Bitcoin - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig B said:
My "one" is that the boom will not last forever. The alternative possibility is that it will last forever. That makes two possible situations, at this elementary level of complexity. I say it won't last forever. If you say it will, good and well. That's what you appear to be saying.

< ... irrelevant analogy snipped ... >
Click to expand...
Your "one" is that bitcoin will go into a permanent tail spin. Disagreeing does not mean that one is arguing that the opposite will happen.

And even if bitcoin did go out the door, there is no reason to believe that another crypto wouldn't take its place (the most likely reason for bitcoin to lose favour).
 
Samson said:
The algorithm generated a powerful sell signal on a 3 hour chart basis at 10,680. I would assess this as having a 75% chance of driving the price down to 8700
Click to expand...

Since your "algorithmic" predictions on other threads have been been about as predicative as blind chance, I'll take your assessment with a mountain of salt.
 
trustbutverify said:
Since your "algorithmic" predictions on other threads have been been about as predicative as blind chance, I'll take your assessment with a mountain of salt.
Click to expand...
They have been very accurate, you have not taken the time to audit, but that is your choice.
 
psionl0 said:
Your "one" is that bitcoin will go into a permanent tail spin. Disagreeing does not mean that one is arguing that the opposite will happen.

And even if bitcoin did go out the door, there is no reason to believe that another crypto wouldn't take its place (the most likely reason for bitcoin to lose favour).
Click to expand...
The element of my post you've snipped is the thing that always has bubble puffers quaking in their boots: memories of previous bubbles. I wrote
The fact that Bitcoin may survive in one form or another isn't an issue of great importance. The South Sea Company survived (at its modest realistic value as a humble manager of government assets) until 1853. But people who bought its shares at £1,000 or even £100, in the 1720 mania, suffered irretrievable loss of much or most of their investment.​
Remember the wise saying: if you forget the past you are condemned to relive it.

What cryptos will replace Bitcoin when BTC finally tanks? Do you have one to offer us?

What railway shares replaced the ones that collapsed in 1846? What tulips continued the collapsed mania in 1637? None. Once the mania was passed these commodities remained in being, but returned to their realistic, rather than maniac, values.

What are railways really worth for what they do? What are tulips worth as pretty adornments in dining rooms? What is Bitcoin worth as a facilitator of money transfers? Anything? Nothing? We don't know, but we will find out one way or another.
 
Craig B said:
The element of my post you've snipped is the thing that always has bubble puffers quaking in their boots: memories of previous bubbles. I wrote
The fact that Bitcoin may survive in one form or another isn't an issue of great importance. The South Sea Company survived (at its modest realistic value as a humble manager of government assets) until 1853. But people who bought its shares at £1,000 or even £100, in the 1720 mania, suffered irretrievable loss of much or most of their investment.​
Remember the wise saying: if you forget the past you are condemned to relive it.

What cryptos will replace Bitcoin when BTC finally tanks? Do you have one to offer us?

What railway shares replaced the ones that collapsed in 1846? What tulips continued the collapsed mania in 1637? None. Once the mania was passed these commodities remained in being, but returned to their realistic, rather than maniac, values.

What are railways really worth for what they do? What are tulips worth as pretty adornments in dining rooms? What is Bitcoin worth as a facilitator of money transfers? Anything? Nothing? We don't know, but we will find out one way or another.
Click to expand...
Monetising seems to be about people paying to market their product. Hence google and facebook are valued.

Bitcoin? How do you monetize to justify 200 billion market cap?
Anyone can attempt an answer, but to say it is different to all previous internet endeavours will not sate the skeptics.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
The element of my post you've snipped is ....
Click to expand...
... references to irrelevant investments that are nothing like bitcoin whatsoever. As I have said previously, the closest analogy to bitcoin is stamp collecting.

Craig B said:
What cryptos will replace Bitcoin when BTC finally tanks? Do you have one to offer us?
Click to expand...
What a load of straw! I did not say that bitcoin will collapse and then a new crypto will take its place. Rather, the reverse is a possible scenario.

You are the one who keeps saying that bitcoin will collapse for no reason at all (but it won't go away).

Craig B said:
< ... more of the irrelevant stuff ... >
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
... references to irrelevant investments that are nothing like bitcoin whatsoever. As I have said previously, the closest analogy to bitcoin is stamp collecting.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Self delusion.
What a load of straw! I did not say that bitcoin will collapse and then a new crypto will take its place. Rather, the reverse is a possible scenario.
Click to expand...
It doesn't in the least matter whether the replacement precedes the collapse or vice versa. One will follow the other and a new crypto will be in place (you tell us.)
You are the one who keeps saying that bitcoin will collapse for no reason at all (but it won't go away).
Click to expand...
It could collapse for any reason, just as an overinflated bubble pops for any reason. And it may go away, like a bubble, or it may hang around like the remains of a burst balloon. Who knows? But the internal pressure will have escaped and it will be deflated. The bubble aspect will disappear whether the blockchain technology turns out to be useful or not.

I've said it before: tulips are still with us. Railways are still with us. But the Spanish South Sea slave trade has gone away. The bubbles have gone, however, whether the things that were pretexts for them have remained or not.
 
psionl0 said:
IE You got nothing.

I have made several posts explaining why your analogies are not valid but you are unable to do the same.
Click to expand...
My posts are not about analogies but about previous examples of the same thing. If people were predicting a war in 1939 and I reminded them of the Great War of 1914-18 I would not be providing an "analogy" but a concrete prior example of the sort of thing being discussed, with all its gory horrors.

Calling references to earlier bubble manias "analogies" is a further indicator that discussion of these prior events reduces today's bubblers and speculators to abject terror, from which they vainly strive to escape by saying, this isn't literal history, it's only an "analogy", a kind of metaphor.

Phew, what a relief!
 
trustbutverify said:
Since your "algorithmic" predictions on other threads have been been about as predicative as blind chance, I'll take your assessment with a mountain of salt.
Click to expand...

He's the John Edwards of technical analysis. Earlier in this thread he made a prediction that was wrong but claimed victory anyway because it went the right direction even though it was off by literally thousands of points.
 
Craig B said:
My posts are not about analogies but about previous examples of the same thing.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, these are analogies. This is like that, and such and such happened with that, therefore it is likely to happen with this is a stock argument by analogy.

Such arguments can be strong, of course. A well crafted appeal to analogy can be a good argument. For no clear reason, such arguments have an unwarranted negative view around here.
 
phiwum said:
Just to be clear, these are analogies. This is like that, and such and such happened with that, therefore it is likely to happen with this is a stock argument by analogy.

Such arguments can be strong, of course. A well crafted appeal to analogy can be a good argument. For no clear reason, such arguments have an unwarranted negative view around here.
Click to expand...
I would call my approach a reference to direct precedent, rather than analogy. The latter is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as
... a comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea:
He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.
It is sometimes easier to illustrate an abstract concept by analogy with (= by comparing it with) something concrete.​
In my my case it's not comparing a brain with a computer, or an abstraction with something concrete; but comparing a speculative bubble mania with a previous speculative bubble mania. That requires a stronger word than analogy. I think "precedent" is a good word; or "previous example".
 
phiwum said:
A well crafted appeal to analogy can be a good argument. For no clear reason, such arguments have an unwarranted negative view around here.
Click to expand...
The key is "well crafted" and even then, they can only be for illustrative purposes. Suggesting that a conclusion drawn from an analogy is the same conclusion as could be drawn about the topic in question is a fallacy.
 
Craig B said:
(snip)
In my my case it's not comparing a brain with a computer, or an abstraction with something concrete; but comparing a speculative bubble mania with a previous speculative bubble mania. That requires a stronger word than analogy. I think "precedent" is a good word; or "previous example".
Click to expand...


:thumbsup: Yes.

Just like earlier "precedent" bitcoin went up driven by speculation and mania. And just like earlier "precedent" it is on its way down to "true value" - a price close to zero in the case of bitcoin.

I think the latest bounce is over. Bitcoin - droppity, droppity, drop.

Notice how all the cyptos go up and down together. This indicates that none of them will survive.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
I would call my approach a reference to direct precedent, rather than analogy. The latter is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as
... a comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea:
He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.
It is sometimes easier to illustrate an abstract concept by analogy with (= by comparing it with) something concrete.​
In my my case it's not comparing a brain with a computer, or an abstraction with something concrete; but comparing a speculative bubble mania with a previous speculative bubble mania. That requires a stronger word than analogy. I think "precedent" is a good word; or "previous example".
Click to expand...
With due respect, that is an appeal to a analogy. It might be a strong argument, but it is undeniably an appeal to analogy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom