psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
The funny thing about a lie is that it never becomes true through repetition.
But keep singing your own praises. Maybe you will convince yourself that "t'is so" is a valid argument.
Merged Bitcoin - Part 3
- Thread starter Dr.Sid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bitcoin cryptocurrency
But keep singing your own praises. Maybe you will convince yourself that "t'is so" is a valid argument.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Hahaha, you're completely, utterly hilarious.
Just say any random thing, eh, hoping, praying, that no one else will take the trouble to actually read our exchange? (And if they do, then just ignore their actual words, like you do mine now, and just carry on with the pretense that you know what you're talking about.)
The delusion, it is strong with this one.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
This is the foundation of your fallacious reasoning. You never gave an adequate definition of intrinsic value. You just repeated ad-nauseam the claim that intrinsic value is the value something has even if it has never been traded. How could you measure such a thing if nobody has ever offered to buy it?
OTOH I have carefully distinguished between the value something has based on its utility and that due to speculation. If there was such a thing as "intrinsic value" then it would be the price that something could be sold for if it wasn't subject to speculation.
Or do you mean something entirely different?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That's nonsensical. And that's also a bare-faced lie.
It's nonsensical, because "intrinsic value" is not some esoteric, little-known term. Anyone who is even somewhat knowledgeable about valuation knows what it is. If you are so amazingly ignorant that you don't, then it is on you to ask.
And it is a bare-faced lie, over and above being nonsensical, because no way simply your ignorance of that term --- which in itself is difficult to believe, but even if we assume you had actually been so ignorant --- can explain your saying "intrinsic value is meaningless", and continuing to double and triple down on it.
As for how one measures the value of an investment, basis its intrinsic value, even if it has never been traded: that, again, is simply valuation 101. That's what valuation is effing about ---- apart from the technicals and the hybrids, that also you apparently did not understand, and yet dismissed them by calling it all a "word salad".
----------
This has already been discussed, very clearly. Not explained in detail, but touched on, with the expectation that someone so boldly expressing their opinion on intrinsic value being meaningful or meaningless, would not be completely illiterate as far as these basics. The time to ask, had you been honest, would have been then. Like I asked you, proactively, myself, about whether Satoshi Nakamoto and associates mined some stuff and kept it away for themselves, as in an IPO situation and analogy one would have assumed they would. That's how honest discussion works. What you've been doing here, all this while, in this discussion between you and I post our satisfactory resolution of the matter of the scam, is dishonest, that's the only way to describe it.
Still, since even now you ask: happy to clear this up for you:
(1) If there's a dividend paying stock, then simply the dividend of it will provide the floor. The intrinsic value will be at least that much. It will actually be different --- more, because there's other factors, but also discounted, because risk. But this actually does tell you how something can have value even when it is not traded. A dividend paying stock will (probably, unless it is close to being wound up, or close to stop paying dividend) be a good example of how an investment can have a monetary value even when it's not traded.
(2) Take a house. It provides utility, even if it's never been traded. And the utility it provides can certainly be monetized, and even actually quantified (if only approximately).
(3) A company that's never been traded, and doesn't even pay dividend. Valuing such is done all the time. Both by investment bankers, as well as internally by other large corporates as well. There's nothing remotely esoteric about such valuation. New companies are valued all the time, both by angel investors, as well as by other corporates with specific interest in their product.
(Of course, as far as #3 above, people sometimes take shortcuts, and use hybrids. That's not always warranted, but sometimes, within constraints, it might be acceptable --- in any case, it is indeed sometimes done, but by no means always. Feel free to revisit what you clearly did not understand, and yet dismissed as "word salad" earlier, about hybrids. ...And also, that qualification now, and that "word salad" earlier, is what is known as steelmanning. A concept alien to your way of thinking. Feel free to dishonestly denounce that as a cop-out, as is your practice. Or, alternately, feel free to ask me more about it, and I'll tell you a bit about it. Or else, at this point, accept it for what it is, a steelmanning qualification, that does not detract from the basic point --- and feel free to look it up yourself, separately, if you're skeptical.)
[eta] (4) Securitization of outstandings and loans: When a bank or a financial institution has loans and outstandings on its hands, loans that have never ever been traded, to companies that have never ever been traded: then these loans can sometimes be bundled together to create an investment, which investment may itself either be tradeable or not tradeble, depending, by directly valuing each individual loan, which in turn is done by valuing the individual companies. That's another direct example of how something that's never been traded can be monetized. [/eta]
----------
Something that trades beyond its intrinsic value is a bubble, because it is held up by froth, as it were. It will plummet to nothing at all, should the froth go away, either given investor sentiment, or extreme money flow anomalies, or simply restrictive regulation. Something that trades within its intrinsic value is on solid ground, because should the trading stop, or should the trading price suddenly plummet, even so, the intrinsic value itself props up the monetary worth of the asset.
Gold is the one single exception to this, and silver as well, platinum maybe. Most dramatically gold. Those are exceptions, basis very long usage. Not special pleading, but bona fide exceptions, basis bona fide reasons --- to wit, established usage. (Be clear about this. I've already said this, in so many words. Sure, gold is a bubble trading beyond its intrinsic value. But it's an exceptional bubble, basis its hoary usage.)
It is fallacious to claim that because gold is an exception, therefore bitcoin also should be. And it is insane, and completely ignorant, to claim, as you have done, that, paraphrased, "intrinsic value is meaningless, because gold".
(Again, see my steelmanning argument about structural changes around bitcoin. Given recent changes, bitcoin might get that acceptability, enough to make a difference even if not quite as solid as gold. But, one, it isn't actually there yet. And two, you've been making this argument since way before these structural changes, I think? And three, none of this translates into "intrinsic value is meaningless".)
----------
Like I said, if you wanted to discuss specifically price trend predictions, then that's a whole different discussion. You should have done that right at the get-go.
You want to claim that was an honest misunderstanding, with me assuming one thing and you assuming the other? That's possible, sure. I'd have given you the benefit of benefit of the doubt, had you accepted this in that spirit at that time, when I pointed it out to you. ...But no, you kept on doubling and tripling down, despite my explicitly raising this point --- which is simply dishonest of you, there's no other way to describe it.
----------
Anyway, even though I know you're a delusional and serial liar, nevertheless I've addressed and answered your question, which is, how an asset that has never been traded can have a monetary value.
Any honest questions you now have, I'll be happy to address. As long as you realize that your precious bitcoin is indeed 100% a bubble, held up by froth. Which, unlike Samson's TA-based predictions, is not an opinion on short-term price movements at all.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,863
Mostly because Spain decided to use the wealth to wage and lose constant war.
But the bankers got insanely rich, and it's that what matters?
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
"Nuh uh" is not a counter argument. And your verbose discussion of "intrinsic value" doesn't add to the description I gave in one line.
This is a sweeping generalization that is not automatically true. Just because there exists examples where the value plummeted to "nothing at all" because their value was derived purely from speculation doesn't mean that bitcoin is doomed to the same fate.
As you pointed out, gold is a notable exception. You can also add other precious metals and jewelery to the mix. One thing they all have in common is that they can be used as currencies which increases their utility. And guess what? Cryptos can be used as currencies as well. Most of them are not valued as such by the public but bitcoin is definitely recognized as a currency. The world isn't going to suddenly realize that bitcoin has "no intrinsic value" and dump their holdings.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
You are a shameless, barefaced liar. You cut out my long, detailed explanation, and then say "Nuh-uh is not a counter argument.
And that "verbose" discussion, is exactly what you asked for. I was a fool to take a demonstrably and demonstrated dishonest poster like you seriously enough to bother taking the time to answer you.
More lies, that belie either zero understanding of what was said, or else, like I said, actual dishonesty.
You are ...weird. Completely weird, and completely dishonest. And I'm a fool, for taking you seriously and wasting my time on your nonsense.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
This actually is a fascinating case, the first I'm seeing directly.
Sure, I've seen plenty of Jesus worshipers that are similarly deluded. (And their cousins, the Allah worshipers, and yes, Shiva-Vishnu worshipers as well, many of them completely, resolutely deluded.) Likewise, I've seen enough Trump worshipers that are actually deluded.
But this here is the first instance where I'm seeing a stark demonstration of delusion, in context of something so entirely ...banal, as crypto, and BTC specifically. Remarkable!
---------------
I'm no longer addressing @psionl0 directly, since it seems impossible to penetrate his delusion with reason. Instead, I'm now addressing anyone else who might be reading this.
What exactly our disagreements are, I'd enumerated earlier. It started with one point, and spiralled off into many, as he kept introducing additional items. I'll just revise that list just a bit, to add one item to it, and change the order of it a bit, fine-tune it a bit as it were, to better reflect our actual discussion:
(1) His jaw-droppingly ignorant claim that intrinsic value is "meaningless". That I clearly addressed, and am happy to revisit with greater detail, if called on to.
(2) His subsequent claim that, apparently, it is not possible to have monetary value in the absence of trade. Again, very clearly dismissed. And again, happy to elaborate, and actually demonstrate, if called on to.
(3) My explaining to him that any investment trading above its intrinsic value is essentially a bubble. Yet again, I'm happy to defend that position completely unassailably, if called on to. This is valuation basics, is all.
(4) Following on #3 above, the fact that BTC is a bubble. An obvious fact, pointing out which apparently gives poor @psionl0 a heart attack, and leaves him frothing at the mouth.
(5) His bringing up the gold argument at this point. And my contention that gold is a true exception to this rule, given literally millennia of usage, and his claim that it is "special pleading" to so single out gold.
(6) @psionl0 's implicit contention that because gold is an exception, therefore BTC must be too. And my stating that that is BTC is nowhere like gold, in this specific context. (Albeit I went out of my way to steelman my own argument to inroduce a pertinent qualification there, given recent developments.)
(*) Yep, #3 and #4, above, sum up the core of our disagreement, the rest is stuff he's introduced himself to somehow keep alive his delusion. This is the crux of it: That any investment whose trading price is substantially higher than its intrinsic value is essentially a bubble, held up by nothing more than froth, and that might, therefore, burst any moment. Trading prices are difficult to pin down, and it could be that a bubble keeps afloat for years and years and years; and it is also possible, if less likely, that an intrinsically valuable investment plummets below its intrinsic value --- but even so, the intrinsically valuable investment always has that intrinsic value itself that holds up its worth, even in the absence of trade (to take two completely obvious examples, the dividend from a stock that keeps coming in regardless of what price it's trading at, or a home that keeps providing shelter no matter what price it commands in the market, or a commodity that keeps giving utility regardless of what price it commands). ...There's exceptions to this, like gold, which by this definition is also a bubble, but one that is an exception simply by virtue of thousands of years of usage; and no, BTC does not qualify as exception as gold does --- although see my proactively presented steelmanning qualification, because, unlike @psionl0 , I'm in this discussion to honestly and seriously examine and explore this issue, not to bizarrely keep defending some a priori position.
(7) His further claim, rhetorically expressed, that the utility value of gold cannot be monetized. Which, apart from being irrelevant, given this discussion, is plain wrong.
...At which point he does the goalpost switch. Moving on from the in-principle discussion of this, moving well away from his quote-worthy halfwittery that "instrinsic value is meaningless". And brings in short run price bubbles, and how to address actual price movements within the larger bubble itself, and whether there's an actual price deflation imminent, and all of that --- which of course is a whole different discussion. ...And no, there's no question of believing him if he now sees this opportunity of lying about each us being under the mistaken impression that the other was talking about this other thing --- because this has already been clearly explained to him, so clearly that there's no question of his not understanding; and the time to trot out that excuse would have been then, and I'd have taken him at face value had he done that then, conceded this and said that he was talking of this other thing. At this point, now, it's just a lie.
…He then comes back to me, and asks me to explain to him how a thing that has never been traded can have monetary value. Like a fool I take the time to answer him, and clearly explain to him, in this post right up there, this one. Whereupon he mangles my post, and pastes the first line of it, and says, simply claiming this sans explanation won’t work --- when it is he who has gone out of his way to cut out the explanation I’ve put in. And in the same breath, he dismisses my addressing exactly what he asked for, as “verbose”, and with some inane nonsense that betrays zero understanding, or at least zero acknowledgement, or what I said in response to him.
---------------
I'm laying completely bare @psionl0 's brazenly dishonest discussion strategy here, which consists in his deliberately refraining from clearly spelling out his full argument, and deliberately spitting out short disconnected posts, literally hundreds and thousands of them: so that, should they hit home, as they sometimes do, in that case he can then (rightly) claim victory, knowing that his interlocutors are possessed of integrity, unlike him, and will clearly acknowledge that (like I myself did, on another point); and, when they don't, then he just moves on with more brief disjointed posts, and even more posts, and even more, completely ignoring all of the past posts, or else just mangling them up, and/or cherry-picking small portions of them, and/or otherwise misrepresenting them, and lying about them as well ---- and so on, for literally months and years and decades even. Secure in the knowledge that after a time, sooner or later, people will run out of time and patience, and stop engaging, obviously. As I will myself, soon now. Leaving him free to do his weird thing here all over again.
That's his strategy in a nutshell, clearly demonstrated here. That's how he keeps his delusion alive.
Except: I don't see how he can do that now, not any more, not after this post of mine.
(Nah, nah, I do actually. I do know how he'll get over this as well. He'll just do what he's done all along. Just ignore the content of this post as well, and the clearly documented discussion that it represents. And maybe just spit out some more cherry-picked, mangled quotes, and/or some random dismissals, and just carry on as before. His shtick is good, real good, and I guess it'll survive this as well ---- because obviously I don't share his fixation, and won't keep doing this forever with him. ...Haha, yeah, nice strategy, to keep alive his weird delusion!)
---------------
...Let me hasten to add here, that just because @psionl0 is demonstrably and demonstratedly dishonest, and apparently deluded, that doesn't mean he's ignorant or irrational, far from it. He actually has a great grasp of the technicalities of BTC, and indeed its history, given his long years-and-years-and-years-long dedicated engagement with this series of discussion threads here (and maybe independently of that as well). He knows way more about BTC per se than I do, I've no hesitation in acknowledging that. For instance, on one point of factuality, I must thank him for actually filling up a gap in my own knowledge base, and my opinion based off that gap --- which I've already very clearly acknowledged, and updated, as any sane reasonable honest person would.
Just, this weird delusion thing of his. Clearly documented and demonstrated now. As conclusively QED as anything can get, outside of math.
I’m done wasting my time on this weirdness now. But I think it is important to clearly highlight the nature of the craziness that often accompanies discussions on this thread, given that this poster is apparently a constant fixture here in this thread.
Sure, I've seen plenty of Jesus worshipers that are similarly deluded. (And their cousins, the Allah worshipers, and yes, Shiva-Vishnu worshipers as well, many of them completely, resolutely deluded.) Likewise, I've seen enough Trump worshipers that are actually deluded.
But this here is the first instance where I'm seeing a stark demonstration of delusion, in context of something so entirely ...banal, as crypto, and BTC specifically. Remarkable!
---------------
I'm no longer addressing @psionl0 directly, since it seems impossible to penetrate his delusion with reason. Instead, I'm now addressing anyone else who might be reading this.
What exactly our disagreements are, I'd enumerated earlier. It started with one point, and spiralled off into many, as he kept introducing additional items. I'll just revise that list just a bit, to add one item to it, and change the order of it a bit, fine-tune it a bit as it were, to better reflect our actual discussion:
(1) His jaw-droppingly ignorant claim that intrinsic value is "meaningless". That I clearly addressed, and am happy to revisit with greater detail, if called on to.
(2) His subsequent claim that, apparently, it is not possible to have monetary value in the absence of trade. Again, very clearly dismissed. And again, happy to elaborate, and actually demonstrate, if called on to.
(3) My explaining to him that any investment trading above its intrinsic value is essentially a bubble. Yet again, I'm happy to defend that position completely unassailably, if called on to. This is valuation basics, is all.
(4) Following on #3 above, the fact that BTC is a bubble. An obvious fact, pointing out which apparently gives poor @psionl0 a heart attack, and leaves him frothing at the mouth.
(5) His bringing up the gold argument at this point. And my contention that gold is a true exception to this rule, given literally millennia of usage, and his claim that it is "special pleading" to so single out gold.
(6) @psionl0 's implicit contention that because gold is an exception, therefore BTC must be too. And my stating that that is BTC is nowhere like gold, in this specific context. (Albeit I went out of my way to steelman my own argument to inroduce a pertinent qualification there, given recent developments.)
(*) Yep, #3 and #4, above, sum up the core of our disagreement, the rest is stuff he's introduced himself to somehow keep alive his delusion. This is the crux of it: That any investment whose trading price is substantially higher than its intrinsic value is essentially a bubble, held up by nothing more than froth, and that might, therefore, burst any moment. Trading prices are difficult to pin down, and it could be that a bubble keeps afloat for years and years and years; and it is also possible, if less likely, that an intrinsically valuable investment plummets below its intrinsic value --- but even so, the intrinsically valuable investment always has that intrinsic value itself that holds up its worth, even in the absence of trade (to take two completely obvious examples, the dividend from a stock that keeps coming in regardless of what price it's trading at, or a home that keeps providing shelter no matter what price it commands in the market, or a commodity that keeps giving utility regardless of what price it commands). ...There's exceptions to this, like gold, which by this definition is also a bubble, but one that is an exception simply by virtue of thousands of years of usage; and no, BTC does not qualify as exception as gold does --- although see my proactively presented steelmanning qualification, because, unlike @psionl0 , I'm in this discussion to honestly and seriously examine and explore this issue, not to bizarrely keep defending some a priori position.
(7) His further claim, rhetorically expressed, that the utility value of gold cannot be monetized. Which, apart from being irrelevant, given this discussion, is plain wrong.
...At which point he does the goalpost switch. Moving on from the in-principle discussion of this, moving well away from his quote-worthy halfwittery that "instrinsic value is meaningless". And brings in short run price bubbles, and how to address actual price movements within the larger bubble itself, and whether there's an actual price deflation imminent, and all of that --- which of course is a whole different discussion. ...And no, there's no question of believing him if he now sees this opportunity of lying about each us being under the mistaken impression that the other was talking about this other thing --- because this has already been clearly explained to him, so clearly that there's no question of his not understanding; and the time to trot out that excuse would have been then, and I'd have taken him at face value had he done that then, conceded this and said that he was talking of this other thing. At this point, now, it's just a lie.
…He then comes back to me, and asks me to explain to him how a thing that has never been traded can have monetary value. Like a fool I take the time to answer him, and clearly explain to him, in this post right up there, this one. Whereupon he mangles my post, and pastes the first line of it, and says, simply claiming this sans explanation won’t work --- when it is he who has gone out of his way to cut out the explanation I’ve put in. And in the same breath, he dismisses my addressing exactly what he asked for, as “verbose”, and with some inane nonsense that betrays zero understanding, or at least zero acknowledgement, or what I said in response to him.
---------------
I'm laying completely bare @psionl0 's brazenly dishonest discussion strategy here, which consists in his deliberately refraining from clearly spelling out his full argument, and deliberately spitting out short disconnected posts, literally hundreds and thousands of them: so that, should they hit home, as they sometimes do, in that case he can then (rightly) claim victory, knowing that his interlocutors are possessed of integrity, unlike him, and will clearly acknowledge that (like I myself did, on another point); and, when they don't, then he just moves on with more brief disjointed posts, and even more posts, and even more, completely ignoring all of the past posts, or else just mangling them up, and/or cherry-picking small portions of them, and/or otherwise misrepresenting them, and lying about them as well ---- and so on, for literally months and years and decades even. Secure in the knowledge that after a time, sooner or later, people will run out of time and patience, and stop engaging, obviously. As I will myself, soon now. Leaving him free to do his weird thing here all over again.
That's his strategy in a nutshell, clearly demonstrated here. That's how he keeps his delusion alive.
Except: I don't see how he can do that now, not any more, not after this post of mine.
(Nah, nah, I do actually. I do know how he'll get over this as well. He'll just do what he's done all along. Just ignore the content of this post as well, and the clearly documented discussion that it represents. And maybe just spit out some more cherry-picked, mangled quotes, and/or some random dismissals, and just carry on as before. His shtick is good, real good, and I guess it'll survive this as well ---- because obviously I don't share his fixation, and won't keep doing this forever with him. ...Haha, yeah, nice strategy, to keep alive his weird delusion!)
---------------
...Let me hasten to add here, that just because @psionl0 is demonstrably and demonstratedly dishonest, and apparently deluded, that doesn't mean he's ignorant or irrational, far from it. He actually has a great grasp of the technicalities of BTC, and indeed its history, given his long years-and-years-and-years-long dedicated engagement with this series of discussion threads here (and maybe independently of that as well). He knows way more about BTC per se than I do, I've no hesitation in acknowledging that. For instance, on one point of factuality, I must thank him for actually filling up a gap in my own knowledge base, and my opinion based off that gap --- which I've already very clearly acknowledged, and updated, as any sane reasonable honest person would.
Just, this weird delusion thing of his. Clearly documented and demonstrated now. As conclusively QED as anything can get, outside of math.
I’m done wasting my time on this weirdness now. But I think it is important to clearly highlight the nature of the craziness that often accompanies discussions on this thread, given that this poster is apparently a constant fixture here in this thread.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,863
I think some of the disconnect comes from BTC bros dream that it could and should be the ONLY currency, which would give it many of the bare necessary aspects due to lack of alternatives and people finding ways to make it work somehow.
But Bitcoin has plenty of competition, both digital and analog, and it just doesn't measure up as an even remotely desirable alternative.
As it's business model, BTC rewards private groups for wasting resources and polluting the planet, when the most basic reason for a currency is as the means to raise money for common projects.
Why would anyone want or support that except for antisocial reasons?
But Bitcoin has plenty of competition, both digital and analog, and it just doesn't measure up as an even remotely desirable alternative.
As it's business model, BTC rewards private groups for wasting resources and polluting the planet, when the most basic reason for a currency is as the means to raise money for common projects.
Why would anyone want or support that except for antisocial reasons?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Yet you will continue to post paragraphs in response to every word I post. But you don't post anything of substance. It is just different ways of saying the same thing and you are so determined to make me out to be wrong on every detail that you refuse to recognize when something I post is not substantially different to what you have posted.
Would this Wikipedia article help: Intrinsic Value (finance)
I must admit it is over my head.
I must admit it is over my head.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Enough already. Not doing this any more. Over and out, as far as this particular back-and-forth with you.
----------
Peace, @psionl0 . Apologies if any of that got a bit heated, or ended up getting less than courteous. No offense intended.
Like I said, I acknowledge your knowledge of BTC per se. I'll be happy to take advantage of such in future discussions on this thread, like I have this time as well, if that's okay with you.
Cheers
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Hihi ..
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Sure, why not. ...It's just that they start with options first, for some reason, which is why it seems a bit ...opaque? Equity valuation is explained clearly enough, as is real estate valuation as well.
Lots of stuff available online. like I said Intrinsic Value is not something esoteric, it is the usual go-to in all valuation exercises. Here’s one more link, that uses just a bit of math (nothing elaborate, unlike in the link embedded within your wiki reference), but very simply explains the essence of it: https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/intrinsic-value/
This one's for equity, but the principle's the same across assets.
----------
This thread isn't about valuation, and I've no wish to hijack it off to off-topic sidebars. But since you suggest you're not familiar with the subject, and since you're interested, here's a very brief outline of the valuation process, tucked within spoilers:
Last edited:
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Intrinsic value of gold seems to be because of the properties of gold, some of which have already been mentioned.
I'd like to flesh out that list a little:
1. It is pretty. (already stated)
2. It does not oxidise, i.e. stays pretty (already stated)
3. It can be plated over other things, to make them stay pretty and not oxidised.
4. It is malleable and therefore easy to work, allowing for elaborate jewellery to be fashioned with minimal tooling/effort.
5. More recently, it is a really good conductor of electricity, and can be used for connectors that would otherwise quickly fail as they corroded.
e tokens seem to be very good at getting lost in rubbish heaps.
I'd like to flesh out that list a little:
1. It is pretty. (already stated)
2. It does not oxidise, i.e. stays pretty (already stated)
3. It can be plated over other things, to make them stay pretty and not oxidised.
4. It is malleable and therefore easy to work, allowing for elaborate jewellery to be fashioned with minimal tooling/effort.
5. More recently, it is a really good conductor of electricity, and can be used for connectors that would otherwise quickly fail as they corroded.
e tokens seem to be very good at getting lost in rubbish heaps.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Yes gold has some useful properties that would make it valuable to many. The problem is that it is almost impossible to put a number to that value since it is subject to so much speculation or, at least, used as a store of value.
I think you would need a sample size of greater than 1 to make that inference.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
It seems to be a consistent story, i.e. many people claim to have lost bit coins with discarded hard drives.
(Not just the current case in the UK)
I'm always interested in the amount of 'leakage' from systems like this, for example 'leakage' is a feature of gift cards.
(i.e. the issuers of gift cards know that a reasonably large percentage will never be cashed, and it's part of the value proposition for selling them.)
For many people, using a computer at all is an arcane task, the risk of loss for that class of people, is very high.
Over the years, I've met an astonishing number of people who do not know where their data is stored, who have expressed surprise when it wasn't available on a new computer.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Your perception is not evidence. If you want this claim to be taken seriously then you need to provide some data about the number of wallets that have been lost because the media on which they were stored was ether erased, damaged/destroyed or lost.
It "seems" (
) to me that a bigger risk for the non-tech savvy (tech non-savvy?) is storing wallets on computers that were not adequately protected from hackers rather than losing hard drives.Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
The highlighted is where @psionIO 's delusion kicks in, and prevents him from appreciating what has been explained to him more than once.
What you enumerate there in your comment actually does point to how one might go about valuing a commodity, from the perspective of who it is that does the valuing. And what price that commodity commands in the markets has nothing whatever to do with that answer. In other words, intrinsic value is a measure of value that is independent of what price the asset trades it, or whether it is traded at all.
-------
Take a house. Take the house you live in. What is that worth to you? One way to go about finding out is to enumerate, like you have done, all of the uses you derive from it (living in it, certainly, but also, maybe, saving time and money on commuting, and so forth), and then trying to clearly put a value to each.
Doing that will not require you to look at the market price of your house. That might be well in excess of what your inherent valuation turns out to be, or it might be about the same, or it might be way less, or it could be that for some reason your house simply cannot be sold at all. That will not affect in any way your formulation of your inherent value itself; albeit obviously it will directly impact your actions, as you compare the two.
Likewise, it is nonsensical --- not just wrong, but nonsensical --- to suggest, particularly after this has been explained multiple times, that the actual price of gold somehow comes in the way of estimating its inherent worth, independently of its trading price, via the means you've outlined here.
----------
I've given up trying to engage with @psionl0 's unswavering commitment to his pet delusion. But there's no reason why I shouldn't step in to stop him gaslighting others when such comes to my notice; or, like I've said, learning from @psionl0 himself on matters of technicality in matters crypto, that are independent of his delusion.
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Tell me what the agreed intrinsic value of gold is if this is so well established.
A house is a different thing altogether. It is easy enough to calculate the cost of adding a house to a property. But this may not be how much value the house adds to the price of the property. In extreme cases, a developer might consider that the house reduces the value of the property because of the cost of removing the house to build a more profitable structure. Of course, other buyers may be willing to offer more for the property to just live in the house. This gives the house a "market value" rather than an "intrinsic value".