Cryptocurrencies

[Paarslaars]

Just now, wachtwoord said:

 

But with a, presumsbly purposeful, grammatically error, or it would be paarse laars. I always assumed it was a wordplay on the easterbunny (paashaas in Dutch). Care to tell?

Haha no it's something else.

 

When I was a young teen I had fluorecent green shoes. So I got the nickname 'groenschoen' from a friend. Used that in gaming a lot but apparently others liked it because it was often picked after a few years. So I figured I would pick similar names where the color rhymes with the noun. Came up with 'paarslaars' as the main one and 'roodpoot' as the backup.

[Paarslaars]

10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Oh yea, that’s right! Apparently you and James don’t know the difference between outside capital and internal capital.  It also helps better explain your current devotion to BTC. 

I understand that but does it really make a difference? If the underlying business is not below the book value multiple Buffet likes and book value does not grow, Buffet will not buy back stock and your returns are solely dependent on others.

 

I mean, there is no inside capital for gold right? Still valued at like 20T. Have all gold investors been wrong for the past 1000 years?

 

 

[james22]

49 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

What’s the math start to look like when you account for the 1000’s of hours you’ve spent shilling for BTC? Judging from your post frequency, it looking like a full time job. 

 

If we assume I shilled full-time last year, I made almost $2,000/hr.

[wachtwoord]

31 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

Haha no it's something else.

 

When I was a young teen I had fluorecent green shoes. So I got the nickname 'groenschoen' from a friend. Used that in gaming a lot but apparently others liked it because it was often picked after a few years. So I figured I would pick similar names where the color rhymes with the noun. Came up with 'paarslaars' as the main one and 'roodpoot' as the backup.

 

Haha, thanks for sharing

[james22]

58 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

When has any large-scale speculation ended well?  

 

Every Growth investor who recognized the adoption curve of Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.

[james22]

56 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

Dutch. My nickname actually means purple (paars) boot (laars). Long story...

 

[Buckeye]

10 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

If we assume I shilled full-time last year, I made almost $2,000/hr.

Hahaha. Not bad! Maybe I should apply

[james22]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

From what I’ve seen thus far, the ONLY THING that makes BTC go up in price is increased adoption. Getting more people to buy into BTC is central to your thesis.

 

WTF do you think I mean when I speak of adoption curves all the time?

[james22]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Hahaha. Not bad! Maybe I should apply

 

And without managing to persuade a single investor here to buy (as far as I know).

[Buckeye]

32 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

I understand that but does it really make a difference? If the underlying business is not below the book value multiple Buffet likes and book value does not grow, Buffet will not buy back stock and your returns are solely dependent on others.

 

I mean, there is no inside capital for gold right? Still valued at like 20T. Have all gold investors been wrong for the past 1000 years?

 

 

It does make a huge difference to me. But if it’s all the same to you, you are certainly entitled to have your own opinion.  
 

I like the PurpleBoot name too! It looks cool when written as Paarslaars.

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

WTF do you think I mean when I speak of adoption curves all the time?

I’m not sure? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

[james22]

Just now, Buckeye said:

I’m not sure? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

 

You imagine something dependent upon adoption is a strike against it, it is not. 

 

Just because you wouldn't measure BRK by an adoption curve (it has plateaued) doesn't mean it isn't appropriate for other investments.

 

Like genius, utility only has value as it is recognized, and proportionately.

 

The size and shape of the adoption curve is how Growth investors invest.

 

I believe BTC has great utility and so I believe it will be adopted quickly and by many.

 

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

You imagine something dependent upon adoption is a strike against it, it is not. 

 

Dude, I never said this, once. You are imagining my imagination.

 

I was only trying to point out what I thought was one difference between BTC and BRK. Which I guess you are agreeing with? 
 

The only point I was trying to make was that, in my opinion, a Berkshire shareholder who discusses BRK on this board is not the same as Bitcoin holder discussing BTC on this board. 

You probably don’t agree and that’s fine too! 

[james22]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

Dude, I never said this, once. You are imagining my imagination.

 

I took your ONLY THING:

 

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

From what I’ve seen thus far, the ONLY THING that makes BTC go up in price is increased adoption

 

as meaning like a Ponzi, rather than adoption being the thing reflecting utility.

 

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

I was only trying to point out what I thought was one difference between BTC and BRK. Which I guess you are agreeing with? 

 

One doesn't invest in BRK based upon any belief in increased adoption, no. 

 

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

The only point I was trying to make was that, in my opinion, a Berkshire shareholder who discusses BRK on this board is not the same as Bitcoin holder discussing BTC on this board.

 

Value investors are not Growth investors, no.

 

But BTC proponents have often been accused of benefiting from sharing their interest, unlike any other proponent.

 

That's insane (even if BTC was snake oil, none of us benefit from convincing a couple COBFers to invest). Crazy to have to defend.

 

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

You probably don’t agree and that’s fine too! 

 

 

If I've read you wrong, it's because there's a lot of thread history you might be unfamiliar with.

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

I took your ONLY THING:

 

 

as meaning like a Ponzi, rather than adoption being the thing reflecting utility.

 

 

One doesn't invest in BRK based upon any belief in increased adoption, no. 

 

 

Value investors are not Growth investors, no.

 

But BTC proponents have often been accused of benefiting from sharing their interest, unlike any other proponent.

 

That's insane (even if BTC was snake oil, none of us benefit from convincing a couple COBFers to invest). Crazy to have to defend.

 

 

 

If I've read you wrong, it's because there's a lot of thread history you might be unfamiliar with.

I never said anything about a ponzi, you just did though. You are attaching all sort of meanings to my posts that aren’t saying what you think they’re saying. You are arguing with yourself. 
 

Also, kind of showing your hand about how maybe you really feel about BTC. 
 

And no I don’t invest in BRK for increased adoption. I’ve told you many times now, I would prefer LESS people own Berkshire! Something a BTC holder would never say! 

[james22]

Just now, Buckeye said:

I never said anything about a ponzi, you just did though. You are attaching all sort of meanings to my posts that aren’t saying what you think they’re saying. You are arguing with yourself. 

 

You really don't know the history of this thread.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

What determines direction?  What determines value?   He's been very clear on the distinction.  Gamblers often go on long winning streaks.  I don't see him (or anyone) endorsing that as a long term winning strategy.

 

I don't know what "long term winning strategy" means if winning for 15-years ain't it....

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, james22 said:

 

You really don't know the history of this thread.

You’re right I don’t. So what’s your point?  Because I don’t known the history of this thread, you should be allowed to put words into my mouth? Because that’s exactly what you’ve done.

Edited Sunday at 11:08 PM by Buckeye

[james22]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

You’re right I don’t. So what’s your point?  Because I don’t known the history of this thread, you should be allowed to put words into my mouth? 

 

No, it means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

No, it means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Oh I see. That’s a very nice way for a 65 year old to talk to someone.  Geez.  

[Paarslaars]

 

 

 

[Dave86ch]

15 hours ago, Buckeye said:

From what I’ve seen thus far, the ONLY THING that makes BTC go up in price is increased adoption. Getting more people to buy into BTC is central to your thesis.

 

As I Berkshire shareholder I don’t need  more people to buy into Berkshire, for my thesis to pan out.  In fact, I would prefer LESS PEOPLE to buy Berkshire, which would give Berkshire a better opportunity to buy itself. 
 

Can’t say that with BTC can you? See the difference? 

It is a tool that is being adopted for its features and, above all, a protocol where building without permission is possible.

 

For instance, I recently listened to an episode of Optech where they discussed the opportunity to create a Hashcash market around e-cash—a way to trade hash power and improve mining decentralization.

 

https://fountain.fm/episode/Q4LMuuCZGvHfOLnkHJ8H

 

 

It is a technological marvel involving many smart developers.

 

Unfortunately, many will only realize this because the price goes up, just as it does for many tech companies that sell their technologies. In the meantime, many others will continue experiencing cognitive dissonance until they finally capitulate, realizing that they chose to keep fighting instead of seeking to understand.

 

If anyone's interested, I'm building a learning version of the Bitcoin protocol in Rust, following a Braiins guide.

You understand what you can build.

https://github.com/Dave86ch/bitcoinrs/tree/main

Edited 22 hours ago by Dave86ch

[Blake Hampton]

You know, if this were a gold thread, I’d have a much easier time getting behind it all—though I still find the whole ideology to be sort of odd. Buffett is right when he talks about non-productive assets versus productive ones.

 

Munger summarized it best when he said, ”Bitcoin is worthless, artificial gold.”

This sucker is going to be worthless the second our economy has a real downturn.

 

[Dave86ch]

An interesting development is USDt on Lightning through Taproot.

Lightning is far more scalable than anything else.

Edited 21 hours ago by Dave86ch

[wachtwoord]

14 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Oh I see. That’s a very nice way for a 65 year old to talk to someone.  Geez.  

 

Depends what you define as nice. It's not a short term pleasantly (niceties?) sure but I'll always appreciate when someone is willing to give it to me straight rather than someone tip toeing around the point in an attempt to not hurt my "feebings". And I do strongly believe that is someone doing me a favor (nice!).

 

I guess for many it does indeed take age to learn/earn this life lesson/wisdom.