Cryptocurrencies

[73 Reds]

10 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

Already announced dividends are not speculative and thus already priced in to the stock, but if you are counting on holding long term then you are speculating that they will not be discontinued and not be reduced, both of which happen.  There is some uncertainty in everything you listed the value of real property or inventory can change, you are making an assumption about what you think they are worth now and what they will be worth in the future.  Yes, there is a good probability that values won't change overnight, or next week, or next year, but no certainty.  And the longer out you are looking the less certain you can be.   Ecosystems can be radically changed by new technologies or by government interference.  Key employees can be hit by a bus.  etc. etc. etc.   The future hasn't happened yet, whenever you think you know what will happen and especially if you think this isn't priced into the investment you are considering, you are engaging in speculation. 

All true.  Yet assets on the balance sheet are not speculative - they exist and like anything else, their precise values may change over time.  Most going concerns own cash -  neither speculative nor difficult to value.  Key employees prove their mettle and in most public companies, succession planning exists.  As a fellow stock holder, you know the difference between speculating in stocks and speculating in BTC; its all a matter of degree.

[rkbabang]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

All true.  Yet assets on the balance sheet are not speculative - they exist and like anything else, their precise values may change over time.  Most going concerns own cash -  neither speculative nor difficult to value.  Key employees prove their mettle and in most public companies, succession planning exists.  As a fellow stock holder, you know the difference between speculating in stocks and speculating in BTC; its all a matter of degree.

 

100%.  I would never keep all of my eggs in one basket, because everything has risk. And while I can estimate the risk, I don't really know what it is.  Again, the future hasn't yet happened.  I didn't predict the 2000 crash, the 2008 crisis, nor COVID.  I don't know what will happen tomorrow.  Ten years ago I was speculating on Bitcoin to a much greater degree than I am now even though I owned much much less of it as a percentage of my total portfolio.  I'm more convinced of my thesis now than I was back then, so I think that I my investment is less speculative than it was.  It is all a matter of degree, what you think is going to happen, and of your comfort level with the risks as you calculate them. Of course if you build up a thesis, but get one of the base assumptions wrong all else will go awry with your prediction. You fundamentally disagree with some of the assumptions I built my entire Bitcoin thesis on, so it is no wonder you do not agree with me about Bitcoin as an investment.  To be honest one of my biggest fears is that I am 100% correct, but way too early.  Bitcoin will go up and down and sideways for decades and take 40 years for adoption to happen with the largest moves at the back end.  I'm trying to build a portfolio such that I will be able to retire in 15 years even if I'm wrong (or way too early) on Bitcoin, and will allow me to retire earlier and much wealthier if I am correct.

 

[james22]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

I don't agree with your premise that gold is the standard of value for all humanity.  The World and humanity would do just fine if gold never existed.

 

Seriously, you don't understand money at all.

[SharperDingaan]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

No bank or financial institution that I do business with accepts BTC for any purpose.  And do you really want to risk a margin call on your deposit?  The issue is speculation which is what BTC is, and forever will be in its present iteration.  The difference between you and me is I'm not here telling everyone (or anyone) not to own it; just recognize it for what it is, and isn't.  You, however are telling everyone they must own it or be poor.  Perhaps the silliest comment ever posted here - which says a lot.

 

Your business isn't worth the time investment, so no BTC for you. Were you a bigger, or more profitable client, it would be a different conversation. 

 

SD

[73 Reds]

15 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Seriously, you don't understand money at all.

@James22 I like you but that might be the second silliest post I've read here.

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 

100%.  I would never keep all of my eggs in one basket, because everything has risk. And while I can estimate the risk, I don't really know what it is.  Again, the future hasn't yet happened.  I didn't predict the 2000 crash, the 2008 crisis, nor COVID.  I don't know what will happen tomorrow.  Ten years ago I was speculating on Bitcoin to a much greater degree than I am now even though I owned much much less of it as a percentage of my total portfolio.  I'm more convinced of my thesis now than I was back then, so I think that I my investment is less speculative than it was.  It is all a matter of degree, what you think is going to happen, and of your comfort level with the risks as you calculate them. Of course if you build up a thesis, but get one of the base assumptions wrong all else will go awry with your prediction. You fundamentally disagree with some of the assumptions I built my entire Bitcoin thesis on, so it is no wonder you do not agree with me about Bitcoin as an investment.  To be honest one of my biggest fears is that I am 100% correct, but way too early.  Bitcoin will go up and down and sideways for decades and take 40 years for adoption to happen with the largest moves at the back end.  I'm trying to build a portfolio such that I will be able to retire in 15 years even if I'm wrong (or way too early) on Bitcoin, and will allow me to retire earlier and much wealthier if I am correct.

 

Well, as someone who enjoys work much more than retirement, the less assumptions and predictions necessary, the more reliable the results.  Businesses with long, successful histories may ultimately fail, but their failures will happen over long enough periods of time so you have time to exit and you don't get badly hurt.  Otherwise, the only assumptions/predictions you have to make is that history repeats itself and they continue to do what they've always done.

Edited April 18, 2025 by 73 Reds
word

[73 Reds]

10 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

Your business isn't worth the time investment, so no BTC for you. Were you a bigger, or more profitable client, it would be a different conversation. 

 

SD

Sure.  Your air of supremacy is only exceeded by my amusement with it!

[james22]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

@James22 I like you but that might be the second silliest post I've read here.

 

I like you too, Reds, but nothing in this world exists without a reason.

 

Gold's very importance means it serves an important purpose.

 

The Satoshi Papers has a great chapter Toward an Anthropological Theory of Money (described in the Introduction which can be viewed here: https://www.amazon.com/Satoshi-Papers-Reflections-Political-Economy/dp/B0F1FNGYD9/?asin=B0F1FNGYD9&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1).

 

https://www.amazon.com/Satoshi-Papers-Reflections-Political-Economy/dp/B0F1FNGYD9/

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, james22 said:

 

I like you too, Reds, but nothing in this world exists without a reason.

 

Gold's very importance means it serves an important purpose.

 

The Satoshi Papers has a great chapter Toward an Anthropological Theory of Money (described in the Introduction which can be viewed here: https://www.amazon.com/Satoshi-Papers-Reflections-Political-Economy/dp/B0F1FNGYD9/?asin=B0F1FNGYD9&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1).

 

https://www.amazon.com/Satoshi-Papers-Reflections-Political-Economy/dp/B0F1FNGYD9/

Gold goes back to biblical times.  But when you consider what is truly important in life, evolution and prosperity, how does it measure up?  To me gold does have a lot in common with BTC in the types of owners they attract.  They both share an aura of being valuable but when really considering the issue, precisely for what?   Neither is remotely necessary for survival, existence, or success and they both are easily replaceable. 

[james22]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Gold goes back to biblical times.  But when you consider what is truly important in life, evolution and prosperity, how does it measure up? 

 

Until 55 years ago, gold enabled trade at a significantly reduced cost compared to alternatives.

 

That directly influences prosperity and indirectly influenced evolution (https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-How-Prosperity-Evolves/dp/006145205X).

 

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

To me gold does have a lot in common with BTC in the types of owners they attract.  They both share an aura of being valuable but when really considering the issue, precisely for what?   Neither is remotely necessary for survival, existence, or success and they both are easily replaceable. 

 

Sure, neither are necessary for survival, existence, or nominal (not relative) success today.

 

But why hasn't gold hasn't been replaced yet, if it's so replaceable?

 

Because there will always be a role for something that holds its value over time.

 

To date, that's been gold.

 

It will only be replaced by something functionally superior.

 

Hence, bitcoin.

 

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Until 55 years ago, gold enabled trade at a significantly reduced cost compared to alternatives.

 

That directly influences prosperity and indirectly influenced evolution (https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-How-Prosperity-Evolves/dp/006145205X).

 

 

Sure, neither are necessary for survival, existence, or nominal (not relative) success today.

 

But why hasn't gold hasn't been replaced yet, if it's so replaceable?

 

Because there will always be a role for something that holds its value over time.

 

To date, that's been gold.

 

It will only be replaced by something functionally superior.

 

Hence, bitcoin.

 

I think the answer is there is no driving need to replace gold because it is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

[james22]

17 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I think the answer is there is no driving need to replace gold because it is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

Central banks disagree with you.

[Milu]

42 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I think the answer is there is no driving need to replace gold because it is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I would say gold is the only actual ‘money’ the world has. After using all kinds of materials (shells, salt, large stones) humans settled on gold as being the hardest form of money. Bitcoin is perhaps even harder. 

[Dave86ch]

11 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Gold goes back to biblical times.  But when you consider what is truly important in life, evolution and prosperity, how does it measure up?  To me gold does have a lot in common with BTC in the types of owners they attract.  They both share an aura of being valuable but when really considering the issue, precisely for what?   Neither is remotely necessary for survival, existence, or success and they both are easily replaceable. 

 

We need a protocol for scarcity as a base layer because every other form of currency will always be degraded and replaced.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2025 by Dave86ch

[73 Reds]

14 hours ago, james22 said:

 

Central banks disagree with you.

Perhaps, but don't we all question the true value of Central banks?  IMO gold is symbolic of what was considered important in times gone by rather than what is necessary today. 

[james22]

28 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Perhaps, but don't we all question the true value of Central banks?  

 

The only thing Central banks have of true value is their gold. (It's certainly not their credibility.)

 

It is only their gold that allows them to print money without devaluing their currency. "Full faith and credit" alone wouldn't suffice.

 

50 years since the gold standard people forget the relationship, but if the world's gold reserves disappeared overnight and people remembered their government's promise to make good on the note was dependent upon them raising taxes or borrowing, currencies would inflate to the moon.

 

28 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

IMO gold is symbolic of what was considered important in times gone by rather than what is necessary today. 

 

No, it's fiat that is symbolic.

 

And gold is as important today (since the end of the gold standard) as always because it's as necessary as always (even if it only partially backs fiat now).

 

 

[gfp]

The US owns, what, $870 billion worth of Gold at current market value?  US Government issued fiat is what? $20-35 trillion?

 

How is gold providing the backing that allows them to do what they do?

[73 Reds]

16 minutes ago, gfp said:

The US owns, what, $870 billion worth of Gold at current market value?  US Government issued fiat is what? $20-35 trillion?

 

How is gold providing the backing that allows them to do what they do?

And with that thought in mind, the US government would be much better off with the backing of Berkshire.

[Cigarbutt]

7 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

And with that thought in mind, the US government would be much better off with the backing of Berkshire.

Does that mean BRK has the (legal) ability to print its own currency, to enforce tax collection of it and to force transactions using it?

Last i checked (last reported results), BRK still used the USD as "gold" standard.

[73 Reds]

Just now, Cigarbutt said:

Does that mean BRK has the (legal) ability to print its own currency, to enforce tax collection of it and to force transactions using it?

Last i checked (last reported results), BRK still used the USD as "gold" standard.

Of course not, but its worth more than all the gold in Ft. Knox and likely always will be.

[james22]

2 hours ago, gfp said:

The US owns, what, $870 billion worth of Gold at current market value?  US Government issued fiat is what? $20-35 trillion?

 

How is gold providing the backing that allows them to do what they do?

 

It's necessary, not sufficient.

 

Because fiat is only symbolic, it requires evidence of commitment behind the promise to make good on. A gold reserve (however fractionally sized it may be) provides evidence far out of proportion to its size because it has carrying costs.

 

The proof of the gold reserve's value is its very existence.

 

Why hasn't the gold reserve been sold off? What's the difference between backing ~2.5% of fiat and zero?

[james22]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

And with that thought in mind, the US government would be much better off with the backing of Berkshire.

 

Commodities are better than Securities as reserve assets.

[73 Reds]

30 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Commodities are better than Securities as reserve assets.

Yeah, I'll buy that with one caveat:  useful commodities.

[Paarslaars]

The use of gold is very limited and does not determine its value...

 

Also, BTC definitely has a use.

Edited April 19, 2025 by Paarslaars

[73 Reds]

Just now, Paarslaars said:

The use of gold is very limited and does not determine its value...

 

Also, BTC definitely has a use.

Funny, I'd put those two statements in reverse.