Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
Of course not. Speculation always produces winners and losers. But we don't know how many of each nor the sums of money involved. And we have absolutely no information whatsoever about how many people are publicizing their gains or losses.
Click to expand...
We don't know the distribution of wins and losses, but as bitcoin trading is (at best) zero sum then we know the amounts are the same.

I'm going to speculate that the number of winners is smaller than the losers, with whales and early adopters redistributing money from the millions who piled in with their stimulus checks before the crash.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
We don't know the distribution of wins and losses, but as bitcoin trading is (at best) zero sum then we know the amounts are the same.

I'm going to speculate that the number of winners is smaller than the losers, with whales and early adopters redistributing money from the millions who piled in with their stimulus checks before the crash.
Click to expand...
A good study is twins Cameron and Tyler Winkelvoss.
 
wareyin said:
Given that it's human nature to not publicize a loss, do you really think we need evidence that we don't hear from the Bitcoin losers as much as we do from the Bitcoin winners?
Click to expand...
It seems plausible that losers would be less likely to discuss their investments than winners (unless they want to complain about the "bad advice" they received). OTOH it also seems plausible that big time winners would be less likely to want to have their names published (as with lotto winners).

Many an innocent person has been convicted in court by an argument that seemed plausible but was not backed by evidence. So if you are going to rely on assertions like these then yes, you need evidence. This is doubly so if you are going to claim that the losers "slink away".
 
FatherLukeduke said:
We don't know the distribution of wins and losses, but as bitcoin trading is (at best) zero sum then we know the amounts are the same.

I'm going to speculate that the number of winners is smaller than the losers, with whales and early adopters redistributing money from the millions who piled in with their stimulus checks before the crash.
Click to expand...
You have failed to consider realized vs unrealized gains/losses. There is no good reason to believe that paper profits equal paper losses. Otherwise, this would be true of every commodity that was ever traded.
 
psionl0 said:
It seems plausible that losers would be less likely to discuss their investments than winners (unless they want to complain about the "bad advice" they received). OTOH it also seems plausible that big time winners would be less likely to want to have their names published (as with lotto winners).
Click to expand...

And yet, we aren't lacking for "big time" bitcoin winners who are bragging about it...

psionl0 said:
Many an innocent person has been convicted in court by an argument that seemed plausible but was not backed by evidence. So if you are going to rely on assertions like these then yes, you need evidence. This is doubly so if you are going to claim that the losers "slink away".
Click to expand...

That's an amusing stance to take, given the plausible-ish opening sentence used to dismiss (without evidence) what you don't wish to be true.
 
wareyin said:
And yet, we aren't lacking for "big time" bitcoin winners who are bragging about it...
Click to expand...
Who?

wareyin said:
That's an amusing stance to take, given the plausible-ish opening sentence used to dismiss (without evidence) what you don't wish to be true.
Click to expand...
Failing to say "YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not the same as dismissing something without evidence nor wishing that it weren't true.
 
psionl0 said:
Who?
Click to expand...

I tell you what, you make a list of every bitcoin proponent who has openly declared how much money they've lost, and a list of every bitcoin proponent who claims to have made money and/or sold bitcoin as a way to make money. Compare which side has more people on it, and also compare the amount people admit to having lost vs the amount people claim to have made. If you still think that bitcoin proponents are this unique group of people who do not share such basic human tendencies, you can submit your evidence.

psionl0 said:
Failing to say "YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not the same as dismissing something without evidence nor wishing that it weren't true.
Click to expand...

Demanding evidence that people will talk more about winning money than losing is a weasel worded dismissal.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Demanding evidence that people will talk more about winning money than losing is a weasel worded dismissal.
Click to expand...
Getting all offended when somebody doesn't accept your word as Gospel doesn't mean that you don't have the burden of proof.

As has been stated frequently in the past, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
 
psionl0 said:
You have failed to consider realized vs unrealized gains/losses.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what there is to consider? Eventually gains and losses will be realised and the net effect will be the same. No wealth is created by bitcoin trading, it is just redistributed. We are just not sure how it is being redistributed - the suspicion is that a few whales have benefited at the expensive of a mass of minnows, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence.
There is no good reason to believe that paper profits equal paper losses.
Click to expand...
How is this relevant?

Otherwise, this would be true of every commodity that was ever traded.
Click to expand...
Well commodity futures trading is also zero sum. For every long bet there is an equal short bet - again it is redistributing wealth, not creating it. The idea of trading is to set an efficient price.

However unlike bitcoin, the production of commodities adds wealth to the world. If a new technology is discovered that means grain yields go up by 10% then net wealth is increased. World GPD increases, people have more food etc. There is nothing analogous to that in bitcoin.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
Eventually gains and losses will be realised and the net effect will be the same.
Click to expand...
But not at the same time. And it is not necessarily zero sum for a single commodity. Those who hold on to fiat currencies are the eventual losers to inflation and this means added wealth to those who invest in non-depreciating assets such as bitcoin.


FatherLukeduke said:
However unlike bitcoin, the production of commodities adds wealth to the world. If a new technology is discovered that means grain yields go up by 10% then net wealth is increased. World GPD increases, people have more food etc. There is nothing analogous to that in bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Consumables are a different kettle of fish to commodities which are invariably bought for one reason: to sell at (hopefully) a higher price.

You seem to think that bitcoin trading follows different rules to other commodities but this is not the case.
 
psionl0 said:
But not at the same time. And it is not necessarily zero sum for a single commodity.
Click to expand...
How can it not be zero sum for bitcoin?

Those who hold on to fiat currencies are the eventual losers to inflation and this means added wealth to those who invest in non-depreciating assets such as bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Except bitcoin is priced in dollars (or whatever your local fiat is). If I buy a bitcoin for $20,000 dollars today then sell it in a year for $20,000 dollars I'm going to be subject to the same reduction in purchasing power in that $20k as if I'd stuffed it under my bed. I thought we were discussing trading bitcoin as a commodity, but you now appear to be conflating it with currencies.

Consumables are a different kettle of fish to commodities which are invariably bought for one reason: to sell at (hopefully) a higher price.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure what you are getting at. Nearly all the world's traded commodities, from natural gas to grain are ultimately consumable.


You seem to think that bitcoin trading follows different rules to other commodities but this is not the case.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? Commodities futures trading is also zero sum - however it serves a purpose in that it sets an efficient price for products that are useful - we eat them, make useful goods and convert them to useable energy. Unlike bitcoin, which has (at best) marginal utility and the trading is purely gambling and speculation without any other net benefit.
 
psionl0 said:
Getting all offended when somebody doesn't accept your word as Gospel doesn't mean that you don't have the burden of proof.

As has been stated frequently in the past, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Click to expand...

I always forget how some people on the net like to claim they have no idea how humans act.

Look up Loss Aversion.
 
FatherLukeduke said:
If I buy a bitcoin for $20,000 dollars today then sell it in a year for $20,000 dollars I'm going to be subject to the same reduction in purchasing power in that $20k as if I'd stuffed it under my bed.
Click to expand...
Are you really unable to distinguish between short term and long term trading?

FatherLukeduke said:
Unlike bitcoin, which has (at best) marginal utility and the trading is purely gambling and speculation without any other net benefit.
Click to expand...
* SIGH * How often do I see it claimed on this forum that bitcoin has no designed use whatsoever?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Are you really unable to distinguish between short term and long term trading?


* SIGH * How often do I see it claimed on this forum that bitcoin has no designed use whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Not very often. I've often asked the crypto-bros here "what utility does it have that is legal and not served better by fiat currencies" which is not the same question as asking if it has a designed use.

Clearly Bitcoin has a designed use, which is to replace fiat currencies (if we take the inventor's statements at face value). What we sceptics are arguing is that it is a bad design.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom