Cryptocurrencies

[Buckeye]

21 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

You should probably spend that time in the sun. 

Apricate!  This is probably the best piece of advice in this entire thread! And it can be applied by everyone…for free!

Edited 6 hours ago by Buckeye

[tooskinneejs]

19 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

"no, Neo. I'm trying to tell you, when you're ready, you won't have to " 

 

But yet you do.  Some things are sticky.  Very sticky.  What convinces you that people are going to go from the current, easy, frictionless system to a more burdensome system?

[Paarslaars]

Because the easy system is robbing you.

[SharperDingaan]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Bullion as in gold?  To me BTC is a figment of very creative imagination, subject to hype, speculation and the end result of just about every widespread hype and speculation since the beginning of time.  Makes for a good gambling vehicle but what fun is it to gamble on something closely watched by the govt for tax purposes?  

 

Typically gold, held in a mix of physical and paper gold (futures, ETF, etc.), dependant upon need. The hype thing applies equally to bullion prices as well. The often quoted usage case for gold is also very biased - as the BTC alternative is still a  recent development (18 yrs from inception, vs 100's of years for gold).... one either accepts BTC as a viable alternative, or one doesn't.

 

The trading thing, is BTC as just another trading sardine; same as any other sardine, the expectation is that the opportunity is worth it, and tax man is watching, If you are willing to hold throughout the cycle (as you would if you hold BTC  for 'insurance' purposes), you can do very well. Every asset has to earn its keep .....

 

SD

[TwoCitiesCapital]

8 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

If one considers the definition of "store" as in the term "store value" it means retain.  When you have to qualify a time frame for storing value it simply doesn't work.  The bubble period is over.  That was not a store of value.  Neither is the recent period when perhaps reasonable folks determined that BTC is not useful for its intended purpose and may well never be.  In any event, can anyone please explain why we want, need or care about a "store of value"?  Most of us are here because we want something more.  If someone's investment objectives are merely to store value, why are you here?

 

By removing a stipulation of a minimum threshold of time, all you're saying is that "anything that can go down can't be a store of value" which would exclude everything....gold, t-bills, USD. Because it IS possible to have an unrealized loss in any of those items after the point the of acquiring. 

 

Having a reasonable minimum threshold for a period of time we're measuring the storing of value across allows for that natural variation in each while still holding them accountable to inflation resistance over an intermediate/longer term. 

 

Gold is highly volatile. It was up 50+% at points last year and is down 25+% from that peak. Obviously it wasn't a "store of value" for anyone who bought int he last 2-3 months...but its intended to be a "long term" store of value. Not a store of value over 2-3 months. And over rolling 5- or 10-year periods, it tends to do a decent job. 

 

Bitcoin isn't any different - but is more volatile at this time given the emerging nature of the technology, the perfect inelasticity of its protocol, and the lack of understanding of it by market participants/speculators. Like Gold - any short-term period can deviate from that "store" narrative. But over rolling 3- or 5-year periods (cuz rolling 10- doesn't provide much observation yet...) it has worked pretty well over the majority of those varying time periods. 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

By removing a stipulation of a minimum threshold of time, all you're saying is that "anything that can go down can't be a store of value" which would exclude everything....gold, t-bills, USD. Because it IS possible to have an unrealized loss in any of those items after the point the of acquiring. 

 

Having a reasonable minimum threshold for a period of time we're measuring the storing of value across allows for that natural variation in each while still holding them accountable to inflation resistance over an intermediate/longer term. 

 

Gold is highly volatile. It was up 50+% at points last year and is down 25+% from that peak. Obviously it wasn't a "store of value" for anyone who bought int he last 2-3 months...but its intended to be a "long term" store of value. Not a store of value over 2-3 months. And over rolling 5- or 10-year periods, it tends to do a decent job. 

 

Bitcoin isn't any different - but is more volatile at this time given the emerging nature of the technology, the perfect inelasticity of its protocol, and the lack of understanding of it by market participants/speculators. Like Gold - any short-term period can deviate from that "store" narrative. But over rolling 3- or 5-year periods (cuz rolling 10- doesn't provide much observation yet...) it has worked pretty well over the majority of those varying time periods. 

I think you missed my point.  The point is, who cares about a "store of value"?  If I did, it would be in the form of T-Bills which aren't very good but at least the price is relatively stable.  Otherwise if you're "storing value" for a particular need or time period, BTC is a complete failure.  If you're not storing value for anything in particular, stocks and real estate do just fine.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

"total failure" 

 

'sToNkS'