry to all the other board members for really gumming up this thread. Although Bitcoin has clearly been the best Trump trade of them all, so far, I probably should have taken it over to the Crypto thread. I understand that that I have my biases and I also understand that these biases may be incorrect. To answer your question, yes I think all of those those technologies had to be sold. Isn't that what GE, Apple, Ford, Microsoft, Boeing all did? But I see money coming in and products going out. I don't see that with Bitcoin. Ok to try to wrap on a positive note...Price is what you pay and value is what you get, is what Warren has taught us. Right now Bitcoin is $88k. What is it worth, in your opinion?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Gfp. You have made some good points here that I need to better consider. I appreciate you helping me out.

That is hilarious Richard. Thank you!

I completely agree with this Luke! Hope my endorsement hasn't impaired your goodwill

Thank you for your answer Value! Can you please read my post above (with my answer) and tell me if you feel any differently about your statements above. Thank you!

I completely agree with all of this Gfp, and I have not said anything to the contrary. At least I don't think I have.

Ok Greg, sounds like your answer is yes? I hope I have not misunderstood you. And I apologize for dragging you down this rabbit hole with me. But thanks for sticking with me. My answer to the question would be No. I would say that the two are very different. But I am questioning my own logic. I would say that James has a financial incentive to advocate because that is the ONLY way his investment in Bitcoin works (goes up in price). He needs to get more people into the boat, to adopt Bitcoin, or "institutionalized" as you say. Whereas Greg, you are advocating for St. Joe, but getting more people to buy St. Joe (in the Joe Boat:) is not the ONLY way your St. Joe goes up in price (or value, but these two terms gets a little muddy in this instance). What I have been trying to say, or understand, is that at the end of the day, Greg's returns in St. Joe are going to come from St. Joe, versus James returns which are ONLY going to only come from other people, like Buckeye, if I were to buy in. So James is my Bitcoin salesman and Greg is a super smart dude who has been so very kind to share his thinking on St. Joe. And that difference to me is pretty significant. The time and effort you have spent advocating for St. Joe has come from bottom of your heart, versus the time and effort James has spent comes from the bottom of his wallet. But maybe I've misled myself.

Sure they are both advocating, but is each of them advocating for the thing that they own (BTC for James and JOE for Greg), the same thing, in your opinion?

Damn Greg, I feel like you are with me for a second and then I lose you. One last attempt... James owns Bitcoin, and James spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about Bitcoin. Greg owns St. Joe, and Greg spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about St. Joe. In this scenario, is what James is doing and what Greg is doing the same? Please give me a one word answer if you can. Thank you!

Hello Mcliu, thank you for your reply. In this instance I am trying to point out that the Ho's use all of these comparisons (Gold, Picasso, Currency), even though none of them exactly apply, to lend credence to their worthless, meaningless digital coin. It's a communication technique as old as time. And my opinion that it is deceitful if you own Bitcoin. That's all.

Huh, interesting that you are not following me Greg. Can you please define "institutionalized" as used in your sentence?

Ok great, most of what you have said is your opinion, but you are comparing Gold which has been around 5000 years (and all of that that comes with it) to Bitcoin that has been around for 15 years, which is a difference of 4985 years. So how are they the same? Too bad Gold can't speak for itself, because it's 5000 history has been co-opted by the Ho's with their 15 year old digital coin. That's a little weird to me, isn't it for you?

Whoa, you lost me there Greg, sorry. Let's forget about the comparisons for now because that's where I start to get lost. If someone owns Bitcoin, and they want it to go up in price (which I assume they would), they would have a vested interest in making it more popular (or getting more people to adopt it), correct?

Thowed, this has been partially (or mostly) my fault:( And for that I am sorry. I am genuinely interested in trying to make sure I understand Bitcoin correctly. It seems like I may be closer to the end:) Sorry again....I hope to restore this thread's messaging back to the Trump trades.

Ok Milu, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. It sounds like I am understanding things so far and we are on the same page. Now...lets switch gears ever so slightly...Let's talk about Fairfax...What causes Fairfax's price (or value, I will need to be careful here) to go up?...Is it getting more people to buy it/adopt it?...I would say sure, that's ONE way for it to go up. But I would also say that there are a lot of other factors that would/could cause its price/value to increase, things like dividends from their investments, profitable underwriting, coupon payments from their bonds, sale of stocks, buybacks...etc. A shareholder's returns in FRFHF come from FRFHF versus a Bitcoiner's returns come from someone like Buckeye, if they buy it, or maybe Buckeye's Grandma. One day soon Grammy! I know you've been around for for 88 years and never needed Bitcoin, but you are going to need it one day, according to James. And that difference is what is weird to me. That's all