Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

wareyin said:
Why would I expect anybody to believe a point that I didn't try to make?
Click to expand...


Your original point was
wareyin said:
As crypto has no utility outside of the exchanges, and the crypto exchanges have nothing to do without crypto, you're obviously wrong.
Click to expand...
Clearly, if neither can exist without the other then they must have come into existence simultaneously.
 
Samson said:
I suggest shorting bitcoin to 4k.
Click to expand...

Where? Wouldn't such a price drop and the current insolvency question of exchanges make the proposition of putting money on an exchange to short quite a bit riskier than the payoff?
 
rdwight said:
Where? Wouldn't such a price drop and the current insolvency question of exchanges make the proposition of putting money on an exchange to short quite a bit riskier than the payoff?
Click to expand...
There should be a few ways to mitigate that risk.
Leverage at say 100 to 1 would allow margin capital to be deployed across multiple platforms, and so long as some survive the implosion the rainbow may yield gold. (physical).
 
Samson said:
There should be a few ways to mitigate that risk.
Leverage at say 100 to 1 would allow margin capital to be deployed across multiple platforms, and so long as some survive the implosion the rainbow may yield gold. (physical).
Click to expand...

If the bitcoin goes to 4k, in the time specified .. oh, you didn't specify a time .. never mind ..
 
psionl0 said:
Your original point was

Clearly, if neither can exist without the other then they must have come into existence simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Kindly reread the sentence you quoted and note that "exist" was never in it.

Once you have done that, if you still disagree then please explain what the crypto exchanges would do without crypto.

Once you have done that (yeah, I know, you won't because you can't) you could try explaining what utility crypto would have if you don't have the ability to buy or sell it or exchange it for goods. (and yeah, I know, you've yet to articulate what utility crypto has period, so I know this is also too high a bar for you to clear)
 
wareyin said:
Kindly reread the sentence you quoted and note that "exist" was never in it.
Click to expand...
Rubbish! That sentence was in direct response to the claim that " bitcoin doesn't need an exchange to exist".

wareyin said:
. . . you could try explaining what utility crypto would have if you don't have the ability to buy or sell it or exchange it for goods.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp
 
psionl0 said:
Rubbish! That sentence was in direct response to the claim that " bitcoin doesn't need an exchange to exist".


:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

It's like the irreducible complexity idea, but for crypto, huh? Because 2 systems are now so intertwined that they can't function without each other, you think this should prove that they were created simultaneously.

And yes, the fact that you simply insist that there is a utility, but you don't have to explain or prove it is simply jaw dropping.
 
Stankeye said:
Where did you get that info about both parties?

Not even the WaPo has mentioned any donations FTX made to republicans.
Click to expand...

Bankman-Fried claims he donated equally ("about the same") to both parties, but:

“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the **** out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”


eta from that article: "Data from OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying, shows FTX US, the company’s US operation, gave equally to both parties."
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Bankman-Fried claims he donated equally ("about the same") to both parties, but:

“All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the **** out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”


eta from that article: "Data from OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying, shows FTX US, the company’s US operation, gave equally to both parties."
Click to expand...

Yep. Fried was spending large on lobbying and advertising. Image was important to Fried and he presented himself as a hyper supporter of the environment and poor to make his FTX pitch sound more noble. All a ruse. Lobbying was all about FTX friendly regulations.
 
wareyin said:
It's like the irreducible complexity idea, but for crypto, huh? Because 2 systems are now so intertwined that they can't function without each other, you think this should prove that they were created simultaneously.

And yes, the fact that you simply insist that there is a utility, but you don't have to explain or prove it is simply jaw dropping.
Click to expand...
Obviously you are the one who needs to read their own posts. :rolleyes:
 
Bitcoin's last stand

Bitcoin was created to overcome the existing monetary and financial system. In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the concept. Since then, Bitcoin has been marketed as a global decentralised digital currency. However, Bitcoin's conceptual design and technological shortcomings make it questionable as a means of payment: real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions...

It’s also worth noting that the Bitcoin system is an unprecedented polluter. First, it consumes energy on the scale of entire economies. Bitcoin mining is estimated to consume electricity per year comparable to Austria. Second, it produces mountains of hardware waste. One Bitcoin transaction consumes hardware comparable to the hardware of two smartphones. The entire Bitcoin system generates as much e-waste as the entire Netherlands. This inefficiency of the system is not a flaw but a feature. It is one of the peculiarities to guarantee the integrity of the completely decentralised system...

Since Bitcoin appears to be neither suitable as a payment system nor as a form of investment, it should be treated as neither in regulatory terms and thus should not be legitimised. Similarly, the financial industry should be wary of the long-term damage of promoting Bitcoin investments - despite short-term profits they could make (even without their skin in the game). The negative impact on customer relations and the reputational damage to the entire industry could be enormous once Bitcoin investors will have made further losses.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Once again we see a suckers rally.
I bet 3 arms we see 14k before Mariah Carey sets a new world record for her Christmas song.
 
psionl0 said:
Obviously you are the one who needs to read their own posts. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude, we get it, you'll hear no bad word about crypto. But your one liner snark posts which miss the point by a mile aren't demonstrating bitcoin's utility, nor how you can buy or sell or trade bitcoin effectively without an exchange, nor what the crypto exchanges are supposed to actually do if/when people realize that bitcoin is just the 21st century tulip thing.
 
A US Regulator's pov, Goldsmith Romero:
https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-12-...-increased-oversight-of-crypto-exchanges.html

She added that Congress must close existing loopholes and regulatory gaps, and should also ban the mixing of customer and company funds. “User agreements posted online for Coinbase and Kraken, two of the largest digital asset exchanges in the world, appear to authorize the commingling of customer and exchange assets,” she said. “This suggests that commingling is widespread throughout the unregulated crypto markets.”

She also said lawmakers need to provide customers with bankruptcy priority. “There is not enough awareness or attention on this critical threat to customers,” she said. “Customers are often unaware of their lack of protections.”
Click to expand...

I've been struck by how blasie Bankman Fried has been in recent days describing his state of mind from before Nov. 6 and subsequent days. But it makes sense now. What he was doing (comingling customer assets) was commonplace and, if he perceived it as a kind of standard practice, it goes a great way to explaining his demeaner.

I agree with the regulator's priorities.
 
wareyin said:
. . . . if/when people realize that bitcoin is just the 21st century tulip thing.
Click to expand...
It is unbelievable how many people new to this thread think that mentioning "tulips" is somehow clever.

They are basically saying that there was a failed investment 400 years ago therefore bitcoin is bad. :crazy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom