Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

The distinction is, when it comes time to sell there are accepted metrics available to provide you with a range of value.  No such metric(s) are available to value BTC.   

 

Here's a metric: what BTC trades at.

  • Replies 830
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Just now, james22 said:

 

Here's a metric: what BTC trades at.

But that can be said for anything - how do you know the price is reasonable?

Posted
3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

But that can be said for anything - how do you know the price is reasonable?

 

Here's another: what's the value of the strongest computer network in the world?

 

22 hours ago, james22 said:

Bitcoin is backed by the strongest computer network in the world.

 

 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, james22 said:

 

*checks*

 

+$1,227,383

 

OK, anyone want to answer:

 

 

Bitcoin adoption will happen.

 

And it won't be because of any table pounding of mine.

 

***This advertisement has been brought to you by Bitcoin***

Edited by Buckeye
Posted
2 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Here's another: what's the value of the strongest computer network in the world?

 

 

 

I'm fondly reminded of the late 1990s when internet stocks were all the rage.  Can't even count how many internet millionaires I met (that was when one million dollars was real money).  All these companies were a sure thing and price didn't matter.  Buffett was  looked at like the village idiot.   Not saying that history necessarily repeats itself but it often rhymes.  

Posted

Let's assume we setup a civilization on Mars. We create a million Mars tokens and distribute them. The tokens have decimals for purchasing smaller denominations. Assume we have a costless exchange of tokens. 

 

Now people produce goods and services and exchange between them. They use Mars tokens as a medium of exchange.

 

Value of all tokens =Total money supply = value of all goods and services exchanged.

 

If no more tokens are issued (zero inflation) and if productivity/population goes up, then the value of tokens go up to reflect increase in production of goods and services. We'll have an appreciating token. 

 

Assume in this mythical country, there are no assets like land (say all are free), art, precious metals etc. All surplus, profits etc will be stored in Mars token. This becomes their wealth too. 

 

Now Mars token value has wealth component. 

 

In the end, how do we measure it? The idealized way is all wealth, GDP is reflected in Mars Tokens. 

=================================

 

On Earth, we can apply this analogy in a less perfect way. We've leakage of wealth application as we've gold, stocks and other assets. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Vish_ram said:

Let's assume we setup a civilization on Mars. We create a million Mars tokens and distribute them. The tokens have decimals for purchasing smaller denominations. Assume we have a costless exchange of tokens. 

 

Now people produce goods and services and exchange between them. They use Mars tokens as a medium of exchange.

 

Value of all tokens =Total money supply = value of all goods and services exchanged.

 

If no more tokens are issued (zero inflation) and if productivity/population goes up, then the value of tokens go up to reflect increase in production of goods and services. We'll have an appreciating token. 

 

Assume in this mythical country, there are no assets like land (say all are free), art, precious metals etc. All surplus, profits etc will be stored in Mars token. This becomes their wealth too. 

 

Now Mars token value has wealth component. 

 

In the end, how do we measure it? The idealized way is all wealth, GDP is reflected in Mars Tokens. 

=================================

 

On Earth, we can apply this analogy in a less perfect way. We've leakage of wealth application as we've gold, stocks and other assets. 

If I understand correctly the Mars tokens are backed by the productivity of the Mars economy.  What backs BTC?

Posted

It is my view that those of us on this thread are far closer in thought than most participating think.  To be honest all of us are quite accustomed to DJT, we know within some limits as to where he's going.

 

What I think the discussion is missing it is my guess that Trump will sort of gain some of us skeptical's slight approval in the next 4 should he live that long.  But he will lose too, and he will lose those who have used his popularity to corrupt and disrupt...and not in a fashion that those of us here are wanting.

 

Yep, I think we've engaged some forces that will be difficult to reign in.  It is one thing for a bunch of middle age white guys who have felt left out by all the left race/identity/handout obsession to do a Capitol riot but it goes further now.  Those boys coming out of Mom's basement with horns are ones I'd feel quite comfortable having a street fight with.

 

But the forces within this country...and out...that the Trump world has engaged are more capable and it isn't physical bodies rushing the Capitol I'm talking about.  There's a lot of people out there unlike all of us who want some umph in this...

 

And that's why ole deal mentioned how close Trump populism is to the next phase.  To them?  Greg IS absolutely the establishment.

Posted
1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

I'm fondly reminded of the late 1990s when internet stocks were all the rage.  Can't even count how many internet millionaires I met (that was when one million dollars was real money).  All these companies were a sure thing and price didn't matter.  Buffett was  looked at like the village idiot.   Not saying that history necessarily repeats itself but it often rhymes.  

 

I was one of those internet millionaires. 

 

Yet I haven't let the experience prevent me from recognizing opportunity when I see it.

 

(In fact, it taught me the best protection from a crash is to participate in the run-up.)

Posted
1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

If I understand correctly the Mars tokens are backed by the productivity of the Mars economy.  What backs BTC?

 

The monetarily oppressed society searches the world for a solution. It found that BTC has the right attributes and started embracing it. It could be the African farmer or Argentinian who wants to escape the triple digit inflation and buys satoshis to protect himself. 

 

The belief in BTC (backed by largest hash power, fungibility, adoption, lack of inflation, trustless thing, de-centralized and 1000 others) that it protects the owner gives it credence. The wealth & gdp of the world backs the BTC (and other assets too). 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Vish_ram said:

 

The monetarily oppressed society searches the world for a solution. It found that BTC has the right attributes and started embracing it. It could be the African farmer or Argentinian who wants to escape the triple digit inflation and buys satoshis to protect himself. 

 

The belief in BTC (backed by largest hash power, fungibility, adoption, lack of inflation, trustless thing, de-centralized and 1000 others) that it protects the owner gives it credence. The wealth & gdp of the world backs the BTC (and other assets too). 

So again trying to understand, BTC is backed by folks in very small, oppressed economies with a belief that it is superior to their own currency.  I suppose that is something but I have no idea how that equates to sustaining its current price, or any price for that matter.  If these small economies over time become more prosperous, who then needs BTC, and why?  In other words, BTC has the full faith and credit of what?

Edited by 73 Reds
spelling
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Like whats the gist thats being implied? We shoulda voted for Kamala because we think she's a nicer person than Trump? And that later if it came out she wasnt, well, whoa is me I was just ignorant its not my fault? Well, maybe, but a lotta people just ate that humble pie with Biden...and realized they had someone with dementia who could barely function hidden from them, and well, the last 3+ years speak for themselves.

 

If nothing else, a lotta people learned the media is full of liars, huge spending from donors skews the picture you have, and most of it is manipulative rubbish. Many people just saw that just because the media screams "Trump is HIlter", doesnt make it true. And when it isnt true, no one is there to compensate them for the problems the alternative created for them. 

 

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

I vote for policies that I believe have the best chance of positively impacting my life. I believe in low taxes, small government, and effective policing to keep people safe. I dont care about the individual names on the ticket because largely theyre 95% a mirage that results from manipulative propaganda, media alliances, and wasteful spending.

 

You're asking this question as if Trump has murdered people...meanwhile, there is actually some evidence to suggest previous presidents and politicians have...but what? because they dont have the "convicted felon" tag...theyre all good? Essentially, as long as you are not aware of everyones baggage...theyre clear? Not for me. 

Damn the water's getting muddy isn't it?  Jump on in Buckeye! 😆 No one is saying anything about Kamala, she lost.  Why are you bringing her up?  I have never said anything about anyone being nice or not nice.  And no one here said anything about Trump being Hitler, except you brought it up.  And since you appear to like that subject, his current VP-elect (see I added elect, thank you James!) JD Vance did say “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?”  In JD's defense he did say "America's Hitler," which I assume would be different than Germany's Hitler.  But whatever, Trump is not Hitler IMO, he's Trump!  (I mean President-Elect Trump!  Thank you James.)

 

So you think me asking Red (who still hasn't answered my question, and it's clear that he never will), "Do you think Donald Trump follows the law?" Is in your words, me "asking this question as if Trump has murdered people?"  Ok Greg, thank you for helping re-frame my question.  I guess that's how you're reading my question.

 

Is it getting hot in here?😆 

Edited by Buckeye
Posted
13 minutes ago, james22 said:

Proof of Satoshi's genius:

 

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

***This advertisement has been brought to you by Bitcoin***

Posted
3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

***This advertisement has been brought to you by Bitcoin***

 

You might be a little more appreciative that I'm taking time away from influencing nation-state and institutional heads to try and convince you lot. 

 

Low ROI, sure, but Satoshi writes my checks, so . . .

Posted
6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Damn the water's getting muddy isn't it?  Jump on in Buckeye! 😆 No one is saying anything about Kamala, she lost.  Why are you bringing her up?  I have never said anything about anyone being nice or not nice.  And no one here said anything about Trump being Hitler, except you brought it up.  And since you appear to like that subject, his current VP-elect (see I added elect, thank you James!) JD Vance did say “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?”  In JD's defense he did say "America's Hitler," which I assume would be different than Germany's Hitler.  But whatever, Trump is not Hitler IMO, he's Trump!  (I mean President-Elect Trump!  Thank you James.)

 

So you think me asking Red (who still hasn't answered my question, and it's clear that he never will), "Do you think Donald Trump follows the law?" Is in your words, me "asking this question as if Trump has murdered people?"  Ok Greg, thank you for helping re-frame my question.  I guess that's how you're reading my question.

 

Is it getting hot in here?😆 

Im just trying to get to the root of what youre debating. Are you saying someone who believes in some of the things mentioned above(low taxes, minimal government, responsible immigration) shouldn't vote for Trump? Are you saying to only pay attention to labels validated by the establishment, ie felon, convicted, or even "your honor"? 

 

Im fine explaining how I tend to arrive at things, but sometimes, especially with certain topics it seems like its never ending explanations that dont ultimately indicate there was a valid purpose to the question being asked. Almost a never ending deposition...such thats why I ask, ok if you dont like a candidate, where is your cut off, what are your parameters for drawing that cutoff line, and how to you square that with then helping or siding with people who are running on things diametrically opposed to you? Liz Cheney, I get it, she and her family have been huge beneficiaries of the current political establishment, and hates Trump for the threat he poses to it. Kamala is her kind. Dubya is her kind. The status quo is her kind. But the average voter? Probably not aligned with Ms Cheney. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

So again trying to understand, BTC is backed by folks in very small, oppressed economies with a belief that it is superior to their own currency.  I suppose that is something but I have no idea how that equates to sustaining its current price, or any price for that matter.  If these small economies over time become more prosperous, who then needs BTC, and why?  In other words, BTC has the full faith and credit of what?

 

Seriously, if you really care (and you should), there's a wealth of info out there.

 

The questions you ask are not new and have been answered many times elsewhere.

 

Could start with the crypto and MSTR threads here.

 

As to whether BTC is a Trump trade or not, that's been answered today, hasn't it?

Posted

Ok, trying to get back to the initial thread topic, instead of asking really tough questions that apparently cannot be answered.  

 

There was a pretty good article in this weekend's WSJ by James Mackintosh titled "What's Next for Markets? Look Back to 2016."  Did anyone catch it?  I've included the link below for anyone who may be interested. 

 

It sounds like what Spek was saying, what will work this time (for a period) may be what worked last time (for a period). Plus Bitcoin! (My addition:)

 

The article starts with James writing "The challenge is to split out what he really plans to do, and in what order, from what was merely campaign rhetoric. Before the 2016 result, the Atlantic wrote that Donald Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally, while his critics take him literally, but not seriously.  Markets are currently putting everything they like into the seriously camp, and dismissing all the bad stuff as literal, mere campaign rhetoric. This smacks of too much optimism, the same mistake they made last time."

 

It continues..."After taking office in January 2017, Trump prioritized things that markets didn’t like. He moved fast on immigration, especially from Muslim countries, pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and renegotiated trade with Mexico and Canada, then wasted energy trying to ditch Obamacare. 

 

He didn’t literally make Mexico pay to build a border wall, but he was serious about reducing illegal immigration. Investors had to wait until the end of the year to get the tax cuts they anticipated, while regulatory easing took a long time too.

This time the same four big policies are in play. Again two are broadly bad for investors, and two broadly good. Clampdowns on immigration and high tariffs would hurt the economy, while lower corporate taxes and less regulation would help economic growth and stock prices.

 

The order they come will be critical, and remains entirely unknown. Yet investors have been piling on the happy thoughts as they buy U.S. stocks, especially smaller companies, and dump Treasurys. The bet is on higher growth and less red tape."

 

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/trump-election-trade-markets-a29100cc

Posted
8 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

You might be a little more appreciative that I'm taking time away from influencing nation-state and institutional heads to try and convince you lot. 

 

Low ROI, sure, but Satoshi writes my checks, so . . .

I'm sure Satoshi would be, or is, proud.

Posted

And I mean it when I say you should care.

 

Even those pounding the table for Fairfax or Joe wouldn't argue they might be life-changing investments.

 

Unless you are convinced there's ZERO chance of bitcoin becoming a recognized asset class, you should invest some time studying it.

 

Because if it does, it will be life-changing.

 

 

Posted

Let's invert - if BTC collapses in 10 years, what would be the reason?

Would you still want to own it? 

Posted
48 minutes ago, Vish_ram said:

Let's assume we setup a civilization on Mars. We create a million Mars tokens and distribute them. The tokens have decimals for purchasing smaller denominations. Assume we have a costless exchange of tokens. 

 

Now people produce goods and services and exchange between them. They use Mars tokens as a medium of exchange.

 

Value of all tokens =Total money supply = value of all goods and services exchanged.

 

If no more tokens are issued (zero inflation) and if productivity/population goes up, then the value of tokens go up to reflect increase in production of goods and services. We'll have an appreciating token. 

 

Assume in this mythical country, there are no assets like land (say all are free), art, precious metals etc. All surplus, profits etc will be stored in Mars token. This becomes their wealth too. 

 

Now Mars token value has wealth component. 

 

In the end, how do we measure it? The idealized way is all wealth, GDP is reflected in Mars Tokens. 

=================================

 

On Earth, we can apply this analogy in a less perfect way. We've leakage of wealth application as we've gold, stocks and other assets. 

An economy or society that is reliant on a currency that is limited in supply will collapse over time due to the lack of important traditional features of currencies. Capitalism won't work, and you would end up in so much political instability that those societies would collapse. Simple. I laid out a few reasons a few pages back why that is.

Posted (edited)

I think america will do better under trump. So that means I would be long our value US assets that we already discussed. You will have cheaper energy and a more competitive industry, i think inner stability should increase too, listening to JD Vance i think the foreign policy should relax too which is good, maybe China relations improve too and I think Trump is more bullish for China than Kamala. Gonna be interesting few years!

Edited by Luke

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...