How To Use Bitcoin – The Most Important Creation In The History Of Man

[jhunter1163]

I'd read it and surmise a cost basis for the sellers at the average price of the last three years. You pick a cost basis that supposes the prejudice you started with.

Neither of you know for sure; but the fact remains that for every seller, there's a buyer, and those who bought BTC at $1100+ at this moment have incurred a significant loss. Granted, it's a paper loss just now, but the, dare I say, trend is not encouraging.

 

[remirol]

Neither of you know for sure; but the fact remains that for every seller, there's a buyer, and those who bought BTC at $1100+ at this moment have incurred a significant loss. Granted, it's a paper loss just now, but the, dare I say, trend is not encouraging.

You can change the direction of the trend right now by simply picking a different starting point; given the recent volatility I wouldn't go that route. The problem remains that a single Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; there is no reason for the price to increase other than the buyers expecting to be able to sell their BTC for more later. "Fragile" doesn't describe it sufficiently.

 

[Doubt]

Bit old for news, don't you think ?

Just saw it today and did not note the date.

 

[Belz...]

Just saw it today and did not note the date.

Happens to me all the time, but reading it and seeing the BTC value they quoted tipped me off.

 

[Belz...]

You can change the direction of the trend right now by simply picking a different starting point; given the recent volatility I wouldn't go that route. The problem remains that a single Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; there is no reason for the price to increase other than the buyers expecting to be able to sell their BTC for more later. "Fragile" doesn't describe it sufficiently.

I don't think that the inherent value matters much. But the problem is that not many people use it, almost none seem to use it for any real, legal purchases, and there is no means of mitigating its enormous value swings. Also, it's deflationary by design, which is weird for a so-called currency.

 

[mhaze]

Neither of you know for sure; but the fact remains that for every seller, there's a buyer, and those who bought BTC at $1100+ at this moment have incurred a significant loss. Granted, it's a paper loss just now, but the, dare I say, trend is not encouraging.

It isn't necessary to 'know for sure'. The extraordinary claim is that those coins were bought at one particular moment in time, not that we might use the average over the entire period of time as a first cut guess.

You take your pick. The average of the last month, last six months, last year, last three years. They all made out. Only in the singular case assumed by Wrs is there "bad consequences."

The singular case is not equal to other possibilities in this debate, it is the extradinary claim. 'Nuff said, you know quite clearly what I am talking about.

Otherwise, back to Formal Logic 101.

 

[mhaze]

.... a single Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; there is no reason for the price to increase other than the buyers expecting to be able to sell their BTC for more later. .....

Well, suppose there was 3 billion dollars of infrastructure supporting the little bitcoin that flies around through the Internet Tubes, and which cannot perform it's job without said infrastructure.

3B/12M bitcoins is a valuation of $250 per btc - add expected future increases, you are up about where we are. A price of 750 might be considered as someone's reasonable guess at the price in one year, and he's thinking about a three year holding term. That is why at a true valuation of 250, an item may sell at 750. Basic economics.

More precisely, check my former post concerning estimating value by comparison with paypal.

Not having done either/or any comparable, your assertion that bitcoin has no intrinsic value would seem to be totally groundless.

 

[jhunter1163]

Not having done either/or any comparable, your assertion that bitcoin has no intrinsic value would seem to be totally groundless.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[wrs]

I
I've highlighted the ridiculous presumption with no factual basis on which you create a fantasy that, somehow, prices going up is "bad" and people "lose money".

I'd read it and surmise a cost basis for the sellers at the average price of the last three years. You pick a cost basis that supposes the prejudice you started with.

I gave you the trading volumes the last 9 days and you claim no facts. That is typical of someone who doesn't want to see the facts because they paint a disadvantageous picture for bitcon buyers.

 

[mhaze]

Happens to me all the time, but reading it and seeing the BTC value they quoted tipped me off.

Ya ,the problem is, that darn bitcoin just keeps....coming...back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq57BjBVq7o

check the prices noted in this rap video as to when 'bitcoin's back'....

then just for kicks and grins, guess what he's talking about...

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[jhunter1163]

Ya ,the problem is, that darn bitcoin just keeps....coming...back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq57BjBVq7o

check the prices noted in this rap video as to when 'bitcoin's back'....

then just for kicks and grins, guess what he's talking about...

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited quote of moderated post.

Bitcoin! Backed by the full faith and credit of the international drug trade!

(yeah, I stole that, but it's funny)

 

[ideogram]

It isn't necessary to 'know for sure'. The extraordinary claim is that those coins were bought at one particular moment in time, not that we might use the average over the entire period of time as a first cut guess.

You take your pick. The average of the last month, last six months, last year, last three years. They all made out. Only in the singular case assumed by Wrs is there "bad consequences."

The singular case is not equal to other possibilities in this debate, it is the extradinary claim. 'Nuff said, you know quite clearly what I am talking about.

Otherwise, back to Formal Logic 101.

I don't know what this is, but it's not logic.

 

[wrs]

Here is a human translation of what China said about Bitcoin

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_translation_of_the_china_regulation/
............................
1 Correct knowledge of Bitcoin
Bitcoin has four main characteristics: no central issuer, limited quantity, no geographical limits and anonymity. Although it is called currency, it is not issued by a monetary authority, it does not have the status of legal tender and obliged payment status of currency, it is not currency in the true sense. Bitcoin is a specified virtual commodity, it does not have equal legal status with currency, and it cannot and should not be circulated as currency on the market.
2 Financial institutions and payment institutions must not start Bitcoin related business
At this stage, all financial institutions and payment institutions must not use Bitcoin to set price for product or services, not buy or sell Bitcoins, not act as a market maker for Bitcoins, not underwrite insurance related to Bitcoin or cover Bitcoin in insurance, not directly or indirectly provide other Bitcoin related services, including registering, trading, clearing, settlement; not accept Bitcoin or use Bitcoin as payment tool; not start a Bitcoin and RMB or foreign currency exchange; not start a Bitcoin saving, trust or mortgage service; not issue Bitcoin related financial services; not use Bitcoin as the investment in trusts or funds.

.......................................

Basically bitcon is verboten in China. All the stuff you would want to do with a real currency, can't do it. Bye, Bye, bitcon in China.

 

[jhunter1163]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_translation_of_the_china_regulation/
............................
1 Correct knowledge of Bitcoin
Bitcoin has four main characteristics: no central issuer, limited quantity, no geographical limits and anonymity. Although it is called currency, it is not issued by a monetary authority, it does not have the status of legal tender and obliged payment status of currency, it is not currency in the true sense. Bitcoin is a specified virtual commodity, it does not have equal legal status with currency, and it cannot and should not be circulated as currency on the market.
2 Financial institutions and payment institutions must not start Bitcoin related business
At this stage, all financial institutions and payment institutions must not use Bitcoin to set price for product or services, not buy or sell Bitcoins, not act as a market maker for Bitcoins, not underwrite insurance related to Bitcoin or cover Bitcoin in insurance, not directly or indirectly provide other Bitcoin related services, including registering, trading, clearing, settlement; not accept Bitcoin or use Bitcoin as payment tool; not start a Bitcoin and RMB or foreign currency exchange; not start a Bitcoin saving, trust or mortgage service; not issue Bitcoin related financial services; not use Bitcoin as the investment in trusts or funds.

.......................................

Basically bitcon is verboten in China. All the stuff you would want to do with a real currency, can't do it. Bye, Bye, bitcon in China.

But surely the benevolent Chinese government will be persuaded by the Bithuggers' arguments!

 

[Belz...]

Ya ,the problem is, that darn bitcoin just keeps....coming...back...

What the hell does this have to do with my post ?

 

[psionl0]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1s5hzl/my_human_translation_of_the_china_regulation/

Basically bitcon is verboten in China. All the stuff you would want to do with a real currency, can't do it. Bye, Bye, bitcon in China.

Surprisingly (for a country that censors the internet as vigorously as China), the regulations do not prevent individuals holding bitcoin wallets or transferring bitcoins between themselves for any reason.

The real question is not that China has such regulations but whether they will be effective.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Basically bitcon is verboten in China. All the stuff you would want to do with a real currency, can't do it. Bye Buy, Bye Buy, bitcon in China.

FTFY. Looking at http://fiatleak.com/ China is buying lots of bitcoins!

But yeah, bitcoin is shaky legally. I think a new global digital currency will be introduced by legal international authorities. A currency that is more stable in terms of inflation/deflation, and accepted in today's currency exchange systems.

 

[mhaze]

I don't know what this is, but it's not logic.

Let me give you a truly analogous bit of illogic and tell me if you agree that my method is logic.


Fact and premise (4 years of observations): Tuesday was really hot.
Assertion based on premise: The world is warming.

"Tuesday" is a singular data point out of >1200 (four years, one data point for each year) chosen such that the assertion has a basis.

The logical fallacy is obvious.

What may not be obvious is why I am right to suggest that Wrs's argument based on one data point, and mine based on 1200, cannot be given equal standing as opinions (which both are). There is not an equal likelihood that the bitcoins were purchased over a wide range of dates as that they were all purchased on one day. In fact, there is a vanishingly small probability that they or some large percentage of them were purchased on one day.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, it's not shaky legally. WRS quotes rulings that say banks should not deal with bitcoin, then draws wrong conclusions from them and ignores contrary evidence. Do banks here deal with bitcoin? Nope. So what?

Can't governments at any time just rule Bitcoin to be illegal?

 

[ideogram]

Let me give you a truly analogous bit of illogic and tell me if you agree that my method is logic.


Fact and premise (4 years of observations): Tuesday was really hot.
Assertion based on premise: The world is warming.

"Tuesday" is a singular data point out of >1200 (four years, one data point for each year) chosen such that the assertion has a basis.

The logical fallacy is obvious.

What may not be obvious is why I am right to suggest that Wrs's argument based on one data point, and mine based on 1200, cannot be given equal standing as opinions (which both are). There is not an equal likelihood that the bitcoins were purchased over a wide range of dates as that they were all purchased on one day. In fact, there is a vanishingly small probability that they or some large percentage of them were purchased on one day.

Logic is not the same as probability. There's no "extraordinary claim" or "singular case" here, wrs is not claiming all the coins were bought at "one particular moment in time". He's just averaging over a different period than you are. To make a probabilistic argument you would have to run some actual numbers, for instance wrs mentioned the trading volumes.

You don't have a logical argument, that's why you don't know for sure. You don't have a probabilistic argument either, because you don't have any actual numbers.

Anyway it's a stupid argument.